2012

[Kevin_Kennedy]

the thing that keeps me from looking at Paul more is that whole fair tax crap. I'm a big fan of the liberty aspect of his platform but I'm just not on board with a lot of his economic voodoo and packaged alternatives to income tax.

Paul's not necessarily a Fair Tax advocate. He's said before that he agrees with it on the merits that it at least eliminates income tax, but his true position is to reduce overall spending to levels that don't require even a Fair Tax, let alone an income tax.

If that's a deal breaker, then so be it. At least he's not an anarchist, right?

I hate to say it but the only person on the right side of the spectrum that I tend to agree with on global econ is Pat Buchannan. If only he weren't such a fucking dogma junkie.


The money must come from somewhere, dude. And, I really don't believe that it's a matter of simply reducing spending when the logical extension is to shut down necessary gov agencies. I'm just not willing to give up the FDA or the dept of labor. I don't think the dept of transportation would be a better deal if thrown to the wolves of capitalism. Sure... there is room to dry up the free for all and earmarks need to be regulated more but I get the sneaking suspicion that Paul talking points will affect us deeper than his election year appeal.

Well the biggest place he's looking to cut spending in would be foreign policy. He wouldn't try to get rid of every social program over night, and wouldn't be able to because Congress would likely block him regardless.

 

[Paulie]

the thing that keeps me from looking at Paul more is that whole fair tax crap. I'm a big fan of the liberty aspect of his platform but I'm just not on board with a lot of his economic voodoo and packaged alternatives to income tax.

Paul's not necessarily a Fair Tax advocate. He's said before that he agrees with it on the merits that it at least eliminates income tax, but his true position is to reduce overall spending to levels that don't require even a Fair Tax, let alone an income tax.

If that's a deal breaker, then so be it. At least he's not an anarchist, right?

I hate to say it but the only person on the right side of the spectrum that I tend to agree with on global econ is Pat Buchannan. If only he weren't such a fucking dogma junkie.


The money must come from somewhere, dude. And, I really don't believe that it's a matter of simply reducing spending when the logical extension is to shut down necessary gov agencies. I'm just not willing to give up the FDA or the dept of labor. I don't think the dept of transportation would be a better deal if thrown to the wolves of capitalism. Sure... there is room to dry up the free for all and earmarks need to be regulated more but I get the sneaking suspicion that Paul talking points will affect us deeper than his election year appeal.

Paul recognizes that congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, as per the constitution. The FDA would fall into that distinction, I would presume. If Paul doesn't agree (which I don't think is the case), then that's where he and I would part on political belief.

Transportation...I don't actually know his position on that, it's not something he mentions NEARLY as in detail as his other positions, namely Education. I agree with him on education. Our government is chock full of morons, and I don't trust my child's education to them. I'd sooner home school my kid if I actually had the financial ability to do so. But I DEFINITELY favor private school over public. The government has an incentive for us to be dumber, so we can be manipulated easier. The private sector would lose profit if the private schools weren't producing better results as time went on.

As far as the dept. of labor, I believe his primary beef is the minimum wage. I'd much rather not get into THAT debate, there's been other threads if we really want to take it there.

 

[Shogun]

yea see.. thats where Paul and I part ways. I don't think crucifying the dept of education for the sake of private educations will amount to a hill of beans once the overcrowding switches from public to private. The only thing keeping privates from being just as bad as public is the saturation of kids needing education in public schools. Once privates become saturated and their resources become just as thin we'll see the exact same poor performance in privates.

and the min wage? Again, I disagree. We NEED a minimum wage. Especially in an age of global sellouts who would rather pay a Mexican pauper than maintain an American standard of living. if we didn't have a wage standard we'd find ourselves just as abused as Mexico's laughable class structure.

 

[Paulie]

I wish I had more friends in real life that were willing to discuss these kinds of issues at length. When I join up with meetup groups its all like-minded people and there's no debate...they all already agree with me

I think that's why I come here as often as I do.

In real life it's always 'no politics please'.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Paul/Ventura 2012!

And their campaign slogan will be:

"Bat shit fuckin' crazy for all these years!"

Seriously folks, how in the hell can you possibly think that "My Favorite Martian" and Jesse "Crazy as all get out" Ventura would make a viable team?

The very notion is asinine.

 

[Polk]

yeah, i doubt at 75-76 years old when the next election comes youre gonna see ron paul again.

Paul just runs to be a gadfly. Age only matters if you think you can win/care about winning.

 

[Polk]

You'll base your vote on someone who has done absolutely nothing.
That's rich!
Seriously, you're one of the reasons as to why voters should be given IQ tests before being registered.

Can you name a credible republican candidate?

Its going to be ugly in 2012, with another Obama landslide. You don't even have a candidate as good as John McCain this time

Romney isn't a bad candidate, but he is not likely to be elected. If only he was a Muslim rather than a Mormon, he might have a chance. Seriously though, the Republicans are going to have a very rough ride. My guess is that Huckabee will get the nomination in the end, and he'll lose in another landslide to Obama.

My first choice, Jeb Bush, will still be unelectable in 2012. Assuming Obama is re-elected, Jeb may have a good shot in 2016. He still is the best hope for the Republican Party at the moment, but someone else may come along between now and 2016.

While I don't agree with him on much of anything, I don't think Jeb would do a bad job. At the very least, he's competent.

 

[Polk]

I'll tell you what..

You run Paul/ Ventura

and we will run Franken/Michael Moore

We will still kick your ass in 2012

You're on... Jesse Venture will kick Franken and Moores collective Liberal asses half-way to France. Ron Paul would make one hell of a President.

Paul doesn't even make a good Congressman

Ventura was a laughingstock in Minnesota

I disagree. Paul's just the sort of two-faced Congressman Americans love.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Can you name a credible republican candidate?

Its going to be ugly in 2012, with another Obama landslide. You don't even have a candidate as good as John McCain this time

Romney isn't a bad candidate, but he is not likely to be elected. If only he was a Muslim rather than a Mormon, he might have a chance. Seriously though, the Republicans are going to have a very rough ride. My guess is that Huckabee will get the nomination in the end, and he'll lose in another landslide to Obama.

My first choice, Jeb Bush, will still be unelectable in 2012. Assuming Obama is re-elected, Jeb may have a good shot in 2016. He still is the best hope for the Republican Party at the moment, but someone else may come along between now and 2016.

While I don't agree with him on much of anything, I don't think Jeb would do a bad job. At the very least, he's competent.

You know.......after seeing how much more competent Jeb was than Curious George, I wondered why the fuck Bush Sr. pushed for Jr. instead of Jeb?

If they truly wanted a dynasty between the Bush's and the Clinton's, they should have elected Jeb first.

Shit........if Jeb would have been president instead, maybe this country wouldn't be in the piss poor shape that it's been in for the past 8 years.

 

[Polk]

Paul's not necessarily a Fair Tax advocate. He's said before that he agrees with it on the merits that it at least eliminates income tax, but his true position is to reduce overall spending to levels that don't require even a Fair Tax, let alone an income tax.

If that's a deal breaker, then so be it. At least he's not an anarchist, right?

I hate to say it but the only person on the right side of the spectrum that I tend to agree with on global econ is Pat Buchannan. If only he weren't such a fucking dogma junkie.


The money must come from somewhere, dude. And, I really don't believe that it's a matter of simply reducing spending when the logical extension is to shut down necessary gov agencies. I'm just not willing to give up the FDA or the dept of labor. I don't think the dept of transportation would be a better deal if thrown to the wolves of capitalism. Sure... there is room to dry up the free for all and earmarks need to be regulated more but I get the sneaking suspicion that Paul talking points will affect us deeper than his election year appeal.

Well the biggest place he's looking to cut spending in would be foreign policy. He wouldn't try to get rid of every social program over night, and wouldn't be able to because Congress would likely block him regardless.

Other than cutting military spending, there isn't a lot of area to cut foreign policy spending.

 

[Polk]

Romney isn't a bad candidate, but he is not likely to be elected. If only he was a Muslim rather than a Mormon, he might have a chance. Seriously though, the Republicans are going to have a very rough ride. My guess is that Huckabee will get the nomination in the end, and he'll lose in another landslide to Obama.

My first choice, Jeb Bush, will still be unelectable in 2012. Assuming Obama is re-elected, Jeb may have a good shot in 2016. He still is the best hope for the Republican Party at the moment, but someone else may come along between now and 2016.

While I don't agree with him on much of anything, I don't think Jeb would do a bad job. At the very least, he's competent.

You know.......after seeing how much more competent Jeb was than Curious George, I wondered why the fuck Bush Sr. pushed for Jr. instead of Jeb?

If they truly wanted a dynasty between the Bush's and the Clinton's, they should have elected Jeb first.

Shit........if Jeb would have been president instead, maybe this country wouldn't be in the piss poor shape that it's been in for the past 8 years.

I think Jeb was always seen as the future president. The problem was that Jeb lost to Chiles in 1994, meaning that by the time he got in office in 1999, it was too soon to pivot to a presidential campaign.

 

[Paulie]

I hate to say it but the only person on the right side of the spectrum that I tend to agree with on global econ is Pat Buchannan. If only he weren't such a fucking dogma junkie.


The money must come from somewhere, dude. And, I really don't believe that it's a matter of simply reducing spending when the logical extension is to shut down necessary gov agencies. I'm just not willing to give up the FDA or the dept of labor. I don't think the dept of transportation would be a better deal if thrown to the wolves of capitalism. Sure... there is room to dry up the free for all and earmarks need to be regulated more but I get the sneaking suspicion that Paul talking points will affect us deeper than his election year appeal.

Well the biggest place he's looking to cut spending in would be foreign policy. He wouldn't try to get rid of every social program over night, and wouldn't be able to because Congress would likely block him regardless.

Other than cutting military spending, there isn't a lot of area to cut foreign policy spending.

Do we really need to be in almost 200 countries?

Do we really need to pay-off so-called allies for their cooperation, especially considering a good many of them end up stabbing us in the back in the end anyway?

In fact, do we really need to spend our hard earned tax dollars on ANYONE else besides us right now? We're having a hard enough time paying for what even the LIBERALS want to spend on, let alone only what conservatives want to spend on...and we're throwing money at foreign "allies" to get them to accept our increasingly less attractive Dollar in trade, and so we can expand our international military empire.

There's hundreds of BILLIONS that can be cut from the defense budget that wouldn't negatively affect our national security. Some people just haven't been able to come to that realization yet.

Turning off the fucking TV for once, might help.

 

[rightwinger]

Romney isn't a bad candidate, but he is not likely to be elected. If only he was a Muslim rather than a Mormon, he might have a chance. Seriously though, the Republicans are going to have a very rough ride. My guess is that Huckabee will get the nomination in the end, and he'll lose in another landslide to Obama.

My first choice, Jeb Bush, will still be unelectable in 2012. Assuming Obama is re-elected, Jeb may have a good shot in 2016. He still is the best hope for the Republican Party at the moment, but someone else may come along between now and 2016.

While I don't agree with him on much of anything, I don't think Jeb would do a bad job. At the very least, he's competent.

You know.......after seeing how much more competent Jeb was than Curious George, I wondered why the fuck Bush Sr. pushed for Jr. instead of Jeb?

If they truly wanted a dynasty between the Bush's and the Clinton's, they should have elected Jeb first.

Shit........if Jeb would have been president instead, maybe this country wouldn't be in the piss poor shape that it's been in for the past 8 years.

I think Daddy Bush's biggest disappointment was that Jeb did not get to be President. You could sense in Bush's second term that his parents were embarassed by him. They stopped defending him and just dropped out of the picture

 

[foggedinn]

First repeal the two term constitutional limit.

William Jefferson Clinton/Newt Gingrich in 2012.

 

[ABikerSailor]

First repeal the two term constitutional limit.

William Jefferson Clinton/Newt Gingrich in 2012.

You know.....that actually sounds like a decent ticket.

 

[ddye]

I ain't talking about the Mayan predictions, I'm talking about the elections.

Who would you all vote for? Obama? Or some Republican? Third Party? If Republican or Independant, who?

Who would make the best president in 2012?

Hillary, but I guess I'll vote for Obama again. I supported Obama, but I have always thought that Hillary would be a potentially great President.

Doug