Yeah! F#~# the Supercommittee!
Here in NH, I hooked up the Socialist Alternative kids who wanted to protest the Supercommittee with the Occupy NH folks and than played hooky from their rally to run my party through The Feast of Ravenmoor!
'Cos I got priorities!
Cain, Paul, Romney, Gingrich in Dead Heat in Iowa
Really? That's interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jewish GOP group: Ron Paul too extreme for our forumWell, yeah. He wants to cut off all military aid to Israel, while that forum which is dedicated to the candidates avowing military support for Israel. What's he going to do, go to the Republican Jewish Coalition just to get booed off the stage?
He'd do it!
I need to register as a republican this time so i get a chance to vote for this guy.
He'd do it!And that's why he's not welcome.
He's not welcome because he's willing to be booed off the stage for the chance to connect with voters not immediately sympathetic to his ideas?
He's not welcome because he's willing to be booed off the stage for the chance to connect with voters not immediately sympathetic to his ideas?He's not welcome because it's a single-issue forum, and he's on the opposite side of the issue. Does are you terribly surprised that the Republican Jewish Coalition isn't interested in hearing counterarguments about militarily supporting Israel?
No, but it's nonetheless unfortunate. All single issue voters befuddle me, frankly.
No, but it's nonetheless unfortunate. All single issue voters befuddle me, frankly.
Well, when you think you've been given something by god you might go a fair bit further to attain and hold onto it than you otherwise might.
Its not just Christianity and Islam that can make someone a little...focused on some things.
I wonder if polytheists have this problem.
All single issue voters befuddle me, frankly.For example, small-government voters? Austrian-economics voters? Gold-standard voters?
Yep, those people as well, if they're reduced to a boolean question, which they frequently are not.
I only care about abortion and gay marriage. God is judging us. I don't want to be on the wrong side after I die. That would suck.
I need to register as a republican this time so i get a chance to vote for this guy.
The deadline here in Colorado is 12-7-2011. I'm hoping to encourage some anti war independents and Dems to do just that prior to our caucuses.
Jewish GOP group: Ron Paul too extreme for our forum
This may be the one thing that keeps him from getting elected, truth be told.
Not at all surprised he dropped out. Am a little disappointed, though.
Not at all surprised he dropped out. Am a little disappointed, though.
If the allegations are false then I'm disappointed as well because it's a victory for character assassination and the politics of personal destruction.
If the allegations are true I wish he would have handled it better, but I still have policy issues with him in any case.
Allegations, schmallegations. Cain had no political campaign on the ground whatsoever, so the "Cain Train" didn't have any tracks. There are a lot of conspiracy theories about this, but I just generally favor the theory that he was an inexperienced dingbat who really didn't know what he was doing.If the allegations are false then I'm disappointed as well because it's a victory for character assassination and the politics of personal destruction.
If the allegations are true I wish he would have handled it better, but I still have policy issues with him in any case.
I don't know if it's a conspiracy theory, but I favor the idea that he was just in it to raise publicity for his book and pundit career. It got out of hand because the rest of the field is so horrible. At the height of his popularity he did start to put together a ground campaign, I believe, but then he started to implode.
The original sexual harassment charges long predated his campaign and are well documented. Well-documented in that the allegations were made and got large settlements, not necessarily that the allegations were well-supported.
Assuming there's any truth to the original allegations there were bound to be more. No one harasses only 3 women and has all of them take legal action. With a pattern like that, there were bound to be some successful attempts and some that just kept quiet.
Provide quotation?
Time-saving SPOILER: Mitt Romney gets GOP nomination and loses to Obama in the general election.
We can only hope it isn't so; Vote Paul, Vote peace,freedom, and prosperity!
Don't be cattle! Vote for peace!!!!!
You choose!!!!!
If nothing else changes, fight against endless war!
Provide quotation?[
I don't know if it's a conspiracy theory, but I favor the idea that he was just in it to raise publicity for his book and pundit career. It got out of hand because the rest of the field is so horrible. At the height of his popularity he did start to put together a ground campaign, I believe, but then he started to implode.
The original sexual harassment charges long predated his campaign and are well documented. Well-documented in that the allegations were made and got large settlements, not necessarily that the allegations were well-supported.
Assuming there's any truth to the original allegations there were bound to be more. No one harasses only 3 women and has all of them take legal action. With a pattern like that, there were bound to be some successful attempts and some that just kept quiet.
For which part?
The running as a publicity stunt? Purely theory and noted as such/
Or that the National Restaurant Association had settled sexual harassment charges against him? Even Cain doesn't deny this, though he denies the allegations. Also, I was slightly off. There are 4 accusers and at least 2 settlements paid. I'm not sure if the other 2 were settled or not.
Or that the pattern was bound to continue. Simple logic. You'll note that I did say "Assuming there's any truth to the original allegations".
OK, all of the above.
Fearful establishment: Iowa doesnt matter
What will be next? Winning the primary doesnt matter? First term doesnt matter?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ron paul can't matter. Because then it would show what a genuinely conservative government is supposed to look like, and people will start to ask why the BLEEEP republicans weren't doing all that before
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No matter how many helpful comments I make in this thread, my dot always disappears!
I think Ron Paul knows about me and the shovel...
EDIT: Good, I got my dot back.
hahahhahaha I still have weird lucid dreams about a Golarian goblin, Ron Paul, and the shovel. And for some reason, Han Solo is there sometimes too.
I have a hard time believing anyone who says reducing the government right now will improve the economy. The government is the single largest employer in the country with 2 million employees (not counting the postal service). Reducing the size of government means laying off government workers. These are going to be people without jobs and if there is not a plan in place to re-employ them (and other unemployed people) our economy will only shrink.
Lower taxes could lead to long-term growth, but that's looking very long term, like 10+ years and there must already be forces at work encouraging growth. In the mean time, massive government layoffs would shrink the economy because unemployment would increase, reducing demand, leading to private sector layoffs, reducing demand, leading to government cuts, reducing demand...
I would generally agree that reducing the size of government is a good thing, but right now it is not an economic plan for recovery.
Also he's wrong about inflation. Inflation is something that is going to happen no matter what we do, it's always happened and will always continue to happen. We can try to manage it, but it isn't a "new" problem created by the Federal Reserve.
He also opposes government regulation of the financial markets. Unregulated financial markets are what caused the recession. I highly recommend watching The Warning[, a Frontline piece about a federal regulator who predicted the financial crisis and what would cause it back in the mid 90's. I also recommend reading All the Devils are Here as they layout specific details on the financial crisis, who did what and when. It's very informative and breaks down a lot of the terms very well.
The credit derivatives market was a black box, companies didn't have to publicly disclose their exposure to risk and the kinds of deals they were making so no one had any idea how far banks and institutions were leveraged. Especially things like synthetic CDO's, which were basically created out of thin air. This is exactly what deregulation looks like, we don't have to guess, this market was completely unregulated, this isn't hypothetical.
The ratings agencies are already unregulated, in fact the laws already rely on them even though we as the public have no influence in them. There are no standards for how they do their work and the market influences that control them do not encourage a high standard of work. They are paid by the institutions that they rate. Goldman-Sachs pays them to give their company/deals/investments a rating, if the ratings agency doesn't give a rating Goldman doesn't like, they go to the competitor that gives a better rating.
We already know what deregulation looks like, we don't have to guess.
Ron Paul is a reactionary paper tiger.
All hail Grandfather Pei Thought!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Qualified praise from the commies at Counterpunch.
@White Knife: Han Solo? I missed that before! You're a weirdo!
Didn't Ron Paul just sign on to one of those personhood pledge things? Doesn't seem very libertarian to me...
Libertarians aren't against laws where one person harms another. If you consider the fetus a person (something that needs its own thread if it needs to be discussed at all) then there's no inconsistency between libertarian values and person-hood pledges.
Also as an old school states rights advocate, paul's likely to punt on the issue and send it back to the states anyway.
|
Didn't Ron Paul just sign on to one of those personhood pledge things? Doesn't seem very libertarian to me...Libertarians aren't against laws where one person harms another. If you consider the fetus a person (something that needs its own thread if it needs to be discussed at all) then there's no inconsistency between libertarian values and person-hood pledges.
Also as an old school states rights advocate, paul's likely to punt on the issue and send it back to the states anyway.
It seems to me that it would be intellectually dishonest for him (a trained doctor) to consider a fetus a person. And it was a full-on no abortion (including rape, incest, mother's life, etc.) pledge. Again, not very libertarian.
It seems to me that it would be intellectually dishonest for him (a trained doctor) to consider a fetus a person.Didn't Ron Paul just sign on to one of those personhood pledge things? Doesn't seem very libertarian to me...Libertarians aren't against laws where one person harms another. If you consider the fetus a person (something that needs its own thread if it needs to be discussed at all) then there's no inconsistency between libertarian values and person-hood pledges.
Also as an old school states rights advocate, paul's likely to punt on the issue and send it back to the states anyway.
Its a philosophical or religious decision, not medical. Medicine can enter into it depending on whether you care about fertilization, implantation, heart beat, brain function, consciousness, or viability outside of the womb, but there's no medical justification for any particular position.
And it was a full-on no abortion (including rape, incest, mother's life, etc.) pledge. Again, not very libertarian.
Found it!
I __________________ proclaim that every human being is created in the image and likeness of God, and is endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right to life.
I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting “the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,” and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I “support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”
I believe that in order to properly protect the right to life of the vulnerable among us, every human being at every stage of development must be recognized as a person possessing the right to life in federal and state laws without exception and without compromise. I recognize that in cases where a mother’s life is at risk, every effort should be made to save the baby’s life as well; leaving the death of an innocent child as an unintended tragedy rather than an intentional killing.
I oppose assisted suicide, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and procedures that intentionally destroy developing human beings.
I pledge to the American people that I will defend all innocent human life. Abortion and the intentional killing of an innocent human being are always wrong and should be prohibited.
If elected President, I will work to advance state and federal laws and amendments that recognize the unalienable right to life of all human beings as persons at every stage of development, and to the best of my knowledge, I will only appoint federal judges and relevant officials who will uphold and enforce state and federal laws recognizing that all human beings at every stage of development are persons with the unalienable right to life.
So rape exception no, life of the mother exception yes (mostly).
|
|
Its a philosophical or religious decision, not medical. Medicine can enter into it depending on whether you care about fertilization, implantation, heart beat, brain function, consciousness, or viability outside of the womb, but there's no medical justification for any particular position.
It's very much a medical decision. If history shows that a fetus at a certain gestational age can reasonably be expected to live if delivered (between 22-24 weeks), then it is a person. There reaches a certain point where a vast majority of doctors (something like 95%) will not even attempt to resuscitate. The 5% who would would do so no matter what. Considering that doctors have an obligation to save people's lives and a vast majority of them won't even try at a certain point, I believe we have a point at which we can reasonably say that a fetus is not yet a person.
So rape exception no, life of the mother exception yes (mostly).
So if a 12 year old girl is raped and impregnated by her father she has to bear and raise that child? Umm...that's pretty f%&!ed up...certainly not a position the president of a secular nation needs to be taking.
The lack of support for embryonic stem cell research is equally disturbing. We are already losing some of the best and brightest scientists in the field to other countries (Singapore being the most common). We are essentially experiencing the "brain drain" commonly seen in socialist countries...except with scientists. Americans (as a general rule) suck enough at the sciences...do we really need to be forcing the few scientists we do have out?
o if a 12 year old girl is raped and impregnated by her father she has to bear and raise that child? Umm...that's pretty f~+$ed up...certainly not a position the president of a secular nation needs to be taking.
I agree that either requiring them to bear or raise the kid is messed up. However there's nothing in the pledge that prevents the mother from dropping the kid off somewhere.
You can't drop the kid off somewhere without bearing it.
And pregnancy is not without risks, especially for a 12 year old.
Its not. But its not a gauranteed death either. If you start with the idea that the zygote/morula/gastrula/fetus is a person then it makes sense. If you have conjoined twins and one is using the others kidneys then twin A cannot kill twin B despite the risks to himself. Only when its nearly certain that twin B is going to die and take twin A with him can they do that.