Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, I refered to EllaTea who talked about her "impression" of him as a person.
Why is that?
Why do you categorically refuse to argue against his stand points in the issues?
Why do you, instead of making any kind of argument at all, make an outrageous claim to predict the future? Are you a prophet who knows now what the future will be?
Who do you KNOW will be the next president? You claim to possess such knowledge, so please tell us all who it will be, not only who it will NOT be! You prophet...
Relax Champ. Your posts are the most dramatic I've seen in awhile. When did I "categorically refuse" anything.
Anyone who knows anything about American politics knows he can't be elected. He doesn't have either side of the political machine backing him. He doesn't have any mainstream media on his side. Including conservative media. He isn't even taken serious in the debates.
Romney and Newt are making attack ads against each other. They don't even bother to attack Paul, because he isn't a serious threat.
His own party isn't backing him. He would be an absolute lame duck President. His extreme ideas would die in the senate and congress, even if both were Republican majority, which they probably wouldn't be.
My posts aren't prophecy, they are common sense.
I thought Ralph Nader and Ross Perot had some good ideas, but so what. They weren't accepted by the political machine and therefore had no chance to be elected.
Definitely agree on Ron Paul. I respect him as a person, but his policies would be disastrous. You don't take a hatchet where a surgical scapal is required. Ron Paul is an idealist to the extreme;
Like rule of law. Abiding by the constitution. Yeah, all that stuff which mass murdering dictators have been advocating all troughout history. Duuh!!!
Quote:
winding down federal agencies sounds great in theory until you realize how many jobs are tied to the federal government.
Government bureaucrats are mostly very well educated and capable persons. But their job today is to FORBID other people to produce stuff! All those people would be a great infusion for the industry if they were let go from the government.
Quote:
Giving more authority to states sounds great until you realize how inefficient it becomes to do business when each state enacts varying levels of laws and regulations.
Well, the whole federation is a chaotic mess of different regulations already. Having states compete against each other would only promote freedome and prosperity. The only reason why Europe became the hom of freedome and industry, was because it was divided. The most free government got the greatest prosperity, so all other despots had to follow that example, or be overrun.
Quote:
He talks about the glory days before the Federal Reserve, but fails to mention the panics of the 1890's that predated the ability to stablize inflation or deflation with monetary policy.
The panics in the 19th century were very short lived. And they were caused by the fact that the economy back then depended very heavily on agrigulture, which in turned depended on forecasts of the weather. The "depression" of 1921" is mostly unheard of today, because it went away so quickly. But the keynesian depression of 1929-1945 is infamous.
Quote:
We need to make government work, not bury it.
It is impossible to make it work! It's like saying that crime is good, if only we make it work...
I think Mitt Romney wrote those newsletter!
At least I can claim that Mitt Romney wrote those newsletters. What would Mitt Romney do about this my claim? Say that he didn't? Well then, what if no one ever again asked him any other question than: "Did you write those news letters!?"
- New Media Man: Hi Romeny. Now, did you wrote those news letters?
- Romney: no.
- But did you write them?
- No
- Did you write them?
- No
- Did you write them?
- No
- Did you write them?
- No
- Did you write them?
- No
- Did you write them?
- No
- Did you write them?
- No
- Did you write them?
- No
- Did you write them?
- No
- Thank you for your time and all your elaborate explanations of your stand on the issues! And by the way, my conclusion is that it WAS Mitt Romney who wrote those newsletters which were published in the name of Ron Paul 20 years ago!
Anyone who knows anything about American politics knows he can't be elected.
I do have the advantage of "not knowing" how American politics work. But so do most voters, I think. They individually kinda believe that they can vote for anyone the want!
Quote:
He doesn't have either side of the political machine backing him. He doesn't have any mainstream media on his side. Including conservative media. He isn't even taken serious in the debates.
Same thing was said about Boris Jeltsin in 1990. He had no leading position in the communist party. He did not control Pravda. The military industrial complex did not like him. The general secretary did not like him.
But Oops, then he stopped a tank and declared the end of the communist party and the end of the federation! And he could do this because the government was completely bankrupt and had no confidence any more. Recognize that situation you guys over there? Or will it take a bit deeper **** still for you to understand what you're dealing with here???
Quote:
Romney and Newt are making attack ads against each other. They don't even bother to attack Paul, because he isn't a serious threat.
No one attacks Ron Paul, because there's nothing to attack! No one dares to be the liar and claim that Ron Paul is wrong on anything.
Quote:
His own party isn't backing him. He would be an absolute lame duck President.
He, and any president, doesn't need "the party". He needs the people to support him.
The peace man has Ron Paul fever, but Dport7674 is right about him not being able to get anything done if he won. A president has to be able to work with both parties. Newt and Romney seem to have the better track record on working with the other side, that's why they get hated on so much by others in the GOP. Romney has the most of this type of experience under his belt being a republican governor of a state like Massachusetts.
The republicans will not work with Obama at all, so the question is will we be better off with Romney as president if he can work with the democrats to get things done, and getting things done is what is needed. I like his pitch about forcing China to play a fair game and stop holding their currency artificially low, we need to take a turn in the road with the way we deal with China. In the economics section there is a thread about how some states are now taking bids from chinese contractors to build infrastructure projects like roads and bridges. Good grief, the OWS people should be moving like a storm cloud on that. Romney may not be considered a conservative by his own party, but I find his views about illegal immigration and border security very conservative and refreshing.
Newt may be the better debater, but I remember well the feuding and gridlock between he and Clinton and the government shut down in the mid 90's leading to him getting booted out as speaker of the house. He seems to be a clever man, but also seems a bit "tricky" to me, in a Nixon sort of way. I don't think he is going to play nice with others should he become president.
I do wish all the candidates on the right would stop pushing these stupid flat tax plans on us. We all know they are skewed to shift tax burden off to the poor, and yes, we all know republicans do not intend to pay one nickel extra to pay for the 2008 recession caused by wall street, so they need to quit rubbing it in with these retarded tax schemes. If they want corporate taxes lowered then they need to warm up to the idea of personal income taxes of high income people raised to compensate for the loss of revenue. The bottom 90% have paid and paid over the last 3 years, doing nothing but losing all the way. I don't care if people call me a communist but god dammit, the rich haven't paid a dime extra for this mess 3 years into it. Give up your freaking 2% Bush tax cut......*******s !
Hope this is Caucus enough for you, Mr Mod, without being too broad in scope for you.
Like rule of law. Abiding by the constitution. Yeah, all that stuff which mass murdering dictators have been advocating all troughout history. Duuh!!!
Government bureaucrats are mostly very well educated and capable persons. But their job today is to FORBID other people to produce stuff! All those people would be a great infusion for the industry if they were let go from the government.
Please explain, because you are not making much sense. How do they forbid people to produce "stuff?"
Well, the whole federation is a chaotic mess of different regulations already. Having states compete against each other would only promote freedome and prosperity. The only reason why Europe became the hom of freedome and industry, was because it was divided. The most free government got the greatest prosperity, so all other despots had to follow that example, or be overrun.
Having states compete with each other would promote overlap and inefficiency. A perfect example is emission standards, CAFE, and the automotive industry. It is bad enough that California's CARB has its own more stringent set of requirements beyond the EPA standard, which means manufacturers must design for the federal baseline and retune to CARB standards for vehicles sold in California. In 2008 a number of states were proposing to develop a third standard, to the chagrin of every major automaker, and eventually it was agreed upon to improve the federal standard for lower emissions and higher fuel economy, which led to CAFE 2025. It is inefficent and cost prohibitive to have multiple standards.
The panics in the 19th century were very short lived. And they were caused by the fact that the economy back then depended very heavily on agrigulture, which in turned depended on forecasts of the weather. The "depression" of 1921" is mostly unheard of today, because it went away so quickly. But the keynesian depression of 1929-1945 is infamous.
Short lived? Unemployment throughout most of the 1890's was above 10%. America did not begin to recover until 1898. The panics were caused by instability in metals production and overbuilding of the railroads, in addition to agricultural commodities. Until creation of the Federal Reserve, there was no oversight of banks to prevent them from loaning out too much money they didn't have, leading to bank runs. Most mainstream economists agree that the inability to inflate or deflate currency prolongs recessions. We left a 100% fixed gold standard because it was too unstable and too unpredictable. Great Britian left the gold standard in 1931 and recovered from the Great Depression much faster than the US did.
see above
Last edited by mustang84; 12-22-2011 at 11:45 PM..
I think Mitt Romney wrote those newsletter!
At least I can claim that Mitt Romney wrote those newsletters. What would Mitt Romney do about this my claim? Say that he didn't? Well then, what if no one ever again asked him any other question than: "Did you write those news letters!?"
- New Media Man: Hi Romeny. Now, did you wrote those news letters?
- Romney: no.
- But did you write them?
- No
- Did you write them?
- No
- Did you write them?
- No
- Did you write them?
- No
- Did you write them?
- No
- Did you write them?
- No
- Did you write them?
- No
- Did you write them?
- No
- Did you write them?
- No
- Thank you for your time and all your elaborate explanations of your stand on the issues! And by the way, my conclusion is that it WAS Mitt Romney who wrote those newsletters which were published in the name of Ron Paul 20 years ago!
Ron Paul profited from these newsletters to the tune of $1 million dollars; per his 1996 interview with the Dallas News, he knew of their content. I realize his views may have tamed in latter years, but these ramblings are enough to make me question his underlying values. Whether or not he directly wrote them, he is clearly listed as the publisher and therefore he takes full responsibility for their content.
I like Dr. Paul's ideas but I question how he can make them work, so I'm not sold 100% on him. That being said, I don't see any other candidate - our current president included - offering anything other than the salme old thing that history has proven to not work.
I may go to the caucus after all just to support Ron Paul. I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell of being elected, but I'm tired of contributing to the problem instead of working toward the solution.
I realize his views may have tamed in latter years, but these ramblings are enough to make me question his underlying values. Whether or not he directly wrote them, he is clearly listed as the publisher and therefore he takes full responsibility for their content.
What kind of indication that Ron Paul EVER held any of those views, are available, outside of those newsletter which he didn't write? When ever did he say anything to that effect? Is there even one single example?
Why? It's Mitt Romney who wrote those newsletters.
It would be comletely absurd to claim that Mitt Romney wrote Ron Paul's newsletters in the early 1990s. I mean, there's no connection at all!
But so what?
One can make an outrageous claim. It gets attention. It's a question one could ask Mitt Romney every time he's in interview. Actually, it is the ONLY question which he should ever be asked: Mitt Romney, did you write Ron Paul's news letter 20 years ago? No! Did you write them? No! Did you? No! Did you... Thank you for your time to clarify your stand on the issues! I as a reporter conclude that Mitt Romney definitely did write Ron Paul's news letters 20 years ago!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
