Will 2012 be an incredibly cynical election?
- Thread starter Yevetha
- Start date
Yevetha
Commodore
Not in a mood to play legislative lottery, write down what he had done.
Nerys posted:
He was his campaing advisor.
Since you're just being lazy at this point, how would you like him to read it to you in a soothing voice?
Yevetha certainly isn't going to try and learn anything. That would get in the way of making inane and baseless assertions.
Yevetha
Commodore
Just put it up on youtube and i will watch it.
Seriously legislation does not necessarily equal actual results.
So gay peole are still not allowed to be openly gay in the military and children are still being denied coverage despite legislation being passed?
I'd like to say two things about this. First, drug policy is hardly on anybody's agenda during the worst depression since the thirties. Second, it would take anybody with some basic knowledge about economics ten minutes to expose Paul's Austrian economics 'back to gold' nonsense as intellectual fraud and highly dangerous if it were actually implemented.
Let me try to do it in one. Because no central bank can control the price of gold as well like it can control the price of fiat money and because a hard money, 100% reserve system converts banks into big safes and eliminates loans. Good luck financing something like a house or an education via emitting bonds as John Doe, good luck financing a small-scale one til ten man enterprise via emitting bonds.
Once the gold libertarians can explain how an economy without loans does not destroy the financeability of many efficient investment projects I will take them seriously.
Nowhere Man
Commodore
Wait a minute, you think it's ok for the US. to aggressively invade a country in order to exploit it's resources and if the President didn't want to do that, he/she should be impeached or shot?
That's the kind of foreign policy you advocate?
Realizing how a situation will play out and advocating it are two distinctively different things.
No, what he's clearly saying (and what he actually wrote) is, that Paul as president would be impotent to prevent such an invasion if it's critical for US interests even if he wanted to and would lead the charge to ensure his position in power as the career politician he is.
Nowhere Man
Commodore
Where has he ever advocated that? You're placing things on Paul that simply aren't true and extremely disingenuous and unfair. He has not advocated that and has stood firmly against such policies. I could make up things about what I think Obama may or may not do, but it would be purely speculative and completely unfair to attack him on a policy he's neither advocated nor hinted that he would even be in favor of.
So you think that Ron Paul would let a population of 320 million starve if there wasn't fuel to move food around?
You have an even lower opinion of him than I do...
Here's a clue. When the word "if" is used, most usually pick up that it is a speculative statement.
I'm sorry, I'm not going to do all the work for you.
You asked a question, you got an answer. Man the fuck up and read.
I have always enjoyed watching the U.S. Presidential elections. It's nice being on the outside and being able to look in. It does boggle my mind; the intense polarization that has occurred in U.S. politics. Everything now is really left and really right. We are starting to see that up here as well.
Nowhere Man
Commodore
I don't think that Ron Paul would let people starve. I do think there are other ways to get resources from other countries other than full scale invasion. One way is to you know, negotiate, make treaties and trade agreements. There are other sources of energy as well that Ron Paul has advocated.
The energy crisis is already here, we just have been fortunate enough to feel it as bad as other countries have. There are solutions that don't include more wars.
Yevetha
Commodore
Bush was probably for these things more or less. Probably afraid of ending Don't ask Don't Tell because of his base.
horatio posted:
I think he wants to go back to the gold standard via presidential order or anything like that so no reason to worry.
Squiggy posted:
I only get answers by clicking instead of these things being under eachother. Don't be lazy, write down his accoplishments. Don't worry, its not a long list.
I am not worrying about anything, I am just taking the 'back to gold hard money nonsense' apart. About "presidential order" you certainly cannot go back to gold without passing the respective laws in Congress.
Ron Paul isn't a bad guy. He has spoken out against the large budget deficits of Reagan in times when this joke of a POTUS has even been respected by Democrats and his isolationism is welcome when the US military budget increases under Bush as well as Obama.
But the notion that the government is always the problem, that returning to the gold standards would be of any use and that social security is bad whilst the unemployment rate is nearly double-digit is more than just questionable.
People have ample reason to be pissed off about Obama. Drone attacks, Gitmo is still open, executive killings are now possible, no decent deficit spending during a liquidity trap, the guy doesn't do good things. But as we all should know, the job of citizens in a democracy is not to elect the right guy into office but to make the guy in office do the right things via pressure from the streets. Nixon has been a staunch anti-liberal yet as Chomsky (another libertarian) rightly pointed out, he was the last liberal POTUS.
Ron Paul isn't a bad guy. He has spoken out against the large budget deficits of Reagan in times when this joke of a POTUS has even been respected by Democrats and his isolationism is welcome when the US military budget increases under Bush as well as Obama.
But the notion that the government is always the problem, that returning to the gold standards would be of any use and that social security is bad whilst the unemployment rate is nearly double-digit is more than just questionable.
People have ample reason to be pissed off about Obama. Drone attacks, Gitmo is still open, executive killings are now possible, no decent deficit spending during a liquidity trap, the guy doesn't do good things. But as we all should know, the job of citizens in a democracy is not to elect the right guy into office but to make the guy in office do the right things via pressure from the streets. Nixon has been a staunch anti-liberal yet as Chomsky (another libertarian) rightly pointed out, he was the last liberal POTUS.
What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't matter what Bush "might" have done. Obama did it and it is currently getting results. Obama does continue some of Bush's policies and started some that Bush never would. But that really doesn't matter, you asked about Obama and I gave you the answer. I don't know why you want to go off on some tangent about Bush. Why not Reagan or Lincoln? Neither of those guys are President anymore, what would have they thought about it since we're leaving reality and heading to Fantasy Land.
Nah. I'm done feeding you. Do some damned research.