View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently August 23rd, 2014, 11:31 am



Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 Ron Paul to propose $1T in specific budget cuts 
Author Message
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9390
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Ron Paul to propose $1T in specific budget cuts
modninerfan wrote:
slybri19 wrote:
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
One thing I'm curious about with Paul is who he'd actually pull from, the Dems or the Repubs. I saw an article about the New Hampshire primary showing that most of those who voted for Paul described themselves as liberal and/or Democrat, while he also pulled a much smaller number of people describing themselves as conservative and/or Republican than the other candidates. Not sure if it means anything, and certainly New Hampshire isn't a good representation as the nation as a whole, but I thought it was interesting.

I certainly hope that Ron Paul doesn't run third party since that would all but hand the election to Maobama. While some single issue Dems (anti-war and legalized drugs in particular) would vote for Paul, the vast majority of his support would come from Republicans unhappy with Romney or whomever the nominee is. With that said, I think he understands the consequences of doing so and won't decide to run as an independent.


Is Romney really any different than Obama? I honestly think Paul is the ONLY candidate, and by a long shot, that would actually shake up the establishment and do whats right for this country. Since the 50's both parties have been the same. The only things the two parties differ with are abortion/gay marriage/ etc... yeah, they're important, but still 3rd to the economy and foreign policy. Any other candidate would mean business as usual and anybody who supports any other candidate than Paul must be ok with that.


+1

Sly, I understand where you are coming from - the lesser of two evils from your standpoint. Problem is, between your side and the other side we simply yo-yo back and forth and will not get anywhere in the long run. We may need some short term pain to get long term results. Otherwise it is the yo-yo status quo that continues to create the problems we currently face and can't solve with either of the two popular choices. Until we get a mass understanding of this no progress will really ever be made.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


January 12th, 2012, 5:58 pm
Profile WWW
Pop Warner Rookie
User avatar

Joined: October 12th, 2011, 6:52 pm
Posts: 104
Location: Modesto, CA
Post Re: Ron Paul to propose $1T in specific budget cuts
Pablo wrote:
modninerfan wrote:
slybri19 wrote:
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
One thing I'm curious about with Paul is who he'd actually pull from, the Dems or the Repubs. I saw an article about the New Hampshire primary showing that most of those who voted for Paul described themselves as liberal and/or Democrat, while he also pulled a much smaller number of people describing themselves as conservative and/or Republican than the other candidates. Not sure if it means anything, and certainly New Hampshire isn't a good representation as the nation as a whole, but I thought it was interesting.

I certainly hope that Ron Paul doesn't run third party since that would all but hand the election to Maobama. While some single issue Dems (anti-war and legalized drugs in particular) would vote for Paul, the vast majority of his support would come from Republicans unhappy with Romney or whomever the nominee is. With that said, I think he understands the consequences of doing so and won't decide to run as an independent.


Is Romney really any different than Obama? I honestly think Paul is the ONLY candidate, and by a long shot, that would actually shake up the establishment and do whats right for this country. Since the 50's both parties have been the same. The only things the two parties differ with are abortion/gay marriage/ etc... yeah, they're important, but still 3rd to the economy and foreign policy. Any other candidate would mean business as usual and anybody who supports any other candidate than Paul must be ok with that.


+1

Sly, I understand where you are coming from - the lesser of two evils from your standpoint. Problem is, between your side and the other side we simply yo-yo back and forth and will not get anywhere in the long run. We may need some short term pain to get long term results. Otherwise it is the yo-yo status quo that continues to create the problems we currently face and can't solve with either of the two popular choices. Until we get a mass understanding of this no progress will really ever be made.


Its frustrating though...this understanding seems limited to internet message boards and youtube. Mass media would rather convince everybody that a certain candidate is unelectable than show every candidates position. This "labeling," whether intentional or not, helps decide the vote.

I was 18 during the last election, typical california kid, anti-war, pro-marijuana, pro-gay marriage, pro abortion and I didnt give a poop about the economy, so I voted for Obama. For the most part not much has changed for me in the last 3-4 years, except that part about the economy... I work for a small business that caters to large corporations like Genentech, Visa, Facebook, Gallo Winery, etc and we took a major hit when everybody started cutting back. Even with good credit we couldnt get a loan if our life depended on it yet I see Obama giving all this money to the very people that screwed us over (and continue to do it) Needless to say, I've realized these parties are for the most part the same (besides a few petty differences) They are the same in the sense that they are not in it for betterment of our nation but for the betterment of themselves. These parties are just playing a game where the goal is to get reelected. If there is one person who has a track record of not playing this game its Ron Paul... If he doesnt win this election (likely at this point) hopefully this movement can continue its momentum... its made major strides the last 4 years.

_________________
“Jim's a dynamic man with incredible determination, willpower and energy. He's the ultimate in a driven person who has high expectations. The people around him respond. He's on the cutting edge with an outstanding football mind.” - Bill Walsh

Image


January 12th, 2012, 7:47 pm
Profile WWW
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3742
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Ron Paul to propose $1T in specific budget cuts
ya know for a Cali kid.....you aint so bad! lol


I agee

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


January 13th, 2012, 12:04 pm
Profile
Post Re: Ron Paul to propose $1T in specific budget cuts
Pablo wrote:
modninerfan wrote:
slybri19 wrote:
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
One thing I'm curious about with Paul is who he'd actually pull from, the Dems or the Repubs. I saw an article about the New Hampshire primary showing that most of those who voted for Paul described themselves as liberal and/or Democrat, while he also pulled a much smaller number of people describing themselves as conservative and/or Republican than the other candidates. Not sure if it means anything, and certainly New Hampshire isn't a good representation as the nation as a whole, but I thought it was interesting.

I certainly hope that Ron Paul doesn't run third party since that would all but hand the election to Maobama. While some single issue Dems (anti-war and legalized drugs in particular) would vote for Paul, the vast majority of his support would come from Republicans unhappy with Romney or whomever the nominee is. With that said, I think he understands the consequences of doing so and won't decide to run as an independent.


Is Romney really any different than Obama? I honestly think Paul is the ONLY candidate, and by a long shot, that would actually shake up the establishment and do whats right for this country. Since the 50's both parties have been the same. The only things the two parties differ with are abortion/gay marriage/ etc... yeah, they're important, but still 3rd to the economy and foreign policy. Any other candidate would mean business as usual and anybody who supports any other candidate than Paul must be ok with that.


+1

Sly, I understand where you are coming from - the lesser of two evils from your standpoint. Problem is, between your side and the other side we simply yo-yo back and forth and will not get anywhere in the long run. We may need some short term pain to get long term results. Otherwise it is the yo-yo status quo that continues to create the problems we currently face and can't solve with either of the two popular choices. Until we get a mass understanding of this no progress will really ever be made.



I agree with you, but like I've said before, it would take a Constitutional amendment to alter the two-party system, and that will never happen. We're too stubborn to admit that a parliamentary system of government is better than our Republic. I've outlined in other posts why it would take a constitutional amendment, but basically it boils down to how our Congress is made up. There aren't enough delegates to have different party members from each state and have those smaller party members mean something. What I mean is, if 10% of California is a "Green Party" and they happen to get ONE elected "Green Party" candidate it doesn't mean anything. Further, the percentage of the Country that is actually "Green Party" would never have a voice under our current representation model. It has to do with the our House and Senate, and how we elect our representatives.


So, basically, IMO... We're stuck with what we have...


January 13th, 2012, 1:47 pm
Post Re: Ron Paul to propose $1T in specific budget cuts
modninerfan wrote:
Pablo wrote:
modninerfan wrote:
slybri19 wrote:
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
One thing I'm curious about with Paul is who he'd actually pull from, the Dems or the Repubs. I saw an article about the New Hampshire primary showing that most of those who voted for Paul described themselves as liberal and/or Democrat, while he also pulled a much smaller number of people describing themselves as conservative and/or Republican than the other candidates. Not sure if it means anything, and certainly New Hampshire isn't a good representation as the nation as a whole, but I thought it was interesting.

I certainly hope that Ron Paul doesn't run third party since that would all but hand the election to Maobama. While some single issue Dems (anti-war and legalized drugs in particular) would vote for Paul, the vast majority of his support would come from Republicans unhappy with Romney or whomever the nominee is. With that said, I think he understands the consequences of doing so and won't decide to run as an independent.


Is Romney really any different than Obama? I honestly think Paul is the ONLY candidate, and by a long shot, that would actually shake up the establishment and do whats right for this country. Since the 50's both parties have been the same. The only things the two parties differ with are abortion/gay marriage/ etc... yeah, they're important, but still 3rd to the economy and foreign policy. Any other candidate would mean business as usual and anybody who supports any other candidate than Paul must be ok with that.


+1

Sly, I understand where you are coming from - the lesser of two evils from your standpoint. Problem is, between your side and the other side we simply yo-yo back and forth and will not get anywhere in the long run. We may need some short term pain to get long term results. Otherwise it is the yo-yo status quo that continues to create the problems we currently face and can't solve with either of the two popular choices. Until we get a mass understanding of this no progress will really ever be made.


Its frustrating though...this understanding seems limited to internet message boards and youtube. Mass media would rather convince everybody that a certain candidate is unelectable than show every candidates position. This "labeling," whether intentional or not, helps decide the vote.

I was 18 during the last election, typical california kid, anti-war, pro-marijuana, pro-gay marriage, pro abortion and I didnt give a poop about the economy, so I voted for Obama. For the most part not much has changed for me in the last 3-4 years, except that part about the economy... I work for a small business that caters to large corporations like Genentech, Visa, Facebook, Gallo Winery, etc and we took a major hit when everybody started cutting back. Even with good credit we couldnt get a loan if our life depended on it yet I see Obama giving all this money to the very people that screwed us over (and continue to do it) Needless to say, I've realized these parties are for the most part the same (besides a few petty differences) They are the same in the sense that they are not in it for betterment of our nation but for the betterment of themselves. These parties are just playing a game where the goal is to get reelected. If there is one person who has a track record of not playing this game its Ron Paul... If he doesnt win this election (likely at this point) hopefully this movement can continue its momentum... its made major strides the last 4 years.



If Romney is actually committed to eliminating Obama Care, as he says he is, that's enough of a difference right there. Romney will also be more committed to reducing govt., reducing govt. spending, reducing social entitlement programs, balancing the budget, and reducing the national debt.

I really don't care about all that other stuff.


January 13th, 2012, 1:49 pm
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3742
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Ron Paul to propose $1T in specific budget cuts
wjb...you do know taht throughout history there have been third party presidents right???



and also....Romney-Care is the what Obama care is based off of......what in his history makes you think he'd pull that off the shelf? im curious.

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


January 13th, 2012, 2:39 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Ron Paul to propose $1T in specific budget cuts
Trust me, I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney, but I would vote for him over President Downgrade in a heartbeat. I wouldn't like it, but I would do it.

As for Ron Paul, I like many of his fiscal policies and wish more people would talk about cutting the size and scope of government as he does. In fact, I would take an even larger chainsaw to the federal budget than what Ron Paul is talking about. However, i can not and will not support all of his positions on foreign policy and national defense. It's basically Isolationism, which is very dangerous and reckless in today's ever expanding global economy. Allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons or to close the Strait of Hormuz is not in our national security interests. Neither is allowing China to lay claim to the entire South China Sea. It's nothing more than the standard libtard, unicorn ranch, fantasyland nonsense, which isn't the least bit grounded upon reality. If we leave everyone else alone, does anyone seriously believe that they'll leave us alone? The real world doesn't work that way.

With that said, I don't disagree with all of Paul's foreign policy and national defense positions either. I've been saying for years that we no longer need tens of thousands of troops in Germany and Japan. We also don't need fully staffed bases in many other locations either. However, I firmly believe that we need partially manned or atleast basing rights throughout the globe to protect our national interests. We must maintain the ability to respond to any crisis as quickly as possible. Not doing so is foolish and irresponsible.

I can also mostly agree with him on the "nation building" crap. It never has nor never will be successful in backwards countries that don't share similar customs and values as our own. The Middle East isn't Europe or Japan following WW2, so any type of a Marshall Plan is doomed to failure. Just take out the terrorists and those that support them, then move on. No need to stay there for a decade or more.

_________________
Image


January 13th, 2012, 3:04 pm
Profile
Post Re: Ron Paul to propose $1T in specific budget cuts
regularjoe12 wrote:
wjb...you do know taht throughout history there have been third party presidents right???



and also....Romney-Care is the what Obama care is based off of......what in his history makes you think he'd pull that off the shelf? im curious.



Uhmmm, NO! There has NOT ever been a "3rd party U.S. President," practically speaking. Since Ulysees S. Grant EVERY sitting U.S. President has either been a Democrat or Republican. Prior to Grant the two major political parties that have somewhat been the bane of our existence, had really not taken shape. Currently, properly defined "Federalists" would probably Democrats if their ideology lived behind the assembly of a strong central government, as well as members of the "Whig" party, which are more or less "progressives" from their time.

Further, even if a 3rd Party DID get elected President, it wouldn't mean anything. The President doesn't write legislation. A 3rd party President would be meaningless without a supporting cast (i.e. Congress) to do his bidding. Additionally, the structure of the US government, with 1/2 of the Legislature being based on population and 1/2 based on the number of States, disallows proportional representation. If 3 or 7% of the country is a "Greenie" they will NEVER achieve that representation in Congress, and any representation that they do achieve would be meaningless. Three parties means zero more than two, especially if the other two are dominating. You need a situation where there is a plurality and coalitions can arise and compromises can be met to really have an effective, representational legislature (see the Parliamentary system in the U.K.).

If Romney had a Bill placed before him repealing Obama Care and didn't sign it, it would be political suicide, period. He would HAVE to sign it. It's not his job to "pull that off of the shelf." It's Congress' job to draft and pass the legislation, but Romney would have to sign that legislation if it were placed before him. Obama doesn't have to sign a Bill repealing the law, no matter how bad he is. Obama is a lame duck president that cannot be re-elected. There is no such thing as political suicide for him.

So, with Mitt Romney we need a 50% + 1 Congress to repeal Obama Care (you could argue that we would need 61 votes in the Senate, but I really don't think anyone in the Senate would want to filibuster Obama Care, again, political suicide), but with Barak Obama we would need a 67% majority in both the House and the Senate to kill the same Bill.


January 13th, 2012, 3:27 pm
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3742
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Ron Paul to propose $1T in specific budget cuts
sly you may be too extreme for me on a lot of plolitcal issues but at the very least I can respect your reasons for being so and most definatley your passion.

of course there is a but lol...on this part:

Quote:
I can also mostly agree with him on the "nation building" crap. It never has nor never will be successful in backwards countries that don't share similar customs and values as our own. The Middle East isn't Europe or Japan following WW2, so any type of a Marshall Plan is doomed to failure. Just take out the terrorists and those that support them, then move on. No need to stay there for a decade or more.


Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't Paul been a big proponent to "bringing the boys home" for quite some time?

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


January 13th, 2012, 3:32 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3742
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Ron Paul to propose $1T in specific budget cuts
Quote:
Uhmmm, NO! There has NOT ever been a "3rd party U.S. President",


You are losing credibility here wjb...care to check yer old high school history book and try again? now it's been quite a while since there has been one (Millard Fillmore was the most recent and that was an eternity ago) but the fact that it HAS happened means we dont need any amendments to the constitution. all we need is a populace that is not afraid of real change.

and all the reasons you keep saying it won't work...to me is fear driven nonsense. no one said it would be easy but if you really want the change we've all been clamoring for for the past 2 decades you can not simply manipulate the system that exsist. the boat needs to be rocked or no real change will happen.

and not to nit pick....but i asked what in his history would make you think he'd repeal Obamacare. you have made some educated guesses as to what he'd do in the future..and they are nice guesses...but what in his history would back that up?

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


January 13th, 2012, 3:39 pm
Profile
Post Re: Ron Paul to propose $1T in specific budget cuts
regularjoe12 wrote:
Quote:
Uhmmm, NO! There has NOT ever been a "3rd party U.S. President",


You are losing credibility here wjb...care to check yer old high school history book and try again? now it's been quite a while since there has been one (Millard Fillmore was the most recent and that was an eternity ago) but the fact that it HAS happened means we dont need any amendments to the constitution. all we need is a populace that is not afraid of real change.

and all the reasons you keep saying it won't work...to me is fear driven nonsense. no one said it would be easy but if you really want the change we've all been clamoring for for the past 2 decades you can not simply manipulate the system that exsist. the boat needs to be rocked or no real change will happen.

and not to nit pick....but i asked what in his history would make you think he'd repeal Obamacare. you have made some educated guesses as to what he'd do in the futur..and they are nices guesses...but what in his history would back that up?



You don't get to pick and choose what parts of my post you want to attack. It's all contextual, and it's all fact. Read the whole post and respond intelligently if you want to continue this debate.


January 13th, 2012, 3:43 pm
Online
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3124
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Ron Paul to propose $1T in specific budget cuts
regularjoe12 wrote:
and also....Romney-Care is the what Obama care is based off of......what in his history makes you think he'd pull that off the shelf? im curious.

I think Romney would get rid of Obamacare for the exact reason he has stated. His health care plan for Massachusetts was just that, for Massachusetts. He has said many times that he thinks it was right for that particular state, but would not have worked on a national level, and that he doesn't think the federal government should be trying to create a national health care system.

That's been my understanding of what he's said anyway.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


January 13th, 2012, 3:45 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Ron Paul to propose $1T in specific budget cuts
regularjoe12 wrote:
sly you may be too extreme for me on a lot of plolitcal issues but at the very least I can respect your reasons for being so and most definatley your passion.

of course there is a but lol...on this part:

Quote:
I can also mostly agree with him on the "nation building" crap. It never has nor never will be successful in backwards countries that don't share similar customs and values as our own. The Middle East isn't Europe or Japan following WW2, so any type of a Marshall Plan is doomed to failure. Just take out the terrorists and those that support them, then move on. No need to stay there for a decade or more.


Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't Paul been a big proponent to "bringing the boys home" for quite some time?

Hence my comment, "I can also mostly agree with him on the "nation building" crap." Reading is fundamental. Sorry, but I couldn't resist. :lol:

_________________
Image


January 13th, 2012, 4:48 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3742
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Ron Paul to propose $1T in specific budget cuts
ok It kinda sounded like you were implying otherwise. thanks for the clarification.......jerk! lol :wink:

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


January 13th, 2012, 4:58 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Ron Paul to propose $1T in specific budget cuts
No problem.....jerk. :lol:

Earlier, I never got around to discussing the Military Industrial Complex. This is another area in which I can somewhat agree with Ron Paul. No bid contracts have got to go and cost over runs should fall on the shoulders of the supplier instead of the American taxpayer, except when the military specifications change. It's crony capitalism and I'm against that in all forms. The problem is that members of Congress will never vote for reductions in military personnel or contracts for the Military Industrial Complex within their disctricts, so the fraud continues. The President really doesn't have a lot to do with this, so it's a moot point.

_________________
Image


January 14th, 2012, 1:40 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.