NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay people, I'm not sure if this has been done in the past, but I'd like to see where most NationStaters stand on the Republican candidates. If I missed a candidate or you'd like to vote as a write in, just click other and put it in your post. If you wish, we'd all greatly appreciate hearying why you support your candidate. If this works well, I intend on doing a similar one for the Democrats.

Rudy; although he disgusts me greatly, he is the least-worst of them.

Ron Paul.

I support John McCain for the Republican Presidential Nomination, because he by far has the best foregin policy experience of all people in this feild. I trust him to handle the Iraq war capabley and intellegently, and to help protect us from terrorism. He also has not degenerated into that hateful nativism that so many other Republicans espouse, and is the only one to offer a comprehensive plan to fix our immigration system, not just "throw up a wall and hope they go away." While he is socially conservative (which I am not), he is not the socially conservative of say Fred Thompson, aka not far enough to actually do some crazy shit, yet appeal to social conservatives at the same time. He intends on getting rid of all this absolutley filthy corruption that is rampant throughout our government, and really is the only man to make a serious effort at Campaign finance reform. He has not needlessly pandered to the Iowans, who have selfishly put their own intresets (ethanol subsidies) over that of the nation. He truly says what he thinks. He provides clear moral standing in the War on Terror, and strongly condemms tourture, unlike Romney or Giuliani.

I would love to see a McCain-Huckabee ticket. That could Actually win. Although Barack Obama, Clinton (yes i did just say that:eek:) Giuliani, or Huckabee wouldnt be so bad either, admittedly

Ron Paul, because he'd severely weaken the Republican Party and bring it away from the warmongers.

I think John McCain would be a great president, there's just two issues that really turned me off to him. He's in favor of wiretapping and the fact that he wants to go to War with Iran. However, a democratic congress would not permit either to pass (or so I keep hoping, despite all the evidence that they've given us to the contrary) so, while I may disagree with Sen. McCain on those issues, he would make a good president, if the system could just block out his more "arbitrary" policies.

As to the claim that McCain and Huckabee would make a great team, I'm rather disinclined to support Huckabee. he's certainly been pandering to everything Iowa wants and his policies on abortion, wiretapping, Guantanamo and creationism speak a little too much like "good ol' boy superpatriot."

I am not supporting any candidate in the Primaries at this time but the candidate that I am not supporting is Ron Paul. He's a racist and wants to destroy the Constitution of the United States.

How so?

Fred. Although I like both McCain and Rudy, too.

I think John McCain would be a great president, there's just two issues that really turned me off to him. He's in favor of wiretapping and the fact that he wants to go to War with Iran. However, a democratic congress would not permit either to pass (or so I keep hoping, despite all the evidence that they've given us to the contrary) so, while I may disagree with Sen. McCain on those issues, he would make a good president, if the system could just block out his more "arbitrary" policies.

As to the claim that McCain and Huckabee would make a great team, I'm rather disinclined to support Huckabee. he's certainly been pandering to everything Iowa wants and his policies on abortion, wiretapping, Guantanamo and creationism speak a little too much like "good ol' boy superpatriot."


Uh idk about that war with Iran, i think he was joking when he just sang that song. And he says that he would not go to war with Iran based on the current info (that big press release about them stopping a few years ago). As for wiretapping........idk about that one. Im on the fence.

As for Huckabee, i didnt know he was that...crazy

And he says that he would not go to war with Iran based on the current info (that big press release about them stopping a few years ago).

Ahh, *checks old stories* yep, terribly sorry, I do stand corrected on Iran. Looks like McCain goes up another notch for me. Another great thing about him that I failed to mention is that he almost never uses terrorism as a fallback in the GOP debates. The man's firm, and doesn't have to hide behind the Middle East into scaring us into what he wants.

Also, to those of you who say they won't vote for John McCain because he's "mean," and he "gets angry" (one of the many complaints about him in 2000) I think being cooped up inside a prison camp for four years might make someone just a tad bitter.

Also, to those of you who say they won't vote for John McCain because he's "mean," and he "gets angry" (one of the many complaints about him in 2000) I think being cooped up inside a prison camp for four years might make someone just a tad bitter.

QTF.

Plus, he's friends with Jon Stewart. That's got to be worth something.

QTF.

Plus, he's friends with Jon Stewart. That's got to be worth something.

Or nothing at all.

QTF.

Plus, he's friends with Jon Stewart. That's got to be worth something.
Who? *isn't in the US, in any case*

I am not supporting any candidate in the Primaries at this time but the candidate that I am not supporting is Ron Paul. He's a racist and wants to destroy the Constitution of the United States.

Oh give it a fucking rest, and stop with the slander.

Who? *isn't in the US, in any case*

He's an American comedian who's in a programme called "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central. It's quite funny.

I'm not in the US either, I watch it on the very British MoreFour

He's an American comedian who's in a programme called "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central. It's quite funny.

I'm not in the US either, I watch it on the very British MoreFour

Its always funny to see him interact with Colbert.

But no seriously, McCain being on the Daily Show so often is a major factor that made me curious about him

Oh give it a fucking rest, and stop with the slander.

Sorry but there are way to much evidence for me to think otherwise. Not my fault that your to blind to see it.

Sorry but there are way to much evidence for me to think otherwise. Not my fault that your to blind to see it.

Oh come on. He seems to be one of the only politicians against increasing federal powers, and the only one advocating drastic reduction in government, which is what the founding fathers and the constitution stood for (small gov't).

He is for letting states decide on state issues, against spying on citizens, against pointless foreign wars.

If you don't agree with his political views, fine, just don't be a jackass and call him a racist and unconstitutional.

Oh come on. He seems to be one of the only politicians against increasing federal powers, and the only one advocating drastic reduction in government, which is what the founding fathers and the constitution stood for (small gov't).

And yet supported the Partial Birth Abortion Ban even though by his own words it violated his oath as a Congressman to vote for it. He literally increased the power of the federal government by supporting it. There's a whole host of others, all throughout NSG, that back up what I am saying.

He is for letting states decide on state issues, against spying on citizens, against pointless foreign wars.

I would not use that first part for an argument for by doing so, severely weakens the constitution and brings us dangerously close to the Articles of Confederation.

If you don't agree with his political views, fine, just don't be a jackass and call him a racist and unconstitutional.

He is a racist and anti-federalist.

I can't vote in the primary, but if I could I'd vote for Giuliani.

And yet supported the Partial Birth Abortion Ban even though by his own words it violated his oath as a Congressman to vote for it. He literally increased the power of the federal government by supporting it. There's a whole host of others, all throughout NSG, that back up what I am saying.



I would not use that first part for an argument for by doing so, severely weakens the constitution and brings us dangerously close to the Articles of Confederation.



He is a racist and anti-federalist.

Whoopdeedoo, abortion.....not important at all. There are much more important issues to worry about.

So, states being allowed to decide on issues not granted the federal gov't is wrong? Hmm, that sounds like it goes against the constitution to me.

And you are a liar attempting to discredit Ron Paul because you disagree with him.

And yet supported the Partial Birth Abortion Ban even though by his own words it violated his oath as a Congressman to vote for it. He literally increased the power of the federal government by supporting it. There's a whole host of others, all throughout NSG, that back up what I am saying.

Which completely destroys any anti-federalist credentials he may have had.

I'm going to be out of the country again during the primaries, but were I home I doubt I'd vote. When I first heard about him I'd had a glimmer of hope in Ron Paul (as I thought then that he was an anti-federalist) but having learned more about him I found he's hardly any different. And having found out he's likely a racist douche (not that the rest aren't, they likely are as well, but they've hid it better) that further kills him for me.

It's the old Giant Douche v. Turd Sandwich problem that South Park addressed.

Ron Paul, for sure. Not only is he for putting issues at the state level, which would decentralize the already too centralized federal government, he and Kucinich are the only ones who will get us out of the war quick; even Obama admits that he'd 'have' to keep us there for a while.

RUSSERT: "Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?"

OBAMA: "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there.

-DNC Debate in Dartmouth

Not to mention that he'd keep about 60,000 troops in Iraq as a residual force; he'd just take out the combat troops. That's hardly ending the war.

Ron Paul is the only sensible Republican. The rest suck more or less; especially Rudy and Romney.

What I want to know is why Ron Paul can win on every internet poll I see, but still be lagging behind Giuliani and Romney in all the mainstream polls?

I'm looking strongly at McCaine or Romney. Possibly Huckabee.

Until Paul stops living in the past and realizes isolation doesn't work I won't give him the time of day

QTF.

Plus, he's friends with Jon Stewart. That's got to be worth something.

McCain's a beast, even if he is a tad bit old. I wouldn't mind Huckabee either, though.

Where is the none of above option?

Ron Paul, for sure. Not only is he for putting issues at the state level, which would decentralize the already too centralized federal government, he and Kucinich are the only ones who will get us out of the war quick; even Obama admits that he'd 'have' to keep us there for a while.



-DNC Debate in Dartmouth

Not to mention that he'd keep about 60,000 troops in Iraq as a residual force; he'd just take out the combat troops. That's hardly ending the war.

What's wrong with what Obama said? It's a sensible thing to say! You can't just assume we'll pull out. Even if we were to go for complete evacuation, that would take a lot of time and effort.

Furthermore, there are many things that could happen that might make us want to stay in the meantime. You don't know for sure and assuming doesn't help matters.

Then there's the simple fact that we've made a horrible mess and we have the responsibility of cleaning it up. Otherwise we will have caused whether it's directly or indirectly the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, thousands of American troops, and inflicting refugee status upon millions for absolutely nothing.

Ron Paul, because he'd severely weaken the Republican Party and bring it away from the warmongers.

I would think that the Republican Party would have to be severely weak and the warmongers purged before Ron Paul stands a chance of winning the nomination. Paul is basically stuck in 1915. He's got nearly a century of American hegemony to overcome, and the present war in Iraq doesn't really help that much. It'll elect Hillary.

Oh give it a fucking rest, and stop with the slander.
So the article he wrote(or had ghostwritten-- but it doesn't matter, because he still had it published in his name, knowing what it said, indicating that he agrees with it) saying that the courts should treat an accused black criminal differently than an accused white criminal is not racist? :rolleyes:

Ron Paul has great PR, but people need to realize that he's a terrible candidate. His vote on the Partial Birth Abortion ban was not only a violation of his oath of office, but it completely contradicts the entire fucking premise of his campaign.

Not that his campaign's premise is very good in the first place-- that we should completely remove all safety nets, so that if you ever get laid off, you'll be in poverty for the rest of your fucking life. Brilliant. :headbang:

What's wrong with what Obama said? It's a sensible thing to say! You can't just assume we'll pull out. Even if we were to go for complete evacuation, that would take a lot of time and effort.


The thing is, Republicans don't like sensible ideas. They want decisiveness. Far better to be decisively wrong than sensible right!

As for me, I suppose Rudy and McCain are less bad than some of the other candidates, not that that's setting a very high bar.

I can't understand why so many people seem to like Huckabee, though. He's batshit insane! He believes that a magical fairy created the earth 6,000 years ago, and he has all sorts of insane conservative social policies, like denying equal rights to gays and banning a woman's right to her own body.

Rudy; although he disgusts me greatly, he is the least-worst of them.

Exactly the problem.

We need somebody horrible to win the Republican Nomination.

SOmebody like Tom Tancredo. :)

Exactly the problem.

We need somebody horrible to win the Republican Nomination.

SOmebody like Tom Tancredo. :)

Remember what happened last time the Republicans had a candidate so awful that anybody who wasn't him would have an assured victory if they ran against him? :(

Remember what happened last time the Republicans had a candidate so awful that anybody who wasn't him would have an assured victory if they ran against him? :(

:eek:

:(

Remember what happened last time the Republicans had a candidate so awful that anybody who wasn't him would have an assured victory if they ran against him? :(

If we end up with a President Tancredo I am so out of this country. And I mean that.

If we end up with a President Tancredo I am so out of this country. And I mean that.You and ten million immigrants.

I am not supporting any candidate in the Primaries at this time but the candidate that I am not supporting is Ron Paul. He's a racist and wants to destroy the Constitution of the United States.
Are you fucking inept?

Ron Paul is the best candidate up there right now, and he's the only one so far I'd consider voting for. No one else has spoken as loudly in his words than he has to me. You can see how biased the media can be toward him as well, how disproportionate the time he gets during debates is compared to Giuliani and the like - it's because they're scared of him! He's winning polls, causing a movement, because what he stands for rings in any true American's ears...

Liberty!

Open your eyes and ears before you make prejudiced statements like that toward people like Ron Paul.

You and ten million immigrants.

And anyone else that crazy nut wants to get rid of. He's my Representative in Congress(though thankfully he's NOT seeking reelection...) and he's just plain crazy.

You can see how biased the media can be toward him as well, how disproportionate the time he gets during debates is compared to Giuliani and the like - it's because they're scared of him!


No, it's because he's irrelevant. Libertarians, including Ron Paul, routinely only get 2% or so of the vote. There is simply no reason for the media to waste its time and resources on a candidate who won't even make it on the ballot, never mind actually win.

And this has nothing to do with "bias." Note also that the Green Party falls into the same problem. On many issues, the Green Party political platform is diametrically opposed to that of Libertarians, including Ron Paul, but it too routinely fails to win more than a few percent of the vote in any given election. Thus, it too routinely fails to be included in debates and other media events of any consequence.

No, it's because he's irrelevant. Libertarians, including Ron Paul, routinely only get 2% or so of the vote. There is simply no reason for the media to waste its time and resources on a candidate who won't even make it on the ballot, never mind actually win.
Ron Paul is running as Republican, has earned more money than Giuliani in the past few months and is winning the polls in several states. You say he couldn't make the ballot.

And this has nothing to do with "bias." Note also that the Green Party falls into the same problem. On many issues, the Green Party political platform is diametrically opposed to that of Libertarians, including Ron Paul, but it too routinely fails to win more than a few percent of the vote in any given election. Thus, it too routinely fails to be included in debates and other media events of any consequence.
Again, Ron Paul is running as a Republican. You could notice even that during the last Republican debate, even the other 'non-irrelevant' people up there didn't get very much time at all. Ron Paul was among those disheveled from the questioning. That's not fair at all. If holding libertarian views has anything to do with it, then that just proves that either the media, the country, or both are biased toward the Libertarian party, etc.

If you seriously think Ron Paul could only make a 2% vote, you are sorely mistaken.

If he failed the Rep Primary and run as a Libertarian (which he will not), it would split the Republican party right now. I think even warmonger Republicans would rather vote Paul than that bitch Hillary.

If we end up with a President Tancredo I am so out of this country. And I mean that.Screw that, I'm out of the country if a Republican or Hilary wins.

Which pretty much means I'm out.

What I want to know is why Ron Paul can win on every internet poll I see, but still be lagging behind Giuliani and Romney in all the mainstream polls?

That's because people are smart to know that Ron Paul is an idiot.

people are smart
Not true. Bush did manage to get elected. (The second time...)

Are you fucking inept?

Funny. I could ask you the same question with your statement below.

Ron Paul is the best candidate up there right now, and he's the only one so far I'd consider voting for. No one else has spoken as loudly in his words than he has to me. You can see how biased the media can be toward him as well, how disproportionate the time he gets during debates is compared to Giuliani and the like - it's because they're scared of him! He's winning polls, causing a movement, because what he stands for rings in any true American's ears...

Liberty!

Open your eyes and ears before you make prejudiced statements like that toward people like Ron Paul.

Um...I see you do not read anything by Ron Paul nor listen to him. Are you inept?

Not true. Bush did manage to get elected. (The second time...)

And the first time but then, with the second time, look who he was running against! Boring John Kerry.

Remember what happened last time the Republicans had a candidate so awful that anybody who wasn't him would have an assured victory if they ran against him? :(

"Four More Years..."

Ron Paul is running as Republican


Of course he is. He has also run as a Libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#1988_presidential_campaign), and his platform is highly consistent with that of Libertarians. Similar platforms and his ability to switch between parties at convenience makes sense, considering that a "Libertarian" is merely a Republican circa 1915.


...has earned more money than Giuliani in the past few months...


Of course, Giuliani has earned $38.5 Million dollars more than Paul overall (http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do), and is ahead of Paul by huge margins in important states including New York, California, Flordia, and Texas (Giuliani: $4,788,168, Paul: $731,649 (http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?drillLevel=state&stateName=TX&cand_id=P00000001)).

Money is hardly the only factor in determining successful candidates and electoral victories, but as one can clearly see, by the money standard, Paul is getting his ass handed to him in his own home state.


..and is winning the polls in several states.


Cite 'em.

At any rate, in Political Science 4 I learned how to make a poll say whatever the hell I want it to say. Pretty basic stuff.


That's not fair at all.


I didn't say it was fair. I said that it is hardly proof of some kind of conspiracy based on "fear" of an irrelevant candidate.


If you seriously think Ron Paul could only make a 2% vote, you are sorely mistaken.


You're actually right. In 1988, he got only 0.47% of the vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#1988_presidential_campaign). So, in fact, I severely overestimated his ability to "win." Of course, in 2008, he'll get exactly 0% of the vote, like everyone else who will fail to receive the party nomination.



If he...[runs] as a Libertarian (which he will not)


He already has. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#1988_presidential_campaign)


...I think even warmonger Republicans would rather vote Paul than that bitch Hillary.

Considering that the "bitch" is a neoconservative bent on fighting the "war on terror" the "right" way, whereas Paul is a 1915 isolationist, you might be surprised.

What I want to know is why Ron Paul can win on every internet poll I see, but still be lagging behind Giuliani and Romney in all the mainstream polls?

It's because the Internet is a stronghold of Libertarian campaigning. Mainstream Republican and Democratic campaigns have the money and social capital necessary to dominate the traditional media, mainly television. Minor third party campaigns (including that of Ron Paul), however, possess little money and little social capital, and are thus forced to rely primarily on media that requires little of such resources. This makes the Internet an ideal venue for minor third party campaigns, as building a website or a blog is quite cheap and easy to do.

Naturally, supporters of minor third party campaigns will be attracted to the primary media outlet for their campaigns. And, again naturally, such supporters will be overrepresented in any polls or other measuring deviced employed within that media paradigm.

So, basically, the amazing Internet poll results showing Paul in the lead are really nothing more than the result of massive selection bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_Bias). If Ron Paul supporters are most active on the Internet, then an Internet poll will be naturally biased toward reflecting their presence.

This is Basic Statistics 101.

I think even warmonger Republicans would rather vote Paul than that bitch Hillary.

Yes. After all, god knows it would be better to vote for anything than.... a bitch!!!

Yes. After all, god knows it would be better to vote for anything than.... a bitch!!!

I'm thinking of going to the Federal Election Commission and signing my female dog up for a Republican nominee. I don't expect her to win, but it might make the Republicans quiet down a little.

Ah, the "I'm fleeing if 'candidate X' wins" crowd... Elections just wouldn't be as fun without you guys. :D Keep it up. ;)

Rudy; although he disgusts me greatly, he is the least-worst of them.

Same.

Fred Thompson, methinks.

Anyone but Romney, I don't want anyone of that fucking cult to even have a chance in the final election.

What's wrong with what Obama said? It's a sensible thing to say! You can't just assume we'll pull out. Even if we were to go for complete evacuation, that would take a lot of time and effort.

Furthermore, there are many things that could happen that might make us want to stay in the meantime. You don't know for sure and assuming doesn't help matters.

Then there's the simple fact that we've made a horrible mess and we have the responsibility of cleaning it up. Otherwise we will have caused whether it's directly or indirectly the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, thousands of American troops, and inflicting refugee status upon millions for absolutely nothing.

If a candidate won't pull out all of the troops immediately, without exception, then quite frankly I hope he burns in Hell for perpetuating this stupid war. Four more years of this is too much, especially considering that we are supporting a geographic abortion (Iraq's borders have no basis in reality, they necessarily lend themselves to oppressing two of the three sectarian groups there), and that it merely exists to support a domestic and international political class that gains its wealth through exploitation of Iraq's natural resources and American tax dollars. That's why the over-hyped Democratic bill that would have 'ended' the war was in actual fact filled with so many loopholes to keep America in Iraq (such as 'fighting al-Qaeda') that it was nothing more than publicity, and a hand-out to special interests who are entrenched in Iraq and the Beltway. All of the excuses on why not to exit are merely a ploy for these elite; it's time to give up on trying to keep that failed nation-state together, let the 'Iraqis' go their separate ways, and cut off the leeches who caused this mess in the first place.

Obama, by refusing to dedicate himself to complete and immediate withdrawal, shows himself to be as much of a Beltway bandit as any of his compatriots.

Obama, by refusing to dedicate himself to complete and immediate withdrawal, shows himself to be as much of a Beltway bandit as any of his compatriots.Or maybe he's just not looking to gain political points by committing to a knee-jerk withdrawal strategy that would at the very least get people killed needlessly, and at the most, cement Iraq's status as a failed state for years to come. Yes we shouldn't have gone there, and we probably should get out of there, but that doesn't mean we should be idiots about it.

Or maybe he's just not looking to gain political points by committing to a knee-jerk withdrawal strategy that would at the very least get people killed needlessly, and at the most, cement Iraq's status as a failed state for years to come. Yes we shouldn't have gone there, and we probably should get out of there, but that doesn't mean we should be idiots about it.

The best way for him to get political points would be to whore himself out to the special interests who have a stake in Iraq's manipulation for their good, as indicated by the fact that by his own admission he would keep thousands of troops in Iraq (so much for a 'withdrawal.') And Iraq IS a failed state, regardless, by its very nature; the diverse people under its rule can never cooperate under a central government, just as the clans in Somalia can't. There is nothing the US can do but get out.

Whichever of them is most likely to lose.

If a candidate won't pull out all of the troops immediately, without exception, then quite frankly I hope he burns in Hell for perpetuating this stupid war. Four more years of this is too much, especially considering that we are supporting a geographic abortion (Iraq's borders have no basis in reality, they necessarily lend themselves to oppressing two of the three sectarian groups there), and that it merely exists to support a domestic and international political class that gains its wealth through exploitation of Iraq's natural resources and American tax dollars. That's why the over-hyped Democratic bill that would have 'ended' the war was in actual fact filled with so many loopholes to keep America in Iraq (such as 'fighting al-Qaeda') that it was nothing more than publicity, and a hand-out to special interests who are entrenched in Iraq and the Beltway. All of the excuses on why not to exit are merely a ploy for these elite; it's time to give up on trying to keep that failed nation-state together, let the 'Iraqis' go their separate ways, and cut off the leeches who caused this mess in the first place.

Obama, by refusing to dedicate himself to complete and immediate withdrawal, shows himself to be as much of a Beltway bandit as any of his compatriots.

I support pulling the troops out today, if we could. But - a politician who promises anything that implies he or she KNOWS what the situation will be at some point in the future, is clearly taking a hell of a risk.

I would like to see people wanting to bring the troops home asap, and I do wish the candidates were being a little more committed - but the way the questions are being framed invite a negative response.

The best way for him to get political points would be to whore himself out to the special interests who have a stake in Iraq's manipulation for their good, as indicated by the fact that by his own admission he would keep thousands of troops in Iraq (so much for a 'withdrawal.') And Iraq IS a failed state, regardless, by its very nature; the diverse people under its rule can never cooperate under a central government, just as the clans in Somalia can't. There is nothing the US can do but get out.
Fatalistic BS. The world is full of examples where people of multiple ethnicities peacefully coexist, a list that included Iraq under Saddam. Here are some of US's more obvious options:

1) Bomb insurgents into submission without regard for civilian casualties until the general morale turns to a total acceptance of defeat.
2) Do a real surge, putting in enough troops to turn it into a police state dense enough that an insurgency can't function.
3) Split Iraq into multiple countries along ethnic lines.
4) Pull out of and quarantine the places where the insurgency is active, while moving forward in other, more stable regions.
5) Fellate the UN its constituent nations to get some peacekeeping support and pull out as our force is replaced by one with more credibility.
6) Just stop fucking around with Bush's Blackwater / Halliburton / blame-the-Iraqis general BS.

Same.

I like Rudy. As a mayor.

I'm not sure what it is that screams "I can govern a country" about being a mayor, though...

(I suppose being a mayor is second only to being an actor?)

I'd like to point first and foremost out that most of the people on NSG have no right to comment on the "best" Republican, since most of them hate the Grand Old Party anyway.

I think the best guy is Huckabee. He don't play around on the issues. He tells it like it is. :D

I'd like to point first and foremost out that most of the people on NSG have no right to comment on the "best" Republican, since most of them hate the Grand Old Party anyway.

I think the best guy is Huckabee. He don't play around on the issues. He tells it like it is. :D

So - if you aren't a registered Republican... you can't comment on the Republican candidates?

I wonder why so many conservatives are shitting their diapers about Clinton, then?

(As a matter of interest, I'm non-partisan. Both mainstream American parties look like fascist groups to my Euro sensibilities)

So - if you aren't a registered Republican... you can't comment on the Republican candidates?


...that would supplement typical republican elitist bullshit they've been pushing for quite a while now. Else it's time for the sedition act!
*humps Mike "Savage" Weiner*

So - if you aren't a registered Republican... you can't comment on the Republican candidates?

I'd like to point out that only registered Republicans are permitted to vote in Republican primaries, and it's the same way for Democrats. The reason is obvious: If you are a Republican, then you are going to prefer the Democrat who is least Democratic. If you are a Democrat, you are going to prefer the Republican who is least Republican.

Asking a non Republican who is the "best" Republican candidate is like asking a person who hates chocolate iced cream which is the best kind of chocolate iced cream.

Rudy; although he disgusts me greatly, he is the least-worst of them.

Eh, fuck him and his anti-weasel stance.

I'd like to point out that only registered Republicans are permitted to vote in Republican primaries, and it's the same way for Democrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_primary

The reason is obvious: If you are a Republican, then you are going to prefer the Democrat who is least Democratic. If you are a Democrat, you are going to prefer the Republican who is least Republican.

Not necessarily. The voters from the other party may also vote for the candidate most likely to lose... who may be the least moderate.

I'd like to point out that only registered Republicans are permitted to vote in Republican primaries, and it's the same way for Democrats. The reason is obvious: If you are a Republican, then you are going to prefer the Democrat who is least Democratic. If you are a Democrat, you are going to prefer the Republican who is least Republican.

Asking a non Republican who is the "best" Republican candidate is like asking a person who hates chocolate iced cream which is the best kind of chocolate iced cream.

Even if this was an eloquent rebuttal... you said - and let me quote: "most of the people on NSG have no right to comment on the "best" Republican, since most of them hate the Grand Old Party anyway."

Apparently, you believe one has to have the 'right' political credentials to be able to comment on the candidates. A curious concept - I'm not sure which constutional amendment you think supports it, but I can think of one that makes a liar of it.

As for the idea that a 'Democrat' will pick the Republican that is least republican - I'm not entirely sure what you think that means. Some people have 'troops in Iraq' as a big concern, and would probably favour whichever Republican prioritised it. Some people want a certain level of experience, which would instantly make certain decisions for them about one or two of the options. Some might like lower taxes, fiscal responsibility... a certain set of 'social' values...

The idea that there are candidates that are more (or less) 'Republican' than others... kinda silly.

...that would supplement typical republican elitist bullshit they've been pushing for quite a while now. Else it's time for the sedition act!
*humps Mike "Savage" Weiner*

QFT.

And - hey. Long time no see. :)

And - hey. Long time no see. :)

Indeed! *bows*
I was abroad.
Not a-broad, like Rudy.
http://www.silt3.com/photos/giuliani_in_drag.jpg

Caribbean. LOTSA pix!
A few bug bites. Got to meet the new Mex prez. Belated honeymoon!
How're you?

Even if this was an eloquent rebuttal... you said - and let me quote: "most of the people on NSG have no right to comment on the "best" Republican, since most of them hate the Grand Old Party anyway."

Apparently, you believe one has to have the 'right' political credentials to be able to comment on the candidates. A curious concept - I'm not sure which constutional amendment you think supports it, but I can think of one that makes a liar of it.

As for the idea that a 'Democrat' will pick the Republican that is least republican - I'm not entirely sure what you think that means. Some people have 'troops in Iraq' as a big concern, and would probably favour whichever Republican prioritised it. Some people want a certain level of experience, which would instantly make certain decisions for them about one or two of the options. Some might like lower taxes, fiscal responsibility... a certain set of 'social' values...

The idea that there are candidates that are more (or less) 'Republican' than others... kinda silly.

A Republican by definition is one who believes in a free market and social conservativism. A good Republican by definition therefore is one who believes in free market and social conservativism (IE, Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee).

A Democrat by definition is one who believes in a not so free market and social liberalism. A "good" Democrat (Even though there is not a "good" Democrat in my eyes...they are all scum to me) is therefore by definition one who believes in killing the free market and social liberalism.

A Republican, therefore, is he really is a Republican, will generally prefer a "moderate" Democrat, and a Democrat will prefer a "moderate" Republican. May all those of you who say "Not necessarily" shut it. I don't care. This is generally the case.

Indeed! *bows*
I was abroad.
Not a-broad, like Rudy.
http://www.silt3.com/photos/giuliani_in_drag.jpg

Caribbean. LOTSA pix!
A few bug bites. Got to meet the new Mex prez. Belated honeymoon!
How're you?

That pic was one I didn't need to see. Tim Curry in stockings and suspenders = growl... Rudy in a frock = come back breakfast, all is forgiven.

There gonna be a pix thread?

Been busy as Hell (but, you know.. like, not an imaginary place), so I figured I'd just not seen ya. No honeymoons or nothin' for me - just working a lot.

I would think that the Republican Party would have to be severely weak and the warmongers purged before Ron Paul stands a chance of winning the nomination.

Well, yes. He hasn't a chance in hell.

A Republican by definition is one who believes in a free market and social conservativism.
*ahem*
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/republican
republican - having the supreme power lying in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them or characteristic of such government
+
http://www.answers.com/topic/republican

A Democrat by definition is one who believes in a not so free market and social liberalism. A "good" Democrat (Even though there is not a "good" Democrat in my eyes...they are all scum to me :rolleyes: ) is therefore by definition one who believes in killing the free market and social liberalism.

*ahemx2*
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/republican
democratic - characterized by or advocating or based upon the principles of democracy or social equality
+
http://www.yourdictionary.com/democrat
http://www.answers.com/topic/democratic-party?cat=biz-fin

That pic was one I didn't need to see. Tim Curry in stockings and suspenders = growl... Rudy in a frock = come back breakfast, all is forgiven.*FLORT*
The sickest part is he'll dress like that while maintaining his accursed anti-weasel stance! :(

There gonna be a pix thread?I thought i might drop in on WYTYG (whatever that may sound like) and her thread. :p

Been busy as Hell (but, you know.. like, not an imaginary place), so I figured I'd just not seen ya. No honeymoons or nothin' for me - just working a lot.
That's funny - i almost made it to Hell in the Cayman Islands (just north of 7-Mile Beach) :)
http://image.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Travel/Pix/pictures/2007/01/22/Hell_Alamy460.jpg
http://www.nbhtravel.com/CaymanIslands/pick,%20weisey,%20and%20the%20devil%20in%20Hell.jpg
http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/00/1b/90/b1/this-is-hell.jpg
:eek:
Our excursion got snipped a bit, time-wise. Long story.

Brevious, you are equivocating.

Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOP)

Republicans emphasize the role of corporate and personal decision making in fostering economic prosperity. They favor free-market policies supporting business, economic liberalism, and limited regulation.

A majority of the GOP's national and state candidates oppose abortion on religious or moral grounds, oppose the legal recognition of same sex marriage,[citation needed] and favor faith-based initiatives. There are some exceptions, though, especially in the Northeast and Pacific Coast states. They support welfare benefit reductions and oppose racial quotas, and are generally dubious of the desirability of affirmative action for women and minorities.[23] Most of the GOP's membership favors capital punishment and stricter punishments as a means to prevent crime. Republicans generally strongly support constitutionally protected gun ownership rights.

Political ideology:
Conservatism
Fiscal conservatism
Neoconservatism
Social conservatism

Political position:
Fiscal: Right-wing
Social: Right-wing


Democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Democratic_Party)

Political ideology:
American Liberalism
American Progressivism
Social liberalism

Political position:
Fiscal: Centrist
Social: Center-left

A Republican by definition is one who believes in a free market and social conservativism. A good Republican by definition therefore is one who believes in free market and social conservativism (IE, Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee).

A Democrat by definition is one who believes in a not so free market and social liberalism. A "good" Democrat (Even though there is not a "good" Democrat in my eyes...they are all scum to me) is therefore by definition one who believes in killing the free market and social liberalism.

A Republican, therefore, is he really is a Republican, will generally prefer a "moderate" Democrat, and a Democrat will prefer a "moderate" Republican. May all those of you who say "Not necessarily" shut it. I don't care. This is generally the case.

I'm normally fairly polite - but you are talking out of your arse.

The official Republican website seems to think that Republicans circle around core values like fiscal responsibility, lower taxation, minimal government, devolution, maintain conservative values whilst also encouraging innovation (there's some doublethink for ya), preserving national strength and pride (whatever that means) and extending peace throughout the world (???).

To even pretend that the platform can be summed up as 'free market and social conservatism', just shows that you know even less about the Republicans than those you seem to rail against.

Brevious, you are equivocating.Odd what one comes up with when someone types the word "republican" or "democrat" coupled with the word "definition", then, non?

Brevious, you are equivocating.

Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOP)

Democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Democratic_Party)

I see your wiki, and raise you an actually-knowing-what-I'm-talking-about:

http://www.gop.com/About/AboutRead.aspx?AboutType=3&Section=19

Odd what one comes up with when someone types the word "republican" or "democrat" coupled with the word "definition", then, non?

Dude.

"Only ducks have bills. My father has many bills. My father is a duck."

A bill by definition is the "mouth" so to speak of a duck. By definition.

That's not the definition, however, that is being used for "bill" in the case of my father.

A Republican is what I said by definition. A Democrat by definition is what I said. Not that definition.

Dude.Thou sayest! :eek:

A Republican is what I said by definition. A Democrat by definition is what I said. *points to above posts*
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13275036&postcount=80

Not that definition.Well, since you mentioned "ducks" ...
what's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh? :p

Dude.

"Only ducks have bills. My father has many bills. My father is a duck."


Flawed because ducks aren't the only people to have bills, even by the anatomical definition... and because "My father has many bills" would actually make him a herd of ducks.

I see your wiki, and raise you an actually-knowing-what-I'm-talking-about:

http://www.gop.com/About/AboutRead.aspx?AboutType=3&Section=19

Dude, the GOP website, and probably the Democratic website, are not intended to be an exhaustive list of Republican values, nor are they intended to give a full description of Republicanism. If you've ever taken any Political Science courses at all, you would know that these platforms are intended primarily to deal with moderates...thus the reason on the website it doesn't say "Oh yeah, and we are against abortion."

It isn't intended to deal with those who are actually Republicans. We already know what Republicanism is, and therefore don't need a website.

Flawed because ducks aren't the only people to have bills, even by the anatomical definition... and because "My father has many bills" would actually make him a herd of ducks.

Were you dropped on your head as a baby? :confused:

Dude, the GOP website, and probably the Democratic website, are not intended to be an exhaustive list of Republican values, nor are they intended to give a full description of Republicanism. If you've ever taken any Political Science courses at all, you would know that these platforms are intended primarily to deal with moderates...thus the reason on the website it doesn't say "Oh yeah, and we are against abortion."

It isn't intended to deal with those who are actually Republicans. We already know what Republicanism is, and therefore don't need a website.

If it isn't designed to deal with actual republicans, why is it selling republican buttons, listing the ideology of the Republican party, offering jobs in the Republican Party... etc?

I think - again - that you are speaking, but that your pants are muffling your voice.

I'm sure that the GOP website is not an exhaustive list of everything that matters to every republican (ironic, then, that my list is more exhaustive that yours, and you were trying to pass of two items as 'definitive')... but it IS a pretty good place to find the ideology claimed by the GOP.

And - since we're talking about Republican Party primaries, it seems that the actual GOP website is likely to be a lot more reliable on this matter than any amount of hat-transmitted-rhetoric from you, or wiki-open-source articles.

We already know what Republicanism is, and therefore don't need a website.

Ah, since you so graciously provided your accurate "definition" in contrast to everyone else's flawed ones?
:p

Were you dropped on your head as a baby?Neenerneener smartypants. Time for "The Name Game", what with the rhyming with "banana" and all. :rolleyes:

Regarding what some earlier people said:

Ron Paul, although doing poorly in national polls, has won the most states in the straw polls, which is the best representation of the voters who will show up for the actual primary. The fact is that the primary turn-out rate is attrociouscly low and only Ron Paul supporters aren't lazy enough to get off their ass and vote. We don't live in a direct democracy my friends. We live in a place where those who care and act upon their beliefs get their way, not the people who don't.

And Ron Paul is exceeding the candidates in fundraising compared to all the Republican candidates and of course we still haven't hit December 16th, the day upon which 150,000 or more Ron Paul supporters are expected to donate in rememberance of the Boston Tea Party. As our early American revolutionaries and founding fathers(who by the way would be modernly classified as libertarians) protested the unfair tax by Britain, the 21st century America will be protesting their invasive income tax that supplies the evil foreign pre-emptive foreign policy. The founders would be ashamed at both the foreign policy we've adopted as well as our invasive taxes, not including our invasion of privacy, the out of step role of government, and the loss of our civil liberties for what neocons call "security". As Ron Paul put it: when you sacrifice liberty for security, you get neither. It's time the nation reads the constitution and discover the true harm we are doing to our nation and the nations of the world by violating this extremely important document.

Some don't think Ron Paul should be classified as a Republican in his presidential ticket. I just wonder what happened to Republican meaning small government and low taxes. And while some Republicans want to cut taxes, don't they also know they have to cut spending? It's ridiculous and its time for change. Time for a revolution. Time to relegalize the constitution.

Time for Ron Paul.

Were you dropped on your head as a baby? :confused:

That's what you've got?

Your 'logical' obfuscation is worth about the paper it is written on... and the problem is parental negligence in MY history?

*definitions*

Bob forbid anyone would take the opportunity to respond in kind to your post, specifically, and provide instances where GOP-oriented/endorsed/spouted quotes and text might have any directly contradictory relationship to reality, for any particular gain of political nature, eh?
<.<
>.>
Indeed, that has been many, many other threads.
I'll merely invite you to review public statements of the past ... oh, i dunno, easily found would be the entire Bush Administration's occupation of the White House. Lovin' McLellan, Fleischer and Snow.
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/11/23/1116416-aides-choose-royalties-over-loyalties
http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2005/260505newbushism.htm
See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (ooh, not THAT definition! :p )

http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/quotethis/a/rumsfeldquotes.htm
http://thinkprogress.org/rumsfeld-called-tscript/
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/specificbias.htm
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/08/oreilly-constitution/

Definition ....:
http://rightwingnytimes.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
:p

EDIT: How'd i get Grave in there for my response? :confused:

A Republican by definition is one who believes in a free market and social conservativism.

"By definition"? Really? So there are no libertarian Republicans?

A good Republican by definition therefore is one who believes in free market and social conservativism

I thought that was any Republican? Or all all Republicans good?

A "good" Democrat... is therefore by definition one who believes in killing the free market and social liberalism.

"killing the free market"? Actually, those of us who are actually opposed to market capitalism are far to the left of the Democrats... we are not "good Democrats" at all, because we usually see the Democratic Party as only slightly less supportive of the prevailing capitalist power structure than the Republican Party.

A Republican, therefore, is he really is a Republican, will generally prefer a "moderate" Democrat, and a Democrat will prefer a "moderate" Republican.

"Prefer" does not mean "vote for in the primaries."

Ok, Grave. Lemme ask you this:

I say that I believe that I think that stem cell research ought to be banned because it kills babies (God said so), that Affirmative Action ought to be abolished, and that I believe homosexuals ought not be permitted to be married...oh yeah, and also believe in Laissez Fairre Capitalism. Oh yeah, and I'm a hardcore Democrat.

Would you find something wrong with that statement?

"Prefer" does not mean "vote for in the primaries."

So people vote for people whom they don't want in office? I don't know what world you are living in, man. :rolleyes:

I don't think I would vote (assuming I could) for anybody that I know in that list.

They all fail in at least one of the things that I would like a candidate to have...foreign policy that would work (focusing on countering the real threat instead of pursuing PNAC or going isolationist), fiscally conservative (cutting down deficit, improving economic health), gay rights (civil unions at least if not marriage), pro-choice (stem cell research etc), immigration policy (assimilating those who came here illegally but have been here for many years and are contributing and not crimial, faster green card process for legal skilled workers), environment friendly etc.

I don't think I would find any Republican candidate who I like or for that matter even a Democrat. But I cannot vote anyway..so meh.:p

So people vote for people whom they don't want in office? I don't know what world you are living in, man. :rolleyes:

Florida.

So people vote for people whom they don't want in office?

In the primaries? Yes, all the time. They tend to vote for who they think will be the best nominee for the party in question. Sometimes that means voting for the person they want most in office. Sometimes it means voting for the person they think will be most (or least) likely to win in the general election.

Edit: That's just one angle of a very significant topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_voting).

Ok, Grave. Lemme ask you this:

I say that I believe that I think that stem cell research ought to be banned because it kills babies (God said so), that Affirmative Action ought to be abolished, and that I believe homosexuals ought not be permitted to be married...oh yeah, and also believe in Laissez Fairre Capitalism. Oh yeah, and I'm a hardcore Democrat.

Would you find something wrong with that statement?

As an outsider... no. Like I said, to Europe, the difference between Bush and Clinton is much like the difference between Mussolini and Hitler.

I know a number of Democrats who react to things like stem cell research as their religious conscience dictates, regardless of their 'party' affiliation. I know people who oppose gay marriage on both sides of the spectrum. I know people who vote Republican who believe fair trade is more important than 'free' trade. I know a lot of Democrats who find Affirmative Action a racist proposition... etc.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to have to do with it - you somehow feel you can dictate who the 'real republicans' are... who is going to be 'most republican' and 'least republican' in the Republican primaries... but you seem unwilling to accept the GOP website as having any authority? Doesn't that seem conflicted to you?

I've presented what the GOP claims as it's ideology (whether it adheres to that, or not)... and you've presented what... a wiki article? I'm not going to dismiss wiki articles out of hand - but I'm certainly not going to take it OVER the GOP's own website, as an authority on what the GOP 'believes'. (Or claims to believe).

I'd vote for Ron Paul, partly because he's so batshit insane Congress won't let him do anything, and partly because it would signal to the Republicans that they have really messed up.
That is, if I could even vote (under 18), and if I would vote in the Republican primaries.

And Ron Paul is exceeding the candidates in fundraising compared to all the Republican candidates...


Apparently, in the 14th District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TX-14), 61.6 (http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?drillLevel=US&stateName=&cand_id=P80003353&searchType=&searchSQLType=&searchKeyword=) is less than 8.2 (http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?drillLevel=US&stateName=&cand_id=P80000748&searchType=&searchSQLType=&searchKeyword=).

As an outsider... no. Like I said, to Europe, the difference between Bush and Clinton is much like the difference between Mussolini and Hitler.

Godwin's Law

Godwin's Law

The longer a discussion continues, the more likely Nazis will be mentioned?

Err okay. And?

Godwin also pointed out that it is exactly because Hitler and/or Nazis are sometimes relevent points of comment, that they are often pulled into debate and overused.

What Godwins Law discusses is the use of 'Nazism' or 'Hitler' as rhetoric - as emotional responses, because they are 'the worst thing you can say'. So - Godwin doesn't apply if the comment is relevent... like discussion of part orientation, specific ideology, etc. In this case, it is relevent. To most Euro standards of politics, both American parties are somewhere way to the right, and practise politics that can be considered similar to Nazi agenda items - the hypersensitivity to 'patriotic' content, the exclusion/persecution of minorities (Mexicans and homosexuals, perhaps, instead of Jews), the apparent lebensraum foreign policy...

Okay people, I'm not sure if this has been done in the past, but I'd like to see where most NationStaters stand on the Republican candidates. If I missed a candidate or you'd like to vote as a write in, just click other and put it in your post. If you wish, we'd all greatly appreciate hearying why you support your candidate. If this works well, I intend on doing a similar one for the Democrats.

I'd vote for George again. Too bad he can't run for office a third time... :(

I'd vote for George again. Too bad he can't run for office a third time... :(

Oh sweet Jesus...

I'd vote for George again. Too bad he can't run for office a third time... :(I think I just had a seizure. :eek:

I'd vote for George again. Too bad he can't run for office a third time... :(

People like you still exist?

The longer a discussion continues, the more likely Nazis will be mentioned?

Err okay. And?

Godwin also pointed out that it is exactly because Hitler and/or Nazis are sometimes relevent points of comment, that they are often pulled into debate and overused.

What Godwins Law discusses is the use of 'Nazism' or 'Hitler' as rhetoric - as emotional responses, because they are 'the worst thing you can say'. So - Godwin doesn't apply if the comment is relevent... like discussion of part orientation, specific ideology, etc. In this case, it is relevent. To most Euro standards of politics, both American parties are somewhere way to the right, and practise politics that can be considered similar to Nazi agenda items - the hypersensitivity to 'patriotic' content, the exclusion/persecution of minorities (Mexicans and homosexuals, perhaps, instead of Jews), the apparent lebensraum foreign policy...
Similar perhaps, but certainly not as close as you're trying to paint them. We're not exactly forcing people into ghettos, or rounding them up in concentration camps. We haven't eliminated Congress and installed a dictator. We're not forcibly colonizing land we perceive as "ours" or trying to claim territory from other nations. (We could potentially claim much of British Columbia, for example.)

Sadly, that said, your comparison is still apt because there is no lesser example or analogy to use that would be closer. I suppose that's a good thing in its own right, but it's unfortunate for this discussion.

Ron Paul. Getting rid of the IRS would be awesome, to say the least.

Ron Paul. Getting rid of the IRS would be awesome, to say the least.In the short run. Having to quit work to repair the highway from your house to there would probably be a bitch for you, though.

Oh sweet Jesus...

I think I just had a seizure. :eek:

Guys, I think his point is that he wants Bush to run again to ensure an absolute Republican loss.

In the short run. Having to quit work to repair the highway from your house to there would probably be a bitch for you, though.

Then I just wouldn't drive, and still have my money to spend on stuff.

Then I just wouldn't drive, and still have my money to spend on stuff.
What stuff? There's only so much the little factory down the block can produce, unless there is no factory. Then you may have to repair the roads that the trucks use to deliver stuff (such as food) to your municipality.

"killing the free market"? Actually, those of us who are actually opposed to market capitalism are far to the left of the Democrats... we are not "good Democrats" at all, because we usually see the Democratic Party as only slightly less supportive of the prevailing capitalist power structure than the Republican Party.

Neither party supports capitalism. Both support corporatism, crony capitalism, welfarism, neo-mercantalism, and protectionism.

Neither party supports capitalism. Both support corporatism, crony capitalism, welfarism, neo-mercantalism, and protectionism.

Neither party supports laissez-faire capitalism of the sort you would back.

Both parties quite enthusiastically back private (capitalist) ownership being the dominant form of property over of the means of production.

The fact that they are keen to have the state intervene on the side of the rich and powerful (and occasionally in other respects) does not change this.

What stuff? There's only so much the little factory down the block can produce, unless there is no factory. Then you may have to repair the roads that the trucks use to deliver stuff (such as food) to your municipality.

well then we would put a sales tax in place to pay for the roads, but at least my income wouldn't be taxed right off the bat.

People like you still exist?

Can't kill a zombie too easy-like.
http://www.zombiereagan.com/street/portrait.jpg

What are these "Republican Primaries" you speak of? Are you humans trying to band together to defy me? Do you not know that I am invincible, and will easily overcome all of you? I thought this would be obvious, but this "voting" you speak of is irrelevant, because I am the rightful ruler of planet Houston, and I can easily defeat any "candidate" you "vote" for.

Now KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!

Ron Paul. Getting rid of the IRS would be awesome, to say the least.

QFT.

I support pulling the troops out today, if we could. But - a politician who promises anything that implies he or she KNOWS what the situation will be at some point in the future, is clearly taking a hell of a risk.

I would like to see people wanting to bring the troops home asap, and I do wish the candidates were being a little more committed - but the way the questions are being framed invite a negative response.

He is just making excuses for himself, likely to backstab his constituency just like the Congressional Democrats did. Not to mention he'd still keep thousands of troops in Iraq; that's not a withdrawal, that's opportunism. If Obama will not commit to a complete and unconditional withdrawal, then he is just another war profiteer.

Fatalistic BS. The world is full of examples where people of multiple ethnicities peacefully coexist, a list that included Iraq under Saddam. Here are some of US's more obvious options:

1) Bomb insurgents into submission without regard for civilian casualties until the general morale turns to a total acceptance of defeat.
2) Do a real surge, putting in enough troops to turn it into a police state dense enough that an insurgency can't function.
3) Split Iraq into multiple countries along ethnic lines.
4) Pull out of and quarantine the places where the insurgency is active, while moving forward in other, more stable regions.
5) Fellate the UN its constituent nations to get some peacekeeping support and pull out as our force is replaced by one with more credibility.
6) Just stop fucking around with Bush's Blackwater / Halliburton / blame-the-Iraqis general BS.

1.) and 2.) are a failed state because they would necessitate a massive aggression against the rights of the Iraqi people.

3.) would confirm that Iraq is, in fact, a failed state.

As for 4.), the places where the insurgency is most active is where there is the most centralism (Shiite and Sunni.) Again, this validates the idea that Iraq is a failed state.

5.) and 6.) ignore the internal problems of the Iraqi state, in that the ethnic groups will always be striving to gain dominance over one another given the chance.

What I want to know is why Ron Paul can win on every internet poll I see, but still be lagging behind Giuliani and Romney in all the mainstream polls?

The Internet is disproportionally populated by extremists: on the "economic" spectrum of the political compass, the greatest concentrations of internet posters tend to be towards democratic communism on one side, libertarianism on the other. Ron Paul is widely supported among libertarians, but they make up a very small proportion of the U.S. population -- maybe 6 or 8 per cent, compared with 25 per cent or more online -- and he has little support from other groups, so he is unlikely to succeed in his presidential bid.

What are these "Republican Primaries" you speak of? Are you humans trying to band together to defy me? Do you not know that I am invincible, and will easily overcome all of you? I thought this would be obvious, but this "voting" you speak of is irrelevant, because I am the rightful ruler of planet Houston, and I can easily defeat any "candidate" you "vote" for.

Now KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!
None before Cthulu.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb108.gif

The Internet is disproportionally populated by extremists: on the "economic" spectrum of the political compass, the greatest concentrations of internet posters tend to be towards democratic communism on one side, libertarianism on the other. Ron Paul is widely supported among libertarians, but they make up a very small proportion of the U.S. population -- maybe 6 or 8 per cent, compared with 25 per cent or more online -- and he has little support from other groups, so he is unlikely to succeed in his presidential bid.

No, no ... the internet is a constituency, solely, of ordinary, rational, sensible thinking people who have very normal, ordinary sex lives and appreciations for all things reasonable.

Trying to work out if you are for real or not...

He is just making excuses for himself, likely to backstab his constituency


Likely, eh? That's got to be it. Probability suggests backstabbing. No possible room for other reasons like.. oh, I don't know - he doesn't know for sure what the Iraq climate will be when he gets the nomination (assuming her does), much less when he enters the Whitehouse? (Again, assuming...)

...just like the Congressional Democrats did.


What are you blathering about?


Not to mention he'd still keep thousands of troops in Iraq; that's not a withdrawal, that's opportunism.


No - if he keeps like 10,000 soldiers there, that IS withdrawal. It's just not a complete withdrawal.


If Obama will not commit to a complete and unconditional withdrawal, then he is just another war profiteer.


Surely that would necessitate something to do with profiting from it? As I said - I support complete withdrawal - but - especially at THIS early stage in electioneering, I'm likely to be very suspicious of anyone that thinks they could promise it.

Ron Paul. Getting rid of the IRS would be awesome, to say the least.

And then unemployment would go up. What are you going to do about all those people who got laid off because of the IRS getting disbanded?

Neither party supports laissez-faire capitalism of the sort you would back.

Or of any kind. Laissez faire literally means "hands off."

The fact that they are keen to have the state intervene on the side of the rich and powerful (and occasionally in other respects) does not change this.

Yes, it does.

And then unemployment would go up. What are you going to do about all those people who got laid off because of the IRS getting disbanded?

Like who, the armed robbers employed by the IRS?

Like who, the armed robbers employed by the IRS?

What would happen to all of those who are employed by the IRS? Now they do not have jobs. What would we do with them?

What would happen to all of those who are employed by the IRS? Now they do not have jobs. What would we do with them?

Abolish the IRS gradually, while training them for new jobs in the process, so they don't get royally fucked up.

What would happen to all of those who are employed by the IRS? Now they do not have jobs. What would we do with them?

Give them jobs in the new tax collection agency that we would have to have - which would simply no longer be called "IRS".

Abolish the IRS gradually, while training them for new jobs in the process, so they don't get royally fucked up.

And who is going to pay for this job training?

And who is going to pay for this job training?

The government. We can take some of the money out of our defense budget, which is much too large.

The government. We can take some of the money out of our defense budget, which is much too large.

In your opinion. However, if the Government has no money anyway...how is it going to afford a military let alone paying people while they go through Job Retraining?

Give them jobs in the new tax collection agency that we would have to have - which would simply no longer be called "IRS".

We got along fine without an income tax before the 1910s. Income taxation is essential to the survival of the welfare/warfare state; without it, the government's ability to pursue statism at home and imperialism abroad would be greatly diminished. If we returned the government to within its constitutional limits, we wouldn't need an income tax.

Give them jobs in the new tax collection agency that we would have to have - which would simply no longer be called "IRS".

Oh I know that but I was addressing IM point that the IRS is totally abolished and from my understanding, no new tax agency.

We got along fine without an income tax before the 1910s. Income taxation is essential to the survival of the welfare/warfare state; without it, the government's ability to pursue statism at home and imperialism abroad would be greatly diminished. If we returned the government to within its constitutional limits, we wouldn't need an income tax.

Except that the Income Tax is part of the Constitution and therefor, constitutional.

We got along fine without an income tax before the 1910s. Income taxation is essential to the survival of the welfare/warfare state; without it, the government's ability to pursue statism at home and imperialism abroad would be greatly diminished. If we returned the government to within its constitutional limits, we wouldn't need an income tax.



No, we don't need an income tax. We need a "wealth tax", where it taxes how much you own, not how much you make

Then I just wouldn't drive, and still have my money to spend on stuff.

You have your money to spend on stuff now. If income tax were done away with, employers would simply start paying you less to begin with.

Ron Paul is widely supported among libertarians, but they make up a very small proportion of the U.S. population -- maybe 6 or 8 per cent, compared with 25 per cent or more online -- and he has little support from other groups, so he is unlikely to succeed in his presidential bid.

I'll never understand how anyone could consider Ron Paul to be libertarian. I *thought* libertarians were supposed to be concerned with personal liberty, but their avid support for Paul seems to suggest just the contrary. He expresses no concern whatsoever for personal liberty and instead appears to be be concerned with "state's rights" to infringe upon it.


We got along fine without an income tax before the 1910s. Income taxation is essential to the survival of the welfare/warfare state; without it, the government's ability to pursue statism at home and imperialism abroad would be greatly diminished. If we returned the government to within its constitutional limits, we wouldn't need an income tax.

Did I specify income tax?

No matter what kind of taxation you are looking at, there is going to be an agency to collect and distribute the taxes. And the government simply isn't going to be run if you don't have taxes to provide a budget for it.

Except that the Income Tax is part of the Constitution and therefor, constitutional.

I'm talking about the limited government we had at the time of our Founding. Aside from the absence of women's voting rights and the existence of slavery, it was much better than what we have now.

I'll never understand how anyone could consider Ron Paul to be libertarian. I *thought* libertarians were supposed to be concerned with personal liberty, but their avid support for Paul seems to suggest just the contrary. He expresses no concern whatsoever for personal liberty and instead appears to be be concerned with "state's rights" to infringe upon it.

To be fair, Paul doesn't refer to himself as a libertarian, but as a constitutionalist. Of course, whether he actually is one or not is up for debate.

Did I specify income tax?

No matter what kind of taxation you are looking at, there is going to be an agency to collect and distribute the taxes. And the government simply isn't going to be run if you don't have taxes to provide a budget for it.

Ideally, all taxes would be abolished except for poll (head) taxes at the state level, and the federal government would tax the states in proportion to their populations.

I'm talking about the limited government we had at the time of our Founding. Aside from the absence of women's voting rights and the existence of slavery, it was much better than what we have now.

Was it? Care to actually back that one up?

I'm talking about the limited government we had at the time of our Founding. Aside from the absence of women's voting rights and the existence of slavery, it was much better than what we have now.
I hear the Panic of 1819 was particulary popular at the time.

I'm talking about the limited government we had at the time of our Founding. Aside from the absence of women's voting rights and the existence of slavery, it was much better than what we have now.

And it would be totally unable to cope with our modern problems.

A huge crisis is where small government that's afraid to do much fails. Just look at Katrina. Republican ideology demands that the government lets the private sector take care of things. Look where that got us.

I sure as hell hope that when the Big One (next big Earthquake) hits, we have a government that isn't too small to take care of whatever problems may arise.

Ideally, all taxes would be abolished except for poll (head) taxes at the state level, and the federal government would tax the states in proportion to their populations.

I think Poll taxes have been banned as well by the 24 Amendment of the US Constitution. In fact, I am right. The 24th DOES PROHIBIT poll/head tax.

To be fair, Paul doesn't refer to himself as a libertarian, but as a constitutionalist. Of course, whether he actually is one or not is up for debate.
Which is why he votes for laws which he thinks violate the US constitution and wants to abolish rights guranteed by the US constituion, correct?

I hear the Panic of 1918 was particulary popular at the time.

Shall we talk about the day the Stock Market actually crashed?

Although I can't say I dislike the man, it's a good thing Ron Paul won't win the Republican nomination, because he would split the Republican Party in two, as the Pro-War Republicans would probably end up voting for Mike Bloomberg. Knowing a lot of Pro-War Republicans, they would probably rather vote for a communist then someone who agrees with 65% of the American Public (but slightly less then half of the Republican Party) on Iraq.

It's also interesting to note that though Paul is considered a libertarian, he's actually against abortion. Not saying that's a bad thing, and I'm not saying he's not a libertarian, but usually one of the trademarks of a libertarian is they're economically conservative but in support of a generally more liberal approach to social order, and it's just kind of an unusual thing to note.

he founders would be ashamed at both the foreign policy we've adopted as well as our invasive taxes, not including our invasion of privacy, the out of step role of government, and the loss of our civil liberties for what neocons call "security".

Ron Paul pushes a bill every year making it quite clear that he doesn't think individuals have a right to privacy at all. Look up the "We the People Act". According to Ron Paul, states should be able to infringe upon your religious freedom and right to privacy with no oversight. States should also be able to ignore the 14th Amendment and treat certain classes of citizens differently under the law. In other words, Ron Paul is trying to ensure that state governments can ignore the US Constitution on several points.

To be fair, Paul doesn't refer to himself as a libertarian, but as a constitutionalist. Of course, whether he actually is one or not is up for debate.

Considering the fact that he clearly doesn't believe that the Constitution should ever be applied to the states, I'd say.....no.

Ideally, all taxes would be abolished except for poll (head) taxes at the state level, and the federal government would tax the states in proportion to their populations.

Even if that were a good idea, it would still require some sort of agency to enforce and maintain those taxes.

Shall we talk about the day the Stock Market actually crashed?
I meant 1819.

My bad.

I never said he was a constitutionalist, only that he labels himself as one.

And most of us who done some poking knows that to be false.

Which is why he votes for laws which he thinks violate the US constitution and wants to abolish rights guranteed by the US constituion, correct?

I never said he was a constitutionalist, only that he labels himself as one.

I think Poll taxes have been banned as well by the 24 Amendment of the US Constitution. In fact, I am right. The 24th DOES PROHIBIT poll/head tax.

That's a different kind of poll tax. The poll taxes you're talking about are taxes people had to pay in order to vote (which effectively barred many poor Southerners, especially blacks, from voting).

I never said he was a constitutionalist, only that he labels himself as one.
And enough people fall for it...

And most of us who done some poking knows that to be false.

I never said I agreed or disagreed.

A huge crisis is where small government that's afraid to do much fails.

We don't have a small government.

Just look at Katrina. Republican ideology demands that the government lets the private sector take care of things. Look where that got us.

Weren't the failed levees state-owned?

And enough people fall for it...

*shrug*

What can I say? People are gullible.

Trying to work out if you are for real or not...

I am for real. I am very serious about the fact that I want the US out of Iraq immediately; staying there any longer just asks for catastrophe.

Likely, eh? That's got to be it. Probability suggests backstabbing. No possible room for other reasons like.. oh, I don't know - he doesn't know for sure what the Iraq climate will be when he gets the nomination (assuming her does), much less when he enters the Whitehouse? (Again, assuming...)

There is absolutely nothing that any US President can do to stabilize Iraq; in fact, our presence destabilizes the country. Candidates like Bill Richardson and Ron Paul realize this and would get us out of the country immediately. There is no need to stay for up to four more years.

What are you blathering about?

Just the fact that Congress wimped out in the face of President Bush's veto against ending the war, and that they granted huge loopholes for him to manipulate to keep US soldiers in Iraq, such as for Blackwater soldiers and the like.

No - if he keeps like 10,000 soldiers there, that IS withdrawal. It's just not a complete withdrawal.

He'd keep up to 60,000, by his own admission. And if he keeps only 10,000, then it is obviously to serve the special interests in Iraq to keep it in US orbit.

Surely that would necessitate something to do with profiting from it? As I said - I support complete withdrawal - but - especially at THIS early stage in electioneering, I'm likely to be very suspicious of anyone that thinks they could promise it.

There will be plenty of opportunities in the White House to do so, like any President. Anyone who would not promise withdrawal is merely cooking pasta a la putanesca for the people who have a stake in Iraq.

I am for real. I am very serious about the fact that I want the US out of Iraq immediately; staying there any longer just asks for catastrophe.


I also want us out of there immediately. I think each day we remain magnifies our future problems.

On the other hand - I'm a realist.


There is absolutely nothing that any US President can do to stabilize Iraq; in fact, our presence destabilizes the country. Candidates like Bill Richardson and Ron Paul realize this and would get us out of the country immediately. There is no need to stay for up to four more years.


Actually - there are a lot of things we could do to 'stabilise' Iraq... they're just not all pretty.

But, stable or no, it isn't purely our presence that is the problem - it's our agenda, and how we're carrying it out.

The UK has been pulling troops, and will have no more active service troops actually 'in combat' in two weeks. However, there will be a small force maintained that will remain in a training/advisory capacity.

Pulling out immediately might not be the absolute best scenario - even from the "I want withdrawal" perspective.


Just the fact that Congress wimped out in the face of President Bush's veto against ending the war, and that they granted huge loopholes for him to manipulate to keep US soldiers in Iraq, such as for Blackwater soldiers and the like.


Again - what are you talking about. You seem to be making like this is somehow the fault of the Democrats, but I'm sure you relise the Dems don't have the numbers to break a veto.


He'd keep up to 60,000, by his own admission. And if he keeps only 10,000, then it is obviously to serve the special interests in Iraq to keep it in US orbit.


Or for the same reason that the UK will be doing it.


There will be plenty of opportunities in the White House to do so, like any President. Anyone who would not promise withdrawal is merely cooking pasta a la putanesca for the people who have a stake in Iraq.

Anyone who would promise instant withdrawal is running a risk of being completely unable to support their so-called promise, once in the Whitehouse.

We don't have a small government.



Weren't the failed levees state-owned?

We have a government that believes that people should depend on the private sector more than government.

I was talking about the response, which was totally inadequate.

After the 1906 quake, the government response was fairly quick and efficient, and lots of things were up and running within weeks.

After Katrina, the government kinda just sat on its hands, with the whole "oh, private charities will take care of things," idea.

Although I can't say I dislike the man, it's a good thing Ron Paul won't win the Republican nomination, because he would split the Republican Party in two, as the Pro-War Republicans would probably end up voting for Mike Bloomberg. Knowing a lot of Pro-War Republicans, they would probably rather vote for a communist then someone who agrees with 65% of the American Public (but slightly less then half of the Republican Party) on Iraq.

It's also interesting to note that though Paul is considered a libertarian, he's actually against abortion. Not saying that's a bad thing, and I'm not saying he's not a libertarian, but usually one of the trademarks of a libertarian is they're economically conservative but in support of a generally more liberal approach to social order, and it's just kind of an unusual thing to note.

You think he might split the Republican party if he won the primary? Ooh, maybe I do want him to win the primary then.

And enough people fall for it...

Sad, huh? I know really intelligent people who have somehow fallen for the propaganda and now can't see around it....

=(

If Obama will not commit to a complete and unconditional withdrawal, then he is just another war profiteer.
False dichotomy. You assume that nobody would view an option that didn't involve pulling out immediately to be more beneficial.

1.) and 2.) are a failed state because they would necessitate a massive aggression against the rights of the Iraqi people.

3.) would confirm that Iraq is, in fact, a failed state.

As for 4.), the places where the insurgency is most active is where there is the most centralism (Shiite and Sunni.) Again, this validates the idea that Iraq is a failed state.

5.) and 6.) ignore the internal problems of the Iraqi state, in that the ethnic groups will always be striving to gain dominance over one another given the chance.
Of course Iraq is a failed state. I'm saying that if we pull out like we're gonna get it pregnant or something, we only guarantee that Iraq will remain an anarchic failed state for as long as possible, until a somebody emerges as victor of a long, bloody civil war. We as a nation have the power and responsibility to prevent that. I listed options in my previous post that might be considered to have more desirable consequences (less people dying) than pulling out and dropping the ball because we want to wash our hands of our fuck-up.

False dichotomy. You assume that nobody would view an option that didn't involve pulling out immediately to be more beneficial.

Your double negatives are confusing, but I assume you're saying that everybody would prefer to withdraw immediately (I think.) But I never said such a thing. I am merely seeing a backstab from Obama coming a mile away, as he and his fellow Democrats have been doing since they gained their congressional majority.

Of course Iraq is a failed state. I'm saying that if we pull out like we're gonna get it pregnant or something, we only guarantee that Iraq will remain an anarchic failed state for as long as possible, until a somebody emerges as victor of a long, bloody civil war. We as a nation have the power and responsibility to prevent that. I listed options in my previous post that might be considered to have more desirable consequences (less people dying) than pulling out and dropping the ball because we want to wash our hands of our fuck-up.

We don't have the power to fix a fundamentally flawed system anymore than someone who is grabbing a hot pan can will it to stop hurting him; the very multi-ethnic nature of Iraq ensures that each segment will battle with one another to gain control of the apparatus of coercion. And none of those actions will work to create peace in Iraq that don't involve the elimination of Iraq as an entity, as all impose coercion upon the Iraqi populace.

I also want us out of there immediately. I think each day we remain magnifies our future problems.

On the other hand - I'm a realist.

You're just opening yourself up to have your trust betrayed. Just like the Democrats failed to make us withdraw from Iraq, and their 'withdrawal' had so many loopholes for the President to abuse that it wasn't one, Obama plans to do just the same. His words in the debate and his website are merely a fallback for when he actually does so, "I never promised we would get out immediately," and the loopholes he provides himself will maintain Iraq for the particular interests of the Beltway (hence the 60,000 soldiers that will remain.)

Actually - there are a lot of things we could do to 'stabilise' Iraq... they're just not all pretty.

We could be like Saddam Hussein, yes. But this would merely involve violence of a different kind, or the threat thereof, and there would still be no peace. Peace is when you have rendered each their due; when you oppress and intimidate people, you have failed to do so, and there is no peace.

But, stable or no, it isn't purely our presence that is the problem - it's our agenda, and how we're carrying it out.

There is no way we could change our agenda; the nature of special interest politics (iron triangles) will make sure that so long as we stay in Iraq, we will still lean towards an oppressive agenda. We cannot assume away politics, because the particular interests influence in politics is the only basis by which politicians can calculate their actions. Even if we were to assume away their influence, the politicians would have no clue as to what the right thing to do would be.

The UK has been pulling troops, and will have no more active service troops actually 'in combat' in two weeks. However, there will be a small force maintained that will remain in a training/advisory capacity.

To maintain their interests just the same; one of the reasons why they joined in the war was because Iraq didn't include them in oil deals.

Pulling out immediately might not be the absolute best scenario - even from the "I want withdrawal" perspective.

Our agenda is detrimental to the freedoms of the Iraqi people. Its preservation through military force can only hurt them. The best thing would be to leave them to their own devices; but the best thing to do would be to have some sort of massive decentralization, by dividing Iraq into as many autonomous zones as possible (but this would never happen, too many people want control of the central government.)

Again - what are you talking about. You seem to be making like this is somehow the fault of the Democrats, but I'm sure you relise the Dems don't have the numbers to break a veto.

No, they don't. But all they had to do was outrun the clock and force the President to approve their spending bill. Even if their bill was passed, though, it was so rife with loopholes that it would have made only a minimal impact.

Or for the same reason that the UK will be doing it.

For their particular interests.

Anyone who would promise instant withdrawal is running a risk of being completely unable to support their so-called promise, once in the Whitehouse.

It shouldn't take four whole freaking years. The most important thing would be to commit to an immediate and full withdrawal, and be serious about it without any kind of equivocation. Bill Richardson, Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich are the only ones who have proposed anything of the sort, while Obama will withdraw at his pleasure and only a portion of those stationed in Iraq.

The candidate I want to win the Republic Party nomination is whichever one will ensure that they lose the general election.

Your double negatives are confusing, but I assume you're saying that everybody would prefer to withdraw immediately (I think.) But I never said such a thing. I am merely seeing a backstab from Obama coming a mile away, as he and his fellow Democrats have been doing since they gained their congressional majority.So Obama is a warmonger because he's not saying the PC thing and pandering to the party line?

We don't have the power to fix a fundamentally flawed system anymore than someone who is grabbing a hot pan can will it to stop hurting him; the very multi-ethnic nature of Iraq ensures that each segment will battle with one another to gain control of the apparatus of coercion. And none of those actions will work to create peace in Iraq that don't involve the elimination of Iraq as an entity, as all impose coercion upon the Iraqi populace.That's ridiculous. What about every nearly other country in the world where multiple ethnicities coexist despite racism? You think that Saddam could do what America can't? Secondly, why exclude the elimination of Iraq as an entity from being an option? Surely that's better than endless strife.

You're just opening yourself up to have your trust betrayed. Just like the Democrats failed to make us withdraw from Iraq, and their 'withdrawal' had so many loopholes for the President to abuse that it wasn't one, Obama plans to do just the same. His words in the debate and his website are merely a fallback for when he actually does so, "I never promised we would get out immediately," and the loopholes he provides himself will maintain Iraq for the particular interests of the Beltway (hence the 60,000 soldiers that will remain.)So we should get out of Iraq because you're afraid somebody will lie to you again and you'll feel sad? Withdrawing or not withdrawing doesn't prohibit the president from betraying the nation in some other way. Hell, they could say "OMG it's anarchy there we need to save them!" and send troops right back in whenever they have the PR points to do it.

We could be like Saddam Hussein, yes. But this would merely involve violence of a different kind, or the threat thereof, and there would still be no peace. Peace is when you have rendered each their due; when you oppress and intimidate people, you have failed to do so, and there is no peace.I think if you took a poll in Baghdad, they would fucking elect Saddam if it meant their current shit would go away. Freedom and oppression is relative, not absolutes.

There is no way we could change our agenda; the nature of special interest politics (iron triangles) will make sure that so long as we stay in Iraq, we will still lean towards an oppressive agenda. We cannot assume away politics, because the particular interests influence in politics is the only basis by which politicians can calculate their actions. Even if we were to assume away their influence, the politicians would have no clue as to what the right thing to do would be.You have a point, but that doesn't absolve us of responsibility for the situation, nor does it mean that management of the Iraq situation with a clammering of special interests in the background is anywhere near as bad as shear Muslim-vs-Muslim_=_Darfur-squared anarchy that might take place in the wake of sudden US withdrawal.

Our agenda is detrimental to the freedoms of the Iraqi people. Its preservation through military force can only hurt them. The best thing would be to leave them to their own devices; but the best thing to do would be to have some sort of massive decentralization, by dividing Iraq into as many autonomous zones as possible (but this would never happen, too many people want control of the central government.)Do you have some kind of analysis to back up this viewpoint? We have the most advanced military and propaganda machines in the world and withdrawal is the best we can do? The ancients conquered and held entire nations, forging peaceful empires (not that conquering is a good thing, but it's too late to undo what has been wrought). Why can't we simply put up the resources to keep the peace until sufficient social capital has been built to have a unified democracy?

There is absolutely nothing that any US President can do to stabilize Iraq; in fact, our presence destabilizes the country. Candidates like Bill Richardson and Ron Paul realize this and would get us out of the country immediately. There is no need to stay for up to four more years.

If what you say is so true, then tell me how a local police force trained, supported, and protected in it's infacy by the US and it's allies has brought peace to Basra.

Likewise, tell me how the fact that the US has placed itself in Iraq has mysteriously caused Sunni's and Shiites to hate each other. Yes, as a Methodist if China invaded I would definitely start randomly firing Shotgun shells at Baptists! No, no, never make the Chinese my main target, I just want a kill me a Baptist!! And if you honestly think we're the main target, I think the fact that the civilian death toll on the insurgent side is 12 times the US casualty toll (and that's a conservative estimate) and most attacks seem to have no military aim whatsoever except to carry out a Genocide would paint a very different story.

I'm sorry, but the way that the Anti-war movement just randomly spouts out nifty sounding phrases like "It's another Vietnam" and "We've already lost" without giving any evidence whatsoever to support their claims and going directly against the thread of history (in particular Post-War Japan and Germany) while still mysteriously persuading a very large segment of the American population to their viewpoint cause they can scream louder is really GETTING ON MY NERVES! :headbang:

If what you say is so true, then tell me how a local police force trained, supported, and protected in it's infacy by the US and it's allies has brought peace to Basra.

Are you seriously telling me that just because it worked in Basra, it must work everywhere? And the things that we would have to do to stabilize Iraq would be so evil that they should not be considered.

Likewise, tell me how the fact that the US has placed itself in Iraq has mysteriously caused Sunni's and Shiites to hate each other. Yes, as a Methodist if China invaded I would definitely start randomly firing Shotgun shells at Baptists! No, no, never make the Chinese my main target, I just want a kill me a Baptist!! And if you honestly think we're the main target, I think the fact that the civilian death toll on the insurgent side is 12 times the US casualty toll (and that's a conservative estimate) and most attacks seem to have no military aim whatsoever except to carry out a Genocide would paint a very different story.

I never said we made them hate one another. I said that, without the Sunnis being firmly in power, they are killing each other because the state is up for grabs, and with that they can keep their own group dominating the others. They have no history of liberal custom, and as such there is little recognition of individual rights, only what is good for their particular group regardless of the fate of others.

I'm sorry, but the way that the Anti-war movement just randomly spouts out nifty sounding phrases like "It's another Vietnam" and "We've already lost" without giving any evidence whatsoever to support their claims and going directly against the thread of history (in particular Post-War Japan and Germany) while still mysteriously persuading a very large segment of the American population to their viewpoint cause they can scream louder is really GETTING ON MY NERVES! :headbang:

I will tell you this; I used to be fervently pro-war. In fact, my foreign policy was extremely neoconservative. But then I realized that the kinds of sacrifices you have to make in a war really destroy everyone's freedoms, through taxation, conscription, and the endless destruction that armed conflict causes. If we stay in Iraq and support a central government that allows those in power to abuse those who are outside of this power, then we are simply encouraging an endless cycle of destruction both for ourselves and for them.

So Obama is a warmonger because he's not saying the PC thing and pandering to the party line?

The party line and PC thing is to pretend to want to get out of Iraq, but then leave so many loopholes that it is not so much a withdrawal as a feint for publicity. There are hardly any politicians who truly, honestly, want to get out of Iraq entirely.

That's ridiculous. What about every nearly other country in the world where multiple ethnicities coexist despite racism? You think that Saddam could do what America can't? Secondly, why exclude the elimination of Iraq as an entity from being an option? Surely that's better than endless strife.

The reason why multiple ethnicities are able to get along in some places is because of liberal custom; every nation in which people are able to get along without the state regulating every aspect of their citizen's lives. The reason why I consistently choose the elimination of Iraq as an entity is because so long as a centralized government is in place, without the respect for other people's rights that liberal custom gives these groups will constantly be climbing over one another's corpses to get it.

So we should get out of Iraq because you're afraid somebody will lie to you again and you'll feel sad? Withdrawing or not withdrawing doesn't prohibit the president from betraying the nation in some other way. Hell, they could say "OMG it's anarchy there we need to save them!" and send troops right back in whenever they have the PR points to do it.

I'm not saying that we should get out of Iraq because someone will lie to me. I'm saying that we should get out of Iraq because we are causing more suffering by sustaining its central government. The reason why I am so opposed to Obama on this issue is because he is giving off the same signals as the congressional Democrats did, which is to only nominally withdraw from Iraq to serve special interests. I really can't trust any politician, but Obama is not promising from what he's given off so far.

I think if you took a poll in Baghdad, they would fucking elect Saddam if it meant their current shit would go away. Freedom and oppression is relative, not absolutes.

Freedom is an absolute in that it is the ability to live one's life to its fullest. Electing Saddam would just mean that people are killed in a different way because someone has control of the central government, and not that the jury is still out on who has it yet.

You have a point, but that doesn't absolve us of responsibility for the situation, nor does it mean that management of the Iraq situation with a clammering of special interests in the background is anywhere near as bad as shear Muslim-vs-Muslim_=_Darfur-squared anarchy that might take place in the wake of sudden US withdrawal.

The only reason why such a situation would arise is because of squabbling over a central government. Without the central government, you do not have the fighting.

Do you have some kind of analysis to back up this viewpoint? We have the most advanced military and propaganda machines in the world and withdrawal is the best we can do? The ancients conquered and held entire nations, forging peaceful empires (not that conquering is a good thing, but it's too late to undo what has been wrought). Why can't we simply put up the resources to keep the peace until sufficient social capital has been built to have a unified democracy?

We could 'pacify' Iraq, yes, but the means to do so would be immoral that it would be out of the question. The best thing we could do is to decentralize it so that people aren't fighting over power and allow them to live in peace.

Okay, so let's do THAT instead of pulling out. Divvy up the country, then make sure they don't attack each other, rather than merely step out, ensuring that they will. That's still leaves the problem of Baghdad and places with mixed ethnicities.

We could 'pacify' Iraq, yes, but the means to do so would be immoral that it would be out of the question. The best thing we could do is to decentralize it so that people aren't fighting over power and allow them to live in peace.

And how is decentralising going to cure the problems over oil distribution? Obviously, you are aware that plays a major role in the power struggle.

Are you seriously telling me that just because it worked in Basra, it must work everywhere? And the things that we would have to do to stabilize Iraq would be so evil that they should not be considered.

I never said we made them hate one another. I said that, without the Sunnis being firmly in power, they are killing each other because the state is up for grabs, and with that they can keep their own group dominating the others. They have no history of liberal custom, and as such there is little recognition of individual rights, only what is good for their particular group regardless of the fate of others.

I will tell you this; I used to be fervently pro-war. In fact, my foreign policy was extremely neoconservative. But then I realized that the kinds of sacrifices you have to make in a war really destroy everyone's freedoms, through taxation, conscription, and the endless destruction that armed conflict causes. If we stay in Iraq and support a central government that allows those in power to abuse those who are outside of this power, then we are simply encouraging an endless cycle of destruction both for ourselves and for them.

My problem with the antiwar movement has less to do with what they stand for and more to do with what their arguments increasingly represent, a total death of reason in our country, as people just immediately take to whatever the person next to them is saying without even. An example is Basra. The Article that was posted here at NSG about Basra was written in such a way to make the occupation look foolish, and as a result, people took it to corroborating their views, without considering for one moment that it was actually saying the opposite of what they read in to it. It was not saying that Britain not being in Basra mysteriously stopped the violence. It was saying that a security force trained and protected by the coalition had brought peace.

As for the "things that are so evil," how about economic growth? That's something that would stabilize Iraq. Take those unemployed off the streets. Give them jobs. Give them ownership. Give them self-respect. Maybe they won't resort to shooting things. In fact, in my estimation that's probably what happened in Basra.

And as for destroying everyones freedom, you do realize what the alternative is right. If we have to fight Al Qaeda here in America, rights that you take for granted everyday, the right of privacy, the right not to have your house searched by the police, the right to live without the government nannying your every action, they'll be gone. We will HAVE NO FREEDOM if we take that alternative, because the level of surveillance and low level police control required to fight an ever increasing Islamist threat here in America would be too great. We would basically become a police dictatorship.

Still, I will give you this credit, at least you're actually presenting an argument, rather then being a parroting depressed arrogant self-righteous drone like 50% of America's population right now.

My problem with the antiwar movement has less to do with what they stand for and more to do with what their arguments increasingly represent, a total death of reason in our country, as people just immediately take to whatever the person next to them is saying without even. An example is Basra. The Article that was posted here at NSG about Basra was written in such a way to make the occupation look foolish, and as a result, people took it to corroborating their views, without considering for one moment that it was actually saying the opposite of what they read in to it. It was not saying that Britain not being in Basra mysteriously stopped the violence. It was saying that a security force trained and protected by the coalition had brought peace.


Of course. It is impossible that two different factors could influence one outcome.

Thankyou for saving us, Black-And-White Man!


As for the "things that are so evil," how about economic growth? That's something that would stabilize Iraq. Take those unemployed off the streets. Give them jobs. Give them ownership. Give them self-respect. Maybe they won't resort to shooting things. In fact, in my estimation that's probably what happened in Basra.

And as for destroying everyones freedom, you do realize what the alternative is right. If we have to fight Al Qaeda here in America, rights that you take for granted everyday, the right of privacy, the right not to have your house searched by the police, the right to live without the government nannying your every action, they'll be gone.

So... which is it, sarcasm, or do you really remember nothing since you fell asleep just before the 2000 elections?

My problem with the antiwar movement has less to do with what they stand for and more to do with what their arguments increasingly represent, a total death of reason in our country, as people just immediately take to whatever the person next to them is saying without even. An example is Basra. The Article that was posted here at NSG about Basra was written in such a way to make the occupation look foolish, and as a result, people took it to corroborating their views, without considering for one moment that it was actually saying the opposite of what they read in to it. It was not saying that Britain not being in Basra mysteriously stopped the violence. It was saying that a security force trained and protected by the coalition had brought peace.

Well, I wouldn't say that I can properly be considered part of the mainstream anti-war movement; while it is primarily dominated by the left, I am a right-wing polycentrist and my methodology would obviously differ from theirs. What you say may have an element of truth in it. However, the withdrawal of troops from an area would contribute to peace, as there would be no more enemy to externalize one's anger against. This would also contribute to peace in that city.

As for the "things that are so evil," how about economic growth? That's something that would stabilize Iraq. Take those unemployed off the streets. Give them jobs. Give them ownership. Give them self-respect. Maybe they won't resort to shooting things. In fact, in my estimation that's probably what happened in Basra.

Economic growth, yes, would help the Iraqi people out. From a sheerly economic viewpoint, one's accumulation of present wealth makes more present wealth have a lower rate of return. As such, they would become more interested in future-oriented activities, one of which is not killing each other and promoting peace. However, the US cannot do this by maintaining a central government, and have not done so, as A.) they have maintained most of Saddam's regulations, including punishment for defying oil price controls, and B.) have created new regulations to benefit their particular interests, such as giving the oil wealth to Halliburton. (The latter is particularly pernicious, as it deprives the Iraqi people of ownership, which increases violent behavior not just from a political standpoint but from an economic standpoint as well.) Again, US policy is so muddled by particular interests and the 'Big Player' problem that it cannot save Iraq.

And as for destroying everyones freedom, you do realize what the alternative is right. If we have to fight Al Qaeda here in America, rights that you take for granted everyday, the right of privacy, the right not to have your house searched by the police, the right to live without the government nannying your every action, they'll be gone. We will HAVE NO FREEDOM if we take that alternative, because the level of surveillance and low level police control required to fight an ever increasing Islamist threat here in America would be too great. We would basically become a police dictatorship.

With the Military Commisions Act and Patriot Act eroding habeas corpus, I think we already are a police dictatorship. Bin-Laden knew that our response to any act on his part would be disproportionate; that is one reason why he attacked us on 9/11. He knew that such a disproportionate response would provide excellent propaganda to bring in new resources, while we would become bogged down in our fighting. By depleting ourselves of our young, our wealth, and sacrificing the liberties to fight a needless war while bin-Laden reaps dividends from anger directed towards us, we are the net loser of the conflict.

Still, I will give you this credit, at least you're actually presenting an argument, rather then being a parroting depressed arrogant self-righteous drone like 50% of America's population right now.

Why thank you.

And how is decentralising going to cure the problems over oil distribution? Obviously, you are aware that plays a major role in the power struggle.

It is a problem. However, there is a solution. As each Iraqi has contributed in some way through being taxed and regulated etc. to the oil wealth, I propose we give a transferrable share in this natural resource to every Iraqi (hopefully this share's size will be based upon net taxation, with Saddam's cronies thus gaining no share and the person who has been bludgeoned by Saddam's government for years getting a large share, but if this proves too complex we can simply give each person an 'average' share.) This would allow people to resist any attempt on the other's part to seize one another's oil wealth, as they will be suspicious of any incursion on the account that it threatens their own wealth. Those who have more pressing current needs, or who are not interested in managing the oil, etc. will divest themselves of their shares to those who have an interest in maintaining the oil's future value and thus will encourage proper stewardship for this valuable wealth.

Okay, so let's do THAT instead of pulling out. Divvy up the country, then make sure they don't attack each other, rather than merely step out, ensuring that they will. That's still leaves the problem of Baghdad and places with mixed ethnicities.

I say we should not divide Iraq up solely on the basis of ethnicity, but rather to divide it into as many parts as possible that people can move to based upon their particular preferences. Thus, Mohammed the Shiite shoemaker can move/stay in a homogenous area and continue his trade without being antagonized by the people he hates, while eventually his goods find their way to Ali the Sunni retailer who is relatively tolerant and lives in multi-ethnic Baghdad. To force both Mohammed and Ali to live under the same government merely encourages violence between the two, as Mohammed dislikes the Sunnis and wishes to punish them and maintain his power, while Ali will attempt to gain the reins of power as a method of protecting himself (once in power, he would have a great many incentives to push him in the wrong direction concerning peace and justice.)

I'd have to say that John McCain would be the best choice for the Republican nomination. If he somehow became president, I would actually wait a year to see if he does any good before jumping into the Detroit River. Any other Republicans and it's right in I go.

The candidate I want to win the Republic Party nomination is whichever one will ensure that they lose the general election.

Oh, yeah!
*dances weasel dance*

...i'm not sure i can emphasize that well enough.

If he somehow became president, I would actually wait a year to see if he does any good before jumping into the Detroit River. Any other Republicans and it's right in I go.

Dammit, don't make it a meaningless fate! Bring that party with you!
http://www.perrspectives.com/images/banana_repubs_120105.jpg

I'd have to say that John McCain would be the best choice for the Republican nomination. If he somehow became president, I would actually wait a year to see if he does any good before jumping into the Detroit River. Any other Republicans and it's right in I go.
Dude, you know you don't need to swim. There are bridges and a tunnel if you need to escape to Canada.

There are bridges and a tunnel if you need to escape to Canada....or tunnels and a few highways if you need to escape to Mexico.
o.9

Well given his political stances, especially regarding illegal aliens, he'd be a Republican, so...

Lex Luthor (General Zod would run as a Democrat).

Dude, you know you don't need to swim. There are bridges and a tunnel if you need to escape to Canada.

If he waits a bit there will be 2 bridges and a tunnel going from Detroit to Canuckistan. Or he can go to Port Huron/Sarnia or the Soo and cross if he likes. Jumping into the Detroit River isn't recommended this time if year, as it's a bit chilly.

If he waits a bit there will be 2 bridges and a tunnel going from Detroit to Canuckistan. Or he can go to Port Huron/Sarnia or the Soo and cross if he likes. Jumping into the Detroit River isn't recommended this time if year, as it's a bit chilly.

Or he could swim across Lake Superior. Just make sure to pack some Hot Cocoa.

Or he could swim across Lake Superior. Just make sure to pack some Hot Cocoa.

Yeah, but where would he go, Thunder Bay? I've never been there myself, but I hear it is a very unhappy place.

Yeah, but where would he go, Thunder Bay? I've never been there myself, but I hear it is a very unhappy place.

I donno. He could just crawl around Canada for a while, ending up in the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. Set up a hut in the middle of nowhere, and hunt, fish, and trade for the rest of his life?

Just an idea.

Wait, wouldn't the Detroit River ice over? Couldn't one just walk across then?

Wait, wouldn't the Detroit River ice over? Couldn't one just walk across then?

Too big, I think. I also don't think that the ice would be thick enough to support a person's weight. Although I have no experience with that river.

Wait, wouldn't the Detroit River ice over? Couldn't one just walk across then?

I don't believe so. I think they keep the ice broken up so the freighters can go through. I'm not 100% sure, since I've only been to Detroit a handful of times. However, I do know the freighters still go through the Soo Locks in the winter (I lived there for a year), and they have to come from somewhere.

I donno. He could just crawl around Canada for a while, ending up in the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. Set up a hut in the middle of nowhere, and hunt, fish, and trade for the rest of his life?

Just an idea.

And not a bad one at that.

And not a bad one at that.

Indeed. Although, will your hut have DSL?

It is a problem. However, there is a solution. As each Iraqi has contributed in some way through being taxed and regulated etc. to the oil wealth, I propose we give a transferrable share in this natural resource to every Iraqi (hopefully this share's size will be based upon net taxation, with Saddam's cronies thus gaining no share and the person who has been bludgeoned by Saddam's government for years getting a large share, but if this proves too complex we can simply give each person an 'average' share.) This would allow people to resist any attempt on the other's part to seize one another's oil wealth, as they will be suspicious of any incursion on the account that it threatens their own wealth. Those who have more pressing current needs, or who are not interested in managing the oil, etc. will divest themselves of their shares to those who have an interest in maintaining the oil's future value and thus will encourage proper stewardship for this valuable wealth.


Not going to work. The oil deposits are a geographical problem as well as an economic one. Unless you have some means for equalising the distribution of kurds, sunnis and shiites.

And as for destroying everyones freedom, you do realize what the alternative is right. If we have to fight Al Qaeda here in America, rights that you take for granted everyday, the right of privacy, the right not to have your house searched by the police, the right to live without the government nannying your every action, they'll be gone. We will HAVE NO FREEDOM if we take that alternative, because the level of surveillance and low level police control required to fight an ever increasing Islamist threat here in America would be too great. We would basically become a police dictatorship.
Tell me, how many tanks does Al Qaeda have? Fighter jets? Helicopters? Aircraft carriers? Submarines? Precision-guided missiles? Heck, American civilians put together probably have more firepower than Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda is just a bunch of delusional fanatics with obsolete guns that have to stay on the run while they're being hunted down by most of the world's governments. They could easily be outnumbered and outgunned by your average small European country, let alone the military giant called the United States. Everything they've done so far, including 9/11, is quite pathetic compared to the destruction caused by even a small conventional war - after all, wars destroy whole cities, while Al Qaeda barely managed to demolish a few buildings. The only reason Al Qaeda is able to cause any damage at all is precisely because it is so small, and its firepower so limited, that it can pass undetected.

Al Qaeda is not a threat. Compared to even the smallest armies on the planet, it is a joke.

Al Qaeda is not a threat. Compared to even the smallest armies on the planet, it is a joke.

They have better organization it seems than most third world country's military. BTW: Are you on crack or something? Not a threat?

They have better organization it seems than most third world country's military. BTW: Are you on crack or something? Not a threat?

Not that unreasonable a premise, actually. Compare the entire history of the organisation to... say... a week in Sarajevo... or a day in Dresden... or four seconds at Hiroshima. Terror groups are not about inflicting casualties or destroying stuff - if they were, bombings and hijackings would be totally pointless. Kidnappings and assassinations would be worthless. What they ARE good at, is making people FEEL scared of a disproportionately small threat - making regimes and people change their way of doing business.

By those terms, Al Qaeda has been phenomenally effective - because they are perceived as a threat out of all context to their established history to inflict harm. Most terror events aren't even an order of magnitude more 'effective' than one kid on a college campus might be... but look at how each scenario changes our lives.

Not going to work. The oil deposits are a geographical problem as well as an economic one. Unless you have some means for equalising the distribution of kurds, sunnis and shiites.

I can own something that other people are geographically closer to; I don't see how this will be a deal-breaking problem.

I can own something that other people are geographically closer to; I don't see how this will be a deal-breaking problem.

When dealing with Iraq, it will be a deal-breaking problem. They all want the profits and no one is truly giving in on it.

I support Ron Paul.

When dealing with Iraq, it will be a deal-breaking problem. They all want the profits and no one is truly giving in on it.

When they have a concrete way through their shares to realize that their constant fighting is kicking them in the ass, they will be much less inclined to continue battling one another.

As long as he keeps pitching the FairTax, I don't care what Huckabee said in 1992... I'll vote for him in the primary.

Unless, that is, I can vote against Clinton and expect to make a difference.

When they have a concrete way through their shares to realize that their constant fighting is kicking them in the ass, they will be much less inclined to continue battling one another.

And here i thought the drop in violence was due to the surge.

I support Ron Paul.

Just pointing out that this was posted yesterday without rebuttal.

When they have a concrete way through their shares to realize that their constant fighting is kicking them in the ass, they will be much less inclined to continue battling one another.

It's a cute idea.

But - if you have one of three groups actually sitting ON the oil, and two other groups largely being held off of it, where is the incentive for that first group to share?

What are we going to do - snd in troops to MAKE them share?

Corneliu is right (how many times have I said that? :D ) They all want the profits, and they're not going to see good reasons to share.

If the thread was the vote, Ron Paul Wins!!! - for all you ghoulyanni supporters out there - he can't be president - rudy holds a title given to him by the queen, lets watch how they lie and pay no attention to the constitution on that one. 18 members of the same organization are running for president - makes you wonder why? - they all have the same agenda and it has nothing to do with Americans or the United States. Ron Paul is the only candidate that the American people will be able to regain control of the USA with.

Corneliu is right (how many times have I said that? :D )

Whoa - now i have something for Nobel Hobo's roast! :p

If the thread was the vote, Ron Paul Wins!!! - for all you ghoulyanni supporters out there - he can't be president - rudy holds a title given to him by the queen, lets watch how they lie and pay no attention to the constitution on that one.

Sorry to burst your bubble, champ, but that was never ratified.

Just pointing out that this was posted yesterday without rebuttal.

That's because it does not need to be rebutted. RP supporters are nuts for supporting a racist and anti-constitutionalist.

If the thread was the vote, Ron Paul Wins!!!

Lucky for us, the people out in the real world are sanner than the fools who are posting on the net.

for all you ghoulyanni supporters out there - he can't be president - rudy holds a title given to him by the queen, lets watch how they lie and pay no attention to the constitution on that one.

Um...yea...it is not recognized here in the US. No violation of the Constitution is there. Now if he was walking around proclaiming his title as legitament here in the US, then you have a case. Guess what? That's not the issue.

18 members of the same organization are running for president - makes you wonder why? - they all have the same agenda and it has nothing to do with Americans or the United States. Ron Paul is the only candidate that the American people will be able to regain control of the USA with.

HAHA!! And then we have the reinstitution of the Jim Crow Laws, Black people being persecuted and tried differently, the government being severely weakened to the point that it would be ineffective. Yea right :rolleyes:

Sorry to burst your bubble, champ, but that was never ratified.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

You were saying?

I have voted in this poll.

He is a racist and anti-federalist.

Thomas Jefferson was an anti-federalist too. Thank you very much, I'd rather have Jefferson alive and running again than ANY of the current crop of candidates.

HAHA!! And then we have the reinstitution of the Jim Crow Law

The Jim Crow laws were made illegal by the 14th Amendment. Try again.

Thomas Jefferson was an anti-federalist too. Thank you very much, I'd rather have Jefferson alive and running again than ANY of the current crop of candidates.

That actually makes 2 of us even though Jefferson expanded the role of the presidency with the LA Purchase.

The Jim Crow laws were made illegal by the 14th Amendment. Try again.

Um yea! If that were true, they would not have been around for as long as they were. Try again.

Um yea! If that were true, they would not have been around for as long as they were. Try again.


A lot of them were thrown out on 14th Amendment grounds long before the 1968.

In fact, even in the 'Civil Rights Cases' in 1883 it was recognized that the 14th Amendment banned discrimination by the state and local governments.

A lot of them were thrown out on 14th Amendment grounds long before the 1968.

In fact, even in the 'Civil Rights Cases' in 1883 it was recognized that the 14th Amendment banned discrimination by the state and local governments.

And discrimination at those levels still occured. One thing about the courts is that they do not have enforcement power. They can issue opinions but it is up to the government to enforce it.

They can issue opinions but it is up to the government to enforce it.

Yes, and the 14th Amendment allowed the Federal Government to do so. You do not require a "living document" President to do these things.

However, the Federal Government cannot pass laws regulating private discrimination on any level.

Yes, and the 14th Amendment allowed the Federal Government to do so. You do not require a "living document" President to do these things.

However, the Federal Government cannot pass laws regulating private discrimination on any level.

AH!!! I'm talking local level and not federal level.

Here's the text of the XIV:

Amendment XIV
(Ratified July 9, 1868)


Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Section 2
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


Section 4
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave. But all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


Section 5
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

What we are debating here is section 1 and quite possibly section 2! The problem here is that when this amendment was passed, it was literally forced upon the South. The South violated the amendment by not violating the amendment. Remember what most laws were at the time. Each state has its own voter requirements such as the poll tax (abolished by the 24th amendment in 1964). Also, the south had reading requirements for voting as well. These were just part of the overall jim crow laws that existed from the 1870s to around 1964 at both the state and local levels. Once the Voting Rights Act was approved by Congress, it overrode the remaining Jim Crow Laws that were overriden by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

Lucky for us, the people out in the real world are sanner than the fools who are posting on the net.

Ditto! Dr. Loon's supporters have made a bad name for themselves, spamming polls and all things internet.

You heard it from me, folks: MIKE HUCKABEE is going to win the GOP nomination.

and from my Jim Crow link:

The Supreme Court of the United States held in the Civil Rights Cases 109 US 3 (1883) that the Fourteenth Amendment did not give the federal government the power to outlaw private discrimination, and then held in Plessy v. Ferguson 163 US 537 (1896) that Jim Crow laws were constitutional as long as they allowed for "separate but equal" facilities. In the years that followed, the court made this "separate but equal" requirement a hollow phrase by approving discrimination even in the face of evidence of profound inequalities in practice.

1. If the thread was the vote, Ron Paul Wins!!!

2. - for all you ghoulyanni supporters out there - he can't be president - rudy holds a title given to him by the queen, lets watch how they lie and pay no attention to the constitution on that one.

3. 18 members of the same organization are running for president - makes you wonder why? - they all have the same agenda and it has nothing to do with Americans or the United States. (numbering mine)

1. This thread can be spammed; the election can't. Sorry to ruin your day.

2. Who's actually paying no attention to the Constitution? What Constitution are you talking about? Certainly not the US one... perhaps you meant the latest French Constitution?

3. And what organization would that be? If you're referring to CFR, which I assume you are, RP (aka Dr. Loon) isn't the only candidate who isn't a member: Huckabee and Gravel aren't.

If the thread was the vote, Ron Paul Wins!!! - for all you ghoulyanni supporters out there - he can't be president - rudy holds a title given to him by the queen, lets watch how they lie and pay no attention to the constitution on that one. 18 members of the same organization are running for president - makes you wonder why? - they all have the same agenda and it has nothing to do with Americans or the United States. Ron Paul is the only candidate that the American people will be able to regain control of the USA with.
Thread=/=life, thank god.

Huckabee's gonna win. look at his momentum he'll face Hillary in the general

The Jim Crow laws were made illegal by the 14th Amendment. Try again.

You mean the one that Ron Paul wants the states to be able to ignore?

Huckabee's gonna win. look at his momentum he'll face Hillary in the general

If he wins, then the demos have it.

His creationist views will drive people away.

That's because it does not need to be rebutted. RP supporters are nuts for supporting a racist and anti-constitutionalist.
But i, naturally, am sane, and therefore merit a rebuttal? :confused:

1. This thread can be spammed; the election can't.

Oh I don't know about that... (hacks on to online voting machine.)

And here i thought the drop in violence was due to the surge.

No, it's not because of that little thing, which is really just certain soldiers having to stay longer and others having to be rushed over sooner, without all the training and equipment they need. It's actually because Iran told people like al-Sadr to cool off and stop being such a pain, likely because Iran thinks that their bombing is inevitable and they wish to give the US as little of a casus belli as possible.

It's a cute idea.

But - if you have one of three groups actually sitting ON the oil, and two other groups largely being held off of it, where is the incentive for that first group to share?

What are we going to do - snd in troops to MAKE them share?

Corneliu is right (how many times have I said that? :D ) They all want the profits, and they're not going to see good reasons to share.

You don't have to send in troops to make them share. If the group on the oil says "Fuck off, it's ours now!" it necessarily reduces the level of trust that everyone feels towards that group; if they feel entitled to expropriate their neighbors, then who is to say that they won't expropriate any foreign investor that arrives, especially the ones that have purchased the shares from another group, or even that a stronger part of Group X won't expropriate the weaker part? Even in the criminal underworld, trust is necessary for mutually beneficial transactions.

Secondly, if Group X on the oil threatens to keep it all for themselves, what do you think Group Y and Z will promise to do? Yes, they will threaten them with violence. And if there is even the hint of wide-scale violence everyone's oil wealth will plummet, even that of Group X, as investors will become fearful of the disruptive attributes of violence that will raise costs.

Thirdly, the matter of Group X's divesting of shares. Do you think that individuals of Group X, when offered money for their shares by Group Y and Z (remember, wealthy Iraqi expatriates would be included under this system; the only criteria are whether one is an Iraqi citizen and one's net gain from taxes), would be foolish enough to prevent their personal enrichment by refusing Group Y and Z rights to oil wealth? This considering that many could definitely use the money right around now, for the benefit of their families? And that refusing the right of others to buy their shares would not only prevent their sale, but, along with the other factors I mentioned, result in a significant depreciation?

In conclusion, I will say that this scheme will work on the basis of reciprocity, from the matters of trust, force and the threat of force in the attempts to regain rightful property, and the desire to divest shares in order to gain money in the present by selling them to people outside of the particular group.

You mean the one that Ron Paul wants the states to be able to ignore?

Thankfully your statement has no basis in reality.

and from my Jim Crow link:

I read it. I quoted from the article, too. :D

Thankfully your statement has no basis in reality.

Unfortunately, your statement has no basis in reality.

Look up the "We the People Act" sometime.

Unfortunately, your statement has no basis in reality.

Look up the "We the People Act" sometime.

Oh come now. You are just a Dr. Man of the people hater!

Just admit it! :p

Oh come now. You are just a Dr. Man of the people hater!

Just admit it! :p

Ok, Ok. I admit it. My wish to retain my civil liberties makes me EBIL!

Unfortunately, your statement has no basis in reality.

Look up the "We the People Act" sometime.

I read the text of the bill. It has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment.

I read the text of the bill. It has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment.

Really? Equal protection under the law has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment?

Odd that.....

" Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Ron Paul would arbitrarily remove areas where he doesn't think the law should be applied equally from judicial overview, thus giving the states leeway to ignore the 14th Amendment.

It appears that the powers President Bush centralised in the executive, Dr. Paul wants to give to the states. Personally, I don't see much difference in whether it's the FBI or the local police coming in the night to drag you off to Gitmo because you spoke out. And some of Dr. Paul's more "libertarian" economic policies are a bit irresponsible to implement right now, to say nothing of his Iraq policy and the "UN GTFO MY NEW YORK" attitude. At least he's not Badnarik-like threatening to blow up the General Assembly building.

Really though, as long as we don't get another Alberto Gonzales or Karl Rove lookalike in the Cabinet, I'll be satisfied with the outcome.

Huckabee, hands down. Please, please, please, PLEASE let him get the nomination. Pretty please? With sugar and strawberries on top?

You don't have to send in troops to make them share. If the group on the oil says "Fuck off, it's ours now!" it necessarily reduces the level of trust that everyone feels towards that group; if they feel entitled to expropriate their neighbors, then who is to say that they won't expropriate any foreign investor that arrives, especially the ones that have purchased the shares from another group, or even that a stronger part of Group X won't expropriate the weaker part? Even in the criminal underworld, trust is necessary for mutually beneficial transactions.


He who controls the Spice, controls the universe.



Thirdly, the matter of Group X's divesting of shares. Do you think that individuals of Group X, when offered money for their shares by Group Y and Z (remember, wealthy Iraqi expatriates would be included under this system; the only criteria are whether one is an Iraqi citizen and one's net gain from taxes), would be foolish enough to prevent their personal enrichment by refusing Group Y and Z rights to oil wealth?


Yes.


This considering that many could definitely use the money right around now, for the benefit of their families? And that refusing the right of others to buy their shares would not only prevent their sale, but, along with the other factors I mentioned, result in a significant depreciation?

In conclusion, I will say that this scheme will work on the basis of reciprocity, from the matters of trust, force and the threat of force in the attempts to regain rightful property, and the desire to divest shares in order to gain money in the present by selling them to people outside of the particular group.

You might be making credible points, were the object of discussion not Iraq. It's easy to focus on the American occupation, and completely forget what it has been like in Iraq for decades before it. Worth bearing in mind - before the current fun, most people couldn't have found Iraq on a map, I guess.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

Basically this is restricting what the federal judicial system has jurisdiction over. Section A says it can't decide on the degree of separation of church and state within the states. Section B says it can't rule on gay and abortion rights. Section C specifically says they can't legislate marriage rights. So more or less gay marriage, abortion, and degree of churchliness is not specifically named as part of the things the federal government can decide on therefore the tenth amendment says these right are reserved for the states or the people. The federal government has the right to rule on racial cases because of the fourteenth amendment and this bill does not dispute this.

Ron Paul would arbitrarily remove areas where he doesn't think the law should be applied equally from judicial overview, thus giving the states leeway to ignore the 14th Amendment.

Let us look at it this way.

Three issues are debated in the bill.

1. Display of the 10 commandments on public places. While you may be for or against this, this does not consitute violation of your civil rights. at best you can claim a stretchy church/state issue, but your rights are not violated.

2. Abortion. I personally believe abortion as a right is a silly American concept. ON one hand the mother clearly has a right of choice, and banning the abortion of tiny bunches of cells is idiotic. But the idea that the foetus is not a person up until the day of birth is also retarded. Abortion is an issue on which a common ground must be found, and Roe v. Wade just makes no sense. Common ground must be found on a state basis here, what is good for California is not good for Georgia.

3. Gay marriage. Ron is on record saying that government should stay out of marriage altogether. I see no issue with this

Further, there are many other civil rights [right to bear arms, drug issues, free market, privacy] on which Ron is miles better than any Republicans.

Ron Paul would arbitrarily remove areas where he doesn't think the law should be applied equally from judicial overview, thus giving the states leeway to ignore the 14th Amendment.
You are most certainly giving the President more power than the office allows. I doubt any Royal Decree, aka Executive Order, would be able to deny anyone due process.

I mean it took the Congress, the President, AND the USSC to deny us of our First Amendment rights to free speech under the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act.

No, Paul would undoubtedly set free a few imprisoned drug users and propose many things -- much of which would never get done. The best we could have happen is that he wouldn't allow the Congress to grow government any bigger.

Let us look at it this way.

Three issues are debated in the bill.

1. Display of the 10 commandments on public places. While you may be for or against this, this does not consitute violation of your civil rights. at best you can claim a stretchy church/state issue, but your rights are not violated.

You didn't read the text very carefully, did you?

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

Any claim involving the free exercise or establishment of religion. No matter what your viewpoint on 10 Commandments displays is, this bill covers much more. It would remove any ability for a citizen of a state to appeal any law he felt was infringing upon the free exercise of his religion or establishing a state religion.

Meanwhile, 10 Commandments displays put there specifically to advocate Christianity in my government do infringe upon my civil rights - as they clearly establish a state-sponsored religion that is given more consideration than all others.

2. Abortion.

Once again, you failed utterly to actually read the text of the legislation.

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction;

This covers far more than abortion. It covers any claim based upon the right to privacy. In other words, it asserts that individuals have no claim to such a right when state law is involved.

Note that the right to privacy is also the reason that one can use contraceptives without state interference. It is the reason that the state cannot legislate against two consenting adults choosing to have sex or tell them how to do it. And so on...

As for the rest of your tripe, individual rights aren't dependent on location. They are individual rights.

3. Gay marriage. Ron is on record saying that government should stay out of marriage altogether. I see no issue with this

He may be on record as saying that, but this bill has nothing to do with that.

The point here is that Ron Paul has decided that the states can ignore equal protection on a given issue because....well, because Ron Paul says so. Given his past votes and other comments, we can pretty readily assume that his homophobia has a lot to do with it.

Further, there are many other civil rights [right to bear arms, drug issues, free market, privacy] on which Ron is miles better than any Republicans.

No, he isn't. Giving the authority and ability to infringe upon your rights over to the state government is no better than giving it to the federal government. No government entity should have that authority.

You are most certainly giving the President more power than the office allows.

Not at all. The president has the ability to stuff the courts with people who share his ideology.

Meanwhile, the topic of discussion is a bill where Ron Paul has attempted to do exactly what I said. He can't get it through Congress, thank goodness, but it isn't for lack of trying. He brings some version of that bill up session after session after session. Instead, he'd like to just alter the courts so that they'll make the decisions he agrees with and refuse to hear the cases he thinks they shouldn't.

Not at all. The president has the ability to stuff the courts with people who share his ideology.

Not without the help of Congress. Again, I think you're guilty of a common error. The President can issue Executive Orders. As much power as it does give him, that's about the extent of what he can do unassisted.


Meanwhile, the topic of discussion is a bill where Ron Paul has attempted to do exactly what I said. He can't get it through Congress, thank goodness, but it isn't for lack of trying. He brings some version of that bill up session after session after session. Instead, he'd like to just alter the courts so that they'll make the decisions he agrees with and refuse to hear the cases he thinks they shouldn't.
Again, what one wants and what one gets are not necessarily the same. If you think that loading up the courts would be something Paul can do with greater ease than either Clinton or Bush, you need to think again.

Basically, he'd be a lame duck President for four years.

He who controls the Spice, controls the universe.

But if you can't control the spice because no one trusts you to deliver it, and because a bunch of guys keep trying to reclaim it from you and you can't get a single drop (or spice grain, if we are to keep in line with the Dune analogy), then that doesn't do you any good, now does it?

Yes.

I don't think so. Right now they have no incentive to maintain the peace because their own oil has no relation to them; it is under the control of a corporatist state that is out for its own particular interest. However, if their oil was theirs, and you could give them a notice that said "Because of the continuing violence, you just lost $2000 in stock wealth that could have been spent to take care of your family," I seriously doubt that they would continue their Viking acts. Sure, they wouldn't like each other, and they are perfectly entitled to this antipathy, but they'd realize that acting out on their anger will simply hurt themselves (Whereas if they act out on it now they gain a chance to seize control of the Iraqi state and the means of exploitation.)

You might be making credible points, were the object of discussion not Iraq. It's easy to focus on the American occupation, and completely forget what it has been like in Iraq for decades before it. Worth bearing in mind - before the current fun, most people couldn't have found Iraq on a map, I guess.

The problem is ultimately one of reciprocity. Because they live in a system where coercion is the one method of securing one's future, through seizing control of the central government, the incentive is to intimidate and attack others in order to gain power. But if the tables were turned, where there was no central apparatus of coercion but rather a system in which violence against others would result in harm to themselves, there would be an increase in peace. I am not saying it would be perfect, but the possible outcomes are superior to the ones that would be available under the current situation.

Not without the help of Congress.

...which rarely keeps all or even most of the ideologues appointed by an ideologue out - as evidenced by Bush's tenure.

Not to mention Bush's ample use of recess appointments.

Again, what one wants and what one gets are not necessarily the same. If you think that loading up the courts would be something Paul can do with greater ease than either Clinton or Bush, you need to think again.

Greater ease? No, more like the same. And just as, if not more dangerous, than Bush.

And you're right, he might be blocked. That would be a good thing. But I'm not willing to take the chance.

But if you can't control the spice because no one trusts you to deliver it, and because a bunch of guys keep trying to reclaim it from you and you can't get a single drop (or spice grain, if we are to keep in line with the Dune analogy), then that doesn't do you any good, now does it?



I don't think so. Right now they have no incentive to maintain the peace because their own oil has no relation to them; it is under the control of a corporatist state that is out for its own particular interest. However, if their oil was theirs, and you could give them a notice that said "Because of the continuing violence, you just lost $2000 in stock wealth that could have been spent to take care of your family," I seriously doubt that they would continue their Viking acts. Sure, they wouldn't like each other, and they are perfectly entitled to this antipathy, but they'd realize that acting out on their anger will simply hurt themselves (Whereas if they act out on it now they gain a chance to seize control of the Iraqi state and the means of exploitation.)



The problem is ultimately one of reciprocity. Because they live in a system where coercion is the one method of securing one's future, through seizing control of the central government, the incentive is to intimidate and attack others in order to gain power. But if the tables were turned, where there was no central apparatus of coercion but rather a system in which violence against others would result in harm to themselves, there would be an increase in peace. I am not saying it would be perfect, but the possible outcomes are superior to the ones that would be available under the current situation.

I'm feeling kindly disposed since you caught the Dune reference. :) Still - the problem is that there was peace before the US occupation, and the result was that most of the power and control of most of the resources, tended to gravitate very specifically to one group, at the expense of everyone else.

Those who controlled the resources need only hold on to them - those who act aggressively against them are less likely to fear lowering the price of the product, since they're seeing little reward from it anyway.

I'm feeling kindly disposed since you caught the Dune reference. :) Still - the problem is that there was peace before the US occupation, and the result was that most of the power and control of most of the resources, tended to gravitate very specifically to one group, at the expense of everyone else.

Those who controlled the resources need only hold on to them - those who act aggressively against them are less likely to fear lowering the price of the product, since they're seeing little reward from it anyway.

Well, that depends upon what you mean by 'peace.' If by 'peace' you mean that the use of force was more often exercised by the state than by private parties, then yes, there was 'peace.' But if by peace you mean that everyone has been rendered their due, then no, because there was quite obviously a great deal of repression, exploitation and war under Hussein's regime. In this view, neither the occupation or the Ba'athist regime was truly peaceful, and as such there is no correlation between my system of peace and the preceding unpeaceful systems.

However, there is a greater chance of rendering each their due under my system. While the oil wealth was previously in the hands of an elite of a single group (Saddam and the Ba'ath party) who controlled a previously established political apparatus, in this scenario the oil wealth would be in the hands of all Iraqis, and there would be no central, legitimate apparatus of coercion by which one could expropriate all of the oil wealth. While in the previous regime there were little to no signals to the average person that they were being expropriated due to the state's ownership of the oil wealth, in this system as property owners the shareholders of the oil wealth would necessarily receive information on their wealth and react accordingly.

Huckabee, hands down. Please, please, please, PLEASE let him get the nomination. Pretty please? With sugar and strawberries on top?

:fluffle:
Had a great conversation about him at work the other day.