Romney or Ron Paul: Pick Your Poison, ABRs

mikeymike143

lets see, winner romney vs loser paul. GO MITT GO!!!

Xasteius

Hence my article.

Ron Paul is winning more delegates than he would have if the popular vote had anything to do with it, If we won’t organize at the state/ local level, this loon and his followers will speak for all of us.

Dave_A

Didn’t make it past the state conventions – Party bosses said Aw-HELL-NO & overrode the ‘packed’ delegations.

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

with 100% certainty, and alas Ron Paul will ride the coattails of voters wanting to lodge a protest vote to denote that they dont support Romney as their favorite.

The relative GOOD news is this: If you really want to make a throwaway ABR vote, you have lots of candidates to choose from, depending on your state. Here in Texas, even Michelle Bachmann is still on the ballot. Not to mention, Santorm, Newt Gingrich, and 7 other candidates besides Romney.

You can safely vote for any of these candidates, and not worry about your vote mattering one iota, since Romney is already 100% certain to be the nominee.

mikeymike143

that is why he has lost every single state so far.

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

Minnesota, Louisiana, Alaska and probably Colorado and Iowa. He will have virtually all of those delegates thanks to the party rules in those states for choosing delegates. He’s likely to replicate this in virtually every caucus state.

The national party needs to define one method of choosing delegates by primary, and shouldn’t be the Satanic ritual known as the caucus.

Will Paul win the nomination? No. Will he be able to rain confusion and disorder in Tampa? Absolutely, it’ll be a full bore clown show.

I happen to have an errant planning email that the Ron Paul state leadership sent out to their PCs. Could have been written by Trotski and make no mistake about it, they are NOT our friends.

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

with more to come. See below.

checkmate2012

So living in a primary state, I don’t understand a caucus. It seems like a pyramid scheme to me or like I pledge for my candidate & then others sway me so then I pledge to keep my word and who knows if they really keep their word with all the coercion in the end. It makes no sense to me and seems to diminish the voters.

One vote per voter and no coercion IMO.

http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

Yes, the rules are bad in those states. But not one thing prevented the vaunted “center right” conservatives from doing exactly what the Paul supporters did. All the Paul supporters did was read the Party bylaws/rules and then exploit them. They united and organized and showed up in sufficient numbers to elect the delegates.

Not one thing prevented the conservative Republicans from doing the same thing.

Not one thing.

I don’t blame the Paul supporters for having figured out “how it works” and then making it work. I blame the conservatives who, rather than getting in the ball game, sat on the sidelines. Indeed, over the course of the past couple of months, I watched a couple of videos of how the existing “principled conservative” Party leaders running some of these caucus meetings, in MO and GA, blatantly violated their own rules to prevent those who showed up to elect the delegates of their choice. I think I wrote some Diaries here about it.

A much better course of action for us conservatives is to actually get involved in the process by attending our local Party committee meetings, reading the applicable portions of the election code, the Rules of the Republican Party, and one’s state, county and local committee bylaws. It’s not that complicated and now, with the internet, anyone can find this information.

It matters.

If we conservatives fail to do this, then some other interest group, to the extent they can achieve voting majorities, will control the Party apparatus. I spoke to one guy in MS today who just got elected Republican county committee chairman. In his county, only three Republicans showed up for the election. In one of our counties here in AZ, we can’t even get three Republicans to show up — we have in that county NO Republican committee apparatus at all.

I hope mbecker is wrong and the Paul supporters do not wreak havoc at our national convention — but it could happen.

I hope this helps.

Thank you.

CW

checkmate2012

Process and rules would be solved rather than this arduous caucus process that seemingly never ends and that when it’s finally over, dimnishes the voters? Don’t get it and never will.

I understand the national electoral process in a general and like it, but having a state caucus vote in Oct,/Nov that isn’t resolved until Apr/May of the next year doesn’t give a clear indication of who the winner of the delegates are as we saw with Santorum in Iowa.

It’s just plain silly and worthless in the primary election of a candidate to drag out a state’s delegate opinion/vote, that in the end doesn’t matter much.

Ron Paul won’t win and should suspend his campaign for the good of the party….like Next finally will do tomorrow,

http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

they are just that — questions.

If we conservatives, in our respective states, want to actually change these rules, the first step is to fill up all of the vacant “voting member” slots of the Party with conservatives.

Opinions and arguments are one thing. They won’t actually change anything. If we conservatives actually want to change things, we have to unite and organize inside the Party and create a conservative majority within the Party that can then lobby and vote to change these rules.

We’ve got the numbers. We just don’t have those numbers inside the Party.

I guess because it’s just too darn much work to attend a monthly Party committee meeting and recruit other conservatives to do the same.

The Party apparatus is there for the taking. Blogging about the need for the Party to do X or Y won’t cause the Party to do X or Y. The ONLY way to get the Party to do X or Y is to create a voting bloc within the Party to accomplish X or Y. Participation within the Party is the ONLY way to change it.

I hope this helps.

Thank you.
CW

checkmate2012

I’ll admit that I don’t know the history of caucuses & and probably shouldn’t have commented that I think they are silly without basis, but I still think so Meaning I don’t know if it was a Dem or Rep idea.

I believe in State’s rights and they should vote as they see fit, but it seems archaic to me. Plus being in TX, I’m not happy with the RNC or the process regarding the order…needs to be rotated as I’ve stated before.

So I’ll ask you, if more conservatives are on the “inside” will it be possible to change a caucus to a primary or is it “set in stone”? It does seem to me, without doing research, that more states are C’s than P’s now than in the past, but could just be a baseless observation.

chaote

Yet hes hes the crazy one. Ron Paul does not change stances when it suits him. Romney had to outspend his challengers by massive amounts in attack ads. Romney is the corporate candidate, and will continue the lukewarm leadership the establishment craves.

http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

You’re in TX. Are you “inside” the Party as a PC?

Every state is different. “Is it possible” to change things? Are we Americans or not?

“We the People” are supposed to be the guardians of our Constitution and the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. We have failed. Will “we the people,” in sufficient numbers, enforce the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? The question for each of us, individually, is: what will you actually DO to make that happen? Blog? Carry a sign? Just vote?

Or will you unite and organize every conservative you know where you live to TAKE OVER your Republican Party?

Focus on that as your first step.

Do that, and the rest of the solution to our problems is possible.

Don’t do it, and enjoy the tyranny that arrives.

Thank you.

CW

mikeymike143

your nutjob leader has lost in every single state so far and romney is the republcian nominee. LOL

snowshooze

And it was WAR in Alaska.
My friend is a dyed in the wool Paul freak and spent the last couple days working the convention…
It was spirited.
But look, I can see it. Murkowski skewers us at every turn, Begich, screws us at every turn, Young is usually ok, but not always.
I see this as revenge.

Dave_A

If Ron Paul ‘won it all’ he would proceed to dismantle and destroy the United States – gut our military, deflate the dollar to the point that it was to scarce to be used as money (crashing our economy in a catastrophic fashion not seen since Andrew Jackson), and render the federal government incapable of discharging it’s constitutional responsibilities.

He would return us to what we were BEFORE there was a Constitution – a weak confederacy unable to govern and defend itself, much less operate a functional economy or project power.

THAT is just as destructive as BHO, but by way of a different ideology.

Just because he’d have us gored by the right horn instead of the left, doesn’t change the fact that he’d see us all gored…

The man is anti-American scum – just a different kind than Obama.

expanding_man

No serious political observer thinks that he’ll win the nomination, but he has as much right to try as any one else. If the Republican establishment was smart they would attempt to draw on his support. They will certainly need it for the general election.

I don’t like the sentiment that the delegate rules that have long existed must be changed now because we don’t like the results in a limited number of states this time.

By the way, I’m all for the supporters of any particular Republican candidate organizing to get involved with local and state party politics. Nothing could be better for the health of the party. It doesn’t matter that I may not like the particular candidate. More involvement is the solution to our political woes.

http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

CW

burningsirius

Tom Woods an advocate of state nullification and wrote the book Nullification had this to say about how great non-Paul voters are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vXmbAUgzYM

burningsirius

Are a republican (little r) ideal. It allows the minority to voice their concerns.

Primaries are a democratic institution. As Aristotle said in his book Politics, Democracy is a form of Tyranny where the will of the majority runs rough shot over the will of the minority.

I see both Caucuses and Primaries as needed to gauge the strength of campaigns. How much support someone is getting vs the appeal. Both are needed to win, not just one.

The United States is a Republic not a democracy. We just have some democratic mechanisms to help gauge the feeling of the people, however, the will of 51% of people should not override the will of the 49%.

Note, socialism’s goal is to use democracy to then institute mob rule to destroy industries. If a demagogue excites the people to destroy X industry, they can destroy it.

Beware of calling for an end to caucuses because when your voice is the minority, you will then have no mechanism to fight back.

burningsirius

.

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

Ron Paul’s record and his policies have been argued here and absolutely discredited since 2008.

The man is a failure as a congressman – he’s been in Congress for 20+ years and has yet to form an alliance with even one other Member. Compare his record to that of Paul Ryan.

He’s also a dyed in the wool loon on foreign policy and the gold standard. And pretty much everything else he opens his mouth about. Feel free to search the Redstate archives, nobody’s doing your work for you.

Finally, and not inconsequentially, he’s a racist and an antiSemite.

Combine all of that with the fact that he formally left the Republican Party in the 90s and why he was allowed back in, I doubt even God knows. He’s not endorsed a Republican Presidential nominee in anyone’s memory and he’s an embarrassment to Republicans and patriotic Americans. Or even unpatriotic Americans.

The best thing about this election cycle is that he’ll go somewhere and retire. And STFU.

mcclarinj

I suppose you have a great response to this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfrNz_2hvvM&feature=youtu.be

burningsirius

TSA groping kids, Fast and Furious, churches paying for contraception against their will, endless debt because no one is willing to cut, ext sign me up for being ‘anti-american’ because the system has become so flawed it is ridiculous.

I am pro-Bill of Rights. I realize that separation of Church and State means the government cannot tax Churches (ever). I realize that freedom is God given.

I hope you get all that you want from Romney, really I do. Anyone who votes for him will get exactly what they deserve imo.

burningsirius

Forget all of what Romney has stood for. Man, I love his accomplishments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IWDJEc92d38

Dave_A

Everything I posted is based on his actual statements.

He wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve for the SPECIFIC purpose of deflating (artificially reducing the supply for the purpose of causing a shortage and spiking the value) the US Dollar.

He wants to cut the US military by 80%

He wants to ‘take out’ the CIA

He thinks US troops engaging in conventional armored combat in Iraq were ‘war criminals’ because they used bulldozers as weapons (something we’ve been doing since WWII).

He very much wants to abolish most of the constitutional functions of the federal government, and return us to a pre-Constitutional confederacy where the states are sovereign nations.

All of the above make him anti-American – that is, he wants to destroy (ahem, ‘fundimentally transform’) America and build something else in it’s place.

Same ends as Obama, different means.

None of that is a ‘straw man’ argument. The only thing he didn’t say is ‘fundamentally transform’ (that was, of course, Obama) – his words are usually something like ‘restore’…

But what he wants to ‘restore’ failed so miserably that it almost cost us our independence – had the Constitution not been ratified, the economic and governmental chaos of the Articles would have left us ripe for recolonization.

Dave_A

They’d EXPEL him and every one of his supporters from the party.

His ideology is toxic, his supporters are largely liberal college kids, conspiracy nuts & hippies…

They buy the 1% rhetoric, or the notion that corporations (especially banks) are conspiring to oppress them… They buy into the ‘it’s our fault we have enemies’ crap…

We do not need them poisoning the party… We need them OUT of the party – the liberal college kids can come back in a few years when they’ve wised up & become real conservatives (as things normally have been without Paul around – where folks vote for the Dems during their ‘renting years’, and then suddenly wake up when they have kids, a house, and a job they can’t walk to from their front door)…

burningsirius

is an ABC already been created department. Note, my dad is a vet of 20 years.. Where do you get he wants to cut the military by 80%. If anything according to the debates (which I cite), he would make more bases in the US. You know BRAC is a horrible committee that essentially ships US bases over seas destroying local economies that have grown dependent on said bases (not that Federal dependence is a good thing).

His reason to abolish the Fed is not to deflate the currency but to restore ‘sound money’ meaning real money will be used not money made up out of thin air. Also, a central bank is the 5th plank of the Communist Manifesto.

Yes, I assume he knows dozer blades are used to overcome difficult terrain. I play Warhammer 40k and tanks use them for that purpose. I have never heard him say that so another baseless accusation.

What’s wrong with limited government? It was in the Republican platform to get rid of the Department of Ed, now it is a staple position.

Liberty like honor and virtue are rarely liked by the majority of people because it requires them to be responsible for themselves. So, I see why you do not like Dr Paul.

burningsirius

lets not grow the Republican Party. We should not try to court ourselves to a younger demographic. We should just shun anyone who is not a member of the Republican Party and isolate ourselves politically. That is the key to success.

burningsirius

that he wants real cuts. A trillion year one in cuts. No one wants that here I assume. Redstate likes the status quo from what I can gather.

powertothepeople

Paulbots are not allowed to stay here, period. Even if you heed this warning, if any of the mods see your post, you will be banned.

Me personally, I have no use for POS like you or your POS leader. I would spit on each and every one of you scumbags. But the mods tend to be nicer than I and simply ban your pathetic asses.

But if somehow you escape mod detection and want to continue being a part of this site, stop with the stupidity about Ron Paul and just act as if you have a tiny bit of intelligence.

powertothepeople

few of the Paultards ever vote in the general since their messiah is not in it. There is not one single reason to not expel him and his followers and degrade them while doing it.

gekster

You havn’t been here long, have you.
It is better to be quiet and thought of as a fool,
than open your mouth and prove you are.

burningsirius

most of the people here could care less. Romney is their man. They wish they could shine is shoes that is just how great of a ‘conservative’ he is. Of course when he betrays them just like George HW, Dole, Ford, George W, and McCain, they will love the betrayal. Then, they will look for the ‘next conservative’ and it will be another liberal. I love how this works.

burningsirius

I am sure my dad who is a 20 year vet is also a POS as well. Thanks for the heads up.

burningsirius

Honestly, I would not care if the Republican Party had Stalin like purges every now and again. It would make things much more interesting.

gekster

You havn’t posted anything conservative yet,
and I geuss it isn’t in your liberal blood.

gekster

he raised and taught you.

burningsirius

from time to time. So, I pretty much get how you all work.

burningsirius

Not much given my dad has been a card carrying Republican all his life.

gekster

but I would have to go stupid in my response.

burningsirius

pro Christian. I am a Christian first and foremost before any political party. I love Jesus and He is my savior. I combat progressive atheists all the time. I support the 2nd amendment, I want limited government, I am for abolishing 5 unconstitutional departments, ext.

danphillips

ron paul is a jew hater who deserves nothing more than a concntration camp. him and his supporters. actually i cant decide if they need to be just taken out or mass arrested and locked up. would serve them right knowing that they want to lock up all th black people and jewish people. at first i liked rick perry. then i liked herman cain then i liked newt. i never really liked romney but if were gonna win hes really are only chance. people just need to get behind him. as eric says’ron paul will NOT be the nominee’. those freaking nutcase racist conspiracy theorists need to put up or shut up . we have to work together as a team to beat obama!

burningsirius

All I am saying is that it would make for good entertainment. Circular firing squads about ideology always do that. Expel them!

gekster

Who cares what your Dad carried.
And who said what about supporting the troops.

powertothepeople

then the answer is a resounding yes. Military service, while very admirable, does not give one a pass on actions or decisions that come after the service years. So if he is a Ron Paul supporter, he needs to join the POS club.

gekster

Where does it say that.

burningsirius

Well then, what a sad insult for me and and my family who sacrificed so much for this nation. Being without a dad during High School for a year, 6 month deployments, all that. Guess he is just a POS.

burningsirius

finally Christianity is liberated. No longer do Christian principles guide Conservativism. Thanks!!

snowshooze

And they seem to get everything in the lake.

danphillips

uhh..idiot you cant be a christian and a antisemite at the same time. you know jesus was jewish right? so your a christian who agrees with rp that isreal needs to be wiped off the face of earth right?

snowshooze

Someone tries to pull youfrom a burning building…yet you fight to go back in.
Don’t do it.

gekster

Your Dad may have served honerably, but all that makes you is an army brat.
God gave you what he gave you,
But who do you hold as being at fault for that.
And your problem seams to be you looking for someone to be at fault.

burningsirius

that this is the modern Republican Party. Show him these comments and then prove to him that vets have no support in the conservative movement.

powertothepeople

by kicking every RP bastard out of the republican party meetings, kicked them all out of the executive committee, made sure none were elected as precinct committee members or elected delegates, and then did the same in the local tea party. Funny, once the idiots were gone, meeting size has more than tripled, tea party membership has doubled, and it was so successful, other towns around us have done the same thing or are in the process of doing it.

There is little love for RP or the idiotic RP followers outside of the tin foil stores and chem trail spray bottle dealers. Call it a Staling purge all you want, ya sniveling imbecile, we will see it for what it actually is, an idiot purging.

gekster

And if I don’t who will eat all of that cat food from sams.

burningsirius

Not really. You all on here always seem to be quick to insult. But I love you all for it. Really I do in Christian love.

I love our country, our people, our liberties and God. Is that Conservative. What is conservative? I have always identified myself as one all my life. Tell me what I am not getting?

gekster

Now you are acting like a lib.
Most consrvatives may be Christians, but being a Christion does not make you a conservative.
All poodles are be dogs, but not all dogs are poodles.

burningsirius

he even thought about going into the ministry. Your entire statements are a giant straw man against his fp arguments. Get back to me when you read Washington’s farewell address and entangling alliances.

Zionism teaches self reliance. Why does Israel have to rely on us? I like that about Zionism’s core teaching. It has always been in the judeo-christian philosophy to be self reliant.

burningsirius

good on you. Glad you were successful. Where God closes doors, he opens windows.

powertothepeople

mother…………….. You are so pathetically ignorant, you have become entertaining.

You do not get out of the basement much do you. Try matchDOTcom, maybe it will help you get a life and some maturity if you catch my drift.

burningsirius

my core conservative principles are based in Christ. I am a 1000% orthodox Christian (LCMS Lutheran) that views homosexuality as a sin and is basically disgusted with pop culture.

That being said, if what these comments are any indication of what Conservativism, a great intellectual tradition, has become… I am very sad. We have the perfect message for the youth, but no one here wants to engage them. That is something that will haunt us in the future.

gekster

What has GWs farewell adress have to do with the Jew hating.
You believe in the Jews taking over the world with the Build- a Burgers also.
That is one thing RP believed also.

(being a Jew myself, I am all for it, but don’t tell anyone. I’m playing the mole here)

burningsirius

Christian. I will find the girl I love eventually. I want my love to be true not from a dating service.

I do get out of the basement every now and then. You caught me

burningsirius

and a Paul supporter. He is the president of the Youth for Paul at Mississippi State and also the head of the Pearl River Republicans. I love my friend and all Jewish people.

As far as the globalists are concerned, no they are not Jewish, but talk about globalism and world socialism here on redstate is just crazy talk. That can never happen.

gekster

being played with by a bunch of cats.

All that makes you is moronic.
(and your not even being played with the top tier)

What a maroon.

gekster

So what.

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

“The man is a failure as a congressman ? he?s been in Congress for 20+ years and has yet to form an alliance with even one other Member. Compare his record to that of Paul Ryan.”

That’s the one that really gets me … how did a non-leader Congresscritter get such a big following as a Presidential candidate?

“Combine all of that with the fact that he formally left the Republican Party in the 90s and why he was allowed back in, I doubt even God knows. ”

He ran against a Democrat-turned-GOPer in1996 and won.

zachv

Oooooooh. Hot.

Btw’s burningsirius – The first signal that someone is “justifying” their intolerance for an X, Y, Z group is usually when they say, “Well I have XYZ friends!”

Doesn’t cut it. Everyone knows you’re on a sinking ship when it comes to that.

burningsirius

He was a Paul supporter and is a Jew. lol. I am a Christian and I love all people even Muslims. I have no hate against groups of people as I do not agree with collectivism.

burningsirius

that you can be Jewish and a Paul supporter like Ludwig von Mises, Murry Rothbard and Walter Block. All Jews who supported Paul and were dear friends to him. In fact, there is no one who has done more for free market economics than von Mises (an Austrian Jew who taught free market economics in National Socialist Germany… not a good thing).

Also, all Christians are sons of Abraham (Jews) so why should I hate Jews?

gekster

Make it up as you go along?

Or is your besr friend a lesbian Jew, and why not, who happens to be a black midget.
Might as well get them all in why you make up your story.
And it’s you story. Make it as good as you want.

burningsirius

to where he is and what he does. He is the head of the Pearl River Republicans in MIssissippi. I am keeping his name anonymous out of respect toward him.

burningsirius

eventually fled Nazi Germany and came to the US. He taught economics and had two famous students. F.A. Hayek (another great Jewish thinker) who wrote Road to Serfdom and Murry Rothbard (another great Jewish thinker) both advocates for the free market. All who I hold in high esteem. Along with Jesus and the prophets and many other Jewish scholars and thinkers, I love them all. Such a great rich history.

garfieldjl

I don’t recall him engaging in anti-semetic rants, some of his supporters, yes but I don’t really recall any from him. Granted I don’t much pay attention to what Ron Paul says.

I think it’s more of he’s a complete and total idiot when it comes to foreign policy, just like Joe Biden.

Now if people have evidence to support their assertation that Ron Paul is an anti-semite, then please by all means post it. Otherwise, stop throwing the charge around, you’re acting like Team Obama spamming the race card.

gekster

You can tell me who the Jewish lesbian black midget is.
I won’t tell anyone.

Yeah, right It’s the internet. Anyone can say anything, as you have.
And what is your friend so afraid of.
After all that, is she bald also?.

burningsirius

you guys just keep on getting me. You all are like internet ninjas or something.

burningsirius

I can understand legit FP differences, but I thank you Garfield. Many of Paul’s teachers and central figures in the liberty movement: Hayek, Rothbard and Mises were all Jewish (also they were either contemporaries or teachers of Paul).

Unfortunately, there are bad apples in every group and just as I ask you not to judge us for them, I will not judge you for all the hateful things said about me and my family here on Redstate. Thanks.

CincoSolas_del_Bronx

and might want to let the muzzle cool for a minute.

gekster

Or just being willfully blind.
Look it up dufus.
A quick google search.

burningsirius

so I will not. I am sorry you do not. believe me.

burningsirius

RP supporters sign wave with Google Ron Paul signs because you know being a hate filled bigot is popular. Wait that is what the left accuses the Republicans of doing… wait Republicans are doing it… that must mean…

gekster

Obama didn’t tell me to not shoot when they drop thier wepeon after shooting blindly at me and mine.
I can understand, but usually these trolls do themselves in.
Thanks for the heads up, but someone has to carry the arnor.
You stay nice.
I’ll go stupid so you don’t have to.

gekster

is a common tactic of the left.
You used it.
Nuff said.

CincoSolas_del_Bronx

Just pointing out that you assumed a wrong poster here and it was nullifying your subsequent argument. Carry on. nntr

gekster

Another leftist traight.
Keep going pal, you might catch up with garfield.

aesthete

Hayek is actually not Jewish, but I agree with the rest of your comment (sans RP support), and am glad that you have nothing against the Jewish people.

garfieldjl

There are Ron Paul supporters that are anti-semites, I’m not arguing with you there. However, you’re accusing Ron Paul of being an anti-semite.

I’m not the one making the accusation, it is your job to prove the accusation, it isn’t my job to prove an accusation to be false when you haven’t submitted anything other than here-say.

I already think Ron Paul is an idiot when it comes to Foreign Policy, I’m not a Ron Paul supporter.

gekster

What do you mean.
Anyone can claim they have a (blanc) friend.
I am no buying that.
And why does anyone have to claim a best friend.
Why does it matter, exept to try to score points not there?

gekster

nt

aesthete

that so many people feel the need to personally attack a Ron Paul supporter who’s been quite civil.

Even if you are opposed to Ron Paul, taking that out on some kid who is responding civilly and seems conservative, is excessive. For Pete’s sake, I’ve seen out-and-proud liberal Obama supporters get treated with more decency than burningsirius has been treated on this thread. The phrase about catching more flies with honey applies here — and even if it didn’t, this is in no way a reasonable or decent way to treat anyone (including liberals, out-and-out communists, etc).

Saying that Ron Paul supporters should be put in concentration camps is insane. Charging someone with a whole slew of accusations about their sexual, political, racial, and intellectual makeup in the way that was done above? Is not respectful.

A little decency, please.

gekster

You all spew your crap, see ya later.

garfieldjl

I’m pointing out the obvious you can’t believe everything you see on the internet. The example I gave was obviously an extreme example to point out how ridiculous things can get.

My point is you submitted nothing to back up your claims, yet I’m supposed to believe that Ron Paul is an anti-semite?

It’s just like telling me to believe that Rick Santorum is really a lesbian (which is impossible considering he’s a guy), because I can find something that claims that on the internet.

garfieldjl

They really behave exactly like the far left does, and that is scary. We’re supposed to be better than the far left, not trying to copy their lunacy.

CincoSolas_del_Bronx

You were countering burningsirius when zachv entered the thread to go against him as well, but it looks like you missed that it was a new voice and actually trying to make your point. ‘Nuff said. I’m outta here.

CincoSolas_del_Bronx

textless

JSobieski

were big Ron Paul supporters but are making their way into the conservative mainstream. I am very glad that they don’t read RedState.

Attacking voters is just plain stupid. Picking fights with Ron Paul himself is pointless at this point.

Stricia

Calling everyone you disagree with a liberal or using leftist tactics is wearing very thin. You have jumped the shark on that mantra long, long ago bucko.

mikeymike143

http://www.redstate.com/mikeymike143/2011/12/30/a-redstate-exclusive-ex-staffer-calls-ron-paul-the-original-truther/

sunshine49

This is an interesting site, but I don’t know if I agree with a lot of these bloggers. If this is any example of the conservative base, then the rest of us are in trouble.

It seems that the only thing that is important is that the Reps take back the White House and the Senate. Nothing but party politics and the Constitution be darned. So the party wins and the country loses along with the majority of people in this country.

Seems like there are a lot of Romney supporters and rabid Paul haters here also. I guess they haven’t noticed that Romney is being supported by the same big banks that backed Obama in 2008. They must also be gung-ho for war since they think Ron Paul is a nut case.

Moderate Dems I’ve talked to say they would vote for Ron Paul, but otherwise they are voting for Obama again. It seems that Ron Paul is picking up all the people who still believe in the Constitution. They know we are just going to get more of the same with any of the other Republicans. You would think people would have wised up by now. No such luck!

God, this country is a mess!

burningsirius

I knew that I would take some slings and arrows. Those who came to my defense are the smart ones who will be in the future of the Republican Party. I am not on here to evangelize about Paul. Unfortunately, everyone here has made up their minds about him. We (the liberty movement) are now a force in the Republican Party. Honestly, I got into Austrian Free Market economics before I got into He Who Shall Not Be Named. Thus, I will support any candidate who comes from that economic school. Luckily, there are a ton this election (which hurts my pocket book for all the money bombs).

May God bless you all today in all that you do.

sunshine49

The problem with a lot of you far right nut cases is that you don’t know what you are talking about.

Have you read any of Ron Paul’s books or really listened to what he had to say? What he says and does is back the Constitution. His foreign policy is what our Founders advocated — to mind our own business!

You insult Ron Paul and our Founders with your ignorance! Even Reagan recognized that Ron Paul was mainly a Constitutionalist and worked hard for the people and our country.

Conspiracy theories? It’s obvious you haven’t done any research to find out the truth about anything. The Fed? I guess some of our early Presidents were nut cases too since they fought the banks taking over our money supply.

I back Ron Paul because he is the ONLY one who is trying to get us back to a Constitutional Republic with the States controlling their own affairs. He is absolutely right that all the entitlement programs are unconstitutional. The government’s “job” is to protect OUR FREEDOM to do the best WE can — NOT what the government can do for us!

What we have now is a socialist democracy and we are heading for a socialist dictatorship. It’s people like you, in your ignorance, who have brought us to this point.

So go ahead and vote for more government control. That’s what you will get with any other GOP nominee or Obama.

In the mean time, Google executive orders from hell if you want to find out what the government has in store for the people. Of course YOU will say that it’s just another conspiracy theory even though it’s written in black and white for ANYONE to read!

I won’t feel sorry for you when your “reality” turns around and bites you! You have a little mind that is incapable of seeing the big picture. But don’t worry — you are like millions of other close-minded Americans who refuse to see the truth. You will get what you deserve and what you have worked for.

I just wish you wouldn’t take the rest of us down with you!

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

he is head and shoulders above Ron Paul. If you’re comfortable supporting an over-the-top racist and antiSemite who’s yet to accomplish anything but being the King of Earmarks in his congressional career, then crawl back into your pathetic hole.

expanding_man

It’s fine to express your dislike for a candidate. I think this crosses a line.

There’s nothing wrong with switching your support from Perry ( I like him) to Cain, to Newt then to Romney(yuck). However, advocating horrific violence against the supporters of another candidate is not OK.

mikeymike143

and this site wisely opposes that anti semitic loon.

mikeymike143

nt

streiff

once is hyperbole. Twice is banned.

streiff

keep that in mind in the future.

burningsirius

Do not post about Paul. Just ignore him. He can’t win anyways right? Why worry about this? I mean it is not like Paul supporters have any true political power. The Republicans are just so awesome nominating Romney. I mean he will advance Conservativism… except Eric Ericson said he won’t, and that nominating Romney will destroy Conservativism. So, full steam ahead.

I will keep this in mind in the future. I know about the whole ban on sight thing. It is what makes Redstate what it is imo.

burningsirius

Between us in the ‘Liberty Movement’ Camp and the ‘Conservative’ Camp. I think we have much more in common than you realize. I understand trolls (probably Randroids, followers of Ayn Rand) have soured tastes towards us, but I wish to extend olive branches to people to come to a mutual understanding and if we disagree we agree to disagree and we are better for it.

Here are some things we might have common ground on:
Size and Scope of Government (see I listened to Hannity for like a good 10 years so I know the language lol)
2nd Amendment
States Rights/10th Amendment
Entitlements
Objecting Corporate Welfare
Free Markets
Pro-Family
Pro-Life
Religious Freedom
There can be much more. I would never support a candidate who is pro-choice (like Romney).

powertothepeople

pedophiles, criminals, and so on who claim or do have certain conservative views who we want nothing to do with and have no desire to discuss anything with. The same applies to Ron Paul supporters. The site and its mods have made it clear we have nothing for you all, want nothing from you all, have no interest in discussing or debating anything with you all, and we are a better site for that policy.

PS This site also have a rule that goes, conservative in the primary, republican in the general. Stating you will not support Romney in the general is also a ban on site offense.

I just do not see you lasting here that long.

powertothepeople

10…..9….8

gekster

Romney ‘was’ pro-choice.
He has had a change of heart and now opposes abortion.
He was man enough to admit he was wrong on the pro-choice stance.

burningsirius

of people who will say anything to get into power. Idk, maybe I am crazy for thinking that. After all, most politicians are crooks so it makes sense that they are lying sociopaths that will say whatever they want you to hear. I mean look at the Obama idiots who thought they were going to get free houses, pull out of wars and protect civil liberties. Obama has done the exact opposite of all of that and they still support him! If you want to believe him, that is your choice. I will never vote for anyone who has funded or mandated contraception and abortion. The only cause rallies I go to are pro-life rallies.

4 years later if Romney is elected president and there are still abortions going on, I will not say I told you so.

burningsirius

is full of pedophiles. I do not see you raging about them.

gekster

burningsirius

Good thing the general election has not started and also I am glad that Romney is not a conservative. The creator of this site Ericson said so. I digress. What exactly do you disagree with the above issues?

gekster

I do believe people, whoever they are, can have changes in thier lives.
At my age I have had many.
And I can look at Obama all day long, and I don’t see Romney anywhere near to being an Obama..

grconservative

Here’s where you’re wrong. We were set up as a Republic, for the specific purpose that through Democratic Rule, you would not get a Tyranny of the Majority. The Caucus system allows for the minority to have a voice, if they so desire. Now, this minority has turned into a rapidly growing tidal wave, and you’re not going to stop it. And guess why we have success at the caucuses? BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY CARE!!!! Think about Sam Adam’s quote: ?It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.?
Guess what: That’s Us, and you’re not going to stop us because none of you actually care enough to do anything about it. We are out there making sacrifices, becoming delegates, funding an entire campaign (Because RP is the only one who does get funded by any interest groups).
But what baffles me the most is how People can get behind a guy like Romney. This guy is the epitome of a Weather-vane. He shifts whichever way the political winds blow, and doesnt have a principle to stand on. And we’re supposed to believe something is gonna change with this guy? I’m sorry, been fooled by too many big government Republicans already, not gonna happen again! Get used to hearing this, NO ONE BUT PAUL.
You can scream and holler about how I’m going to elect Obama if I dont vote for Romney, but be completely honest with yourselves. Romney can’t beat Obama. Period. He motivates no one, and doesnt draw anyone into the Party. He’s a loser regardless. Ron Paul is the only one who can defeat Obama, and is a Principled, Small-government Conservative if I’ve ever seen one. It baffles me how people write him off. But do so at your own Peril, because Nominating Romney will only ensure another Obama win.

gekster

It was either a yes or no question.
And if pedophiles are in the TSA, then you must have a link that shows that.
Someone must have been caught by now.
I have not seen any news stories about that.

grconservative

That’s why we have these things, so the voice of the minority isn’t completely stiffled! In democracy, you end up with tyranny of the Majority. Wow, we’rent our Founding Father’s Wise?!?! Ya, maybe we should follow their lead a little more

grconservative

He’s been a lone voice of principle and reason among a culture of corruption and thieves. That’s why he hasn’t passed anything. But guess what, change starts with the people, and then they kick out the pathetic Leaders. It’s coming, be very very afraid!

CincoSolas_del_Bronx

So I guess he said anything to get into power, was a crook, lying sociopath and pro-choice to boot. Would you agree?

burningsirius

They are exactly the same to me. They use different rhetoric, but the policies are the same. Under Romney will the Department of Education go away? Heavens no, because the Federal Government is about only one thing… control. It is what St Augustine called the Lust for Domination. It used to be in the Republican Platform that we should get rid of the Department of Education. Is it now? Nope. You can instantly repeal Roe V Wade if you repeal the Federal Jurisdiction of the courts allowing the States to decide about abortion on their own. If there was a pro-life state, I would move there instantly.

Because Romney will only nibble on the edges, adjust spending only a little, and does not challenge the notion of why we even have the Federal government we have I cannot support his efforts unless he begins to talk about the unconstitutionality of many government programs. He won’t or if he does talk they are in vague generalities that can never be pinned down.

I see Romney in the same vein as a Ford, a Dole, a McCain, all the same, all will sell you out in an instant. Don’t take my word for it, look at their records. I am sure Romney had an epiphany along the campaign trail that made him go from a northeastern liberal to a hardcore Reagan Conservative. That or he just wants to trick you and laugh at you for believing that he is a conservative. One or the other. Like I said, you chose. Just give me a ring in 4 years to see how things are going.

gekster

Back when we still had a primary going, I was one of the posters who showed what Romney is by posting facts about him.
I know him well.
He is the nominee now, and I still see who Romney is.
And now he is the Republican nominee apparent.

And I can’t say anything to the fact that you see Romney as Obama.
I will file it under willfull blindness from a Romney hater.
You don’t disguise it very well.

grconservative

burningsirius, keep up the good work. I’m impressed with your patience. I’ve noticed that your opposition has some incredibly substinative arguments on many of these threads.

gekster

And I saw what you were saying to me last night.
I guess I can’t try to post on three blogs at the same time.
Must be this getting old thing.

CincoSolas_del_Bronx

but since you said “you chose”, who do you see yourself–not voting for, that’s easy–actually putting into the White House by your choice?

burningsirius

who are pro-life cannot be critical of Reagan’s failure to repeal Roe V Wade when there was an option (remove the jurisdiction from the Federal courts by an act of Congress).

Reagan was great. He rebuilt the military and did tons of great things and had great rhetoric, but even many conservatives back in the day were critical that Reagan did not do enough.

Romney and Reagan are two different people thus I have individual judgements for both of them in regards to their performance as politicians.

burningsirius

after McCain, I would never shut up and sing for the Republicans. The majority of Americans are Conservatives, but why is it that the Republican Party in membership is smaller than the Democrats? Reason being, most conservatives have fled the Republican Party because they are no longer conservative. The nomination of Romney will set back Conservativism and empower the Rockefeller wing of the party.

CincoSolas_del_Bronx

Was that a “Yes” or a “No” to “he said anything to get into power, was a crook, lying sociopath and pro-choice to boot”. I’ll take them one at a time if it’s easier.

gekster

Conservative in the primary,
Republican in the general.

If you want the Republican party to be more conservative,
try changing it from inside the party.

You won’t do it by just giving lip service to talking points.

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

If Romney is the Republican nominee – and he will be – are you going to vote for him?

Yes or no.

burningsirius

there are other vehicles in which we can empower the conservative movement besides the presidency. We need to elect strict conservative constitutionalists to the Congress, put our money behind them and help them out with our time. I do it all the time. It is fun to do. There is a man who once said: If you are not having fun, you are doing it wrong.

Just because I do not go lock step with the Republican establishment does not mean I still don’t fight. There is also educating people in the concepts of liberty and may other ways to fight statism and liberalism.

burningsirius

That is what I am already doing. Me and my friends are working within the Republican Party to make it adhere to the principles it claims to have. My best friend who I mentioned is now the head of the Pearl River County Republicans in Mississippi. Conservatives are having great gains in local GOP groups.

burningsirius

Reagan’s failure was not because he was a liar. Reagan’s failure was because he did not have the political will to do so and explore other avenues to repeal Roe V Wade.

50 million Americans have been aborted since Roe V Wade. This is no trivial matter. I am sincerely 100% pro-life so please respect my sensibilities with the issue.

Viet71

Roe v. Wade was based on the Ninth Amendment.

Congress cannot subtract from the Supreme Court’s power to review laws for constitutionality.

burningsirius

now control the state GOPs of Colorado, Alaska, Iowa, Minnesota and we are poised to gain much more. Freedom is popular. The GOP’s base is growing. I hope we can keep the gains we have and keep on going.

gekster

Is that what your goal is, because that is what it will be.

burningsirius

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Congress has control over what the Federal Courts can hear.

burningsirius

I give you the task of converting me over to Romney. What is so great about Romney. What is his driving principles? Who are his guiding philosophers? Please, I need to know so that I can make an educated moral vote. You have the floor. Convince me. Also, it has to agree with the principles outlined about the issues we agree with.

Viet71

Your premise — the language of Art. I ?8 — is undeniable.

Your conclusion is unsupported by case law.

burningsirius

not according to Samuel Alito.

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/jan06/06-01-25.html

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

gekster

Romney ain’t Obama, and will not even come to being like Obama.
I know that is wasted on you already, but if you don’t see/know that,
then you never wanted to be convinced in the first place.

Jack_Savage

Reagan was in Congress? Or was Reagan totally in control of Congress? Or was the GOP totally in control of Congress? Maybe you could help me with that one.

“Reagan did not do enough”

Sure.

Viet71

Nothing wrong with it.

The non-lawyer almost always wins, because he or she is not constrained by learning and logic.

Sam Alito is my favorite Justice. His quote does not support your assertion.

Remember, I asked about case law, BTW.

aesthete

Constitutional case law is not constrained by learning and logic, either

I do agree that it isn’t as easy as all that to remove abortion from the Supremes’ jurisdiction, though.

burningsirius

it ain’t Obama worked so great last time.

burningsirius

is a majority vote in Congress. See how successful you are in pressuring them and see who is really pro-life. Hint, none of them are.

burningsirius

of course the exception proves the rule.

gekster

Everyone who voted for Obama believed the crap he ran on, and then he threw it all out the window after the swearing in.
Obama the campaigner and Obama the President are two different animals.

And if you’re talking about McLooser, he was so scared of critisizing Obama
and being called a racist he ran a losing campaign.

That arguement doesn’t hold up.

Just come out and say that you dislike Romney so much you would just as well see Obama re-elected.
Your boy RP isn’t getting it done, and now you don’t want to face the fact the voters picked Romney.

Viet71

Period.

You know this, aesthete, as a lawyer.

What’s-his-name is thrashing around. He’s not a lawyer and is a bomb-thrower.

aesthete

I just find law interesting and have read books pertaining to the subject. Nowhere near the level of knowledge as you, JSob, GC, and the other legal eagles on here. I do understand and agree with what you’re saying, though.

@ burningsiren: I like your enthusiasm and agree with your end goal, but… it doesn’t work that way. As a co-equal branch, the SC can’t simply have its decisions waived by Congress by having them restrict its scope: it’s been this way since the Marshall court, and it’s not going to change. This is both for the better (SC cases on gun rights and free speech have been excellent), and for the worse (lots of stuff including abortion “rights”).

CincoSolas_del_Bronx

Here’s hoping you’ll make it back to the beach.

garfieldjl

Shock the person out of their panic, or render them temporarily stunned, unconscious so you can haul them ashore.

garfieldjl

Let’s get real, McCain didn’t have something like a record of what Obama has done as President to go after last time. There haven’t been any new scandals involving McCain. There really wouldn’t be anything for Obama to throw at McCain.

Heck even McCain’s marital history would be extremely stupid to attack, considering his ex-wife actually endorsed him last time.

In fact, given McCain’s lack of any real baggage (from a corruption standpoint), we can accuse him of being an idiot, but as far as corruption, there really isn’t anything, he’d probably easily beat Obama this time around.

Romney will have a lot harder time winning than if we ran McCain again.

In all honesty, the worst thing we can do is pivot and try to backpeddle on the flaws we pointed out about Romney in the primary. What we should do is simply say Obama is even worse than Romney.

gekster

You won’t walk back any of the crap you posted about Romney.
(weather true or not)

You could have just came out and said so.
It would have been easier and wasted less bandwidth.

And you wouldn’t have looked like such a troll either.
But it is what it is.

garfieldjl

This wasn’t just about who was right or wrong on Ron Paul. This was about the behavior of certain individuals that claim to support Romney.

Instead of gekster providing some source to back up what he is saying, he starts resorting to name calling and flame baiting.

To be completely honest, I would consider gekster to be more destructive to this site and our chances of beating Obama than many Ron Paul supporters I’ve run across whom I think are simply naive. Ron Paul lost a lot of ground in the primaries once his Foreign Policy ideas came to the surface.

Not all Ron Paul supporters are kooks, there are quite a few out there that have only heard about his domestic policy agenda, and know rather little about his foreign policy agenda. When people aren’t looking at the fine details, Ron Paul’s rhettoric is very enticing. I don’t know for sure if Ron Paul is an anti-semite, or simply an idiot when it comes to Foreign Policy, I’m leaning the latter, but it’s entirely possible that it is the former.

That said, if someone wants to start flinging accusations around, like accusing them of being an anti-semite, in my opinion, they better be able to produce stuff to back up what they are saying. As far as I’m concerned the fact that gekster resorted to attacking me instead of providing sources, shows to me that unlike you (mikey), he has no credibility. If he wants to demonstrate that he has credibility, he can start by providing sources if when what he says is challenged.

garfieldjl

Threatening people in my view isn’t helping matters, nor is accusing people of hating the Constitution intelligent either.

Both sides on this need to cool down.

Fact of the matter is that Israel is an ally of the United States, while we are supposed to generally keep to ourselves, as our founding fathers indicated, our founders also understood the importance of keeping one’s word. We gave our word that we would come to Israel’s defense, we know they would come to our aid in an emergency.

Ron Paul supporters, you need to realize that Israel is a true friend to this country. We as a country gave our word as a friend, that word needs to be honored, just as they would honor their word to us when we are in trouble.

Many news agencies arguably have a hatred of the Israelis, I’ve actually done a report on how agencies like New York Times, Reuters, AP, the BBC, etc. were using doctored photos to accuse Israel of war crimes, while I was in a debate class. A lot of the supposed “atrocities” are staged.

That’s point 1.

The other point is that the Atlantic Ocean is no longer a buffer as it was in even the early 1900s. Instead of days, it takes hours to get across the Atlantic by plane, some missiles can reach this country in a matter of minutes. We can’t sit back and stay isolated when there are homicidal lunatics that think they get 70 virgins to be their eternal sex slaves if they kill infidels (which would be everyone that isn’t a Muslim).

You have to look at the situation realisticly.

Now if any Ron Paul supporter would like to debate me logically, fine. If on the other hand you want to accuse me of being a statist, or some other idiotic thing. Then I’m with streiff on this.

gekster

You wanted information, and I said google it so you could get so much more than a single entry than I could give.

But noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

You might have to think and do something on your own.
The great reasercher that you are, or claimed to be.
(I doubt it now)

Wahhh, my kitty hurts because the evil gekster told me to google something to find information. Mommmmmmy. there’s a guy on the internet being mean to me, and this time it’s not about a porn site.

You condescending pompus ass.
Screw you and your horse, if you havn’t already, but i digress.

You made a claim, asked a question, and I gave you the best response I could.(something you yourself don’t do, as you don’t answer questions you don’t like the answer to, which involves A LOT of my questons, just like most libs)

And I told you how you could get a much better answer than I could ever give.
And then to top it off, you then proceed to plant your lips firmly on mikeys butte, and take a dig at me.

Like I said. Wahhh, my kitty hurts. Moooooomy.
You do that alot.

What a maroon.

And an assinine one at that.

gekster

It is bad enough you use a funny cats name and bring discrace to it, but
(redacted, I don’t want to get banned because of a dufus idiot)

garfieldjl

I am on the Autistic Spectrum you idiot.

GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD!!!!

As a result of being on the spectrum, I have the diplomatic tact of a Sherman Tank. I do not have the natural tendency for deception, in fact that’s why I often have problems getting along with others. You know how you shouldn’t ever tell a woman that something makes them look fat? Well my first instinct when a woman would ask me that, and I think it does indeed make them look fat, is to actually tell them flat out that I think it makes them look fat. You probably would tell them a lie in a situation like that, but that’s not how my brain operates. In fact the parts of my brain that helps one tell lies, doesn’t exactly work all that well for me, quite literally, as a result I really don’t have the instinct for deceiving others. While sure people on the spectrum can sometimes pick up lieing, we aren’t exactly good at it.

You really don’t know a damn thing about Autism, all you apparently know is the stereotypes. You are the perfect example of why I get infuriated when the left spams the race card, claims that Conservatives are somehow for discriminating against people with Autism, etc., cause when someone whom behaves like you are comes along, people don’t take it seriously when someone speaks up, it isn’t taken seriously like it should be. Now I’m not making this statement lightly, and I’m hoping it is just the fact you haven’t done the research that you should have or bothered to read what I posted about Autism earlier, but it looks to me that you are in the latter category, especially since you have claimed to be such a good researcher.

So which of my assessments of you is right? There is no in between or third option on this one gekster, cause I am on the Autistic Spectrum, that is a fact.

Do I sometimes try to reword things to be less offensive, sure, that doesn’t change the fact that I will say what I think is true. I actually used to be way more blunt and had a lot less tact than I do now.

garfieldjl

1. I live in the state of Indiana, the creator of the Garfield comic, Jim Davis, is from the state of Indiana.

2. I used to compare conservatives to being more like Garfield the Cat and Liberals to be more like Odie.

In fact I may still have the picture I used for a signature on a few sites that had a Hannity & Colmes theme, with Garfield the Cat sitting where Sean Hannity would be and Odie sitting where Alan Colmes would be.

As to me getting involved in this spat with Ron Paul supporters, quite frankly unlike you I know a few people that were kind of Ron Paul supporters, and I managed to convince them that Ron Paul wasn’t someone one should support because of his foreign policy ideas.

I did it without attacking them personally, without really going after Ron Paul. I just talked them through things using facts. It may be more time consuming, but hey if you can get them to agree with you at the end of the day using facts and logic, that is a lot more productive than personally attacking them, and alienating them to the point they are more apt to vote for Obama, because of you would behave.

gekster

But why are using autism as a crutch.
I don’t believe you being an idiot has anything to do with being autistic.
It’s like an American with African descent saying he can’t get a job because he’s black.
No. it is because of something else with him, and not his skin color.
I have noticed you have brought out the autism card before.
I don’t make excuses because I have brain damage.
I don’t rely on that to get any creds for my sometimess stupid rants.
I think you are an idiot, and autism has nothing to do with it.
I am treating you as I would any other idiot, and just as equally.

If you have to use that as an excuse, then maybe you should go somewhere where you don’t have to use it.

gekster

not worth the band width after you had to make an excuse.
have a good life and get overyourself.
You only have a handicap if you yourself make it one.

I am done with you.

garfieldjl

You didn’t simply accuse me of being an idiot, you accused me of being a plant for Barack Obama.

I’m not using Autism as a crutch, I’m pointing out why your accusations of me being dishonest was complete garbage and you know it.

You have been attacking me in a manner that someone like me would find extremely offensive, and I’ve actually been incredibly patient with you.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!

Now, I don’t care if you think I am an idiot, I really don’t. I honestly have gotten to the point that I don’t think you’re as intelligent as you claim, so we’re even in that regard. However, accusing me of being dishonest and a partisan shill for, Obama really ticks me off.

So seriously gekster take responsibility for your own behavior and admit you screwed up!!!

I will admit I was very tempted to actually use profanity in this post, especially when I saw how you tried to white wash your behavior!

powertothepeople

your minds drive to be purely honest yet in this post you state you have controlled it. Which is it? Autism driven honest and bluntness or autism crutch?

garfieldjl

I don’t consider my honesty to be a handicap, heck I’m good at selling things to people, because of the fact I am honest with them.

I don’t try to push people to buy things.

As a result people find they prefer listening to someone like me, because I don’t give them a sales pitch.

People like me excel in certain fields because we tell people the truth regardless of whether or not they want to hear it.

Would you want to buy a car from someone whom is honest-to-a-fault, or someone that was a pathological liar?

Well assuming you are sane, you would want buy a car from the honest individual.

gekster

You are not a conservative poster as you have claimed,
but an autistic consrevetive poster as you now claim,
so I should now cut you some slack.
I don’t have to and will not deal with that.
Good day sir.
(and it is not because you are autistic, if you really are, no disrespect, but how do I know, but that you put it out front)
Hrumph.

gekster

The only excuses you are making are to and for yourself.

http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

…but at least he shows respect for those he disagrees with. Too bad the same can’t be said about you.

Garfield took you to school tonight…..

garfieldjl

If you look at the rules of this site, I’m supposed to be respectful, I’m also not supposed to use profanity.

At the same time, I have a natural tendency to be honest.

If there wasn’t rules against using profanity for instance, I would have used profanity.

Sometimes I might lose my temper, but generally I can keep my temper in check.

The fact I haven’t used profanity, doesn’t change the fact that I am still being completely honest as to my feelings on this, otherwise, I wouldn’t have bothered pointing out how sorely tempted I am to actually flame gekster.

One of the nice things about forums and being able to type out responses is that it actually gives me time to cool off and keep my temper in check. It gives me time to think as to whether my initial impression of someone is correct, or if I’m just angry, so I can avoid posting simply out of anger and be more level headed.

That doesn’t change the fact that I’m still going to be honest, just I’m better at doing it now without responding to flamebait, by actually flaming them.

It actually takes a real effort on my part to be diplomatic with people that are ticking me off, however I can do it when I put a lot of effort into it. Making sure I say something in a manner complies with the rules of a site (in this case redstate), is totally different from practicing deceit.

Stricia

n.t.

Stricia

pleasure of another one of your self-imposed l.o.a. ?

powertothepeople

why you keep announcing that you are on the Autism Scale? I just do not understand why you keep mentioning it and stating it is the reason you say certain things, yet in your last post make it clear that you have control over what you say especially on a forum. Either, it affects the things you say on this site and we should over look the pure Romney hate you have and the way you denounce our candidate who is the one and hope we have of beating Obama or it does not and you are culpable for the things you say and no one should walk on egg shells when responding to you.

It is either a controlling factor or has nothing to do with your posts and you should stop throwing it out when you do not like confrontation. Can not have it both ways.

garfieldjl

While someone can use wording to deceive, that is true, the actual part of the brain that becomes active one someone is trying to attempt to deceive someone, doesn’t work all that well for people on the spectrum.

When I’m being careful how I word things, it is to stay within the rules of this site as close as possible, while still being honest. I am very honest, I’m also very big on following rules and a firm believer in there being such a thing as right and wrong.

I am able to use figures of speech, however I actually had to literally memorize a lot of them when I was younger. I don’t always pick up on figures of speech still.

I have an incredibly large vocabulary, heck even when I was little, which is part of why it took them so long to figure out I had Autism (Aspergers Syndrome (it is a back and forth as to whether or not Aspergers is simply High-Functioning Autism or its own seperate category, but both are on the Spectrum)).

I can understand the idea of deception conceptually, and understand a lot of people will deceive other people; it goes completely against my grain.

Being imaginative, figuring out how to say things in a less offensive manner, is entirely different from actively trying to deceive someone.

People have said I don’t give myself enough credit and that I display better tact than I often realize, but that has nothing to do with actively trying to deceive someone.

gekster

Do you know the ‘total history of our coresponding posts.
Do you not see that I have not brought any ailments, but garfield has, and more than once.
And if garfield ‘took’ me to school, what did he teach me.
That I post and when it gets rough I drag out the autism scthick.
Well, I broke my leg recently, so cut me slack because I am hobbled.

Niether one of you two are on the bright end of the stick, and by the way,
just who pulled your chains..

http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

…he has over your rationality. Garfield was much more adept at controlling his emotions.You lost your cool. He did not.

If it was boxing, and I were the ref, I would have stopped the fight hours ago.

gekster

As if you actually have one this time.
Whats l. o. a.
Is it that hard to spell it out.
Public school edumakated, are we?
Can’t spell real words?

garfieldjl

I only brought up the fact I am on the spectrum because you kept questioning my integrity and of being a shill for Obama!!!

I pointed out that fact, because it shows that your accusation is totally idiotic, and that hopefully understand that you were barking up the wrong tree. Otherwise I really don’t think it is any of your damn business.

gekster

Well it must be here somewhere.
Let me look under my desk.
Ah, there it is.
Got it. OK now.

I see a maroon suppoting a maroon.
I guess it only gets better.
Any rational thought on this guy wanting a break for his autism, or would you having to actually think be too much for you.
Your call.

garfieldjl

It isn’t my job to prove your accusations for you. The more you mock me, the more you demonstrate why I think you have absolutely 0 credibility.

http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

I’d love to stay and mix it up with you, but I have to work tomorrow.

Take care of yourself…….

gekster

Why does it matter.
I treat by what you post, not for any other reason.
You brought it up as an excuse.
I won’t deal with that aspect of your posting.
You have to bring it up. then I think you are not sure enough in your arguements.
That is on you, not me.
I am an idiot in my own right.
I am, and have stated before, the site/village idiot here.
You are falling back on a crutch for yours.
My main point is make your arguements on what you say and what you think, and leave it at that.
If you have to say to anyone that you are autistic, especially when no one took you at that before you said it, then you are using it as a crutch.
Now actually think about that for a moment, throw it out the door, and don’t bring it back.
You really don’t need it here, as no one will see it unless you point it out.
I truelly hope you get my meaning.
I don’t point out my brain damage, which obviously shows,
You shouldn’t point out your autism, which doesn’t show.
No one knew until you told us, and you seam to keep harping on.
That is on you.

garfieldjl

I just don’t like people whom bully other people. You behave like the equivalent of an SEIU thug, I don’t care if the person you are bullying is a Santorum, Obama, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, or heck even one of your fellow Mittbots.

If they are presenting their argument in a relatively respectful manner, in my view they should be treated in a relatively respectful manner. Let them present their case, present your own, and let the chips fall where they may.

Furthermore, I find it completely dishonest when instead of backing up what you say with facts, you insult them for demanding you back up what you are saying with facts and sources.

This isn’t about political affiliation, this is about honesty, about being a good Conservative and a good Republican.

Someone that is a good Conservative is the same as someone that is a Good Republican, that person is one that uses facts, that stands by the truth, that means what they say and says what they mean.

That’s why I supported McCain over Romney in 2008, because I respected McCain for his honesty even if I didn’t agree with him. That’s why I had no problem voting for McCain, cause it isn’t simply about saying you’re for or against something, it’s about the example you set. McCain is surprisingly honest for a politican while Obama is a typical Chicago mob style politician, 2008 was a no brainer.

gekster

Then what is my loss.
I’ve been around for awhile, and have all the credability I can use.
But I am not here for acolades or respect or credability.
Those mean nothing to me.
To some others, it means alot, but not me.
Don’t care.

And all I tried to point out, is that if you did your own reaserch, and googled what I asked you to. you would have found out much more than I could have posted.
I responded to your original post in sincerity, but it was you who mocked me with your reply to mickey.
How hard would it have been to do a search, instead of wait for someone to do it for you.
Are you the kind of person who wants others to do things for you.
Most conservative want to do for themselves, and jump at the chance to do things for themselves.
With your post, you don’t look like one of them.

garfieldjl

I wasn’t making any excuses, I was pointing out how totally idiotic, your boneheaded accusations were.

You were essentially accusing someone whom is essentially honest-to-a-fault by their very nature of being a pathological liar.

I wasn’t bringing up the fact I have Autism as an excuse for anything aside from the fact you were possibly misinterpretting my intentions and thinking that I had some ulterior motive that I didn’t have.

garfieldjl

However, considering I want the Republican Party to have credibity, I believe you’re making the Republican Party look bad in general.

Assuming that you honestly want the Republican party to look good, then I think it would be in your interest to change your behavior.

gekster

I see useing the internetty webby thingy is to hard for you to deal with.
I will use kid gloves because your autism keeps you from being able to use this internetty webby thingy to your satisfaction.
Is that how you want it, or do I treat yo like you are normal.
Again your call.
To tell you the truth., post what ever crap you want. I won’t interupt your spiel.

But just to let you know, I do volunteer work with handicapped, (I have a grandson who is) and thier biggest complaint is that others don’t treat them as normal.
I see that isn’t one of your complaints.

gekster

It’s too much, I give it up.
You can represent them now.
I can’t handle it.

I pass the sword with the power of Grey Skull to you.

garfieldjl

You have no excuse for being lazy. I have had work today and have work tomorrow, by all accounts I should get some sleep.

You were the one claiming Ron Paul was this that and the other, it is not my job to hold your hand and find sources to back up your claims!

You’re the one that is acting immature not me.

gekster

And acting immature is a hobby.
But who is more immature.
Me, or the one responding to me.
Think about it.
And like I said, since it is to hard for you to hit google, the next time I will provide a link.
If you really wanted to know, you would of looked.

Now don’t respond, as I am out of this thread.

CincoSolas_del_Bronx

until they’re ready to accept the proferred help. Which I am doing here–without benefit of knowing if he’s still thrashing around.

burningsirius

Always was meant to be. Look at the Federalist Papers for more info on that. The check on the Congress vs the Courts is that the Congress can remove lower court authority to hear certain cases (not supported by the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8) because the Federal government was supposed to be an arbiter between the states… not a government and of itself. The states are the real sovereigns as per the Treaty of Paris (which our State Department still recognizes for some reason even though it states there were 13 sovereign entities).

burningsirius

Sorry, you can be a conservative and critique Reagan. There is a difference between liberal partisan ‘critiques’ (hatchet jobs) and being honest with ourselves as a movement. Reagan would not want to be worshiped as an infallible being I am sure and would welcome such critiques. He even admonished his own handling of the Lebenon situation where his actions killed Marines (his words). So, the guy was not a sociopath like I accuse other politicians to be. He was an honest guy and I have much respect for Reagan even though I do critique him now and again.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

He wasn’t in the Congress.

JSobieski

Criticizing Reagan for Lebanon is a realistic criticism that Reagan himself would agree with.

Criticizing Reagan for not single handedly stopping abortion is not realistic. Nor would Reagan engage in such flagellation.

You might as well blame yourself for ever abortion that ever occurred since your powers of persuasion have not been sufficient to result in a change in the law.

However, it would be an act of narcism for you to accept such blame . . just as it would be for Reagan.

wiseburn

If a party can foist the costs on the taxpayer, they usually do a primary. A caucus, because it draws many fewer participants is much less expensive when a party needs to pay it’s own way.

Iowa’s straw poll and South Carolina’s debate are big fundraisers for their repsective parties.

The caucus process makes it a lot easier for an irate, tireless minority to prevail, while the primary plays to the establishment with their control over the media.
–
It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds. Samuel Adams

burningsirius

therefore I have no blame. I work within the crooked system as Daniel, Joesph and Moses (moral men in immoral goverments) did to reform it. Hey, I love Reagan. I even named my dog (a new puppy at the time) Reagan in his honor when he passed away. I also wrote into CBS when they had their hate Reagan he was a dummy TV series. So, I find it funny that you all are piling up on me.

Guess we can’t blame Obama on Obamacare.

burningsirius

when Obamacare passed. He is not responsible for it at all lol.

Funny enough in the Constitution, it says that the President has the power to propose legislation to the Congress.

Wait a moment…

Jack_Savage

Reagan did not have a House and Senate who were committed, at the cost of their own jobs, to pass a bill banning abortion – mainly because the Congress for most of Reagan’s term was controlled by Democrats.

Reagan did serious damage to the biggest evil in his lifetime – Communism. I think the congressional deck was stacked against him regarding abortion, he knew it, and fought evil where he could in areas where he had more control – foreign policy and military spending.

I don’t want to berate you and have no doubt you are a fan of Reagan. I just think he ran out of time and political capital.

aesthete

Reagan did not advocate for or pass anything pro-abortion while in office. Obama obviously did more than nothing on the issue of ObamaCare.

burningsirius

No, I said he did not advance the pro-life agenda. Those are two different things.

There are liberals who say that Reagan would be a Democrat now given the fact he expanded government during his tenure. I have to actually debate Dems intelligently. You can either be a Reagan apologist or a Conservative apologist. I rather go with the later rather than the former as it allows Conservatives to be intellectually honest with our movement without compromising our principles.

Reagan is not god. He did have faults like everyone else. He was a great man who did the impossible (defeat the Soviet Union). So, please lay off my back about committing Reagan heresy and stick to the issues. Though Reagan did not give any ground to the pro-choice nazis, Reagan made no grounds on the issue.

burningsirius

was that he brought together two wings of the Conservative movement and unified them against the Democrats. What kind of olive branches is the RNC giving to Liberty oriented Republicans? None! Reagan would of reached out to them and had many sympathies with them.

Reagan was a uniter not a divider. Many on this forum wish to purge the Republicans of people who want a Gold Standard, want our 4th amendment protections, oppose a Wilsonian ‘Make the World Safe for Democracy’ Foreign Policy, want home schooling, ext. Reagan would of brought them into the fold. Not so now and days, that was another great attribute of Reagan.

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

“You cant acomplish much when you’re a voice in the Wilderness ”

This is utter nonsense.
First, the idea that Ron Paul has a monopoly on principle and reason is looney. Coburn, DeMint, Pence, Hensarling, and dozens of others have more principles and reason than Ron Paul. Most of them have actually gotten things done to boot. They more effective, and I would include in with that Ron Paul’s own son, Rand Paul, who seems more savvy, balanced, and able to work with others.

Ron Paul pursues false looney narratives on a number of topics, from blaming the US for 9/11 to his attacks on the Fed, which are high-falutin but based on an incorrect dumbed-down view of Austrian economics.

Dave_A

First off, the CIA is vital to our national defense – the US isn’t very good at spying to begin with, but we would be worse off if we just stopped trying, like Ron wants. He specifically said the CIA needs to be – and I quote – “taken out”.

Next, BRAC. BRAC is a WEAK way of doing something that ABSOLUTELY needs to be done – the Army in particular operates WAY TOO MANY small, USELESS bases that are kept alive merely as ‘welfare’ for local economies. Military Bases do NOT exist to ‘create jobs’, they exist to provide for the training of US forces for overseas operations.

The Army should have at most 10 bases IN the US (And a whole lot more overseas) – 1st ID (Ft Riley), 2nd ID (Ft Lewis), 3rd ID (Ft Stewart), 4th ID (Ft Carson), 1st CAV & 3rd ACR (Ft Hood), 101st ABN (Ft Campbell), 82nd ABN (Ft Bragg), 10th MTN (Ft Drum), 25th ID (Scofield Barracks (sp?)), Ft Irwin (NTC), Ft Polk (JRTC), plus Benning, Aberdeen, and Sill.

Close the rest, sell the land, roll the proceeds back into the Army’s budget for weapons modernization. Now, there are various ranges, test sites, and other things that can stay open… But bases like Ft Eustis, Ft Lee, and so on should be sold. There is space for those troops at Ft Lewis & the other major combat-arms bases….

So while we should absolutely NOT cut the number of troops or OVERSEAS bases, we SHOULD cut US bases that serve no purpose but to feed federal dollars to local communities… We (the military) have been trying to DUMP THIS DEAD WEIGHT off our budgets for years, and keep getting forced to maintain these un-needed domestic bases because Congressmen don’t want to see their districts lose a cash-cow…

Finally, the 80% statement is from an interview Ron did during the 08 campaign, where he was asked what he thought the right size for the DoD was. He said ‘about 20% of what it is now’.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Have fun reading your racist newsletters. Ronulan.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Then you knew this was coming, Paultard.

Dave_A

Sorry, but the mainstream Conservative movement get’s it’s economics from the Chicago School (Friedman, et-al) not the Austrians.

Dave_A

Is that we don’t want to see the value of our assets drop like a rock, our salaries slashed, but our debts stay the same…

Enact a gold standard, and watch home prices drop 50% or more, salaries drop by the same…

But personal debt will stay where it is…

It’s called a ‘Deflationary Spiral’, and it’s yet another piece of Ron’s plan to destroy America.

I don’t have a big pile of Dollars buried under my bed, so I don’t really care what happens to the USD’s value over 100 years so long as it’s still the world reserve currency & we’re still #1 militarily and economically.

On the other hand, I *do* own a house, a few cars, and so on… I also owe some debt.

IF RON HAD HIS WAY, I’d be wiped out….

My house would devalue worse than anything we’ve seen in the past few years… My employer would have to cut my pay (the value of labor is another ‘commodity’ like a house)….

I’d gain NOTHING because I have no cash-stash…

And I’d still have to pay back my pre-paul debt at face value…

WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT THAT?

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

The Ronulans are just so ignorant of American history, that they don’t realize that it was regular bouts of deflation that caused all the depressions we used to have.

They’re ignorant of history, the Constitution, and American values. That’s why they vote for that racist nutball Ron Paul.

CincoSolas_del_Bronx

Fall’n the costume-piece;
mire blots gleams only feigning
a genuine blaze.

http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

but also brilliant. And there is increasingly less and less distance between the two schools. A lot of convergence in recent years. But Rothbard wasn’t even a real Austrian, He had got off into some really strange stuff in his final years.

http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

Does giving billions of dollars in military aid to Arab nations, and destabilizing the middle east region contribute to the security of Israel?

I don’t quite go as far as Ron Paul does, but he definitely has a point in bringing these questions up.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

I have no use euroliberals corrupting the American conservative movement.

http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

They have made it clear that they won’t put up with robots and talking points but they have not banned any discussion of Ron Paul or his policies.

Viet71

And let the dollar float?

This is just a question.

My recollection is that the dollar, which was being creamed due to shortage of gold, eventually weakened tremendously as inflation took hold. So there was no apparent asset deflation throughout the 1970s, but the dollar depreciated tremendously.

Seems to me the argument is over asset value vs. dollar value.

Seems further to me that without a gold standard, central banks (as opposed to voters) get to control the world economy(ies). Maybe that’s a good thing. Alexander Hamilton probably would think so.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

.

http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

That whole free enterprise thing is so overrated.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

What Nixon did was let market forces take hold, instead of having government price-fixing going on, that we could no longer afford.

http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

What you need is a sane policy. Such as a set increase in the money supply based upon increases in productivity.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

..

Viet71

Just seeking cause and effect.

Viet71

Can’t rely on government figures.

Agree about sane policy.

PowerToThePeople

and while they would allow certain discussions considering his policies, to advocate for the man would be most likely banned.

I could put a 30 inch list here of all the names I have seen banned for promoting Ron Paul or his policies.

But then again not so sure why you felt the need to jump in a multiple day old post with your inaccurate two cents………..

conservativerock5

Are they too free market-free society for you?

When I think of euroliberal, I think of socialism.

Do you realize that Ronald Reagan, the man, was heavily influenced by the Austrians Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek(won Nobel prize), and Henry Hazlitt? Add to that a favorite of the Austrians, Bastiat.

Rothbard is in a bit of a different class, as he was an anarchist. But his historical work and economic work were great, and he provided great arguments when arguing his anarchist position-many involving creative solutions of private alternatives to government.

Nobel prize winner James Buchanan(public choice) agrees with Austrian economic theory, though he is not formally associated with the school. Professor Walter Williams(racial economics) has been associated with the Austrians, though like Buchanan his work focuses in non-business cycle areas.

The main difference between the Austrians and Chicagoans is the business cycle theory, yet even Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell are opposed to the central bank called the Federal Reserve.

I seriously doubt you know much about true Austrian economic theory, otherwise you wouldn’t make such comments about them being “euroliberals”.

PowerToThePeople

just saw not only do they ban RP nuts, they just did ban this guy.

How does that foot taste? Good or bitter?

acat

but its’ value *as money* is nil.

Mew

conservativerock5

That is because the central bank destroyed the gold standard as we knew it.

However in the past, the gold standard was far more successful than fiat currencies.

acat

I’ll take a *restricted* central bank over a true free market.

Mew

conservativerock5

“They?re ignorant of history, the Constitution,”

Huh, I don’t hear anybody else in politics talk about the Constitution.

“and American values.”

Paul supporters are diverse. Many are religious Christians, others are humanist.

“That?s why they vote for that racist nutball Ron Paul.”

Really, insults? You are implying that RP is racist which has very shaky evidence, and in turn implicate his supporter base. Nutball is another name calling term.

I don’t see why more people aren’t like me. I prefer to discuss rationally. I will be happy to point out that Ron Paul is wrong when it comes to Iran and North Korea, yet much of this forum gets their blood pressure raised 1000 points whenever a Paul supporter shows up.

I would expect more from a moderator.

conservativerock5

I am not arguing against the policy banning paulbots, I just prefer a good example for discourse is being set. But again it isn’t my website…anyways…

conservativerock5

In the sense that there would never be heavy inflation or deflation. There were slow changes every few years. Overall though, the free banking era provided the greatest time for wealth creation in American history.

Bank runs have been overblown in that time period. And the fact is that bank panics have become more large and frequent since the Fed was created.

A free market is always better than centralized planning.

Bill S

.

APA Guy

nt

mikeymike143

that is why republican voters in every single primary state so far have rejected him.

and you paulbots are lefty loons without an inch of real life common sense, anyone can just go to a paulbot site and read the member posts and that will verify what i am saying. of course, redstate has known that for years, its whey they ban paulbots like yourself on sight.

acat

You’ve no idea what you’re talking about.

Mew

http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

the kind of booms and busts in the late 1800′s to early 1900′s were very severe. I will grant that they usually did not last long, but they happened with a lot of frequency.

Look, gold is not magic. And a Central bank is not inherently bad. (although it should have very limited powers.)

Dave_A

And in a representative Republic with a sub-2% (good times) to at most 5% (bad times, eg now) savings rate, ‘Asset Value’ will ALWAYS win.

If people HAD cash-basis savings (like they did in the days of Madison & Jackson) then the case for gold might be stronger….

However,since 95-99% of American wages are placed into assets, asset value will always trump dollar value – both in the policies of the FED and the choices of those who know enough econ to vote their own best interest.

The explanation for Ron’s position, (at least the one that seems to fit better than ‘He’s an ignoramus’) is that the man is an Anti-American revolutionary. He wants to ‘finish the job’ for Jefferson Davis, and take out the entire Federal government. Destroying the dollar with deflation, would accomplish that.

When you combine his position on money with his position on the border fence – specifically the fact that he opposes it BECAUSE HE THINKS IT WILL BE USED AS A US BERLIN WALL TO KEEP AMERICANS IN AMERICA…

And combine it with all his other positions (disband the CIA, gut the DoD)…

And you have a man who wants to set the deck for a 2nd civil war, in such a way that the Federal side can’t win this time…

aesthete

lies in its price stability. The functions of currency — as a store of value, a medium of exchange, and a unit of account — all depend on the stability of the currency both at present and in the future. Gold was historically of interest in backing currencies — not because it is intrinsically useful, but because its value on a day-to-day basis stays relatively secure and because it was easier to secure in pre-industrial and pre-globalized times than an even more stable basket of commodities. Convertibility of money was useful when the institutions in charge of the money supply were distrusted. Government-backed fiat currencies were initially adopted as way for government to build credit or gain access to resources. The move en masse from commodity-backed money to fiat money was largely a result of this utility.

I agree with kyle above: the question of fiat v commodity money is less important than stability of the money supply. Allowing a currency to float in the free market, and maintaining sound, conservative fiscal and monetary policy generally allows for this. The value and dependability of government-backed fiat currencies suffers to the extent that governments deviate from this to meet other “needs”.

Dave_A

But that’s Ron’s point…

He wants to scuttle the ship.

We need to cut the budget, but we need to do it slowly enough that we don’t shock the economy. There is simply too much economic activity ‘tied to’ the status quo, and if we lop off huge sections of budget (1TN in a year is almost 1/3 of the entire federal budget) too quickly we will cause economic problems, create a backlash, and give the democrats control for life…

Further, you can’t govern a country of 300M-and-headed-for-400 on a $500BN budget (Ron’s ‘target’)…

Period.

Somewhere in the 2-something-TN range is reasonable – and that just so happens to be right around the current level of tax revenue.

A *reasonable* budget-cut plan should aim to reduce the deficit to at/below annual economic growth in 15 years or so…

Something like Congressman Ryan’s plan.

But that’s not what Ron wants… He wants America taken apart & split up…

Dave_A

I’m a 2-tour combat vet, recently returned from Afghanistan.

And I want Ron run out of the GOP on a rail…

commonsenseobserver

Managed to identify $9 Trillion in savings (and tax measures).

Dave_A

An ‘R’ next to your name, in the general election, gets the official support of the site and it’s membership…

And since the primaries are over (Ron can’t legitimately win the nomination at this point), and Romney is the nominee…

Yes, we’ll be supporting Romney.

Because he’s the GOP nominee, and he’s better than Obama.

Dave_A

The ‘younger demographic’ is liberal or irrationally libertarian (yes, there is a difference)….

The GOP has never been driven by youth – other than those who are also social conservatives/values-voters.

We have won elections without the youth vote in the past, and will continue to do so going into the future.

Once the Ron Paul-voting kids grow up, get jobs, and start families they will understand the folly of Ron’s positions…

The same goes for many Obama-voter kids…

They then become traditional Republicans – pro-defense, pro-law-and-order, anti-drug… Once you’re not penniless, and actually own stuff, a gold standard stops looking good… And so on…

The GOP can survive on Winston Churchill’s ‘He who’s not liberal when they are young has no hart, he who’s not conservative when he’s old has no mind’….

As a bonus, the mature, traditional conservative demographic (29-and-older) tends to vote with reliable regularity, whereas the Paul/Democrat demographic (18-29) tends to NOT vote with reliable regularity.

Dave_A

Art 1 Sec 6, specifically

Federal Supremacy is spelled out in black and white. There’s no but-but-butting around it.

If you are a nullificationist/neo-confederate you are NOT a constitutionalist.

http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

would boom, maybe after a short adjustment period, but it could take off if the right things were cut. The cuts would be phased in at any rate so it wouldn’t be the cold turkey you envision.

Not only cuts but repealing a lot of regulation. If you take the handcuffs off of business you would get growth.

After all, our economy is bigger by more than a trillion just from all of the crap Obama has added in the last three years.

Dave_A

You base that on what?

Personally, having been ‘over there’ & seen the lengths our enemies will go to attack their targets…

My biggest beef with the TSA is their stunning incompetence & inability to catch obvious security violations.

NOT their security methods.

The ‘on paper’ methodology is very good – the execution is terrible (eg, they miss too much shit)….

Privatize them, but keep all the security procedures as they are.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

…

http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

the department of education is vital to our children’s education.

This is the agency that literally got everything wrong during the cold war. The agency that told us the Soviet Union was strong about 18 months before it collapsed.

the agency that was riddled with commie spys for years. The agency that told GW Bush that WMD’s were a “slam dunk”.

They are nothing but a bunch of aging incompetent bureaucrats.

Dave_A

For example, Ron insists that Congress MUST declare all wars, using the language ‘declaration of war’.

The Constitution says that Congress is the only branch that CAN declare war, but there is NOTHING in the constitution requiring a ‘declaration of war’ before we fight one.

This is one of many examples.

Another, is claiming the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, when it is clearly not – AND when the US Supreme Court ruled on the subject (correctly) in McCulloch v Maryland – back when Madison (you know ‘The Father of the Constitution’, and the man who SIGNED the 2nd Bank of the US) was President.

Dave_A

Do we need to clean-house in the desk-jockey ranks of CIA and State?

Absolutely…

Same for the Army – just look at the current SMA’s new rants on civilian clothes, backpacks, and haircuts…

However, ‘Taking Out’ – eg eliminating – the entire agency also wipes out most of our boots-on-ground spies & other operatives…

We need them… Badly…

We just need to take a better look at who’s allowed to interpret the information they obtain….

commonsenseobserver

There’s lots of waste in intelligence and defense, which can be eliminated and reinvested in vital services, better equipment, or deficit reduction.

acat

.. and you might want to look at U.S. birth rates.

The GOP may not be driven by “youth”, but allowing domination by aging boomers isn’t any better…

I’ll take “driven by ideology”, please.

Mew

acat

And, more importantly, if we *do* cut defense and Mexico tips into a civil war, or China’s “broken branches” lead the dragon to be more adventurous … we’re boned.

Further, “waste” in both intelligence and defense gets *spent*, going into the economy. I’ll take some waste to avoid cutting to the bone, eh?

Mew

snowshooze

RP boys just took Alaska.
I am interested to see what comes out at the convention, however at this point, I’m only idly curious how the votes stack up.
I thin dear old crazy Uncle Paul, is just too danged old to make another run at it after this, but I expect his people will continue to carry the torch.
Given the option of Paul or Obama, Paul it would be. But that isn’t the option.
Handed the ultimatum of Romney or Obama, still no choice.
Romney will have to work very hard to win this. I hope he can pull it.
I don’t know that he can. I guess that is why we actually have elections.

snowshooze

In this Alaska deal, there was plenty of dirt and yellow snow to go around for all.

acat

Rand Paul.

Romney does that, he gets the Paulistines on board, eh?

Mew

commonsenseobserver

Lots of expensive weapons and other systems which get outdated quickly. As well as administrative costs and military benefits. The Intelligence Community, of course, is undeniably bloated, and troubled by infighted. Perhaps savings can be found in these areas.

snowshooze

A lot of deals get cut. That’s how we got Obama, and probably how we shall wind up with Romney, if he can pull it from here.
But I actually think Rand is pretty decent. I like him anyway.
But so far as the Paulbots… I don’t think they are all going to approve. Throw then a fish, and they will probably eat it but don’t think you won’t get bitten.

snowshooze

Heir apparent ? Makes sense to me. Maybe he is too liberal for them..

commonsenseobserver

Don’t intend to kill it from the inside either.

When all else fails, we still need to *appear* to have a money-printing machine.

acat

but I’m not visiting the sins of the father upon the son. Yet.

Mew

acat

might be the price Romney pays to get Ron to not go third party….

Ron staying a loyal GOPer makes it easier for Romney to shiv Johnson, so it’s a twofer.

Mew

snowshooze

Just don’t know. 1

snowshooze

He give Newt a couple too. Possibly more.
But that is how you line ‘em up.

acat

Getting behind the curve can have fatal consequences.

This is doubly true in the case of intelligence.

Any savings you find would, by the way, be dwarfed by the bloat in entitlement spending.

Mew

acat

The Paulistines are a rather low overall percentage, but there seems to be some overlap with the demographics that supported Obama in 2008 …

Romney really Really *REALLY* wants this… if there’s a deal to be made, he’ll make it.

Mew

Dave_A

That Rand shouldn’t be let within 10ft of the building, much less into the chairman’s office…

The FED is one of our most important institutions – the wrong person in charge there can very easily wreck the economy (see 1929, and the deflationary policies that lead to the great depression)….

The fact that most Americans don’t even know what ‘deflation’ is – and think ‘inflation’ is the only bad thing that can happen to money – is a sign that the Fed has done it’s job well.

commonsenseobserver

The new fighters aren’t that good either. Neither are the old bombers. Missile defense is a different matter.

There shouldn’t be any problem with consolidating the current patchwork of intelligence and security agencies. Many of them are fighting over information. I don’t think that the army needs to continue growing either. And while servicemen should have access to the best care, savings could be found by increasing cost control and payments in that area.

mikeymike143

i dont believe he will make it out of the republican primary in 2016.

mikeymike143

i mean that i dont believe rand will make it out of the republican primary when he runs for senator in 2016.

acat

Infantry divisions, that is. The “peace dividend” was a huge mistake.

As for the fighters, if you’re arguing we’re already behind … then shouldn’t we be spending more?

I find your assertion that we should further weasel out on the benefits promised to American servicepeople to be very offensive.

Mew

commonsenseobserver

Perhaps you can enlighten me on the official data.

And, no, throwing more money wouldn’t solve the problem that they are increasingly more unreliable and costly. They’ll need to abandon this failed project and find cheaper and better alternatives. The F-16 can be kept for another few years.

I was referring mostly to the civilian staff (poor phrasing about servicepeople). But even veterans’ benefits,TRICARE, and other programmes for the military should be carefully examined, without affecting current servicepeople, of course.

I take it that you agree on the intelligence community and nuclear arsenal. I certainly don’t think we should disarm ourselves.

aesthete

“The fact that most Americans don?t even know what ?deflation? is ? and think ?inflation? is the only bad thing that can happen to money ? is a sign that the Fed has done it?s job well.”

Citizens in Zimbabwe can say exactly the same. What is important is that we find ways to restrict the Fed to maintaining a stable price level, and for them to avoid ad hoc policy when it comes to its job as either lender of last resort or overseer of our currency.

PowerToThePeople

there are things he has said and done that make me wonder if the apple fell far from the tree. While I do not think he is as far out in left field as his dad, he is still out there waiting for his day to take over.

aesthete

The “peace dividend” was not only completely necessary, but a great idea in light of the end of the Cold War. We’ve cut military expenditures after every war, and in this case especially it was wise: we have no longstanding security threats from conventional forces, and the vast majority of our successes in the GWoT have been through the use of SF and drones. The policies have have required a large army since the end of the Cold War have been counterproductive more than anything else (with the exception of our initial invasion of Afghanistan).

acat

I find it odd that this is considered “news”.

Mew

acat

you wouldn’t keep referencing your religion.

The two are familiars, but not fungible.

Mew

acat

did not, as the end of other wars did, leave our country safer.

Some draw-down made sense, retiring some of the mechanized units to national guard status, less money spent on big systems with a cold-war rationale, more special operations units, sure.

That said, we need more plain old G.I. boots than we currently have… and that’s going to get worse if Mexico goes unstable.

Mew

aesthete

I don’t remember any nuke drills in the past 20 years, or talk of MAD. The closest we have to a competitor is China, and it’s a long ways off even in the realm where it could have parity (such as the army).

We’ve dealt with a much more unstable Mexico in the recent past (Mexican Revolution started in 1910) while maintaining a small standing army. It’s not going to take a large army to do so again; neither the Mexican government nor the cartels are particularly formidable foes, even if neither makes for a particularly stable regime in Mexico. (This is besides the fact that the drug cartels’ influence could be dealt with and managed easily if cartels couldn’t profit so easily by running drugs through Central America to the US — but of course, no one want to talk about meaningful ways that we could change that…)

mikeymike143

we do need to continue having a strong defense. and any so called ”peace dividend” will only be spent to expand some other government giveaway.

acat

The threat during the cold war was a single enemy – the model of a rather high-stakes chess game was often used. (“One Night in Bangkok” for your musical interlude/historical footnote)

The threat now is rather different… but it is still a threat.

Mexico of 1910 was much more active-hostile .. but if our southern neighbor drops into civil war now, we – specifically, *you* – will be quite flooded with refugees. The realities of war have also changed since 1910. Who’s going to step in and augment the police? The national guard? (many of whom *are* the police…)

The point is, again, some draw-down and a *refocus* were needed – but Clinton drew down too far, and did not refocus. Rumsfeld did some refocusing but ..

Mew

CincoSolas_del_Bronx

to dissuade you from hobnobbing with the departed …

acat

I would point out that the dead vote in Chicago, so .. some effort to get them to vote Republican should be considered.

Mew

commonsenseobserver

The next President will have to refocus, and I hardly think that continuing to grow the army will be the outcome of such a process.

I’m no dove, but I also want an efficient, agile, and effective military that can respond to changing threats, rather than only fighting long wars.

acat

I choose a Fast and Correct armed services, even if it means I’m paying more than you would like.

The alternative gets significantly more expensive.

Mew

commonsenseobserver

That’s a myth, because even though all our options are expensive, there are alternatives that will allow us to maintain a cheap(er), fast, and “correct” military.

I still do not understand the need to grow the army. I certainly do not understand the need to spend lots of money every single year. If a nation’s defences are like this, it’s not working.

acat

we’ve been rotating National Guard units in to do the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya.

The National Guard tends to be people who have a role in the community, some are cops, some are firefighters, some own small businesses, I’m sure there are some lawyers and bakers in there too… but if they’re in the sandbox or rockpile, they’re not in their home states to be called up during a natural disaster, or to provide extra support to the police during civil unrest, etc. etc.

Your tendency to refer to only the Army, ignoring the Air Force, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard, indicates you really don’t understand the armed services.

Mew

commonsenseobserver

Under Bush, the other services did not expand as quickly as the army, but all of them are certainly large enough now, if they were large enough for the incumbent President’s predecessor.

Perhaps you’d enlighten me on how we can replace the National Guard?

commonsenseobserver

The other services spend too much on weapons and equipment.
I believe the opposite is true for the army?

acat

I really don’t see why this is complex to you.

Mew

commonsenseobserver

Unless we intend to liberate another country anytime soon…?

acat

And you want to nickle and dime the latter on health care while you’ve been silent about the platinum-plated care that congressional staffers and congresspeople get.

Mew

acat

Clearly, Bush used the National Guard because the Armed Services weren’t up to the challenge… I blame Clinton for cutting too far.

We should return to this standard… and that means increasing the size of the armed services.

Mew

commonsenseobserver

But we weren’t talking about that, or anything else.

In which case this conversation should have moved on to entitlements and tax reform already. And that’d open a whole new divide.

commonsenseobserver

But the Cold War is almost ancient history, and I suppose military requirements change. Perhaps a comprehensive review of strategic policy would be best.

So I’ll agree with the more informed guy. ^_^

(No, I don’t mean Obama)

snowshooze

Like the 2 week Libya fiasco, he was launching Patriots like they were darts for upwards of 2.5 million a pop…and there is Syria, Egypt, Iran, Israel and neighbors… is there anyone he hasn’t ticked off?
He sure is trigger happy for hating the military.
Don’t worry though, any more wars will get better PR

snowshooze

Yeah, the cold war is history alright.

acat

Duck-and-cover drills, parents not wanting to live too close to “the lab with the atom smasher”, the spot in Oak Brook where the remains of the Manhattan Project are buried…

Yeah. Ancient history, just like Lawrence of Arabia, Genghis Khan, the Tokugawa shogunate, the battle of Marathon …

Bit of wisdom for you. History doesn’t repeat, but there are definite echoes and patterns. Learn to look for them.

Mew

acat

Guess I should have said Medvedev, he’s the president after all, but Putin seems to be calling the shots.

Mew

commonsenseobserver

I see them, but I don’t understand, so, yeah, I see your point and accept your points.

@ Snowshooze:

If they do try that, perhaps the US won’t depend on the UN much longer. It certainly shouldn’t. But invading Russia would not be advised, nor would using nuclear weapons.

snowshooze

We probably don’t have a single Patriot Missile left.
Next war, we will be throwing rocks.

commonsenseobserver

And no, it’s not a good time to be expecting significant savings from that, and it’s also not a good time to be trying to squeeze out substantial savings either.

Certainly won’t be a part of any large deficit reduction plan, with the exception of the sequester (which probably won’t last past 2013 anyway).

But the next President would do well to heed advice that the national debt is the greatest security threat, and also to continue ex-Secretary Gates’ efficiency and saving measures, before Obama got involved. All the while maintaining a strong defense that can serve our purposes.

aesthete

Right now, we’re getting neither cheap, nor fast. We spent tons of money under the Bush administration essentially reversing the troop drawdown under Clinton — and what have we gotten in exchange?

I’m not trying to pick on you — we libertarianish folk need to stick together on RS, after all — but I know that you’re good-natured enough not to take this personally: there’s absolutely no evidence out there showing that large, Cold War-sized expenditures on the military are required to defend against a low-level conflict in Mexico, and you’ve offered none to that effect. I think that the army is being targetted in this discussion, because it is the service that has seen the most growth of all the armed services in the past 10 years, mostly in the service of defunct foreign policy. With military drones (USAF) and SF (not that costly), we saw concrete gains — the same cannot be said for nation-building in Iraq or Afghanistan.

snowshooze

And if the Republicans can grow a spine and fix the mess… everyone will hate us. ( They hate us anyway, so why should we care? )
But our moderates and weak district reps will be running for cover.. as usual.
No piece of cake.

aesthete

is more that of an over-extended force, like the USSR, spending more than it can afford on a military that it really doesn’t need on missions that don’t benefit it — not to the extent of the USSR, to be sure, but the problem is of a kind.

Can you really say that the missions we’ve engaged US armed forces in have been to our benefit? Is there such a substantial need for an occupation force that we need two *more* divisions in peacetime, when we are just wrapping up two low-intensity conflicts? I would rather invest in military technology, make clear to the rest of the world that it will be solving its own governance and stability problems from now on, and scale down accordingly. We don’t need a large army to defend our soil and territorial acquisitions — that’s why we have the Navy, National Guard, Coast Guard, Border Security, and a population with more guns and martial tradition than most of the rest of the world. If need be, we can move some of our active-duty military down to the border to bolster Border Security — but the force required for this guard duty will be much, much smaller than what was needed to pacify two recalcitrant countries, to say nothing of the reduced logistical and support requirements when operating so close home, and on friendly territory.

snowshooze

And we of course will need drones, technology ( Military grade technology is the most expensive in the world ) and the Divisions, maybe 30,000 men. Without manpower, those drones can only do so much.
But you would think the good ol’ USA would be providing intelligence to Mexico ( I would expect we actually are ) and giving them a hand, instead of arming the Drug Cartel’s… and trying to help ward off the impending disaster.
I realize the Libertarian ideal is to stay out of it, but I am certain you can see the wisdom of just helping them out and avoiding a complete disaster.

acat

or Germany or Japan…. and the boots on the ground are only involved in the early stages anyway. After the locals take over security, it’s all in the hands of the bureaucrats, not the troops.

Infantry is comparatively cheap. Not drone cheap, but certainly cheaper than special forces… but based on the national guard unit rotation rates, we don’t have enough plain old infantry.

We are spending too much on “systems” and not enough on “boots”. Most of the dollars put into a soldiers’ pocket find their way into the economy. We could have stood up two divisions with a fraction of what was spent on the stimulus, and gotten better results, eh?

Bush, due to excessive cuts in the regular services under Clinton, had no choice but to over-utilize the national guard.. and Obama has simply adjusted the requirements to match the capabilities. I would prefer to increase the capabilities to match the requirements. Two wars, simultaneously.

Unless you see something I don’t, this economic downturn is not nearly over… and bad economic realignments like this have a way of turning messy .. and I would rather be prepared.

Mew

snowshooze

And they only cost a bit over a half million apiece. Chump change.
We launched over a hundred into Libya.

acat

more wanting the ability to handle the human wave that would come crashing across the border if Mexico City loses control and drops into a civil war….

Mew

aesthete

at the hands of rebels, and we should act to that effect.

I don’t see how this translates to Cold War levels of military investment. The Pershing Expedition (an actual punitive expedition into hostile territories with no allies) was under 5,000 troops. While it is stunningly incompetent and corrupt, the current Mexican government is an ally, and logistics will be simple. The cartels’ base of operations is in Mexico’s southern states and along its southern border; they have a presence in the northern Mexican states, but it’s a less established one and easily dealt with. The cartels depend almost exclusively on small arms, and have no air or naval power to speak of. We have, IIRC, 10 infantry and army divisions at present. At least 4 of those were or are currently engaged in OIF and OEF. (This is not including airborne and SF deployed to those two regions.) If we need that many active-duty divisions to guard a border on friendly soil from a bunch of yokels with small arms, then our military is failing and we might as well surrender to the Canadians.

acat

liberal / conservative / libertarian mindsets…. I find Meade’s Jacksonian / Jeffersonian / Hamiltonian / Wilsonian (IIRC) divisions make more sense…. and I fall under the Jacksonian side.

In summary, “Just leave me alone, or you’re going to get hurt”.

Mew

snowshooze

Pilfered a lot of the National Guard Armories of RPG’s, Machine guns, and various toys… but yes, mostly light arms.
I see they are currently decapitating reporters, some they are just hanging…
So they are a tough bunch.
And machine gun attacks on their Politicians..
But you are probably right. Nothing like Afghanistan.
And we could just drive the tanks right back home instead of giving them away…

acat

has grown much faster than the Armed Services have been cut.

If we have become so similar to the USSR that we’re going to spend ourselves to death – a real possibility, by the way – it’s the welfare side, not the armed services side, that is the problem. I know we agree on that much.

I would, however, contradict you on the border .. we haven’t ever really tried to enforce it before. I don’t know what it’s really going to take, and … overkill beats dead, eh?

Mew

aesthete

Don’t you think that the money being spent on “being prepared” (for what? Mexican refugees? not to be an ass, but it takes more evil ruthlessness than manpower to shoot at unarmed civilians running pell-mell from near-certain rape, murder, and torture of themselves and their families) is better left in the hands of the private sector, so as to allow the free market a chance to breathe and get out of the recession? Every dollar given to a soldier is a dollar taken from the private sector. Your economic reasoning is identical to that of Keynesians talking about more conventional forms of stimulus, and are very similar to the national service programs rolled out by fascist regimes in Italy under similar auspices.

I don’t see how we are still talking about “nation building” after our spectacular failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nation-building is hit-or-miss in favorable conditions, such as an industrialized country or a country that has a population with the will to change. Outside of a narrow range of those conditions, it’s a near-guarantee of failure. Are we to nation-build in Mexico for an indeterminate number of years? Why? The Mexican government is an ally, if an inconsistent one. Mexico is the 11th most populous nation on earth, with about a third of the US’ territory — how do we control and improve on native governance, when overthrow of the current government would be 1) extremely unpopular and 2) we won’t be in control of most of Mexico’s territory? BTW, if we’re talking about far-fetched attempts to revisit the fillibuster years on Latin America, I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a review of American laws which have created this problem (*cough*WarOnDrugs*cough*).

aesthete

are structural, and many of them are fixable through effective policy on our end. Almost every Central American country’s parliament and/or President in Latin America has requested that the US and the rest of the region revisit and coordinate their drug laws, as have the South American and Caribbean countries most impacted by the illicit means through which cartels . It’s bad enough that Mexican citizens are being killed for our obstinate refusal to look for legal, safe ways to deal with our population’s demand for recreational drug — must our military bear this burden, as well? I see no need to militarize our borders to a greater extent than even the Pershing years precipitated, when we have at our disposal policy choices (in terms of immigration and drug policy) which would greatly alleviate the security and economic concerns that we and our neighbor to the south worry about.

Of course I agree with you that the welfare and entitlement state is a much larger driver of deficits than military expenditures, and I would prefer to see the former cut and reformed, if only one of them is to be cut. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that we will see a budget deal that would include only cuts to the former — it would be political suicide. In the current political environment, we are going to have to see cuts to both, or cuts to neither. I know which one I prefer, and which one we will need to see if our country is to remain stable, safe, and secure.

aesthete

and avoid the impulse to interfere in the internal affairs of our neighbor to the South, then it will be nothing like Afghanistan (where, at any rate, we never had anywhere near 4 active-duty infantry divisions). Logistics are cake and cartels would find it exceedingly difficult to attack fortified, entrenched defenses manned by the best-trained, best-equipped, and best-supported servicemen in the world. Even punitive expeditions to cartel HQs supported by the Mexican government would be a straightforward affair.

If at any point occupying Mexico or overthrowing its government enter the list of actions that we charge our military with, then the civilian policymakers have failed or over-extended themselves and there’s not much that the military can do to salvage repeated, unforced civilian error.

acat

Keynesians assert that increasing any government make-work is suitable stimuli, although they do tend to favor infrastructure.

Unless you’re proposing a greater reliance on the unorganized militia – which would seem to warrant a revisiting of the 2nd amendment – I don’t see where the two are the same.

Any reasonably competent construction outfit can build a highway, but there just aren’t private sector alternatives to the USMC.

As for your “shooting at civilians” bit, it’s .. harsh, but possible. I would prefer to see refugee camps, some form of food and water distribution, and good security provided.

I see nothing inherently wrong with having the Armed Services manage this, as first among equals with the Red Cross, FEMA, and various other civilian organizations. (given their track record, I wouldn’t touch FEMA to clean my basement after a heavy rain)

Regarding the Monroe Doctrine, my preference would be for a rational rethink on drug laws – we’re doing more harm than good on both sides of the border.

I will note, in closing, that the armed services are one of the very few ways out of the rotting urban centers… and in the past I’ve advocated the idea of assigning a platoon to urban public high schools to act as adjunct faculty, physical education coaches, and mentors. I suppose this would all be put down to “nation building”.. except the nation we’d be building is our own.

Mew

acat

and resultant emotional rather than rational views on the topic render our desires (and those of the South American leaders) moot.

Too many Americans see the problem as being “down there”, not out in the shed where little Timmy is getting stoned…

I would, however, make the point that crystal meth is domestic…

Mew

commonsenseobserver

Is that true?

Dave_A

In Roe, the Supreme Court specifically re-iterated an earlier case, which stated that ‘The 9th Amendment confers NO FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS’.

Roe was based on Griswald, which was based on the infamous ‘Penumbra of the 14th Amendment’

Dave_A

A quick overview of the major monetary catastrophes in the ‘era of central banking’ shows that the major inflationary spikes have ALWAYS been caused by political leadership OUTSIDE of the national/central bank, and that in each case after that political decision was made, a currency catastrophe of one form or another was INEVITABLE.

The problem in Zimbabwe, for example, was caused by Mugabe nationalizing the country’s only productive industry, in order to break it up and distribute it to his political supporters.

At that point, the choice was ‘All the money leaves the country, and we have crushing deflation’ OR ‘Hyperinflation’.

There was no middle ground….

The same goes for Argentina (Peg Policy – just USD not gold), Wiemar (Loss of WWI/Versailles Reparations), and so on…

Now, if we want to talk central-bank caused *deflationary* crises – we can start with the US Great Depression…

The thing is, while a central bank operating on an interest-rate-based, open-market system (like ours does) can very easily cause deflation by raising the baseline interest rate…. It is almost impossible for them to *force* out-of-control inflation.

The reason for this is being illustrated right now in the US – no matter how cheap the FED prices the USD (near-zero interest), if there is no demand then none of that ‘printed money’ will ever enter the market & impact the money supply. Ergo, stagnation vs inflation.

However, if the baseline rate is *RAISED* then the price of money economy-wide goes up, and we deflate the money supply (raising the price reduces the amount sold, which reduces the multiplier effect & thus the supply).

Which is why it’s always wiser to err on the side of inflationary policy….

For a (personal/commercial) debt-driven economy, a small bit of ‘leading inflation’ is essential for growth. A low price of debt is far more important than a high value of currency.

Dave_A

T he F-16 can’t be ‘kept another few years’, because GWOT aside, a future conflict with a near-peer power (China, for example) will require the USAF to fight ‘It takes 10 to kill one of ours, but there’s always an 11th’ sort of odds.

F-16s and F-15s are reaching the end of their metallurgical service lives. We need a replacement. The F-22 was the right choice, but even though now we’re stuck with the inferior F-35, it’s still better than existing designs… As for bombers, the B-52 should have been retired in 1980, and replaced 1-for-1 with B-1s. It is now so obsolete that it offers little actual military utility, and should be scrapped.

We need a SEVERE technological overmatch, to be able to counter threats with populations several times our size, or with military forces that make up a much larger percent of their population….

As for benefits, there is a reason why military service comes with the medical and retirement benefits it does… The nature of the job makes us somewhat um-insurable by private-sector standards (All private insurance policies exclude ‘war’ as a cause for loss, and the rate to insure folks in such a dangerous peacetime job would be absurd), and also makes conventional retirement (vs the pension system) unworkable due to the very real possibility of permanent disability before enough can be saved up. It’s not a normal private-sector job, the benefits package can’t be judged from that perspective. And DoD civilians don’t get TRICARE…

commonsenseobserver

I’m not familiar with the fighters and bombers, but I understand that the Secretary has already identified savings, and I’m sure he’s right.

Maybe it won’t go down well with some, but… the Eurofighter Typhoon?

I didn’t mean that civilians in the DoD received TRICARE, but even there there is some room for cuts.

Dave_A

The ‘Headliners’ in the WOT have been done by SF and drones, but the actual work of moving the chains has been done by conventional ground forces…

Killing Al Queda’s leadership is great – and the SF/CIA/drone communities get a big +1 for that….

However, weakening Al Queda as an organization required taking on their operational-level forces… And it’s been the ‘big green’ Army that has carried the weight there both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You cannot win a war – even a counter-insurgency – by taking out leadership with PGMs, without confronting the enemy on the ground…. If the leadership-targeting thing worked, Israel would have peace through military victory by now…

You need to combine leadership-targeting with a large & forceful ground campaign, to deal with the source of new leaders – popular support for the enemy or enemy organization.

Evicting Al Queda from Afghanistan, and attacking their Arab support base by invading Iraq were vital to dismantling the organization to the point where we can pick apart the rest with drone strikes & SF raids.

And to retain that capability, we need more ground forces – particularly mechanized and motorized ground forces – in an era where ‘light’ Infantry rides in 50,000lb armored cars (that maneuver marginally worse than an equivalent tracked vehicle)… The writing is on the wall…

Dave_A

The National Guard doesn’t keep anything more potent than a 7.62mm machine gun (M-240) in it’s armories – and usually nothing larger than 5.56mm.

And that stuff is not readily accessible in such a way that folks can steal it – too many careers are on the line if even a M-9 pistol is lost…

commonsenseobserver

There will inevitably be a peace dividend when you draw down wars, because of the change in the funding levels needed to maintain an active versus a more defensive posture.

Whether the war against Al-Qaeda is over is a different matter.

snowshooze

And I had read that the Mexican Military was rife with corruption and a few things were turning up missing.

snowshooze

Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua are winding up in the hands of the cartel’s. Military grade stuff.. not toys. And not National Guard stuff.

Dave_A

That sounds like you’re saying the US ARNG is ‘losing’ weapons to the cartels…

If that’s not what you meant to say, my post doesn’t apply – I wasn’t aware that MX had a force that translates to ‘National Guard’ in English (I know the Saudis do, though – but theirs is more a ‘Political Army’ like Saddam’s Republican Guard, the Nazi SS, or the IRGC)….

Dave_A

When they move from being kids to responsible adults…

Not so much that we rely on the boomers – but that when the liberal 20-somethings become 30-somethings, many of them will come to us – just like their parents did…

Essentially, I’m agreeing with you that ideology should drive things – which is why I’m saying we shouldn’t change our ideology to accommodate the Paulite fringe or ‘younger voters’…. Now granted, you & I have different views of what the ideology should be – but we still end up pulling the same lever in November, and the GOP really didn’t have to change to grab either of us (given that the overall platform hasn’t budged much since Reagan)…

I’m one of the few who’s been conservative my entire voting life – but I was raised in the ‘core’ of the religious right – where voting Republican (due to social issues) is somewhat… Engrained…

The fact that I enjoyed studying economics (and that my first formal education in the subject (in high school) came from a Chicago-school libertarian (He used Milton Friedman’s videos as course material)) just cemented it further….

Rational self-interest makes ‘family-age’ adults lean conservative on most issues (eg, except school-spending and social-security)…

The folks we pick up on those self-interest issues are usually enough to counteract the younger ones that actually manage to put down the pizza & beer long enough to visit the polling place (or in WA, to fill out & mail a ballot)….

garfieldjl

There are multiple groups of people that are attracted to Ron Paul. While there are the nuts whom are attracted to Paul, there are also some parts of Ron Paul’s platform that made sense and were good ideas which is where we see other people being attracted to Ron Paul. Many of those people don’t know about Ron Paul’s stances on issues that would alienate them because they don’t pay attention to politics.

There are parts of Ron Paul’s platform that we should take a serious look at from a policy standpoint. Then there are other parts of his platform that are boneheaded and completely off-the-wall.

The Fed needs to be auditted at the very least for instance.

I think people here are too quick to bash Ron Paul supporters, and need to stop and realize there is more than one demographic that supports him.

1. Rational individuals that think many of his policy ideas (particularly on the domestic front) that make sense, and don’t pay much attention to politics so they don’t know about the wacky ones.

2. The kooks.

I think we can talk to group 1 because they are rational individuals, and group 2 is a lost cause.

Anyways even someone whom we all agree has a few screws loose may come up with some good ideas once in a while. While I don’t think Ron Paul should be President for obvious reasons, that doesn’t mean we still shouldn’t look at parts of his platform, since some of it actually does make sense.

gekster

shouldn’t the same aply to Romney, the guy you have been bashing alot more than RP?
Shouldn’t we cut the same slack for Romney that you apear to be giving to Ron Paul?
Like RP, you are now being a hypocryte.
Give it to PR, but not to Romney.
Maybe deuche should apply to you, since you give slack to one, and not the other..
I await your diatribe.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Austrotardism and Ronulanism threaten both.

Dave_A

They ALWAYS talk in ‘Money over Time’ terms..

Ex, ’9 trillion over 20 years’.

The US federal budget was aproximately 3.7 Trillion in 2011.

So you can’t cut 9TN from a 3-almost-4TN budget.

Dave_A

I’m saying we need to do it over time, to avoid economically & politically disastrous impacts.

About 1TN is the ‘right amount’ to cut (that would just-about balance the budget at current revenue levels) – but not in a single year…

Rather, spread it out over 15, so that everything adjusts seamlessly.

commonsenseobserver

$9 Trillion over 10 years, just a little less than $1 Trillion per year.

commonsenseobserver

Too little. Even lower than the Budget Control Act’s cuts…

http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

But then there are people who believe 9/11 was an inside job and that Truman let Pearl harbor happen so he could take us into WW2 and that the moon landings were faked etc…

Doesn’t make him even close to correct, but it makes some people feel good about themselves for having an “insight” non-believers lack etc…

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Romney or Ron Paul: Pick Your Poison, ABRs

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL