Rep. Ron Paul for Prez

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

Dr. Paul said his detractors tend to be people who "like big government a lot more than I do. ... If they attack me, they're attacking the Constitution. If they attack my foreign policy, they're attacking the advice of the founding fathers and the traditions of the Republican Party."

my mistake, Md....I thought this discussion was all related to "paul registers only 1% of the republicans, what makes anyone believe that he can get even to 1% of the overall voters??" If Paul's current Republican supporters include founding fathers and Taft era Republicans, then I'm not so sure he will poll better with the public at large.

Originally Posted by Mavdog

do you believe that the republican party, especially since reagan, has followed its traditional ideology?

no

Originally Posted by Mavdog

or has it become accepting of the democrat domestic and foreign policies?

Their foreign policy is closer to the quintessentially liberal Wilson and FDR than anything else. Their domestic policy is warmed up LBJ Great Society with a more religious sales pitch.

[rmacomic]

I just saw Ron Paul on Bill Mahr last night. I like him. I am not a republican, but I like what he had to say, and the fact that he put Guliani in his place. Also could usafreedom be any more of a homo?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by rmacomic

Also could usafreedom be any more of a homo?

He could be John Edwards or Barack Obama.

[Ninkobei]

Originally Posted by dude1394

He could be John Edwards or Barack Obama.

ouch. what was that for. so I guess you are a hillary supporter then..because unless obama beats her out for the democratic nomination thats who we are going to have.

[dude1394]

Nah...but since everyone's being called a homo, thought I'd jump in.

[rmacomic]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Nah...but since everyone's being called a homo, thought I'd jump in.

I just like jiving usafreedom.

[usafreedom3]

Originally Posted by rmacomic

I just saw Ron Paul on Bill Mahr last night. I like him. I am not a republican, but I like what he had to say, and the fact that he put Guliani in his place. Also could usafreedom be any more of a homo?

I appreciate the offer dude, but happily married (to a woman before you pop off). Good luck with all that, and hope you find a guy you can share your life with.

[alexamenos]

i don't know if obama is a queer, but Hillary? come on.....she's got Eleanor Roosevelt written all over her.

[alexamenos]

MSNBC Poll on last night's debate.

To summarize the data--Ron Paul was well-received, Rudy Giuliani is the suck.

[capitalcity]

That poll, not unlike others, has been spammed.

Diggbats
Kos Kids

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by capitalcity

That poll, not unlike others, has been spammed.

Diggbats
Kos Kids

Straw polls are not scientific polls which can be extrapolated to the larger population, but they are measures of enthusiastic support. This much can be inferred from the polls -- Ron Paul has more enthusiastic supporters right now than the other candidates.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Straw polls are not scientific polls which can be extrapolated to the larger population, but they are measures of enthusiastic support. This much can be inferred from the polls -- Ron Paul has more enthusiastic supporters right now than the other candidates.

or desperate

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dude1394

or desperate

I think Paul supporters are mostly having fun -- I don't know of many who give him a chance in hell of getting the GOP nod, and I'm frankly surprised he's lasted this long.

Desperate is what the Republicans will be in the fall of '08 when they're backing a Republican from the "Teddy Kennedy wing of the Republican party" and wondering why the party conservatives don't give a crap about whether a Republican wins the office.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I think Paul supporters are mostly having fun -- I don't know of many who give him a chance in hell of getting the GOP nod, and I'm frankly surprised he's lasted this long.

Desperate is what the Republicans will be in the fall of '08 when they're backing a Republican from the "Teddy Kennedy wing of the Republican party" and wondering why the party conservatives don't give a crap about whether a Republican wins the office.

yadda yadda yadda.

[alexamenos]

incidentally.....it's conventional wisdom amongst libertarians that the internet is the medium of choice for libertarian politics....

GOP/Dem Establishment - Mainstream Media, the ministry of truth;
Right Wingers - Simian Screeches of Radio Right
Hippie Left-wing Socialists - long-winded boring rants in obscure magazines;
Libertarians - the 'net.

So, it's no great surprise that a libertarian candidate shows well in a libertarian environment.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

incidentally.....it's conventional wisdom amongst libertarians that the internet is the medium of choice for libertarian politics....

GOP/Dem Establishment - Mainstream Media, the ministry of truth;
Right Wingers - Simian Screeches of Radio Right
Hippie Left-wing Socialists - long-winded boring rants in obscure magazines;
Libertarians - the 'net.

So, it's no great surprise that a libertarian candidate shows well in a libertarian environment.

It will be funny when everyone starts using the internets.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

It will be funny when everyone starts using the internets.

I'm not quite sure I follow your comment tho I imagine you disagree with the contention that libertarians are a larger percentage of 'net users than the general voting population.

....suffice it to say that AARP members have been less likely to use the internet over the last decade than software programmers for small development companies, the latter group being far more libertarian than the former.

[usafreedom3]

FRED DALTON THOMPSON!

[alexamenos]

Support for Ron Paul may not be a bit more substantial than some phantom internet thing. His fundraising has sky-rocketed over the last month to the point where he may be in the same ballpark as frontrunners.

GOP Ron Paul - Five Million Dollar Man?
Thursday, June 07, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com

Congressman Ron Paul’s donations have moved up - not by hundreds of thousands - but by millions as a result of his debate performances and groundswell of support on the Internet and in New Hampshire, observers close to the campaign say.

The move is especially impressive since as of March 31, 2007, he had perhaps $500,000 on hand (see candidate estimates below).

FMNN had previously reported – after the GOP presidential debate in South Carolina - that candidate Ron Paul’s (R-Tex) donations, large and small, had nearly doubled.

Now observers close to the campaign are revealing – with some astonishment – that donations to the campaign in recent weeks have pushed the total up to perhaps $4 or $5 million.

“That’s a huge number at this stage,” says one observer. “That starts to put him in a position where he can compete – state by state, anyway – with the major candidates.”

And this source added, “Of course, it’s hard to tell because the numbers keep changing – and thus nobody at the campaign has a firm count, at least not hour to hour. But the numbers are big. It’s definitely over three, probably over four, and if it hasn’t hit five yet, it will soon.”

At this rate, say observers, Ron Paul could have something like $10 million in his coffers inside of several months, and the total could keep growing – so long as he continues to hit on themes that Americans support – how to return the country to a true, small government, constitutional republic and how to end the war in Iraq. .....

[Arne]

I love this guy. It's seldom that we see such a honest man run for president. I don't care if he has some faults, this man is not lying to anyone and that's what I love.

Ron Paul for President.

[Arne]

Okay guys, here's a good one. Go to www.googlefights.com and let Ron Paul battle any other candidate...

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Arne

Okay guys, here's a good one. Go to www.googlefights.com and let Ron Paul battle any other candidate...

I can't figure out how this works.

Is it an "Alexa" type thing -- Ron Paul website traffic is pretty remarkable compared to the other candidates, if you've seen such a thing.

[dude1394]

Not crazy about old Ron Paul. Appears that if he had his way, we'd never have entered WW1, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq1, Iraq2 or just about anywhere else.

I think he's quite naive to think that without an aggressive US presence the sea lanes would be open, we'd have nearly the bountiful econimies all around the world.

I understand his thoughts on the matter and in general I want to be an isolationist where needed.

But anyone saying we should have let sadaam keep kuwait is irresponsible imo.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dude1394

...I think he's quite naive to think that without an aggressive US presence the sea lanes would be open, we'd have nearly the bountiful econimies all around the world.

I understand his thoughts on the matter and in general I want to be an isolationist where needed.

But anyone saying we should have let sadaam keep kuwait is irresponsible imo.

On isolationism...there's no more isolationist of a country than Switzerland (it stayed out of WWI and WWII), and there's no country on earth that is more free or has a higher quality of life. IOW, there's nothing at all naive about an non-interventionist policy.

In Regards to Dr. Paul's One Commitment, that commitment is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." That is the President's job description per the Constitution, that is the Oath the President will swear upon taking office, and any candidate who doesn't make this Oath the centerpiece of his campaign promises is not fit to President of a government subject to the Rule of Law, IMHO.

[dude1394]

Alex..your comparison of the US with switzerland is ridiculous.

Unless you want to completely abrograte any and all responsiblity in the world. If so then say it. No more nato, no more world bank, no more funding for aids in africa, no more UN (for why need a UN when nothing will be resolved), etc.

If sea lanes are threatened between us and europe we just say aw, we don't need to worry about that, we'll just pay the ransom and keep shipping.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

On isolationism...there's no more isolationist of a country than Switzerland (it stayed out of WWI and WWII), and there's no country on earth that is more free or has a higher quality of life. IOW, there's nothing at all naive about an non-interventionist policy.

In Regards to Dr. Paul's One Commitment, that commitment is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." That is the President's job description per the Constitution, that is the Oath the President will swear upon taking office, and any candidate who doesn't make this Oath the centerpiece of his campaign promises is not fit to President of a government subject to the Rule of Law, IMHO.

Fine, but unless you think that the constitution is completely immalleable (in other words, cannont be subjected to today's world) then it's naivity.

Iraq taking kuwait is a fine example. So we let it go, then saddam takes saudia arabia.

Is it okay? You have to answer the question. Is it okay to have one madman own most of the oil reserves in the world?

Do you think averting a global recession is part of "preserving, protecting and defending" the constitution? I do as it directly affects my family's welfare.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I can't figure out how this works.

Is it an "Alexa" type thing -- Ron Paul website traffic is pretty remarkable compared to the other candidates, if you've seen such a thing.

Basicly this website compares how many results google can find if you type in any word, name, etc.

Okay, here's what you've got to do:

1. Go to www.googlefight.com

2. Enter the name Ron Paul in the little box that says "Keyword #1".

3. Enter the name of any other candidate in the little box that says "Keyword #2".

Then click the button "FIGHT".

P.S.: If you compare the number of results found by google yesterday to the number of today, you can see that its gone up. - Roughlyy 1.5 million more results found than yesterday.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Arne

Basicly this website compares how many results google can find if you type in any word, name, etc.

Okay, here's what you've got to do:

1. Go to www.googlefight.com

2. Enter the name Ron Paul in the little box that says "Keyword #1".

3. Enter the name of any other candidate in the little box that says "Keyword #2".

Then click the button "FIGHT".

P.S.: If you compare the number of results found by google yesterday to the number of today, you can see that its gone up. - Roughlyy 1.5 million more results found than yesterday.

The number of results found by google has gone up once again. 6.7 million results more than yesterday!

[Ninkobei]

Dude, the World Bank is AWFUL for the world. do you realize how much money 3rd world contries owe it? They will never get their debt payed off. and in return the World Bank gets to decide what that countries exports are. so if america needs more juju bees they can order uganda (or whatever) to produce these juju bees instead of their usual wheat crops. crops they use to feed their own country. that forces "uganda" to import wheat from another one of the World Banks countries. at rediculously low prices, too. thus ensuring that countries who owe money cant make enough money to even cover their interest for the season. and the low prices also put local farmers (2-3 acre farms) out of business because they simply cannot compete price-wise.

YES the world would be a HELL of a lot better WITHOUT the world bank.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

Dude, the World Bank is AWFUL for the world. do you realize how much money 3rd world contries owe it? They will never get their debt payed off. and in return the World Bank gets to decide what that countries exports are. so if america needs more juju bees they can order uganda (or whatever) to produce these juju bees instead of their usual wheat crops. crops they use to feed their own country. that forces "uganda" to import wheat from another one of the World Banks countries. at rediculously low prices, too. thus ensuring that countries who owe money cant make enough money to even cover their interest for the season.

YES the world would be a HELL of a lot better WITHOUT the world bank.

that's one. But to be honest I just pulled that one out of my rear. I don't follow it that closely. My point of using it was to make clear that with a strict isolationist policy the aid we provide would also dry up.

[alexamenos]

dude --

a short break and a quick interlude.....

For me, many of the questions are a question of means, not of ends.

e.g., Should we combat aids in africa? or Should we combat aids in africa and if so, by what means?

If the means are "we should start by raising money through charitable contributions where free people can give of their own free will and volition", then I might be more in favor of spreading aids in africa.

but...if the means are "we should start by taking money from the pocket of a farmer from Iowa, regardless of what he may prefer to do with his money, and threaten him with prison if he fails to fork his money over", then I've a problem with the means.

The issue(s) really is that basic...sadly the left has all but drowned this basic issue out of the modern discourse by branding all those who argue against coerced *charity* as greedy bigots.

[alexamenos]

arne -- cool, thanks!

[chumdawg]

If you put quotes around Ron Paul, as in "Ron Paul," his numbers don't look near as good. Fred Thompson (with quotes) kicks his ass more than two to one.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

If you put quotes around Ron Paul, as in "Ron Paul," his numbers don't look near as good. Fred Thompson (with quotes) kicks his ass more than two to one.

Check again, right now it's 5.1 million results for "Ron Paul" against 4.1 million results for "Fred Thompson"...

[Mavdog]

in today's world, isolationism is about as feasible as alchemy. one can't turn lead into gold, and we can't act like we are an island seperate from the rest of the world.

switzerland isn't able to preserve its neutrality because it's isolationist, its neutrality has been preserved due to its banking system allowing any despot/criminal to keep their riches safe and out of the reach of anyone but the account holder.

so, in answer to the above questions...

no, america shouldn't use its military might to allow "the people to have cheaper gasoline". however, america should use its military might to preserve the flow of a critical commodity and maintain commerce that protects the american economic system.

no, the american people do not have a moral responsibility to spread liberal and secular values, however we, as does every person in the world, do have the right to speak out for individual human rights, and we have the right to use our military power to act and prevent a worldwide conflagulation that would produce a weaker american economic level, and hence a lower standard of living for all americans.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, america shouldn't use its military might to allow "the people to have cheaper gasoline". however, america should use its military might to preserve the flow of a critical commodity and maintain commerce that protects the american economic system.

How is the latter statement different from the first?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

How is the latter statement different from the first?

the latter says nothing at all about "cheap".

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the latter says nothing at all about "cheap".

so, the military shouldn't worry so much about keeping the price down, but just about keeping the supply up?

does that about sum it up?

if so, how is the latter different from the former?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

so, the military shouldn't worry so much about keeping the price down, but just about keeping the supply up?

does that about sum it up?

if so, how is the latter different from the former?

first, the supply is not gasoline, it is maintaining free trade. that would be the flow of oil through international waters.

the price of the refined product, gasoline, is set by the trade between buyer and seller.

the military shouldn't interject itself into the terms of a buy/sale transaction, hence they would not be using their might to guarantee"cheap gasoline".

hope that "sums it up"...

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

in today's world, isolationism is about as feasible as alchemy. one can't turn lead into gold, and we can't act like we are an island seperate from the rest of the world.

switzerland isn't able to preserve its neutrality because it's isolationist, its neutrality has been preserved due to its banking system allowing any despot/criminal to keep their riches safe and out of the reach of anyone but the account holder.

so, in answer to the above questions...

no, america shouldn't use its military might to allow "the people to have cheaper gasoline". however, america should use its military might to preserve the flow of a critical commodity and maintain commerce that protects the american economic system.

no, the american people do not have a moral responsibility to spread liberal and secular values, however we, as does every person in the world, do have the right to speak out for individual human rights, and we have the right to use our military power to act and prevent a worldwide conflagulation that would produce a weaker american economic level, and hence a lower standard of living for all americans.

Fine post mavie. Thank goodness the Democrat nominee also gets it as much as it pains me to think of President Hillary.