Ron Paul in 2012

[punked]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57350172-503544/ron-paul-most-unacceptable-candidate-iowa-republicans-say-in-new-poll/?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.4

Nice, so running neck and neck with Romney in the polls, but at the same time, he is unacceptable? Just another way they try to sideline Ron Paul. If both Romney and Paul are tied and only one is unacceptable, why would he even poll as high as Romney?

Give it all you got monty1.

In the Iowa polls not the national polls.

[Steve T]

That's also about as far as the stupid baggers will take the debate too. Empty rhetoric coming from empty bottles that always make the loudest noise.

...Aren't ad-hominem attacks discouraged in this forum?

I challenge you or any of them to stand their ground and argue their constitution as it pertains to Ron Paul's dishonesty. Any of Ron Paul's nonsense can be debated while remaining true to their constitution. It's all nothing but a smokescreen that appeals to haters with tea bags hanging off their hats.

...That the US Constitution, as interpreted by the judicial branch, is flexible enough to justify many activities doesn't seem to me to justify a claim that therefore Representative Paul's use of the Constitution to support his arguments is disallowed. The disagreement is over how far the Constitution should be stretched. Some of us prefer minimal stretching, others would allow much greater stretching. I don't consider those that disagree with my view to be in any way evil (except where it would increase their power while harming others, but I don't automatically assume that of them).

[monty16]

Ahh, that's good Steve, now I've got you hooked in to the debate.

...So show us where what Representative Paul says is different from what the US Constitution says.

I've already posed that challenge to Ron Paul supporters. the challenge is to show how not following Ron Paul's agenda and proposed changes could be unfaithful to your constitution. But I suspect that I've already mentioned how going with Ron Paul's agenda would take away rights and freedoms granted by your constitution by letting the individual states make their own laws. Surely your constitution separates church and state and by allowing the states to dictate prayer in classrooms, that would be in violation of your constitution. Argue this if you like but don't forget to meet my challenge too.

...That's a strawman, IMHO. I agree with Representative Paul because I believe there are better ways to raise the welfare of people who are currently or prospectively "beneficiaries" of medicare and/ or social security. Oh, but wait, surely I'm only just saying that but am really just greedy!

You being greedy is your idea, not mine. But in relation to others, yes, it allows them to shirk the responsibility of looking after others. However, if you advocate that nobody has a responsibility to look after others then use that argument. If you are maintaining that others 'do' have a responsibility then you are suposing that some generous people will shoulder the responsibility and there is no reason for concern. But wait, if you were one of those who would be shouldering the responsibility then why would you want to take that responsibility off cheap miserly people and put more on your own shoulders?? I know why Steve. It's because you would personally save money!

...And I humbly disagree. Not only would charity, friends and family be able to fully replace federal welfare programs in my opinion but be more effective and result in less corruption. But that's just me throwing out my own personal opinion, just as you have yours, the difference being that you present yours as absolute, undeniable fact, based on honest and laudable nature (which I do not doubt), as opposed to mine, which must be hateful and greedy because it disagrees with yours).

You could try to rebut my explanation above on what's motivating of course, but I think you're going to have a hard time making it convincing considering that the result of taking away mandatory tax funded government assistance would only result in you paying less. That leaves you to depend of defending principles and that's not good enough when people's lives and wellbeing depend on government run social programs. In fact it sounds more like an ideaology that would be pushed in Mexico or Bangladesh.

Congratulations america! A little minor economic hardship is bring out the worst in you all and the real you! And what's quite amazing is that to simply revert back to tax rates pre Bush2 would fix the problems overnight!

[monty16]

.Aren't ad-hominem attacks discouraged in this forum?

The attack wasn't ad hominem in that it didn't address you directly. It was an attack addressing tea baggers. I've already experienced direct attacks against me, some being profane attacks to boot and no moderator has indicated that he/she has even noticed.

Join me in an honest effort to stop the abusive ad hominem attacks or just shut the hell up about it.

[cybercoma]

The attack wasn't ad hominem in that it didn't address you directly. It was an attack addressing tea baggers. I've already experienced direct attacks against me, some being profane attacks to boot and no moderator has indicated that he/she has even noticed.

Join me in an honest effort to stop the abusive ad hominem attacks or just shut the hell up about it.

Insults are against the rules whether they're directed at posters, politicians, political parties, or anyone else for that matter. You're supposed to address the arguments.

[Steve T]

Meshes nicely with his racist agenda. Takes common sense checks and balances away from the federal government and hands it to states that would endorse the death penalty for abortion, advocate capital punishment for gays, mandate Christian prayer in schools, consequently stomping on the rights of non-Christians, and more.

<snip>

...This is a rather dim view of Yanks. I've never heard of a serious proposal at a State level that endorses capital punishment for gays. As a non-Christian who has attended public school classes where there was Christian prayer, I don't see how that stomps on my rights or the rights of any non-Christian. And I fail to see why a law at the federal level that precludes (or federal judicial banning of a law) enforcing the death penalty is inherently superior to a State law that does result in the death penalty for abortion, an act that a very large number of people sincerely (and, in my view, in some way defensibly, although I disagree with them) believe to be murder.

[Steve T]

In other words Steve, you disagree with me but then turn around and say you don't disagree with what I say he is.

<snip>

...No, that isn't what I wrote! I wrote that I was neither convinced by your argument nor do I know enough to say that what you wrote is incorrect, I simply prefer to believe that Representative Paul is sincere in what he says and will continue to believe that until I see something that convinces me otherwise.

[Steve T]

<snip>

Surely your constitution separates church and state and by allowing the states to dictate prayer in classrooms, that would be in violation of your constitution. Argue this if you like but don't forget to meet my challenge too.

...Okay. The US Constitution's Amendment 1 says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...." Granting the established view that anything prohibited of Congress and not explicitly granted to States is prohibited to be done by States, there is nothing here that precludes prayer in classrooms, in my view. Establishment of religion means that the government recognizes only one religion. Allowing Christian prayer in (public) schools does not, in my opinion, violate this clause, provided that non-Christian prayer is not prohibited.

You being greedy is your idea, not mine.

...Nope, sorry, it's yours -- you wrote (emphasis mine):

<snip>

The trouble is for his supporters though, is it's looking at the whole package which makes it unmistakably an agenda of hate and greed.

<snip>

That looks like an ad-hominem attack on Representative Paul's supporters to me!

But in relation to others, yes, it allows them to shirk the responsibility of looking after others.

...Well, I'll leave to others whether their own giving to charitable causes is "shirk[ing] the[ir] responsibility of looking after others" and take care of my own, thank you, and not sanction the enforcing of a possibly overly high level of giving with threat of fine or imprisonment (for not paying taxes, which is what would be required to change the amount).

<snip>

why would you want to take that responsibility off cheap miserly people and put more on your own shoulders??

...Because I do not believe that I am so wise that I can determine the appropriate level of giving for others. And I do not believe there's a politician or a government employee wise enough to do it, either!

I know why Steve. It's because you would personally save money!

...How would I save money if others did not give an appropriate level of charity? Are you accusing me of wanting to reduce or eliminate federal welfare programs because I could then give less than I should? And would you even know whether I were giving less than, more than, or the right amount?

<snip>

And what's quite amazing is that to simply revert back to tax rates pre Bush2 would fix the problems overnight!

...No one with any intelligence proposed that extending the Bush tax cuts would fix all of our economic problems, overnight or otherwise, the expectation/ hope is that it would not make things worse than they would be if taxes reverted to the higher levels pre-cut.

[Guest Manny]

(1) the more government does, the more power it accrues and therefore the more corrupt it gets and (2) government rarely does anything as well as it can be done by the private sector.

1) is true no matter which group gets power, when that power is unchecked. My view is no matter who has power, there needs to be another force keeping it in check.

2) except when it comes to protecting those who have little or no power, especially when there is no profit in it. The system should not be only about profit and efficiency. Sometimes things have to get done even when they incur a cost to society. Like not strip-mining in environmentally sensitive areas, without taking certain precautions. Those safeguards may cost money and result in loss of profitability. They will be unpopular to private industries who have nothing to gain in doing so, especially multinational ones that have no direct vested interests in sustainability of one geographical area.

[monty16]

Steve, If you are so dishonest to suggest that charity could replace government social programs then we're not even on the same wavelength. I can't debate with dishonesty.

[Guest Manny]

Just watched this video of a Ron Paul interview-

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/01/02/sot-nr-iowa-ron-rand-paul.cnn

Sorry for the ink but apparently I can't embed the flash video on this forum! :angry:

Paul makes some comments about ow the media quoting specific polls is agenda driven, and I'm inclined to agree. Not only that, it's surprising how information about him is being downplayed now. If you go to prominent US news outlets like CNN, the political section barely mentions Ron Paul. Rather, the race for Iowa is being portrayed as a race mainly between Romney vs Santorum. Just a quick scan through the headlines shows this (those attention grabbing headlines!) Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, even Bachmann and Perry. The name Ron Paul is markedly absent.

[punked]

Just watched this video of a Ron Paul interview-

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/01/02/sot-nr-iowa-ron-rand-paul.cnn

Sorry for the ink but apparently I can't embed the flash video on this forum! :angry:

Paul makes some comments about ow the media quoting specific polls is agenda driven, and I'm inclined to agree. Not only that, it's surprising how information about him is being downplayed now. If you go to prominent US news outlets like CNN, the political section barely mentions Ron Paul. Rather, the race for Iowa is being portrayed as a race mainly between Romney vs Santorum. Just a quick scan through the headlines shows this (those attention grabbing headlines!) Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, even Bachmann and Perry. The name Ron Paul is markedly absent.

PPP accused CNN in not so many words of inflating Santorums numbers a few days ago which has lead to his rise in the polls.

[GostHacked]

In the Iowa polls not the national polls.

Iowa is apparently a big thing. Winning there is a milestone for whoever wins it.

[punked]

Iowa is apparently a big thing. Winning there is a milestone for whoever wins it.

Yah to bad they don't get a single delegate from it eh? Did the Huckster a whole lot of good in 2008. Iowa is much bigger for the Dem primary because the rules are just different enough to make it mean something.

[GostHacked]

I've already posed that challenge to Ron Paul supporters. the challenge is to show how not following Ron Paul's agenda and proposed changes could be unfaithful to your constitution. But I suspect that I've already mentioned how going with Ron Paul's agenda would take away rights and freedoms granted by your constitution by letting the individual states make their own laws. Surely your constitution separates church and state and by allowing the states to dictate prayer in classrooms, that would be in violation of your constitution. Argue this if you like but don't forget to meet my challenge too.

Familiar with the PATRIOT Act at all? The constitution has already beem marginalized.

[Guest American Woman]

Iowa is apparently a big thing. Winning there is a milestone for whoever wins it.

Tell that to Mike Huckabee and McCain, who came in lst and 4th respectively in the Iowa caucus in 2008.

[GostHacked]

Tell that to Mike Huckabee and McCain, who came in lst and 4th respectively in the Iowa caucus in 2008.

I said it's a big thing, I did not say that it's an automatic shoe-in.

[punked]

I said it's a big thing, I did not say that it's an automatic shoe-in.

South Carolina is the biggy. Thats because Republicans need the south to win and the way South Carolina goes so goes the rest of the south. The rest of this is media hype. I think they have picked everyone of the last 6 nominees before that I don't even think they had a primary. That is where the nomination is won and lost.

[maple_leafs182]

Tell that to Mike Huckabee and McCain, who came in lst and 4th respectively in the Iowa caucus in 2008.

I may be wrong but didn't Bush and Obama win in Iowa?

[Guest American Woman]

I may be wrong but didn't Bush and Obama win in Iowa?

So what if they did? My point was that a win in Iowa doesn't mean a party nomination. Some who win in Iowa get the nomination and some who win, don't. It's just not the big deal it was being presented as. Furthermore, Iowa Republican Caucus Winner Won't Be President, History Shows

[bud]

So what if they did? My point was that a win in Iowa doesn't mean a party nomination.

why make that statement when GH made no mention of 'winning in iowa means a party nomination'?

[sharkman]

So anyway, this race is looking pretty tight still, that sanitorium guy is starting to appeal to me...

[Guest American Woman]

why make that statement when GH made no mention of 'winning in iowa means a party nomination'?

I'll repeat it again, in bigger, bolder text this time:

Because it's just not the big deal it was being presented as.

Hope that helped.

[Guest Manny]

why make that statement when GH made no mention of 'winning in iowa means a party nomination'?

He forgot to put the asterisks?

[bush_cheney2004]

So anyway, this race is looking pretty tight still, that sanitorium guy is starting to appeal to me...

Right....what happens in Iowa is only significant for those who will drop out of the race based on results and money drying up. Senator Rick Santorum needs only a decent showing to sally forth.