January 19, 2012 CNN Republican Presidential Primary Debate

[SnyderShrugged]

The claim that Paul isnt running because he has a low chance to win is silly, foolish and unsubstantiated BS.

Thats all I plan to say on the subject, carry on

[Larry]

so let me get this straight, because he isnt likely to win, then he's not "really running"? (I agree he likely wont do super well in SC or FL, that isnt the campaign strategy which is centric around delegates) The strategy may not work, but it's a solid one none the less.

You have no basis for claiming he isnt really running

In your opinion, what are Ron Paul's odds of winning the Republican nomination, and the general?

In your opinion, what does Ron Paul think his odds of winning the nomination, and the general, are?

[SnyderShrugged]

In your opinion, what are Ron Paul's odds of winning the Republican nomination, and the general?

In your opinion, what does Ron Paul think his odds of winning the nomination, and the general, are?

I have no idea what his opinion is, but my opinion is that it's a long shot, though much better than last time.

[Larry]

The constitution is kooky. Peace is kooky. Strong national defense is kooky. Fixing our economy is kooky. Stopping SOPA/PIPA is kooky. Repealing the NDAA is kooky. Being principled is kooky. Being a Veteran is kooky. Being a real american is kooky.

Disbanding the US military's ability to act overseas is kooky.

Believing that the federal reserve bank is out to get us is kooky.

Eliminating all enforcement of environmental regulations is kooky.

Restoring all financial regulations to the way they were, one year before the crash, is kooky.

Looking at this picture. . .

. . . and deciding that the first thing that needs to be done about it, is to make the blue part 20% smaller, is kooky.

[SnyderShrugged]

Disbanding the US military's ability to act overseas is kooky. (Good thing he doesnt want to disband the ability to act overseas then. He believes that there is a more sensible and affordable manner to deploy our troops for our defense)

Believing that the federal reserve bank is out to get us is kooky. (Good thing he hasnt said that, He believes that central economic planning causes malinvestment, which causes bubbles, which ultimately pop)

Eliminating all enforcement of environmental regulations is kooky. (Good thing he doesnt want the removal of all environmental regulations, he advises the use of private property laws)

Restoring all financial regulations to the way they were, one year before the crash, is kooky. (He believes that the new financial regulations wont solve the problems that we have sufferred, he's right)

Looking at this picture. . .

. . . and deciding that the first thing that needs to be done about it, is to make the blue part 20% smaller, is kooky.

What you did there Larry, is insert what you believe he wants rather than going with his actual statements as to the rationale he holds to do them.

Of course there are those that disagree with these, and of course the ideas themselves are very different than status quo.

That difference in opinion cant even begin to be discussed until the hyperbolic assumptions and assignments of what you believe that his intent is put aside.

Lets talk the realities instead and I bet the discussion would be a decent conversation.

edit: apologies Jumbo! I actually meant to remove the pic before posting too, fixed now

[Jumbo]

P, stop violating rule 11, bro. And everyone tell your friends. It's picking up yet again in the tailgate, as though people are once more forgetting quoting any pic is a violation (read the rule). There's about to be a group of folks missing for a week over a rather silly bit of laziness. There's no one here, unless brand new, that by now hasn't read (innumerable) warnings like this one or seen (many) sticky thread on this matter.

And per current exchanges, some folks might keep in mind that a very simple fact is that Ken, while as much fun as a barrel of fun, is to embracing conspiracy theories as techboy is to citing sources.

Now Godammit SS! And everyone! Go edit out those quoted pics!

Seriously, everyone from here on it simply gets punted for a week, so look out for each other. I've long been the last mod interested in giving endless warnings to you guys who have ZERO excuse for not knowing and doing better and ya know what? I'm done.

<thank you SS >

[SnyderShrugged]

<thank you SS >

do I get any points for catching it before the request to edit it? LOL

[Larry]

What you did there Larry, is insert what you believe he wants rather than going with his actual statements as to the rationale he holds to do them.

What you just did there, SS, is to insert how you think you can most glowingly describe his actual positions.

Funny. I didn't say "he opposes the use of private property laws". I said "eliminating all enforcement of all environmental laws". And that is a fact.

I didn't say "he wants to not defend the US". I said "he wants us to be unable to do a thing other than defend the US". And that is a fact.

I didn't say "thinks that the new rules won't work". I said "wants to restore the rules to the way they were". And that is a fact.

Think the new rules won't work? That's an excellent reason to recommend changing them. But he hasn't proposed changing them. He has proposed restoring them to the way they were.

[SnyderShrugged]

What you just did there, SS, is to insert how you think you can most glowingly describe his actual positions.

Funny. I didn't say "he opposes the use of private property laws". I said "eliminating all enforcement of all environmental laws". And that is a fact.

I didn't say "he wants to not defend the US". I said "he wants us to be unable to do a thing other than defend the US". And that is a fact.

I didn't say "thinks that the new rules won't work". I said "wants to restore the rules to the way they were". And that is a fact.

Think the new rules won't work? That's an excellent reason to recommend changing them. But he hasn't proposed changing them. He has proposed restoring them to the way they were.

sigh, and I did try. (and no, your "facts" arent)

[Larry]

sigh, and I did try. (and no, your "facts" arent)

Fact: Ron Paul has proposed completely eliminating all enforcement of all environmental regulations.

Support: It's in the budget proposal that you like to throw out evey time you claim that he's the only person with a plan. Link.

News flash: The EPA is the only organization with the authority to enforce federal environmental regulations. And Ron Paul advocates it's complete elimination.

Try to spin away that one, for starters.

[SnyderShrugged]

Fact: Ron Paul has proposed completely eliminating all enforcement of all environmental regulations.

Support: It's in the budget proposal that you like to throw out evey time you claim that he's the only person with a plan. Link.

News flash: The EPA is the only organization with the authority to enforce federal environmental regulations. And Ron Paul advocates it's complete elimination.

Try to spin away that one, for starters.

No spin needed, I already explained it. What is now enforced via environmental laws would be enforced via private property law.

The only way you could claim he wants to eliminate all enforcement of environmental laws would be if he proposed no alternative to what we have today.

add: I'm leaving shortly so forgive me if I have to wait a while to reply.

[Larry]

No spin needed, I already explained it. What is now enforced via environmental laws would be enforced via private property law.

Which "private property law"? Who enforces it?

Never mind that I didn't say "eliminating all enforcement of all environmental laws and forbidding anyone from taking their place."

His plan is to eliminate all enforcement, on day 1. Show me his plan to replace it, on day 1. Show me how much he budgeted, for this new, better, enforcement method he's planning to replace it with, on day 1.

[Predicto]

:doh: edited my post sorry

No spin needed, I already explained it. What is now enforced via environmental laws would be enforced via private property law.

The only way you could claim he wants to eliminate all enforcement of environmental laws would be if he proposed no alternative to what we have today.

I spent way too long explaining to you why this use of private property law could never work. Not gonna do it again.

[SnyderShrugged]

Which "private property law"? Who enforces it?

Never mind that I didn't say "eliminating all enforcement of all environmental laws and forbidding anyone from taking their place."

His plan is to eliminate all enforcement, on day 1. Show me his plan to replace it, on day 1.

Well, I certainly dont have the time to go into the semantics, especially since no one would expect 100% of all the details of all the plans a candidate could have.

What you are worried on here is not what you claimed (that there would be no enforcement when the environment is harmed). You just don't believe that it will work, and thats an entirely different discussion.

anywho, I'm heading out the door, but cool to discussed calmly and rationally with you when I return.

Ciao!

[Ken]

Fact: Ron Paul has proposed completely eliminating all enforcement of all environmental regulations.

Support: It's in the budget proposal that you like to throw out evey time you claim that he's the only person with a plan. Link.

News flash: The EPA is the only organization with the authority to enforce federal environmental regulations. And Ron Paul advocates it's complete elimination.

Try to spin away that one, for starters.

Your opinion is in stark contrast to Reagon's:

“Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.” – Ronald Reagan

And just so you are clear....here is his actual defense policy:

That’s why, as Commander-in-Chief, Dr. Paul will lead the fight to:

* Make securing our borders the top national security priority.

* Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.

* Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.

* End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.

* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.

* Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.

* Ensure our veterans receive the care, benefits, and honors they have earned when they return.

* Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.

* Prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency.

* Stop taking money from the middle class and the poor to give to rich dictators through foreign aid.

[Predicto]

Well, I certainly dont have the time to go into the semantics, especially since no one would expect 100% of all the details of all the plans a candidate could have.

What you are worried on here is not what you claimed (that there would be no enforcement when the environment is harmed). You just don't believe that it will work, and thats an entirely different discussion.

anywho, I'm heading out the door, but cool to discussed calmly and rationally with you when I return.

Ciao!

Actually, Larry is right. Environmental laws are not the same as envoronmental regulations. In general, regulations are enforced by executive agencies alone. Ron Paul absolutley does want to end all environmental regulations, and eliminate the regulatory body.

Larry didn't say Paul wants to end protection of the environment. He said Paul wants to end all enforcement of environmental regulations by eliminating the regulatory body - and that is 100 percent accurate.

[Kilmer17]

Actually, Larry is right. Environmental laws are not the same as envoronmental regulations. In general, regulations are enforced by executive agencies alone. Ron Paul absolutley does want to end all environmental regulations, and eliminate the regulatory body.

Larry didn't say Paul wants to end protection of the environment. He said Paul wants to end all enforcement of environmental regulations by eliminating the regulatory body - and that is 100 percent accurate.

While true, the Ron Paul haters on both sides take complex stances like that and make it appear to be something else. The claim that he would legalize heroin is a great example as well.

[DjTj]

Your opinion is in stark contrast to Reagon's:

“Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.” – Ronald Reagan

Does anyone know where or when Reagan said that?

FactCheck only leads me to this New York Times article from 1996:

Dr. Paul's advertisements attack Mr. Laughlin for voting for tax increases and taking junkets, but his most innovative salesmanship is a 15-minute videotape he has sent to 30,000 households.

It quotes Mr. Reagan as saying: "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

The former Attorney General Edwin Meese 3d came here last week to insist that Mr. Reagan had offered no recent endorsements. Dr. Paul's campaign did not return calls seeking the date of the Reagan comments.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/08/us/race-for-congress-texas-14th-district-under-fire-gop-convert-wins-party-s-fierce.html?pagewanted=3&src=pm

:whoknows:

[Larry]

Well, I certainly dont have the time to go into the semantics, especially since no one would expect 100% of all the details of all the plans a candidate could have.

That's funny. His plan to completely eliminate all enforcement is crystal clear. Fits in a single sentence.

Show me his plans for this glowing replacement.

Something a bit more specific than vague assumptions that well, eventually something will evolve from the toxic waste dumps to replace what he got rid of.

What you are worried on here is not what you claimed (that there would be no enforcement when the environment is harmed).

What I have stated is a fact. One which you haven't even attempted to dispute. Instead, you've tried to divert the discussion into the vague descriptions of what a great world it will be, when some thing that hasn't been worked out, yet, eventually arises from the damage that Ron Paul's dynamite did.

"Well, we've decided to stop enforcing the rules against murder. But don't worry. We'll allow your heirs to file a civil suit. Eventually, At their own expense. After they spend whatever it takes to solve the murder, in the first place." isn't enforcing the law.

Personal Injury Lawyers don't enforce laws.

---------- Post added January-20th-2012 at 06:10 PM ----------

And just so you are clear....here is his actual defense policy:

That’s why, as Commander-in-Chief, Dr. Paul will lead the fight to:

* Make securing our borders the top national security priority.

* Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.

* Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.

* End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.

* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.

* Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.

* Ensure our veterans receive the care, benefits, and honors they have earned when they return.

* Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.

* Prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency.

* Stop taking money from the middle class and the poor to give to rich dictators through foreign aid.

Funny. You left out "eliminate virtually all (but I can't be bothered to actually list) overseas military bases, assets, and troops"

[grhqofb5]

God, I love seeing liberals and Ron Paul guys debate. Yes, Ron Paul is kooky, but apparently for the right reasons or something like that. At any rate, I busted out laughing when he said that he'd trim a trillion dollars off the budget and reduce income tax to zero (or "near zero"). I hope he's also handing out free gift cards to Outdoor World because we're all going to need tents, shotguns, lanterns, first aid kits, fishing rods, and bear mace to survive when that mofo becomes president.

[twa]

Actually, Larry is right. Environmental laws are not the same as envoronmental regulations. In general, regulations are enforced by executive agencies alone. Ron Paul absolutley does want to end all environmental regulations, and eliminate the regulatory body.

Larry didn't say Paul wants to end protection of the environment. He said Paul wants to end all enforcement of environmental regulations by eliminating the regulatory body - and that is 100 percent accurate.

Don't they now delegate that ability in certain cases?

As far as I know,every state has a environmental agency...why not delegate it to them?

except the dysfunctional states like Cali of course :pfft:

[88Comrade2000]

Yet he has garnered around 20% of the early race votes, has more than doubled his support than last go around, has more confirmed delegates than anyone but Romney, is on the ballot (or will be) in all states (unlike both Santorum and Grinch) and is actually running for the presidency despite many folks somehow trying to pretend he isnt.

Ron Paul will never win. He will run to try to get the Republican platform changed to his views and when they refuse to listen to him, he will go third party.

If Paul was serious about winning the presidency, he would go third party. I don't buy this bull**** he isn't know and could only run in the Republican primaries. Everyone knows who Ron Paul is. He could run as a third party candidate and if it's a 3 way race between Obama - Romney and Paul; I think Paul places a solid second place ahead of Romney.

[Larry]

While true, the Ron Paul haters on both sides take complex stances like that and make it appear to be something else.

"Eliminate the only entity in the country with the authority or ability to enforce our environmental laws" is a "complex stance"?

The claim that he would legalize heroin is a great example as well.

I've never made such a claim, but I assume it's because he's said that he would repeal the existing law prohibiting it.

Please, how would you describe "eliminating the one and only law currently prohibiting something"? I think there's a term for that. One word, too. Must have been that third thing.

---------- Post added January-20th-2012 at 06:53 PM ----------

God, I love seeing liberals and Ron Paul guys debate. Yes, Ron Paul is kooky, but apparently for the right reasons or something like that. At any rate, I busted out laughing when he said that he'd trim a trillion dollars off the budget and reduce income tax to zero (or "near zero"). I hope he's also handing out free gift cards to Outdoor World because we're all going to need tents, shotguns, lanterns, first aid kits, fishing rods, and bear mace to survive when that mofo becomes president.

Now, his web site does have a '>tax (and spending) plan on it. And that plan doesn't change the income tax in any way. (Well, it makes the Bush tax cuts permanent, which I suppose you could call a change or a non-change, depending on which way you want to spin it.)

Now, he proposes eliminating all capital gains taxes.

Eliminating all taxes on interest and dividends.

Eliminating all taxes on inherited wealth.

Cutting corporate taxes by 2/3.

But, funny. He doesn't mention lowering the plain old, everyday, ordinary, income tax.

He proposes cutting Social Security by 8% a year, starting immediately.

(Checking). But nope. No mention of cutting Social Security taxes.

---------- Post added January-20th-2012 at 07:18 PM ----------

Don't they now delegate that ability in certain cases?

As far as I know,every state has a environmental agency...why not delegate it to them?

except the dysfunctional states like Cali of course :pfft:

Ah. The old "I'm going to eliminate all enforcement, and assume that somebody else will pick up the pieces" philosophy.

First thought. How long you figure it will take, for all 50 states to individually replace all of the environmental regulations which have taken decades to create?

Oh. Let me guess. "They'll only replace some of them". OK, which ones? "Well, you can't expect all of the details. I'm sure they'll do all the important ones."

OK, so what we've proposed is to, effectively, completely eliminate all existing environmental regulations, and to send every single one of them through another round of review, debate, discussion, analysis, lobbying, and legislation. 50 times. For each, individual laws.

Sounds like somebody who really believes in efficiency, huh?

OK, and every one of those states is then going to create, out of thin air, their own, individual, versions of the EPA, too, to enforce all of these replacement laws that they're going to pass.

Wonder how much that will cost?

I know how much it costs now.

You figure that replacing the EPA with 50 EPAs might take a while? Think it might incur some duplication? Maybe some start-up costs?

But let me guess: I'm certain that replacing a bureaucracy with 50 bureaucracies, all of them doing kind of the same thing, but not quite, will be so much more efficient that the startup and duplication costs will be covered. We have nothing at all to suggest that, other than blind belief in a philosophy. But heck. I'm certain that the philosophy is right. So certain that I'm willing to dynamite the existing system,

and

go through all of that duplicated effort,

50 times

, and to spend

decades

doing it,

just to try the theory out

And weren't we just recently informed that every idiot knows that it would be disaster if individual states were allowed to ass individual environmental regulations, because of all of the intangible costs of businesses having to deal with 50 individual sets of environmental laws? Wasn't this right before the federal government made it illegal for the states to pass their own environmental laws? I seem to remember that.

But heck. Let's leave all of that asside.

Let's just assume that we can magically get rid of the entire body of now-existing environmental laws, and that eventually, all of the laws, and all of the enforcement, will be taken up by the states. Let's pretend that this operation, of replacing a bureaucracy with 50 bureaucracies, is a completely painless transition, with no damage done whatsoever during the transition.

Let's assume that the whole thing works out without any hitches at all.

Congratulations. You just reduced the federal deficit by X billion dollars. By forcing the states to pass an X billion dollar tax hike.

Boy, that benefit sure makes all of the work and all of the transition costs and all of the disruption and the duplication and the conflicts and the time and the money, all worth it, huh?

----------

You see, that's the problem with the "well, somebody else will pick up the slack" method of trying to gloss over the damage he's proposing.

Even if we ignore the guaranteed fact that no, somebody else won't pick up the slack. Maybe some of it, but not all of it.

Even if you ignore what we all know will really happen, the plan has no upside.

The best you can hope for, is that the states will raise taxes by one dollar for every dollar cut by the feds.

----------

But that pretty much sums up the whole Ron Paul "experience"

Take a large amount of dynamite. Completely destroy large portions of the existing world as we know it. Right now.

And assume that eventually, something will evolve. And that something will be better. I just know it. Because I'm angry about the way things are.

[JimboDaMan]

God, I love seeing liberals and Ron Paul guys debate. Yes, Ron Paul is kooky, but apparently for the right reasons or something like that. At any rate, I busted out laughing when he said that he'd trim a trillion dollars off the budget and reduce income tax to zero (or "near zero"). I hope he's also handing out free gift cards to Outdoor World because we're all going to need tents, shotguns, lanterns, first aid kits, fishing rods, and bear mace to survive when that mofo becomes president.

To be fair, after RP got carried away with his own hyperbole and vowed to reduce income tax to zero, he caught himself and said something like "as near zero as possible".

[Larry]

Oh, and I don't have a problem with his answer. Nothing at all wrong with what was, IMO, simply a dramatic way of saying "as low as possible".

I've got a lot of problems with Ron Paul's proposals. but the overall idea of trying to reduce the government? Great idea. Noble goal.

Edit: And it looks like I was wrong about something.

Ron Paul's budget proposal, which I linked to, earlier, does not call for eliminating the EPA. His budget calls for cutting it's funding by 50%, and keeping it there.

He is on record in other places, for advocating it's elimination. Including other places on his own web site. But not in the specific document I linked to. Many of the places where I found this proposal say that we wants to gradually eliminate it. (Although those statements are from Ron Paul supporters. The only references to the EPA I found on Ron Paul's own web site, are the budget proposal (which cuts it by 50%, and then keeps it there), and the one line in his "energy" page, where he says "Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington."