suffolkUniversity: Paul second in NH!!

[GibbsFactor]

Everything in Ron Pauls ideology is simplistic and naive. That's why he is so popular. It all sounds so good in the sound bites. It's the details that make his idiotic ideas so unworkable. And if you don't agree, people like SS will call you a war monger who doesn't believe in liberty.

It's a different ideology. It's built on the principles this country was founded on. Paul is trying to point out how far this country has changed. He believes the wisdom of the founders to be timeless.

We invented the bomb and now have to spend the rest of our existence protecting ourselves from it. When will it stop? How long will we be able to keep the pressure on? We are half a century away from true economic disaster. That's not a long time. We won't last. Then what do we do with all of these bombs? Soviet Style crash is very possible. Unfortunately, that brings everyone down. Or they help bring down us. See Europe.

Try to meet Paul half way. You say his beliefs are moronic. Understand first that his platform represents a radical approach to the way we operate right now. However, at it's core it holds the hard truth. Why wait until we have no options? We are probably a quarter century away from scary times at the rate we are going. That's enough time to remove hate from millennium radicals, make it harder to recruit. Take some heat off of the good ole US of A. We could use the time to improve domestic issues such as infrastructure. Remove economically stifling sanctions and get this new world economy growing again. We can still protect against evil-dooers but we have to shore up the home front. I believe the extreme radicalism would lose a lot of momentum.

[GibbsFactor]

You aren't falling for this boogeyman are you?

Imagine the ratings of the news networks if there were a war?

[mistertim]

Nah, he's popular because the establishment whores from both parties have led us to the brink of economic collapse and ruin. That, and when we hear people like you say he's a moron, we believe Paul may be onto something.

Despite the rather acerbic way Mad Mike puts it, IMO he does have a point that a lot of what Paul advocates is pretty simplistic as are the ways he and his supporters sometimes answer questions such as "ok, then what?" when addressing some huge sweeping change Paul proposes. It usually seems to be something along the lines of it fixing itself and/or us not needing to worry about it.

[jpyaks3]

Really?

Let me get this straight. See, we have this giant collection of men and women who handle virtually all of our nation's weapons. This collection of men and women is called our "armed forces." They can also be referred to as our "military." They would be the people who would actually fire our nuclear weapons should that terrible day ever come. And you really think—you really think—that a legitimate question for the multiple candidates who have said they'd do away with the DoE is, "But, omigosh, whoever would maintain our nuclear weapons?"

I am glad that the Armed Forces are able to regulate and run our nuclear power plants as well as maintain the weapons and the host of other things they do. So you are just moving money from the Department of Energy to the Armed Forces to do the same job. When did I say that was the only reason to criticize Pauls plan to cut DoE? Also look at the other candidates who are endorsing the cutting of DoE, not exactly great company, but keep partially reading posts and then making an argument based on your selective reading, brilliant.

Holy crap, the Department of Energy negotiates cease-fires and withdrawals in the Middle East? I may have spoken too soon. This might be the most impressive federal agency of all time.

Holy Crap, maybe you should read my posts instead of cherry picking that one. I was talking about the need for a coherent national energy plan and was asked why we would need that. I then pointed to the 1973 oil crisis and just how flat footed, unprepared, and the repercussions for not having a plan. But thanks for being a sarcastic ass.

And you're... you're claiming that we're doing a good job at keeping millions of people from flowing across our border?

I am saying that influencing another countries policy to prevent a massive humanitarian crisis is in our best interest. So that the refugee flows aren't created ala Rwanda and the destabilizing effects that occurred following the genocide there. If you don't understand how the situation of your neighbors has massive effects on your own country then you are colossally ignorant of history. So yes making sure your neighbors aren't creating a massive refugee situation is in the best interest of the nation.

Also please show me where I said we were doing a good job at keeping millions of people from flowing across our border. Maybe you should actually read my posts and the context which they were made before trying to attack them.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Imagine the ratings of the news networks if there were a war?

Its unreal how fearful of the rest of world my fellow Americans have become

[Mad Mike]

It's a different ideology. It's built on the principles this country was founded on. Paul is trying to point out how far this country has changed. He believes the wisdom of the founders to be timeless.

We invented the bomb and now have to spend the rest of our existence protecting ourselves from it. When will it stop? How long will we be able to keep the pressure on? We are half a century away from true economic disaster. That's not a long time. We won't last. Then what do we do with all of these bombs? Soviet Style crash is very possible. Unfortunately, that brings everyone down. Or they help bring down us. See Europe.

Try to meet Paul half way. You say his beliefs are moronic. Understand first that his platform represents a radical approach to the way we operate right now. However, at it's core it holds the hard truth. Why wait until we have no options? We are probably a quarter century away from scary times at the rate we are going. That's enough time to remove hate from millennium radicals, make it harder to recruit. Take some heat off of the good ole US of A. We could use the time to improve domestic issues such as infrastructure. Remove economically stifling sanctions and get this new world economy growing again. We can still protect against evil-dooers but we have to shore up the home front. I believe the extreme radicalism would lose a lot of momentum.

I've met Paul half way. I believe in protecting our liberties in a rational way that does not let terrorists have a free run at killing us. I believe in a small government, not one shrunk to the size of a third world nation. I believe in the power of capitalism, but I don't believe corporations should be free of regulations that keep our food safe and our water and air clean.

Ron Paul is the lunatic extremist who is unable to compromise. He's a moron. And If my calling him one makes some people support him more, it only means that some people have some stupid reasons for supporting a candidate.

[GibbsFactor]

I am glad that the Armed Forces are able to regulate and run our nuclear power plants as well as maintain the weapons and the host of other things they do. So you are just moving money from the Department of Energy to the Armed Forces to do the same job. When did I say that was the only reason to criticize Pauls plan to cut DoE? Also look at the other candidates who are endorsing the cutting of DoE, not exactly great company, but keep partially reading posts and then making an argument based on your selective reading, brilliant.

Maybe there's so many candidates with a similar idea because it is a good idea? You point to who defines the DoE policy here:

Holy Crap, maybe you should read my posts instead of cherry picking that one. I was talking about the need for a coherent national energy plan and was asked why we would need that. I then pointed to the 1973 oil crisis and just how flat footed, unprepared, and the repercussions for not having a plan. But thanks for being a sarcastic ass.

Big Oil owns our energy policy. Why do you think we are in the Middle East in the first place?

I am saying that influencing another countries policy to prevent a massive humanitarian crisis is in our best interest. So that the refugee flows aren't created ala Rwanda and the destabilizing effects that occurred following the genocide there. If you don't understand how the situation of your neighbors has massive effects on your own country then you are colossally ignorant of history. So yes making sure your neighbors aren't creating a massive refugee situation is in the best interest of the nation.

Seems to me there is war and violence everywhere we apply our influence already. Maybe we are doing it wrong :whoknows:

[Hubbs]

I am glad that the Armed Forces are able to regulate and run our nuclear power plants as well as maintain the weapons and the host of other things they do. So you are just moving money from the Department of Energy to the Armed Forces to do the same job. Brilliant.

Funny, I don't remember writing anything about nuclear power plants. Probably because you didn't write about anything except our nuclear bombs.

Holy Crap, maybe you should read my posts instead of cherry picking that one. I was talking about the need for a coherent national energy plan and was asked why we would need that. I then pointed to the 1973 oil crisis and just how flat footed, unprepared, and the repercussions for not having a plan. But thanks for being a sarcastic ass.

You're welcome.

Having a plan for a response to a sudden and drastic reduction in the global supply of oil and having an entire federal department managing an enormous chunk of the economy during normal times are two very different things. I wouldn't have the federal government completely ignore anything that has to do with energy. And Ron Paul actually wouldn't, either.

I am saying that influencing another countries policy to prevent a massive humanitarian crisis is in our best interest. So that the refugee flows aren't created ala Rwanda and the destabilizing effects that occurred following the genocide there. Please show me where I said we were doing a good job at keeping millions of people from flowing across our border. Maybe you should actually read my posts and the context which they were made before trying to attack them.

I'm sorry, when you used "your country" I had this crazy thought that you were actually talking about this country.

[GibbsFactor]

I've met Paul half way. I believe in protecting our liberties in a rational way that does not let terrorists have a free run at killing us. I believe in a small government, not one shrunk to the size of a third world nation. I believe in the power of capitalism, but I don't believe corporations should be free of regulations that keep our food safe and our water and air clean.

Ron Paul is the lunatic extremist who is unable to compromise. He's a moron. And If my calling him one makes some people support him more, it only means that some people have some stupid reasons for supporting a candidate.

He's already shown he'd compromise. He's putting the decision to the people. Decisions the people are rarely afforded to make. From what I can tell, regulations are what allows Big American Corporate Capitalism to exist. From the Rothchilds to Rockefeller to Exxon/Mobil. Everyone seems to agree that corporate influence has gone too far and needs to be reeled in. Lobbyists, campaign finance, these are the corrupting forces in our government. Get rid of the source. Get out of their pocket.

[Predicto]

From what I can tell, regulations are what allows Big American Corporate Capitalism to exist.

This is a really silly and simplistic thing to think, IMO.

[GibbsFactor]

This is a really silly and simplistic thing to think, IMO.

If you were in my head you'd realize how complex it is.

We still have antitrust laws. Don't worry, we won't touch the DoJ and actually under Paul, the legal system would blossom.

Why aren't we investing in more alternative energy right now? Where's the big push for renewable energy? Fed Ex field has a mirror farm. Where are the rest? I only seem to see natural gas buses (local govt, ahem). Why the hell are we in the middle east? For oil. Chevron owns patents on several batteries that were close to our needs and have so for over 20 years. Where are they? Nothing has the margin of oil. What's our energy plan again? DoE is doing a bang up job!!

ETA: Oh and I see your silly and simplistic and raise you Occum's razor.

[jpyaks3]

Funny, I don't remember writing anything about nuclear power plants. Probably because you didn't write about anything except our nuclear bombs.

In my comment that you quoted I wrote (PAY ATTENTION TO THE BOLD PART),

"Now how about you address my argument, what do you do once the Department of Energy is eliminated, how do you deal with the fact that you just cut the agency that is in charge of our entire nuclear program and arsenal."

You're welcome.

Having a plan for a response to a sudden and drastic reduction in the global supply of oil and having an entire federal department managing an enormous chunk of the economy during normal times are two very different things. I wouldn't have the federal government completely ignore anything that has to do with energy. And Ron Paul actually wouldn't, either.

You can have a plan but you also have to have the ability to coordinate production, enforce decisions, regulate and implement the plan. So yes any asshat can have a plan (like cutting the DoE) but when you look at what goes into executing the plan it is very different.

You say you won't just ignore energy and what the Department of Energy does but I haven't seen anything that suggests a coherent plan to deal with eliminating an entire department.

I'm sorry, when you used "your country" I had this crazy thought that you were actually talking about this country.

Incredible that you can't figure out that I am not literally talking about Rwanda, but I think if we look just to our south I can see a situation that can potentially impact us, but no lets keep pretending like I am talking about literally Rwanda and Burundi and not using them as an example where refugees can and have in the past been major issues for regions. You seem to have skipped over the part where I asked you to show where I said anything about us doing a good job keeping millions of people from crossing our border.

[twa]

Why aren't we investing in more alternative energy right now? Where's the big push for renewable energy? .

Because we are not fond of losing money?

What is Paul's stance on govt subsidies for alt energy?

[visionary]

From what I can tell, regulations are what allows Big American Corporate Capitalism to exist. From the Rothchilds to Rockefeller to Exxon/Mobil. Everyone seems to agree that corporate influence has gone too far and needs to be reeled in. Lobbyists, campaign finance, these are the corrupting forces in our government. Get rid of the source. Get out of their pocket.

So regulations caused the monopolies and such that originated before the regulations ever existed?

The same regulations that were put in place because of those kinds of problems and actually have helped lessen them?

[GibbsFactor]

So regulations caused the monopolies and such that originated before the regulations ever existed?

The same regulations that were put in place because of those kinds of problems and actually have helped lessen them?

Of course. Do you believe Congress wasn't corrupt in the 19th century? Of course they were. Back then, they didn't call them regulations, they called them favors.

[mistertim]

Of course. Do you believe Congress wasn't corrupt in the 19th century? Of course they were. Back then, they didn't call them regulations, they called them favors.

Uh, I think you're confusing pork projects, political fundraising/donating by corporations for favors, and backroom deals with "regulations". If regulations are so great for Big American Corporate Capitalism, why do so many huge and powerful corporations fight regulation tooth and nail?

[GibbsFactor]

Because we are not fond of losing money?

What is Paul's stance on govt subsidies for alt energy?

How about that. Companies that the government helped out went bankrupt, imagine that. (tongue firmly in cheek)

What else? Tax credits.

It's an encouragement to companies to invest in alternative energies. You get the tax credit and the revenue generated by the next big thing. Somebody will figure it out and it's doubtful it will be big Oil. They've had their time. Oil won't be a problem 100 years from today, there won't be any left.

---------- Post added December-19th-2011 at 10:54 PM ----------

Uh, I think you're confusing pork projects, political fundraising/donating by corporations for favors, and backroom deals with "regulations". If regulations are so great for Big American Corporate Capitalism, why do so many huge and powerful corporations fight regulation tooth and nail?

Who do you think writes these regulations?

[Willy Wonka]

So regulations caused the monopolies and such that originated before the regulations ever existed?

The same regulations that were put in place because of those kinds of problems and actually have helped lessen them?

This is actually a common fallacy that is made in regards to monopolies and corporations that owned a large share of the market before anti-trust laws came into existence.

A perfect example of this common fallacy is one that involves Standard Oil. Standard Oil become owner of an extremely large part of the market due to market forces and lost market share almost as soon as it was gained, again, due to market forces. Many people, for some reason or other, believe that Standard Oil had to be broken up by the government in order for it to lower the amount of market share that it had gained, when this is in fact not true at all and that market competition had already begun to grow in this industry well before the government ever stepped in.

The belief that government must create laws to prevent corporations from owning a large share of the market is one of the most common economic fallacies made. I really suggest Henry Hazlitt's, Economics In One Lesson for a good reading and understanding on this topic and many other topics that expose a lot of the common economic fallacies that continue to persist throughout history.

In addition, here is another good read in regards to anti-trust laws: http://www.fff.org/comment/com1109n.asp

[mistertim]

Who do you think writes these regulations?

I think we're just standing on different parts of the same side of a coin here. I completely agree that we need to get corporate money, lobbying, and influence peddling OUT of government and politics. You're at least partially right in that many "regulations" nowadays are so influenced by corporate money and power that many of them are only "regulations" in a sham sense of the word. Where we differ, it seems, is that you believe this is an indication that regulations should be scrapped in general, whereas I believe that we need to get the corporate influence out of the process but still have sensible, and real, regulation in place. I simply don't see the argument of "well, the current regulations don't really do much because of corporate influence in them so the best thing is to just drop the regulations altogether" as being very logical. Seems a bit backwards.

[GibbsFactor]

I think we're just standing on different parts of the same side of a coin here. I completely agree that we need to get corporate money, lobbying, and influence peddling OUT of government and politics. You're at least partially right in that many "regulations" nowadays are so influenced by corporate money and power that many of them are only "regulations" in a sham sense of the word. Where we differ, it seems, is that you believe this is an indication that regulations should be scrapped in general, whereas I believe that we need to get the corporate influence out of the process but still have sensible, and real, regulation in place. I simply don't see the argument of "well, the current regulations don't really do much because of corporate influence in them so the best thing is to just drop the regulations altogether" as being very logical. Seems a bit backwards.

Hey, if you can figure out how to keep the influence out while truly enforcing regulation, I'm all for it. I'm against subsidies and the breaks regulations give to certain companies. It creates an environment that keeps the elite, elite.

Paul's the only one I hear with an idea and I'm not to sure it's as moronic as some make it out to be.

[mojobo]

This is a really silly and simplistic thing to think, IMO.

Theres a reason why companies like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and BofA are all jumping in to financially support Mitt Romney's campaign and why Ron Paul's almost all grassroots financial support.

[Busch1724]

Everything in Ron Pauls ideology is simplistic and naive. That's why he is so popular. It all sounds so good in the sound bites. It's the details that make his idiotic ideas so unworkable. And if you don't agree, people like SS will call you a war monger who doesn't believe in liberty.

The thing is Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. The document as written is not that difficult. It's a simple document that he believes should be interpreted as written not manipulated like both parties have done the past hundred years or so. It's an idea that a lot of people are catching onto. It's no coincidence that when you see the things the governemnt is doing and relate to people about property rights, people will start to listen. Both parties have done a lot to ignore him and chastise him, but as people become more informed about him and he relates to the population in a simple way the people perk up and relate to him.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Here's Andrew Sullivan's latest post on the Paul surge (the candidate he endorsed again). http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/ron-paul-and-the-republican-future.html

It's so heartening to see a candidate who's been ignored, condescended to and caricatured by both the liberal media and the Fox Propaganda machine emerge as a viable candidate to win the Iowa caucuses. He did it the best way possible: by a long, consistent message and the spade-work of previous campaigns; by old-school ground-organization; by generating enthusiasm among the grass roots and by bringing in many more people into the GOP fold. And look at the people he's attracting:

Among voters under 45 [in Iowa] he’s at 33% to 16% for Romney and 11% for Gingrich. He’s really going to need that younger than normal electorate because with seniors Romney’s blowing him out 31-15 with Gingrich coming in 2nd at 18%. Paul is also cleaning up 35-14 with the 24% of voters who identify as either Democrats or independents. Romney is actually ahead 22-19 with GOP voters. Young people and non-Republicans are an unusual coalition to hang your hat on in Iowa, and it will be interesting to see if Paul can actually pull it off.

Here's his endorsement.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/ron-paul-for-the-gop-nomination.html

[SnyderShrugged]

I knew it was coming, but man are the neo-con hack attack dogs scared crapless of his success! The NRO and other establishment, big spending/big covernment "so called conservatives" have peppered the wed with their fearful and little substance criticisms.

---------- Post added December-20th-2011 at 07:06 AM ----------

Here's Andrew Sullivan's latest post on the Paul surge (the candidate he endorsed again). http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/ron-paul-and-the-republican-future.html

Here's his endorsement.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/ron-paul-for-the-gop-nomination.html

I've always been a fan of Sullivan. I like that he still supports when push comes to shove, even when he doesnt agree on all topics. The bigger names could learn a thing or two from him.

[Busch1724]

If it isn't Ron Paul this time, it will be someone else with his values that will do it within an election cycle or two. People are getting more and more fed up with both parties by the day. We are on the doorstep of a major paradigm shift. So it's not a matter of if, just a matter of when and who.

How about this scenario...if Ron Paul wins the primaries at the end of the primary season, will the Republican party make him the official nominee or put the second place guy out there?