GoSkins561 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Ron Paul will get my vote unless a viable candidate appears....its not like my vote counts in Maryland anyways It actually might if Paul gets the nod, i know several liberals/democrats that are giving him a serious look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Where exactly has Paul outlined exactly what he was going to do with the responsibilities of the DoE as soon as he eliminates it? You are assuming that he has some master plan in place but I sure as hell haven't seen anything concrete from him. Sorry if I am not willing to just trust that it will all work out. No, I'm not assuming he has a master plan. I'm assuming that if you brought up any individual thing that the DoE does, Paul would tell you what he would want to do with that individual thing based on the nature and function of said thing. I'm also assuming that bringing up nuclear weapons is an absolutely inane line of questioning. I'm also assuming that Congress is capable of assigning the most important roles of the Department of Energy to other departments—and sometimes, Paul would completely agree. Luckily, it seems we'll finally get into some specifics below, so let's move in that direction. So in your magical world where there is no Department of Energy who develops and implements that plan? Who creates a coherent national energy plan, coordinates domestic production, and regulates use. I assume we're still talking about "coordinating domestic production" and "regulating use" as part of the plan to respond to a sudden and dramatic drop in the global supply of oil. In which case it would probably be the Department of Commerce. By the way, I love how a world in which the Department of Energy doesn't exist is "magical," when it's only been around for 40 years. A world without a Department of Education must be equally "magical." Come to think of it, I think we're in a magical world right now. After all, the government regulates lightbulbs, but we don't have a Department of Lightbulbs. The government regulates explosives, but we don't have a Department of Explosives. I demand access to the pixie dust Washington is hiding! Sure, Cabinet-level department of the United States government concerned with the United States' policies regarding energy and safety in handling nuclear material. Its responsibilities include the nation's nuclear weapons program, I think we've covered that. nuclear reactor production for the United States Navy, I'm sure the Navy, which is full of nuclear technicians, could assume that role. It could even hire some of the guys laid off by the DoE if desired. energy conservation, The DoE does not conserve energy. The DoE tells everyone else what the government-approved ways of conserving energy are, and often orders everyone else to comply. Nevermind the fact that consuming energy costs money, and therefore energy conservation becomes economically attractive when it's actually, you know, economically attractive, and not "economically attractive if you factor in the $5,000 subsidy provided by Uncle Sam." energy-related research, Because countless universities and private energy companies don't do this themselves. "But the DoE provides money for more research!" Our annual deficit is larger than the entire GDP of all but a dozen other countries in the world. This is going to stop, one way or another. It will be a helluvalot less painful if we do it while we can still do it voluntarily. That means lots of things that sound nice but cost money have to go. We don't even have to bring constitutionality into it. radioactive waste disposal Where is it being disposed? That state can control its own disposal facilities. and domestic energy production Again, the DoE does not produce energy by virtue of being a federal department. I believe it owns some power plants, which could easily be sold off. The DoE dictates to others how they must produce energy. And just as consuming energy costs money, producing energy earns money. Anyone should be free to attempt to do it in whatever way could be profitable, as long as they comply with certain laws that we don't need a Department of Energy for. (Like air pollution laws. This is actually an area in which I disagree with Ron Paul. He basically says that air pollution should be left to class action lawsuits, while I believe that such a system is impossible.) The DOE also sponsors more basic and applied scientific research than any other US federal agency; most of this is funded through its system of United States Department of Energy National Laboratories. See earlier answer. I said nothing about intervening, once again you fail to put my quote in context, shocker. I was pointing out that the United States has legitimate interests in influencing (which can be done a number of ways) another countries policies. No where did I mention intervention. So instead of ranting maybe you should take a second and actually read the arguments others are making. First of all, it's not my fault that you provided an answer that's almost completely irrelevant to the United States. You're the one who decided to roll with refugees as your example. I'm simply pointing out that it's a terrible example. Second, that terrible example contained a terrible-example-within-a-terrible-example, which was Rwanda. Forgive me if I immediately thought of military intervention. If you'd like to explain how you would have prevented the Rwandan atrocities with tariffs on luxury goods and a currency exchange rate peg, feel free to do so. Otherwise, you seem to be getting very mad about the fact that you're doing a complete disservice to your own points by bringing up the most nonsensical examples imaginable. You don't say that getting rid of the DoE would be a bad idea by implying that we'd lose control of our nuclear weapons. You don't say that we need to meddle in other countries' affairs by bringing up refugees. I really don't know what else to tell you. There's a reason that nobody else is doing what you're doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 How regular of a guest is he on Alex Jones show? Alex Jones is an enormous tool. There isn't a tin foil hat that could fit him. A presidential candidate should not be giving him the time of the day. Why? He's an enormous tool because he exposes Big Brother corruption months before it hits the mainstream? I saw the thread with the outrage and shock in regards to the bill about detaining citizens without a trial. If you listened to Alex, you'd known about that a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Why? He's an enormous tool because he exposes Big Brother corruption months before it hits the mainstream? I saw the thread with the outrage and shock in regards to the bill about detaining citizens without a trial. If you listened to Alex, you'd known about that a long time ago. He exposes big brother corruption by making up **** as it fits his chicken little needs. His show is amusing. His fans even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 He exposes big brother corruption by making up **** as it fits his chicken little needs. His show is amusing. His fans even more. I find those with your opinion amusing. It amuses me to see many surprised and shock about things that his listeners have known about for a while now. It's funny. I laugh. It entertains me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Why? He's an enormous tool because he exposes Big Brother corruption months before it hits the mainstream? I saw the thread with the outrage and shock in regards to the bill about detaining citizens without a trial. If you listened to Alex, you'd known about that a long time ago. You have got to be kidding. You're trying to make Alex Jones sound like he just says sensible, but somewhat non mainstream, things that end up being true. The guy goes so far beyond anything sensible (or even comprehensible sometimes) when he talks about this kind of stuff that Vishal is right...there really isn't a tin foil hat that could fit him. He is a tool. Listen to some of the actual things he says and the conspiracies he believes in. Read some of his quotes about anything from 9/11 to vast conspiracies by secret sects along with major public figures to enslave the population. And that is some of the more tame stuff...he has gotten REALLY weird at times and just gone off on almost psychotic tangents. Mentally suspect is a term I would use to describe him. Then again, most hardcore conspiracy theorists have some cogs loose in their brains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 You have got to be kidding. You're trying to make Alex Jones sound like he just says sensible, but somewhat non mainstream, things that end up being true. The guy goes so far beyond anything sensible (or even comprehensible sometimes) when he talks about this kind of stuff that Vishal is right...there really isn't a tin foil hat that could fit him. He is a tool. Listen to some of the actual things he says and the conspiracies he believes in. Read some of his quotes about anything from 9/11 to vast conspiracies by secret sects along with major public figures to enslave the population. And that is some of the more tame stuff...he has gotten REALLY weird at times and just gone off on almost psychotic tangents. Mentally suspect is a term I would use to describe him. Then again, most hardcore conspiracy theorists have some cogs loose in their brains. lol. You're funny. There is something amusing with opinions you've expressed. hahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I find those with your opinion amusing. It amuses me to see many surprised and shock about things that his listeners have known about for a while now. It's funny. I laugh. It entertains me. Damn. He got another one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Damn. He got another one. Seems that way. Hopefully he is just trolling us. If not...yikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Seems that way. Hopefully he is just trolling us. If not...yikes. Man, I question those who think like you. Scary stuff. Man, I just don't know. Congress is pushing a bill through that says citizens can be detained without a trial and held indefinitely. I guess stuff like that is just make believe. I find it pretty weird that stuff like that doesn't bother you. Disturbing actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 There are thousands of nearly incoherent, unstable babbling conspiracy theorist vagrants on city street corners across America. Generally speaking, the lack of concern for their mental state is tragic, but for now it is what it is. By believing in every imaginable conspiracy theory, rights infringement, and general dastardly tale, these guys are guaranteed to occasionally be correct with one of their less fanciful inanities. If one of them has a mere 200 identifiable goofy theories spread across all degrees and angles of all American political issues at a given moment (which is not a very large number if you've ever run into one of these dudes), a given nut only needs an accuracy rate of 0.5% to occasionally get a theory correct. And apparently that's good enough for a career in talk radio, complete with acolytes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 There are thousands of nearly incoherent, unstable babbling conspiracy theorist vagrants on city street corners across America. Generally speaking, the lack of concern for their mental state is tragic, but for now it is what it is. By believing in every imaginable conspiracy theory, rights infringement, and general dastardly tale, these guys are guaranteed to occasionally be correct with one of their less fanciful inanities. If one of them has a mere 200 identifiable goofy theories spread across all degrees and angles of all American political issues at a given moment (which is not a very large number if you've ever run into one of these dudes), a given nut only needs an accuracy rate of 0.5% to occasionally get a theory correct.And apparently that's good enough for a career in talk radio, complete with acolytes. What's so conspiracy theory in regards to talking about internet censorship, detaining citizens without a trial, the corruption between Wall Street and the government, how the wars are wrong and such? That's all Alex talks about. It's okay. I'm sure that you've probably never listened to his show more than a few times to know better, if not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Man, I question those who think like you. Scary stuff. Man, I just don't know. Congress is pushing a bill through that says citizens can be detained without a trial and held indefinitely. I guess stuff like that is just make believe. I find it pretty weird that stuff like that doesn't bother you. Disturbing actually. You see, there is a difference between how rational people who are, understandably, concerned about a bill like that respond and how a conspiracy theorist like Alex Jones responds. The rational and concerned person will want to look at the bill, find out exactly what it says, what it allows, what it doesn't allow, why they are trying to pass it, etc. To a conspiracy theorist like Alex Smith, when he sees something like this, rational thought does not kick in. He will immediately go right into "See? I told you so! This confirms my theories about <insert wild eyed theories about secret cabals who want world dominance or how the government has been planning to put dissenters into huge "camps">!" mode. To him, anything that even remotely resembles, to the slightest degree, any conspiracy he has gone off about before, is absolute proof that all of the insanity he throws out there is true. Pretty common for conspiracy theorists, though. Or he may even make a pretty major stretch and say that the bill would "literally legalize martial law". Ok, actually that was Ron Paul (while on the Alex Jones show). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 You see, there is a difference between how rational people who are, understandably, concerned about a bill like that respond and how a conspiracy theorist like Alex Jones responds. The rational and concerned person will want to look at the bill, find out exactly what it says, what it allows, what it doesn't allow, why they are trying to pass it, etc. To a conspiracy theorist like Alex Smith, when he sees something like this, rational thought does not kick in. He will immediately go right into "See? I told you so! This confirms my theories about <insert wild eyed theories about secret cabals who want world dominance or how the government has been planning to put dissenters into huge "camps">!" mode. To him, anything that even remotely resembles, to the slightest degree, any conspiracy he has gone off about before, is absolute proof that all of the insanity he throws out there is true. Pretty common for conspiracy theorists, though. Or he may even make a pretty major stretch and say that the bill would "literally legalize martial law". Ok, actually that was Ron Paul (while on the Alex Jones show). I guess it's a matter of opinion in regards to what one's concern level is with some of these topics. I find something like detaining citizens indefinitely without a trial is a major red alert in regards to where our country is headed, where others might have mild concern about it or don't really care. Some might even think it's a good thing. It just seems to me that people who insult his show misrepresent the show's content. He doesn't talk about UFOs, Big Foot, Area 51 and haunted houses. He does believe 9/11 is an inside job, so I guess many will just disregard everything he says because of that. Many call Ron Paul kooky too so I guess that's just the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 What's so conspiracy theory in regards to talking about internet censorship, detaining citizens without a trial, the corruption between Wall Street and the government, how the wars are wrong and such? That's all Alex talks about. It's okay. I'm sure that you've probably never listened to his show more than a few times to know better, if not at all. So your position is that it doesn't matter how extreme or kooky the guy gets per topic -- it's just a matter of which substantial handful of topics he picks to be extremely kooky about? Do you really believe my post pivoted on the idea that a nut actually has to have 200 theories that literally run the gamut, or else none of it applies to Alex Jones? Seriously. Take a second and reconsider. Do it for yourself. And you can also reconsider your theory that I haven't listened to his nutty show enough to know what he's about. He was entertaining until I realized that he wasn't just entertaining. He means it. Then it felt like laughing at the mentally ill. Alex Jones is a blind man wandering the woods with a shotgun, occasionally managing to wing a squirrel as he blasts the bark off every tree he bumps into. To his fans, that makes him a sniper. The guy executive-produced a "Loose Change" crapumentary, for God's sake. He's a buffoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Is it right to come up with rationalizations and reasons to infringe on the bill of rights? Sometimes I think an extreme position on that issue is needed. When do we reach the point where we've come up with so many perfectly reasonable reduction to rights that they cease to be rights and begin to be privileges? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Man, I question those who think like you. Scary stuff. Man, I just don't know. Congress is pushing a bill through that says citizens can be detained without a trial and held indefinitely. I guess stuff like that is just make believe. I find it pretty weird that stuff like that doesn't bother you. Disturbing actually. And I got banned for a week for teeing off on him as a conspiracy nut because he was denying it even as he was pushing an idiotic conspiracy theory. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Since all the Ron Paul supporters are in here, I have a question: Why Ron Paul and not former two term New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who is now running for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination? While I'm certainly no conservative, I don't get why Johnson doesn't get more of a look in general. Johnson seems incredibly accomplished as a businessman, an outdoor adventurist (not super important but pretty cool) and especially as a Governor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 And I got banned for a week for teeing off on him as a conspiracy nut because he was denying it even as he was pushing an idiotic conspiracy theory. :doh: I could imagine if you became a children's book author. Moron By Mad Mike Chapter 1 Morons Once upon a time there was a beautiful princess. She was a moron. She loved a young blacksmith who was a moron. The blacksmith made horseshoes for horses. The horses were morons. The king and queen didn't approve of their daughter dating a blacksmith because they were morons. The princess and the blacksmith decided to run away together and live happily ever after because they were morons. The End Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Get back on topic. And a couple of ya can consider yourselves lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojobo Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Haha. I love this. So now the counter-tactic is simply saying "none of what is brought up to question him or his policies is valid because it is just smear attacks". I don't care if it is a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent, someone from the freaking Whig Party. Alex Jones is a wacko conspiracy theorist (you really care to argue against that?). Why is it not fair to ask if Paul believes in the things Alex Jones does as far as conspiracies, etc? Should that information be completely invalid in how people view him or his policies? He has been going on his show for years. He does interviews with him, he's not a co-host. He's done interviews with Rachel Maddow too and I'm not too concerned about him having the same ideology as her. Just like when Obama had the situation with his pastor. What he was saying was bad but he didn't write the sermon. So when Paul was just a non-factor as far as polls and, hence, wasn't getting any attention, his supporters complained about the media bias against him. Now that he has a lead in Iowa and has gotten much more attention on the national stage and, as a result, is being looked at and scrutinized much more (this is pretty much the same for ANY candidate once they become big) his supporters complain that it is all smears or proclaim that whoever is scrutinizing him is just scared of him. Kinda funny how his supporters of his would complain about him being ignored AND being scrutinized. Why would you think the response would be anything else? ---------- Post added December-21st-2011 at 12:16 AM ---------- Since all the Ron Paul supporters are in here, I have a question: Why Ron Paul and not former two term New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who is now running for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination? While I'm certainly no conservative, I don't get why Johnson doesn't get more of a look in general. Johnson seems incredibly accomplished as a businessman, an outdoor adventurist (not super important but pretty cool) and especially as a Governor. I seriously doubt you'll find any Ron Paul supporters who don't love Gary Johnson. In terms of why Paul over Johnson, I'm guessing it's because Paul just had a stronger campaign and built off of his support from '08. He is probably on a very short list of VP candidates if Ron Paul gets the nomination though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Since all the Ron Paul supporters are in here, I have a question: Why Ron Paul and not former two term New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who is now running for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination? While I'm certainly no conservative, I don't get why Johnson doesn't get more of a look in general. Johnson seems incredibly accomplished as a businessman, an outdoor adventurist (not super important but pretty cool) and especially as a Governor. I think Johnson's just not a known entity yet. I'd fully support a Johnson bid at presidency. Ron Paul, however, has been getting his name out there for years and has built up a reputation. Personally, I'm a bit disappointed at the lack of attention Johnson's gotten, but I'm happy enough seeing Paul finally getting some respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 21, 2011 Author Share Posted December 21, 2011 I think Johnson's just not a known entity yet. I'd fully support a Johnson bid at presidency. Ron Paul, however, has been getting his name out there for years and has built up a reputation. Personally, I'm a bit disappointed at the lack of attention Johnson's gotten, but I'm happy enough seeing Paul finally getting some respect. I feel the same. Johnson seems like a good guy with solid principles. Paul's campaign is just a bit more mature and robust. ---------- Post added December-21st-2011 at 05:30 AM ---------- Thanks Jumbo, I'd hate to see this thread devolve into an alex Jones debate. I like the courage Cavuto shows here in taking his media partners to task for their bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 But Johnson doesnt have all the racist background. Seems like a no brainer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 21, 2011 Author Share Posted December 21, 2011 But Johnson doesnt have all the racist background. Seems like a no brainer. Neither does Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.