Ron Paul Wins Presidential Straw Poll at CPAC

[kfson]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/20/ron-paul-wins-presidential-straw-poll-cpac/



"Ron Paul Wins Presidential Straw Poll at CPAC

FOXNews.com

Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas known for his libertarian views, ran for president in 2008 but was never a serious contender for the GOP nomination.

Ron Paul has ended Mitt Romney's three-year run as conservatives' favorite for president, taking 31 percent of the vote in the Conservative Political Action Conference's annual straw poll.

Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas known for his libertarian views, ran for president in 2008 but was never a serious contender for the GOP nomination.

Romney, former Massachusetts governor and also a 2008 GOP candidate, has won the last three presidential straw polls at the annual conference. This year, he came in second, with 22 percent.

Sarah Palin, who didn't attend the conference, was a distant third in the straw poll, with 7 percent, followed by Tim Pawlenty, the Minnesota governor, and Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana.

The straw poll is not binding -- and not necessarily a good forecaster, given that in 2008, John McCain went on to take the party's nomination over Romney.

Results of this year's poll were announced just as the crowd prepared for the conference's keynote speaker, Fox News host Glenn Beck."

[David Jamieson]

foxnews isn't news. lol

it's incitement in an entertaining way and a vehicle for the craziness and warped draconian political views of it's owner Rupert Murdoch.

People actually don't put them on par with real news agencies do they?

I mean, they are all propaganda outlets, but really Fox?

the simpsons is the best show they have. lol

[1bad65]

People actually don't put them on par with real news agencies do they?

Apparently they do. FoxNews has higher ratings than CNN and MSNBC.

Do you consider CBS News and NBC News "real news agencies"?

[David Jamieson]

Apparently they do. FoxNews has higher ratings than CNN and MSNBC.

Do you consider CBS News and NBC News "real news agencies"?

well, I'm wondering if those numbers are coming from texas! lol

I would call CNN reputable when compared to the rest and incrementally decreasing depending on who owns the comapny and their political leanings.

Near as I can tell, they are all muddied by the corporate overlords.

And in all seriousness, mass media in all it's forms are merely there to release propaganda for the most part. The news gets thrown in along the way:

Ie: A car crashed, a law passed, a person was murdered, a hurrican is coming, a team won.

the rest is op-ed crap and is simply not news in any way shape or form really.

Fox news themselves have publicly stated that their "foxnews friends" are NOT newsies.

Opinion editorial rants are not news.

But then again. Texas! lol

awesome.

[BoulderDawg]

If nothing else this shows the desparation of the teabaggers.

Just for the sake of argument let's say Paul is the best candidate to be president.....even so they want to put a very demanding job, sometimes 20 hours a day, into the hands of a man that would be 77 when sworn into office.

[David Jamieson]

If nothing else this shows the desparation of the teabaggers.

Just for the sake of argument let's say Paul is the best candidate to be president.....even so they want to put a very demanding job, sometimes 20 hours a day, into the hands of a man that would be 77 when sworn into office.

Bit ageist there pal.

especially considering the average life expectancy is approaching 80 and for someone that lives the life of a millionaire, as Paul does, even longer. :p

I'm sure he has the right attitude to be able to serve a term.

I doubt he'll get elected on one point alone: he's a crackpot, supported by moonbats and propped up by desperate and crazy people filled with rage and frustration over their inept system of governance and their steadily sinking country.

[kfson]

well, I'm wondering if those numbers are coming from texas! lol

I would call CNN reputable when compared to the rest and incrementally decreasing depending on who owns the comapny and their political leanings.

Near as I can tell, they are all muddied by the corporate overlords.

And in all seriousness, mass media in all it's forms are merely there to release propaganda for the most part. The news gets thrown in along the way:

Ie: A car crashed, a law passed, a person was murdered, a hurrican is coming, a team won.

the rest is op-ed crap and is simply not news in any way shape or form really.

Fox news themselves have publicly stated that their "foxnews friends" are NOT newsies.

Opinion editorial rants are not news.

But then again. Texas! lol

awesome.

It's probably straight out of Austin, similar to this important info from that important land:

"Jennifer Aniston took her expensive gun metal gray Bentley out for a luxurious spin in L.A. on Monday.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tmz.com/media/2010/02/0223_jennifer_aniston_inf.jpg
Jennifer Aniston
Move over J.Lo, there's a new Jenny from the block.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/#ixzz0gOkb145m "

[1bad65]

the rest is op-ed crap and is simply not news in any way shape or form really.

Fox news themselves have publicly stated that their "foxnews friends" are NOT newsies.

Opinion editorial rants are not news.

Agreed. But notice Fox admits that particular show is not a news show. CBS and NBC did not admit to manufacturing news until they were forced to. In CBS's case it cost Dan Rather his job. In NBC's case they agreed to pay GM millions.

[1bad65]

If nothing else this shows the desparation of the teabaggers.

Yet you guys nominated a community agitator with zero private sector experience.

FYI, Romney won that straw poll the last 3 years, and he has never won the nomination. It's a non-binding straw poll done years before the campaign even starts.

[BoulderDawg]

Bit ageist there pal.

especially considering the average life expectancy is approaching 80 and for someone that lives the life of a millionaire, as Paul does, even longer. :p


Do you know anybody in their late 70s?

There is simply nobody that I would want in a job like that starting at age 77 no matter what shape he/she is in. That would mean he would be 85 when he left office....That's just too old.

Remember Reagan? He barely knew who he was when he left office.

[Drake]

Talk about a short-lived victory by the democrats...

[dimethylsea]

If nothing else this shows the desparation of the teabaggers.

Just for the sake of argument let's say Paul is the best candidate to be president.....even so they want to put a very demanding job, sometimes 20 hours a day, into the hands of a man that would be 77 when sworn into office.

Ron Paul could be expected to do as President precisely what he has always done as a Congressman. Abide by his principles and vote a very specific and predictable attitude with respect to the Constitution.

In the event he were elected he would not be working near as "hard" as most Presidents simply because he wouldn't even have to think about his actions. It's hard-wired at this point.

He would be veto'ing virtually every bill that came across his desk and issuing executive orders for portions of the executive branch to stop doing things they do now.

And he'd probably refuse to nominate a Chairmen of the Fed etc.

Honestly Ron Paul could probably be 100 and his performance would be no worse than it would at 55. People may call him a loon, a nut, etc. but the simple fact is that he is nothing if not CONSISTENT.

He has a specific outlook, a set of guidelines, and, love him or hate him, he's never swerved.

Progressives may think his leadership would be ruinous to the nation.. but they can't say he's a hypocrite. Unlike most of the GOP fatcat liars (and the Demo fatcat liars too I might add).

My personal view is this..
War is the health of the state. I voted for Barack Obama in an effort to vote against War.

Unless he shapes up on the foreign aggression front, healthcare or no, I'm going to vote Green or Lib next round. Even if it's a wasted vote at least it's not a vote for undeclared war.

[David Jamieson]

Do you know anybody in their late 70s?

There is simply nobody that I would want in a job like that starting at age 77 no matter what shape he/she is in. That would mean he would be 85 when he left office....That's just too old.

Remember Reagan? He barely knew who he was when he left office.

I know a man who is 100 years. He will be 101. He is remarkable for sure, but no, I wouldn't put him in public office.

And my Mother is in her 70's and sharp as a tack. I would put money on her in jeopardy. :)

And yes, I actually have quite a few friends in their 60's and 70's even in to the 80's! Great Guys!

I keep friends as young as newborn and as old as a human can get. lol
Reagan was in good shape when he finished his last term. The "I can't recall" was politics and 5th amendment stuff. It was of course later embellished further to protect him I suppose. I mean he WAS the POTUS afterall.

Anyway, ageism is not appropriate in this day and age. Perhaps it never was. If anything we should each hold the elderly to be dear to us and to be held up as those who went before. They do not lack wisdom or knowledge in a great deal of ways and elder statesmen are often the best for a nation.

just sayin...

[kfson]

I'm going to vote Green or Lib next round. Even if it's a wasted vote at least it's not a vote for undeclared war.

What do you think about the Libertarian corner stone, "no first strike"?

[1bad65]

There is simply nobody that I would want in a job like that starting at age 77 no matter what shape he/she is in. That would mean he would be 85 when he left office....That's just too old.

77+4=85??? :confused:

[1bad65]

Ron Paul could be expected to do as President precisely what he has always done as a Congressman. Abide by his principles and vote a very specific and predictable attitude with respect to the Constitution.

Thank you. Finally someone who talks about Ron Paul who actually is educated about his stances on issues.

Paul has never taken a dime of special interest or lobbyists money, is for legalizing marijuana, and is for abolishing the income tax and the Fed. He is also against the Iran and Afghanistan wars (the one area I do disagree with him on).

[David Jamieson]

77+4=85??? :confused:

even i see that as a 2 term statement. lol

come on shelly! :D

[SanHeChuan]

I doubt he'll get elected on one point alone: he's a crackpot, supported by moonbats and propped up by desperate and crazy people filled with rage and frustration over their inept system of governance and their steadily sinking country.

Whats Crackpot about Ron Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul) :eek::confused::mad::p

He is a "Republican" I can both respect and support. He at least make's logical appeals as opposed to emotional ones based on Fear and patriotism. (http://blog.buzzflash.com/analysis/71) He’s too intellectual for the Republican Party that’s why he doesn’t have a chance. They’d rather have some ignoramus with blue collar appeal. (http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/anti-intellectualism.shtml)
;)

[BoulderDawg]

Personally I would welcome the GOP nominating either Ron Paul or Sarah Palin for president.....what about Glenn Beck!:D Or may that crazy guy who was putting everyone on his enemy list during a CPAC speech!

What's funny is that the GOP doesn't seem interested in promoting some oridinary politician that does his job and stays out of trouble.....too boring! They have to have the media darling. The lastest is the new senator from Mass.:rolleyes:

[kfson]

Personally I would welcome the GOP nominating either Ron Paul or Sarah Palin for president.....what about Glenn Beck!:D Or may that crazy guy who was putting everyone on his enemy list during a CPAC speech!

What's funny is that the GOP doesn't seem interested in promoting some oridinary politicain that does his job and stays out of trouble. They have to have the media darling....to boring! The lastest is the new senator from Mass.:rolleyes:

The people of Mass seemed interested.

[1bad65]

What's funny is that the GOP doesn't seem interested in promoting some oridinary politicain that does his job and stays out of trouble.

And the Democrats do? Look at the last campaign: You had Obama, who had friends who bombed the Pentagon. You had Edwards, who was having an affair while his wife was fighting cancer (and he tried to pawn off his love child to another man). And Hillary Clinton, who couldn't remember her own name when put under oath.

[SnowDog]

What Exactly is an ordinary Politican that does his job and represent the people?

Every example that both BD and 1Bad gave seems to be the norm in D.C. ...... at least as long as I can remember both parties have been a bunch of lying corrupt M-F's

[dimethylsea]

What do you think about the Libertarian corner stone, "no first strike"?

You mean not initiating force? It's a good principle I think. Ideally governments would be held to that rule more strictly that people (since governments have more power).

Do I live this way? Well... let's just say I have started fights before. It was wrong. :D

[SanHeChuan]

You had Obama, who had friends who bombed the Pentagon.

It's guilt by association, he knew the guy. :rolleyes:


“Sen. Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence,” said Obama’s press secretary, Bill Burton. “But he was an 8-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost 40 years ago is ridiculous.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630_Page2.html#ixzz0gUGoduip

Yes, yes you are quite ridiculous 1bad65 :rolleyes:


What's funny is that the GOP doesn't seem interested in promoting some oridinary politician that does his job and stays out of trouble.....too boring! They have to have the media darling. The lastest is the new senator from Mass.

Yes John McCain was quite the CELEBRITY! :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

It's guilt by association, he knew the guy. :rolleyes:

The guy ate dinner at Obama's home.

[BoulderDawg]

It's guilt by association, he knew the guy. :rolleyes:

Yep! Guilty as hell!

When I went to college back in Georgia I was very good friends with Ralph Reed who was over at my place often. At one time I even consider Neil Boortz a good friend...God help us all!:D

So just because at one time I was friends with a couple of teabagging looneys then that must make me one too! Who would have thought it!:eek:

[BoulderDawg]

Yes John McCain was quite the CELEBRITY! :rolleyes:

The party simply did not want McCain. Doesn't look like they are supporting him much these days.

[1bad65]

So just because at one time I was friends with a couple of teabagging looneys then that must make me one too! Who would have thought it!:eek:

Actually you seem to prefer hanging around wife beaters.

[1bad65]

The party simply did not want McCain.

Yeah, his winning the nomination was just a practical joke. :rolleyes:

[SanHeChuan]

The guy ate dinner at Obama's home.

I hear it was the other way around, and Obama was invited by a third party. Either way it is weak sauce. An argument, if it can even be called that, designed to evoke a visceral fear response to Obama, based on the misrepresentation of information. Lies by omission. When you read the whole story it’s hardly an accurate portrayal of their relationship. It's akin to the false statements that he is not a citizen or is a Muslim. Planting seeds of fear. Try using actual logic to make your arguments. :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

I hear it was the other way around, and Obama was invited by a third party.

I stand corrected. You are indeed correct.


Either way it is weak sauce... Try using actual logic to make your arguments. :rolleyes:

Sure thing.

Obama served as president of the board of directors for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a large education-related nonprofit organization that Ayers was instrumental in starting. Both attended some board meetings in common starting in 1995, retreats, and at least one news conference together as the education program started. They continued to attend meetings together during the 1995–2001 period when the program was operating.

Obama and Ayers served together for three years on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago. Obama had joined the nine-member board in 1993, and had attended a dozen of the quarterly meetings together with Ayers in the three years up to 2002, when Obama left his position on the board, which Ayers chaired for two years.

Sources:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/18/nation/na-radicals18
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?_r=1

[SanHeChuan]

Sure thing.

Great, and how does that support your earlier point that seemed to imply that Obama supports terrorism, because he had an unfortunate co-"worker"? :confused:

[dimethylsea]

The guy ate dinner at Obama's home.

I wonder how many times Ron Paul has eaten dinner in the home of a Democratic progressive?

He serves in the same elected body as Bernie Sanders was a part of. Dang!

[Drake]

I tend to have issues believing anything coming from wife beating racist psychopaths from Boulder, personally.

Fact is, the dems went on a platform of change, and they got the same thing. It's not about the party. It's about the climate amongst politicians. Will Ron Paul be any different? Probably not.

Sounds insane, but I think Ross Perot is one of the few people who actually had American interests at heart. He already had money and power, and probably would of lost some of both had he been elected.

[dimethylsea]

Fact is, the dems went on a platform of change, and they got the same thing. It's not about the party. It's about the climate amongst politicians. Will Ron Paul be any different? Probably not.

Sounds insane, but I think Ross Perot is one of the few people who actually had American interests at heart. He already had money and power, and probably would of lost some of both had he been elected.

Well given that Ron Paul is "Dr. No" I suspect he'd be throwing about the veto (and probably getting overridden) fairly frequently.

Kindof a moot point though.. because Americans are entirely too hung up on the illusion of "something for nothing" and the Daddy state.

The difference between somebody like Ron Paul and Obama is Paul doesn't want to start new programs, he wants to stop what's already happening.

Obama is trying to get new things passed. This is a big difference in the two.

My position is that if the goverment can prevent us from having cheap health care in the name of "safety" then there is no good reason (except corporate greed) that we can't go all-in and socialize medicine completely.

The biggest difference between Ron Paul being "Dr. No" and the GOP being the "Party of No" is that Ron Paul has always been consistent. Whereas the GOP is perfectly willing to deficit spend for pork and their wars.. they just don't want to deficit spend on the American people.

Wars and pork (GOP). versus social spending, less war, and pork (Demos).

[Drake]

That's not entirely true. The GOP is big on tax cuts, support for small businesses, and national defense (not necessarily war). I would caution against painting the entire GOP based on what they saw from GWB.

[dimethylsea]

That's not entirely true. The GOP is big on tax cuts, support for small businesses, and national defense (not necessarily war). I would caution against painting the entire GOP based on what they saw from GWB.


Well the GOP is big on tax cuts yes.
Support for small business is, I would argue, largely "In Name Only".or "for PR purposes only". since small business cannot hire many lobbyists and thus is fairly impotent.

With respect to the "national defense" vs. war distinction I will have to disagree with you.
Even in a state of "peace" (prior to the "Global War on Terror") America had military bases in something like 125+ countries and spend something like 40+ per cent of the federal budget on the various kinds of military spending!

The GOP (and their fellow travellers in the socially conservative wing of the Democratic Party) have utilized the power of deficit spending (REAGAN!) to fund vast efforts on the part of American military supremacy.

Our military spending is .. what I think the last figure I can recall is twice the rest of the world combined or something? At any rate it's absolutely huge.

When the GOP chooses to "not declare war" via Congress but DOES spend almost half the bloated federal budget on the military (much of it being deficit spending) I question whether the distinction between "war" and "national defense" is really much of a distinction.

What we "saw" from George Bush and what we "heard" from George Bush are pretty much what we "see" and "hear" from the GOP. Bush ran in 2000 on a program of "not being the world's policeman" and "fiscal responsibility". Well we got a two wars and massive deficits out of that.

This is a plain fact is it not?

In terms of spending, soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen deployed abroad, expansion in military bases, funding of defense contractors etc. we are "at war". We've been at war and we seem destined to stay "at war". Calling it "national defense" is just a shellgame with words.

We have perpetual war for perpetual peace. Think about that Drake. How bad does the GOP have to screw it up for a Libertarian to vote Democrat, because they are perceived as the LESSER of the evils!

[Drake]

Actually, by percentage of GNP, we aren't the leaders in military spending. Secondly, don't forget it was a Republican who got us out of Vietnam, and it was a Republican who kept us from going to war with the USSR. And don't forget that it is Congress who can actually declare war. Again, don't judge the GOP based off GWB.

As for the military, we suffered a huge drawdown in both funds and manpower in the late 80s/early 90s. Manpower was short in virtually all areas, and nobody had the equipment they needed. When soldiers have to buy their own body armor, and sift through scap metal in order to up armor their vehicles, that does not sound like a surplus to me.

We wouldn't need military spending if the rest of the world wasn't screwed up beyond recognition. Why won't Saudi Arabia step up and help with terrorism? Why doesn't Japan offer more support in containing North Korea? Where's the outrage over Myanmar, Darfur, and Iran attacking their own citizens? Who else is willing or even able to step up to the plate?

At least we know Canada and GB have our back.

[1bad65]

I wonder how many times Ron Paul has eaten dinner in the home of a Democratic progressive?

He serves in the same elected body as Bernie Sanders was a part of. Dang!

Neither Bernie Sanders or any Democrat progressive have bombed the Pentagon.


Well the GOP is big on tax cuts yes.
Support for small business is, I would argue, largely "In Name Only".or "for PR purposes only". since small business cannot hire many lobbyists and thus is fairly impotent.

Actually income tax cuts are excellent for small businesses. Cutting capital gains taxes is also good for start-up companies, as it raises the reward for investors, thus making them more likely to finance start-ups. Clinton's capital gains tax cuts proved that. Google, yahoo, amazon.com, etc are examples of very profitable businesses that started small with only a few investors, yet made those investors millions of dollars. Face it, private sector money always gravitates to the part of the economy where it is taxed the least. Where taxes are raised, private sector money avoids. Sadly, Obama has no concept of this.

[1bad65]

Actually, by percentage of GNP, we aren't the leaders in military spending. Secondly, don't forget it was a Republican who got us out of Vietnam, and it was a Republican who kept us from going to war with the USSR. And don't forget that it is Congress who can actually declare war. Again, don't judge the GOP based off GWB.

True, true. And more Americans died in Vietnam during LBJ's term than any other President's.

On a side note, welcome back.

[dimethylsea]

Actually, by percentage of GNP, we aren't the leaders in military spending.


~41% of the worlds military expenditures are spent by us. The next highest is China with ~6%.
Certainly there are countries which spend a larger percentage of their GDP on their military.. but dude.. that list includes countries like Chad, Eritrea, Morroco and El Salvador.
The only First World countries that spend more % of their GDP (to my knowledge) are Israel, Greece and Switzerland. Please note that NONE of the countries that rank higher than us
1.) Have military bases planted all over the world
2.) Comes REMOTELY close to our expenditures in absolute terms.

We are a nation of (collectively) war-mongers and your "profession" as you put it , is a big part of the problem. If we had to finance all that military spending with regular taxes instead of the stealth tax of deficit spending, currency inflation and government debt... wonder what would happen then?



Secondly, don't forget it was a Republican who got us out of Vietnam, and it was a Republican who kept us from going to war with the USSR. And don't forget that it is Congress who can actually declare war. Again, don't judge the GOP based off GWB.


I DO judge the GOP based off (among other things) GWB because..

hold your breath..

...wait for it..

George Dubya Bush was the President and de facto leader of the Republican Party for eight horrible years!

:gasp::: No! Dubya wasn't a Republican. He was... TEXAN! That's it.. he was a TEXAN!
Not a Republican at all!



As for the military, we suffered a huge drawdown in both funds and manpower in the late 80s/early 90s. Manpower was short in virtually all areas, and nobody had the equipment they needed. When soldiers have to buy their own body armor, and sift through scap metal in order to up armor their vehicles, that does not sound like a surplus to me.

Sounds like a hint of the desperately needed fiscal discipline we need. If I had my way you'd be working in the private sector instead of being on the dole in uniform.
Manpower was short because the military was trying to do too much (at the behest of politicos I will grant). Closing overseas bases and maintaining a military that concentrates on defending against direct attacks on North America instead of being the world's policeman.. and gee... we might have plenty of money for gear for the (much smaller) military that's left.
You guys got used to the gravy train under Reagan and George the First. Do you good to tighten the belt. Wish we could slice your budgets by 90%. And manning by 95%.
But that's a pipe dream. The myrmidions have the helm. Me.. I'm headed elsewhere first chance I get.



We wouldn't need military spending if the rest of the world wasn't screwed up beyond recognition. Why won't Saudi Arabia step up and help with terrorism? Why doesn't Japan offer more support in containing North Korea? Where's the outrage over Myanmar, Darfur, and Iran attacking their own citizens? Who else is willing or even able to step up to the plate?

At least we know Canada and GB have our back.

This is precisely the sort of attitude which has led us into folly and disaster.
The rest of the world can solve it's own problems... certainly we can't fix them.

But pretending we can does give people in uniform something to feel all noble about. While they suckle at the teat of Uncle Sam.

And defense contractors like Haliburton and Blackwater/Xe post massive profits all through the Bush years.

[1bad65]

We are a nation of (collectively) war-mongers and your "profession" as you put it , is a big part of the problem. If we had to finance all that military spending with regular taxes instead of the stealth tax of deficit spending, currency inflation and government debt... wonder what would happen then?

At least we get something out of our investment, national security. What do we get out of the billions spent annually on social programs? Nothing. And if anything, it's made it worse.




Sounds like a hint of the desperately needed fiscal discipline we need. If I had my way you'd be working in the private sector instead of being on the dole in uniform.

If we do that, then who is supposed to protect our freedoms from our enemies? :rolleyes:


But that's a pipe dream. The myrmidions have the helm. Me.. I'm headed elsewhere first chance I get.

Please do. Or are you like that idiot Alec Baldwin who swore he was leaving if GWB became President? Of course he never followed through despite Bush serving TWO terms.


And defense contractors like Haliburton and Blackwater/Xe post massive profits all through the Bush years.

FYI, defense contractors are still making huge profits under Obama. It's just different companies now.

[MasterKiller]

At least we get something out of our investment, national security. What do we get out of the billions spent annually on social programs? Nothing. And if anything, it's made it worse. How white of you.

[1bad65]

How white of you.

How smart of me. What benefits do you think we get from the social programs?

And why do you liberals keep bringing race into the discussion?

[solo1]

If nothing else this shows the desparation of the teabaggers.

Just for the sake of argument let's say Paul is the best candidate to be president.....even so they want to put a very demanding job, sometimes 20 hours a day, into the hands of a man that would be 77 when sworn into office.

Again as opposed to a 47 year old with no experiance in anything, who claims ( as did you) that being a "community activist" is all he needed to be elected to the highest seat in the land. C'mon dawg even you have got to see Obamas history is full of holes, lacks experiance doing anything, how is this guy accumulated the wealth he has, he has never had a job that would pay him that kind of money. His resume is so full of holes you can drive a truck thru it. Those who voted for him were duped and they know it, he has failed, will continue to fail and he'll blame every one else except his own failure to accept he doesnt have a clue.

[dimethylsea]

At least we get something out of our investment, national security. What do we get out of the billions spent annually on social programs? Nothing. And if anything, it's made it worse.

Um... building bridges and highway, powerplants and hospitals has made it worse? Making sure the poor can have health checkups and pre-natal care. Making sure old people have heat in their house in winter. These are useless?

How exactly are these more useless than something which is built to destroy things?



If we do that, then who is supposed to protect our freedoms from our enemies? :rolleyes:

Our enemies can't exactly invade successfully (I mean.. we have ALOT of citizens, myself included, with guns!). A continental invasion of the US would be like sticking their d*ck in a meatgrinder. Our enemies are not a threat to our freedoms inside our borders. Internationally.. well why spend 40% of the budget on things happening in other countries. They are sovreign nations.. it's THEIR D*MN BUSINESS what they do. Leave them to it.



Please do. Or are you like that idiot Alec Baldwin who swore he was leaving if GWB became President? Of course he never followed through despite Bush serving TWO terms.



I dunno about Baldwin, I don't pay attention to movie celebrities. Anyway I'm of a mind that this here is a sinking ship and the wise rat will look for a boat that isn't overloaded with cannon (defense spending) at the cost of it's buoyancy (fiat currency supply).



FYI, defense contractors are still making huge profits under Obama. It's just different companies now.

I know. The problem is institutional, intractable, and likely won't go away while America is still one of the world's dominant economies. Americans are usually too short-sighted.

One side wants lots of tanks, One side wants lots of social programs. The poor and middle class can't pay for either. The "Tanks" side doesn't want the rich to pay for it. The "social" side DOES want the rich to pay for it.

The only thing they can agree on is to spend more money. Oh.. and just put it on the tab!

[dimethylsea]

C'mon dawg even you have got to see Obamas history is full of holes, lacks experiance doing anything, how is this guy accumulated the wealth he has, he has never had a job that would pay him that kind of money. .


Please substantiate this. Saying Obama is rich without an explanation for the money is a new one.

He was a law school professor, an author, and his wife was a lawyer also. Seems like they could be expected to have a bit of money put back if they were thrifty types.

[GeneChing]

I welcome your political discussions here, but we've had a lot of complaints. So, in order to keep the peace, I've drawn a line in the cybersand here (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?p=994524&posted=1#post994524). Please take note.

[1bad65]

Um... building bridges and highway, powerplants and hospitals has made it worse? Making sure the poor can have health checkups and pre-natal care. Making sure old people have heat in their house in winter. These are useless?

Public works projects are not social programs. FYI, those are piad for with gasoline taxes, vehicle registration fees, tolls, and vehicle inspection fees. If you choose not to drive a vehicle, you are not being forced to contribute to those programs. Social program money comes mainly from income tax money.

If you can't afford pre-natal care, wouldn't a rational solution be to not get pregnant? What happened to common sense and taking care of your own problems? My parents are older, and they don't need the Government to help pay their bills. My father worked all his life, they lived responsibly and within their means, and set up their retirement so they could afford to live when they got old. Why should they be forced to pay for those who didn't choose to live responsibly?

[KC Elbows]

If you want a society, you're stuck caring for the people in it. If you want chaos, look out for your own. Every family has those who contribute a lot, and those who contribute less. But every society that leaves an appreciable number out on a limb falls.

To keep this on topic, Mencius suggested that it is in our nature to care for others, and to fight this is inviting disaster. Today, we have christians who want authority and money, politicians who want office at the small cost of lip service(like the bulk of republican politicians who approved of the supreme court decision that corporations can contribute unlimited amounts to campaign ads, while 78% of republican voters hold the opposite view, or the 2006 elections, where dems got in congress on a mandate regarding the war and then ignored the mandate), a citizenry that conflates freedom with gluttony and would thus rather bankroll both extremist islam and expansionist policy in order to not walk a couple blocks to the store.

Exactly how do we compete without paying our people as little as China pays theirs? No one is voting that in, but that's the elephant in the room. We simultaneously make too much and provide for too many American cash cows we buy things from. Neither party will solve this in time, because it's not in their interests to do so.

Sometimes, the best solution is hard times. The last ten years, there's been too much emphasis on our golden age as being from the WWII generation, but who we're talking about is really the children of the depression. The generation in China that raised it up were first the children of the 1911 revolution, and now the children of the cultural revolution, people who know the real value of things from not having them. Gluttony has only one result, and the communists and the christians, for all their mutual lunacy, spelled it out pretty well.

[David Jamieson]

How smart of me. What benefits do you think we get from the social programs?

And why do you liberals keep bringing race into the discussion?

benefits?

Civilization with an articulate, erudite and intelligent population that has will, drive, motivation, compassion and the ability to pass that along.

Why do you insist on dividing people into little groups.

You're all Americans in context are you not?

You have to get to the common ground and that is it.

[1bad65]

Exactly how do we compete without paying our people as little as China pays theirs? No one is voting that in, but that's the elephant in the room.

The main reason jobs are outsourced is not labor cost, it's to avoid the crippling taxes and regulations here in the US.

I misread KC's answer, so I edited the post.

[1bad65]

Civilization with an articulate, erudite and intelligent population that has will, drive, motivation, compassion and the ability to pass that along.

How does it give people drive and motivation to reward them for their mistakes?

The way welfare works now is ridiculous. Let's say you have an 18 year old girl. She is legally an adult, but is still young enough she will likely make mistakes that could haunt her for a long time. Now this girl is having unprotected sex with her 32 year old, unemployed boyfriend. And now she gets pregnant and has a kid. The boyfriend leaves, and now the State (ie the taxpayers) gives her welfare to help out a young girl who screwed up. For the sake of argument, let's both agree that this is compassionate. Now 2 years later the same girl is pregnant again by another bum, and again the father leaves her. Now the State, the taxpayers, give her MORE money. Is this right?


Why do you insist on dividing people into little groups.

People divide themselves into groups. Liberals, conservatives, Christians, agnostics, Muslims, anti-war, pro-war, pro-life, abortion rights, etc. I just point out that fact. How does that make me a bad guy?

Also, I recall being called a "Neo con" repeatedly, and by you no less. Don't be hypocritical. If you are upset over something, stop contributing to the problem.

[David Jamieson]

How does it give people drive and motivation to reward them for their mistakes?

The way welfare works now is ridiculous. Let's say you have an 18 year old girl. She is legally an adult, but is still young enough she will likely make mistakes that could haunt her for a long time. Now this girl is having unprotected sex with her 32 year old, unemployed boyfriend. And now she gets pregnant and has a kid. The boyfriend leaves, and now the State (ie the taxpayers) gives her welfare to help out a young girl who screwed up. For the sake of argument, let's both agree that this is compassionate. Now 2 years later the same girl is pregnant again by another bum, and again the father leaves her. Now the State, the taxpayers, give her MORE money. Is this right?



People divide themselves into groups. Liberals, conservatives, Christians, agnostics, Muslims, anti-war, pro-war, pro-life, abortion rights, etc. I just point out that fact. How does that make me a bad guy?

Also, I recall being called a "Neo con" repeatedly, and by you no less. Don't be hypocritical. If you are upset over something, stop contributing to the problem.

Welfare and unemployment benefits are not a reward. You are having an error in your thikning if you think it's a rewards.

You then go on to make up scenarios that you personally find distasteful and apply those mixed up thoughts to a whole lot of people who each have differing circumstances that brought them to the hardship in their life.

I'm thinking that you fit the profile of a sociopath at this point with some of the things you write about your attitudes towards those people whoa re less fortunate than others.

yes, there will be abuses. BUt are they the problem? NO. You literally have not lost much of your paycheque to welfare recipients 1bad.

really, why not deal with just the raw numbers from the budget? It is ridiculously miniscule.

I don't know what has made you so cruel and heartless...apparently neither do you. I don't have a problem with being taxed to ensure that my country doesn't be come half middle class / hal slum which is what your thinking on teh matter will bring.

Maybe you should move to India? you'd love it there. lol no middle class at all for the most part, just a great chasm across which the wealthy throw scraps to the poor.

Or maybe the free range of capitalism of Somalia attracts you?
Your ideas certainly aren't American in flavour that's for sure.

[Drake]

Welfare and unemployment benefits are not a reward. You are having an error in your thikning if you think it's a rewards.

You then go on to make up scenarios that you personally find distasteful and apply those mixed up thoughts to a whole lot of people who each have differing circumstances that brought them to the hardship in their life.

I'm thinking that you fit the profile of a sociopath at this point with some of the things you write about your attitudes towards those people whoa re less fortunate than others.

yes, there will be abuses. BUt are they the problem? NO. You literally have not lost much of your paycheque to welfare recipients 1bad.

really, why not deal with just the raw numbers from the budget? It is ridiculously miniscule.

I don't know what has made you so cruel and heartless...apparently neither do you. I don't have a problem with being taxed to ensure that my country doesn't be come half middle class / hal slum which is what your thinking on teh matter will bring.

Maybe you should move to India? you'd love it there. lol no middle class at all for the most part, just a great chasm across which the wealthy throw scraps to the poor.

Or maybe the free range of capitalism of Somalia attracts you?
Your ideas certainly aren't American in flavour that's for sure.

What is cruel and heartless about being opposed to socialism? This country was founded on being free to make your own way. It's designed for self-starters and those who believe that what they earn through their own hard work belongs to them. Sure, they understand that some of their income has to be given up for police, roads, and fire departments. But why should anyone have to give up their income become people eat like crap, get Type II Diabetes, and can't afford for their own self-inflicted problem? I could just as easily say that it is cruel and heartless to take the hard earned income from people and give it away to something they don't agree with, without their consent.

Big, flowery over-dramaticized expressions of the poor being trampled by the rich does not a successful argument make. We don't do royalty here. You can be born with a silver spoon, sure, but if you aren't cautious, you could be living in a cardboard box, because a "poor" person just outsmarted your business practices. You know, like Bill Gates did.

[1bad65]

Welfare and unemployment benefits are not a reward. You are having an error in your thikning if you think it's a rewards.

Unemployment benefits are not welfare. Money comes out of every paycheck I get for unemployment. Also, there is a time limit on unemployment benefits, but not on welfare. Also, if you are self-employed and you lose your business, you are NOT eligible for unemployment. Did you know that?

And FYI, when you give someone money for the things they do, you are rewarding their behavior.


You then go on to make up scenarios that you personally find distasteful and apply those mixed up thoughts to a whole lot of people who each have differing circumstances that brought them to the hardship in their life.

I'm not making up anything. Plenty of people here have two illigitimate kids before they are 21. FYI, the illigitimacy rate in our country exploded AFTER welfare was made available in ALL races. However, it is well over 50% in the black community. Legitimate civil rights leaders (not Jackson and Sharpton who have made civil rights their lucrative careers) will say welfare has destroyed the traditional family structure in the black community.


I'm thinking that you fit the profile of a sociopath at this point with some of the things you write about your attitudes towards those people whoa re less fortunate than others.

So someone wanting to keep the fruits of their labor is a sociopath????


yes, there will be abuses. BUt are they the problem? NO. You literally have not lost much of your paycheque to welfare recipients 1bad.

I shouldn't have to give up ANY of it for welfare.


I don't know what has made you so cruel and heartless...apparently neither do you. I don't have a problem with being taxed to ensure that my country doesn't be come half middle class / hal slum which is what your thinking on teh matter will bring.

Maybe you should move to India? you'd love it there. lol no middle class at all for the most part, just a great chasm across which the wealthy throw scraps to the poor.

Again, you have no idea what time, money, etc I give to charity. So get off your high horse.

Second, my boss is from India. He and his wife live in a "rich" neighborhood, and make well over $250k/year. He thinks alot like I do. He says punishing achievement is what messed up alot of societies, and we better stop doing that here. Also my boss, who has achieved the 'American Dream, has never taken a dime of welfare money. Yet he has succeeded in America. How do you explain that?


Your ideas certainly aren't American in flavour that's for sure.

Your ignorance of OUR Constitution is sad. Read our founding documents and tell me that I'm not "American in flavour".