Ron Paul Wins Presidential Straw Poll at CPAC

[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.

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.../na-radicals18
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us...yers.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"?

[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?

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.