[Obdigore]

Shinrei, on 15 May 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

Obdigore, on 15 May 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

If you go further into Ron Pauls' view, he is just another Southern Conservative who thinks States Rights should trump Federal Legislation. He also wants to do away with pretty much everything that might help someone who isn't rich. Pell Grants? Gone. Welfare? Destroy it. Social Security? Medicare? Civil Rights Bills? Gone. Gone. Gone. He, like the current GOP, thinks that 'if you didn't pick yourself up by your bootstraps and get born into being rich, you obviously didn't try hard enough.'

The only reason I can see that he has such an internet following is because most people don't dig deeper into his views and what he has said over the years, meanwhile he has not been the subject of any real smear attacks from the GOP candidates or the Dems because he was never in a position to have a chance at the WH.

I feel that the Federal government has most certainly taken on things that should be the purview of the States. I probably don't take it as far as Paul, but he's the only one who seems to advocate any sort of States rights. Welfare as it exists currently is crap. Social Security = Ponzi scheme. Medicare as it stands is incredibly irresponsible legislation from a fiscal standpoint.

Civil Rights bills I feel just uphold the US to a fair interpretation of the constitution, so I'm not against those. I am against Affirmative Action though. Pell Grants - I don't know how they are funded so I'm not sure where I stand on that. Education is the one area where I'm decidedly "Socialist".

Quote

if you didn't pick yourself up by your bootstraps and get born into being rich, you obviously didn't try hard enough.'

This argument is a strawman created by "progressives" who don't really understand what conservatism is about.

The fact that you think the GOP is anything like the conservative party they used to be is hilarious. The GOP is currently the party of 'less taxes but give us the same level of government assistance'. If the GOP was actually about smaller federal government (did you see who, out of the last 4 presidents, actually shrank the government? hint: its our current president.) and less government spending, I would at least respect them for trying to do what they say. Right now the GOP has been hijacked by Religious extremists, the same people who think Austerity is the answer for a Service Based Economy. Look at Europe, see what 'austerity' has done for their service based economies? Second Recession? Yay?

Know who David Frum is? Read this -> http://nymag.com/new...d-frum-2011-11/

He got 'kicked out' of the Republican party because he wasn't bat-shit crazy.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 15 May 2012 - 10:02 AM

[Shinrei]

Obdi needs to work on his reading comprehension skills. (Although the way he plays mafia, I'm not surprised...)

Scroll up to post #176, I said the exact same thing you just said.

The current GOP is not conservative (except in the douchy we-care-what-you-do-in-the-privacy-of-your-own-bedroom, way)

[worry]

I would suspect you're likely fairly socialist on a few fronts, like perhaps sewers and sewage treatment; paved roads, street lights, and signs; a postal service; a standing military beholden to the citizenry and not the whims of private enterprises; maybe even public transportation.

[Shinrei]

Sure. I'm not completely against paying taxes or having some things run by the federal government. (Although some of the things you mentioned are also managed by State or Local governments)

[worry]

Indeed, publicly funded shared-cost programs work wonders and make lives better at all levels of government.

[Shinrei]

Exactly. Basically these debates generally boil down to where people draw the line of what sorts of things should be "shared cost".

As for my support of Ron Paul, I think it comes down to one thing, really. I know everyone has their particular pet issues. Mine happens to be that Paul is the only candidate talking about killing the Patriot Act and the subsequent legislation that happened afterwards (and some of the policies that are precendents) - the continual policy creap of the National Security Letters, FISA court, Guantanamo, torture of non-citizens etc. etc.

The basic destruction (and pissing on) of the 4th amendment and all manner of due process is for me far more important than just about everything else. Even issues regarding the economy bother me less than this.

I expected a lot more from Obama when it came to this. I voted for Obama because I was deluded into thinking he'd undo some of the damage that The Worst President Ever did.

[worry]

I agree with that, but one argument I've read (not in super detail, unfortunately, but around overview level) was that actually several of the major over-reaching problems with the original Patriot Act were taken care of through lawsuits, trials, judicial process, and legislation during the latter Bush years. So in effect, a lot of the worst aspects were gone by the time Obama came to office -- perhaps as a surprise to even him, I dunno, but certainly depriving him of those bragging rights. But the mundanity of this stuff just never made headlines as much as the original controversy. That said, I can't say that it's even close to pre-9/11 level, and I wasn't very happy with Eric Holder's distinction between "due process" and "judicial process" earlier this year for example, even if it didn't originate with him, and even if I don't personally mind a military strike against an active terrorist in another country who happens to be a US citizen. I guess I'm probably mostly with you on this issue opinion-wise though regardless, even if I prioritize it relatively differently.

[Terez]

Come to think of it (re: topic of thread and its current status), I can't think of a single person on any of the forums that I go to who likes Romney. I imagine some of the conservatives will vote for him when it comes time, but I think Romney might be the worst candidate for their turnout in my lifetime. But I think they hate Obama more than any president in my lifetime, so...maybe it will balance out. There are a bunch of Mormons in my WoT circle on various social networks and even they don't like him. One of them retweeted this the other day:

Quote

New Obama ad calls Romney a "vampire." False. (It's true that he sparkles in sunlight, but that's just sunscreen made of crushed diamonds.)

[worry]

Well, any time there's potential for SCOTUS retirements, the Republican candidate has a ready and willing base for voter turnout, while for Dems it's a bit more of a self-defeatingly fickle and stupid bunch. But I would still like to remind everyone here -- especially the liberty-minded -- that it was the right-leaning five on the Supreme Court who found this year that strip searches were legal for ANY arrest even if the arrestee is not suspected of a crime that would logically call for one -- that is to say the threshold isn't even suspicion, let alone reasonable suspicion, so any jail in the nation can now legally make strip searches a standard procedure for all incoming arrests.

[Obdigore]

Shinrei, on 15 May 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

Obdi needs to work on his reading comprehension skills. (Although the way he plays mafia, I'm not surprised...)

Scroll up to post #176, I said the exact same thing you just said.

The current GOP is not conservative (except in the douchy we-care-what-you-do-in-the-privacy-of-your-own-bedroom, way)

Oh I'm sorry, you said you wanted to vote for one of the GOP candidates, then claim you don't support the GOP. How does that fly?

[Shinrei]

Obdigore, on 16 May 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

Shinrei, on 15 May 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

Obdi needs to work on his reading comprehension skills. (Although the way he plays mafia, I'm not surprised...)

Scroll up to post #176, I said the exact same thing you just said.

The current GOP is not conservative (except in the douchy we-care-what-you-do-in-the-privacy-of-your-own-bedroom, way)

Oh I'm sorry, you said you wanted to vote for one of the GOP candidates, then claim you don't support the GOP. How does that fly?

You HAVE noticed that Paul doesn't toe the GOP line on...well...most things. If 3rd parties were allowed, I think he would not be a republican.

If you vote for a Dem, does that mean you support all democrats and whatever policies each individual democrat espouses? Don't be ridiculous.

[Obdigore]

Shinrei, on 16 May 2012 - 03:52 AM, said:

Obdigore, on 16 May 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

Shinrei, on 15 May 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

Obdi needs to work on his reading comprehension skills. (Although the way he plays mafia, I'm not surprised...)

Scroll up to post #176, I said the exact same thing you just said.

The current GOP is not conservative (except in the douchy we-care-what-you-do-in-the-privacy-of-your-own-bedroom, way)

Oh I'm sorry, you said you wanted to vote for one of the GOP candidates, then claim you don't support the GOP. How does that fly?

You HAVE noticed that Paul doesn't toe the GOP line on...well...most things. If 3rd parties were allowed, I think he would not be a republican.

If you vote for a Dem, does that mean you support all democrats and whatever policies each individual democrat espouses? Don't be ridiculous.

Well, if you vote democratic, you can be pretty sure that they will vote with the democratic party stance, and if you vote republican you can be even more sure they will vote with the republican party stance. It isn't a ridiculous assertation, it is reality. Which is why the two party system blows goats, but w/e.

[Shinrei]

Actually, I have a suspicion that that's the real reason Ron Paul always says he won't run as an independent or libertarian despite losing the GOP nomination. It's because if he wins as a Republican, the Republicans will do whatever they can to toe his party line, meaning the policy stances where he differs greatly from most republicans will suddenly become mainstream GOP policy. If he were to become president as an independent or libertarian the GOP/Establishment would feel free to ignore him.

[Obdigore]

Shinrei, on 16 May 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

Actually, I have a suspicion that that's the real reason Ron Paul always says he won't run as an independent or libertarian despite losing the GOP nomination. It's because if he wins as a Republican, the Republicans will do whatever they can to toe his party line, meaning the policy stances where he differs greatly from most republicans will suddenly become mainstream GOP policy. If he were to become president as an independent or libertarian the GOP/Establishment would feel free to ignore him.

I highly doubt the GOP would change their party line to match with Ron Pauls if he won the nomination or the presidency. But hey, maybe I'm a little cynical.

[Shinrei]

Obdigore, on 16 May 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

Shinrei, on 16 May 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

Actually, I have a suspicion that that's the real reason Ron Paul always says he won't run as an independent or libertarian despite losing the GOP nomination. It's because if he wins as a Republican, the Republicans will do whatever they can to toe his party line, meaning the policy stances where he differs greatly from most republicans will suddenly become mainstream GOP policy. If he were to become president as an independent or libertarian the GOP/Establishment would feel free to ignore him.

I highly doubt the GOP would change their party line to match with Ron Pauls if he won the nomination or the presidency. But hey, maybe I'm a little cynical.

lol - first you accuse me of supporting the GOP because I like a GOP candidate (Paul). And here you admit that he's not GOP "party line".

[Obdigore]

Shinrei, on 16 May 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

Obdigore, on 16 May 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

Shinrei, on 16 May 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

Actually, I have a suspicion that that's the real reason Ron Paul always says he won't run as an independent or libertarian despite losing the GOP nomination. It's because if he wins as a Republican, the Republicans will do whatever they can to toe his party line, meaning the policy stances where he differs greatly from most republicans will suddenly become mainstream GOP policy. If he were to become president as an independent or libertarian the GOP/Establishment would feel free to ignore him.

I highly doubt the GOP would change their party line to match with Ron Pauls if he won the nomination or the presidency. But hey, maybe I'm a little cynical.

lol - first you accuse me of supporting the GOP because I like a GOP candidate (Paul). And here you admit that he's not GOP "party line".

Yes, because he would conform more to the GOP party line than the GOP party line is going to change to conform Paul.

[Shinrei]

Not really IMO. All from Wikipedia:

Quote

Throughout his entire tenure in Congress, Paul has represented his district as a member of the Republican Party. However, he has frequently taken positions in direct opposition to the other members and the leadership of the party, and he has sometimes publicly questioned whether he really belonged in the party.

During the 1988 campaign, Paul called Reagan "a dramatic failure"[110] and complained that "Reagan's record is disgraceful. He starts wars, breaks the law, supplies terrorists with guns made at taxpayers' expense and lies about it to the American people."[113] Paul predicted that "the Republicans are on their way out as a major party,"[111] and he said that, although registered as a Republican, he had always been a Libertarian at heart.[112][111]

In 2012 presidential campaign, during which he acknowledged it was unlikely that he would win the Republican Party nomination,[117] Paul again asserted that he was participating in the Republican Party on his own terms, trying to persuade the rest of the party to move toward his positions rather than joining in with theirs.[118] He expressed doubt that he would support any of his rivals should they win the nomination, warning that, “If the policies of the Republican Party are the same as the Democrat Party and they don't want to change anything on foreign policy, they don't want to cut anything, they don't want to audit the Fed and find out about monetary policy, they don't want to have actual change in government, that is a problem for me."[119] On that same theme he said in another interview, "I would be reluctant to jump on board and tell all of the supporters that have given me trust and money that all of a sudden, I'd say, [all] we've done is for naught. So, let's support anybody at all ... even if they disagree with everything that we do."[120]

Quote

He regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes;[128] he cast two thirds of all the lone negative votes in the House during a 1995–1997 period.[17]

On April 15, 2011, Paul was one of four Republican members of Congress to vote against Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal, known as "The Path to Prosperity."

Paul's foreign policy of nonintervention[138] made him the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002.

[Terez]

Shinrei, on 16 May 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

Quote

Paul's foreign policy of nonintervention[138] made him the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002.

The only one from either party, if I'm not mistaken.

[Obdigore]

Shinrei, on 16 May 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

Not really IMO. All from Wikipedia:

Quote

Throughout his entire tenure in Congress, Paul has represented his district as a member of the Republican Party. However, he has frequently taken positions in direct opposition to the other members and the leadership of the party, and he has sometimes publicly questioned whether he really belonged in the party.

During the 1988 campaign, Paul called Reagan "a dramatic failure"[110] and complained that "Reagan's record is disgraceful. He starts wars, breaks the law, supplies terrorists with guns made at taxpayers' expense and lies about it to the American people."[113] Paul predicted that "the Republicans are on their way out as a major party,"[111] and he said that, although registered as a Republican, he had always been a Libertarian at heart.[112][111]

In 2012 presidential campaign, during which he acknowledged it was unlikely that he would win the Republican Party nomination,[117] Paul again asserted that he was participating in the Republican Party on his own terms, trying to persuade the rest of the party to move toward his positions rather than joining in with theirs.[118] He expressed doubt that he would support any of his rivals should they win the nomination, warning that, “If the policies of the Republican Party are the same as the Democrat Party and they don't want to change anything on foreign policy, they don't want to cut anything, they don't want to audit the Fed and find out about monetary policy, they don't want to have actual change in government, that is a problem for me."[119] On that same theme he said in another interview, "I would be reluctant to jump on board and tell all of the supporters that have given me trust and money that all of a sudden, I'd say, [all] we've done is for naught. So, let's support anybody at all ... even if they disagree with everything that we do."[120]

Quote

He regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes;[128] he cast two thirds of all the lone negative votes in the House during a 1995–1997 period.[17]

On April 15, 2011, Paul was one of four Republican members of Congress to vote against Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal, known as "The Path to Prosperity."

Paul's foreign policy of nonintervention[138] made him the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002.

And what happens when he has to try to appeal to the conservative base while running for the presidency? He is either going to have to change his positions or have no chance of getting their support, either one would completely ruin any bid for the presidency he makes.

[Shinrei]

Heh, Ron Paul isn't much for compromising his principles, as evidenced by his completely consistent voting record. But seriously, right now the GOP is holding their nose over Romney so how different could Paul be.