| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-01-04.html I don't always agree with Ann. Did have one "good idea" though. Ron Paul is not electable as president for several reasons, including that he is only a congressman, is bad on illegal immigration, favors drug legalization and is off the charts on foreign policy. (But it would serve the rest of the world right to have Paul running the show for a term or two. Then they'd find out what it's like to be entirely on their own, protecting their own sea and air lanes, digging themselves out of their own earthquakes, getting invaded and nuked by hostile powers, having their computers hacked by terrorists and buying oil from the new Islamic caliphate. After eight years of President Paul, it would be generations before we'd hear a peep of anti-American sentiment again.) Might not be true...but made me laugh. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I like it. | ||
| Fahren |
Well, that about clinches it for me: the girls at Moonlite Bunny Ranch are endorsing Paul. http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/01/ 05/nevada-brothel-owner-the-girls-and-i-want-ron-p aul/ | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Yup, that'll do it, Working girls, the barometer of Society.  | ||
| Aesquire |
The second oldest profession. I trust them more than the politicians.... at least you get good service for your money.... ( or so I'm told.... I know nothing of these matters, right Honey? Honey? Excuse me gotta go. | ||
| Moxnix |
Only one candidate favors rescuing the nation’s finances and pulling the empire back from disaster. Ron Paul. He is considered such an unelectable kook that the newspapers and mainstream TV barely mention him. And the media is right. He is unelectable. Because he is opposed by (fill in the blank) _______________________ . We are watching the destruction of an empire. All empires must go away sometime. They are natural things. And Mom Nature puts a time bomb in everything she creates. The US empire is doomed. Just like all the others that went before it. It is doomed by nature herself — condemned by the lesser gods of mammon to blow up and die. None of this should be surprising to you. We’ve seen this movie before. Hundreds of empires have come and gone. We know how this movie ends. More or less. What we know for sure is that the US is going broke. There is hardly any other plausible outcome. We’ve gone over the numbers so often we don’t need to repeat them. Yes, it is true that the feds could still save themselves....if they had the will. They could cut taxes to a flat 10%...and spend only what they raised in tax revenue... That would do the trick from an economic point of view. But it’s too late for that — politically. Empires have lives of their own. They go forward...expanding...spending...stretching...until, boom, they go too far. Empires do not back up. Some merely go bankrupt. Others are defeated in war. All end disastrously. (Message edited by moxnix on January 10, 2012) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I believe the destruction will come in the power vacuum created by the exit of the US from the world stage. Whether that exit from global influence is by choice or by financial necessity is irrelevant. If we HAVE to pull the plug because we can't afford to keep our forces engaged as a stabilizing force or we elect to pull them back out of an isolationist philosophy, the effect is the same. My preference would be to correct the structural finances so that we can maintain our power projection military capabilities. | ||
| Fahren |
^^^ Good luck with that. The "structural finances" look FUBAR to me. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
It's not hard to fix the problems. The problem is that no one really wants to give up their goody to fix the problem. "I we'll eat our babies to keep from starving to death. Let's eat your baby first!" The ONLY thing that keeps N. Korea from invading S. Korea is us. The ONLY thing that kept Russia from rolling over Europe was us. The ONLY think keeping China from rolling over Taiwan and Japan is us. The ONLY thing keeping the entire middle east from rolling over Israel is us. I can't think of a world that is better off for us by letting these nations have their way with our global allies. Can you? | ||
| Moxnix |
Being a paranoid, I just thought of Alan Greenspan, Fed chief in 1997, saying he did not understand the irrational exuberance of the tech stock bubble on Wall Street. And in the following years our man Greenspan laid the foundation for the real estate bubble. My paranoia is causing a slight twitch as I mull over his thinking. Greenspan spent his formative years at the feet of Ayn Rand, literally. From his book, The Age of Turbulance: "Rand persuaded me to look at human beings, their values, how they work, what they do and why they do it, and how they think and why they think. This broadened my horizons far beyond the models of economics I'd learned. I began to study how societies form and how cultures behave, and to realize that economics and forecasting depend on such knowledge -- different cultures grow and create material wealth in profoundly different ways." But Dr. Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute, has said that Greenspan betrayed Rand and ruined the economy. My thought is that Greenspan saw the futility of dealing with the insiders in Washington and Wall Street, the self interest of politicians and bankers w/o regard to the traditional idea of capitalism that makes a country great. Okay, Alan kept interest rates low after 9/11 for two years, creating the credit bubble that Frank/Dodd used to toss us all off an economic cliff. BUT, maybe that's what Greenspan wanted to do all along. Set the clock and economy back. He just didn't see the bailouts coming, the stimulus money essentially burned on the bonfires of stupidity (and vanity). But now Alan Greenspan has a new theme. He now sees with both eyes. "We face a revolution," he says. "Arithmetic demands it." The arithmetic that demands a revolution is the arithmetic of a broke welfare state. It makes promises, based on assumptions of growth and prosperity. Now, with neither growth nor prosperity at hand, the politicos wonder how to make good on the promises. Let's see. Can't tax...can't borrow...then, what can the Feds do to pay their bills and honor their commitments? Print money! That's what it will probably come to. That is the endgame of paper money schemes. And when the government prints money...as in Zimbabwe or Argentina...or Weimar Germany...all hell breaks loose. It makes my paranoid self wonder. What if that were Alan Greenspan's plan all along? What if he really were Ayn Rand's man in Washington? What if he intended to bankrupt the US government, by setting up a financial calamity? Maybe he knew it was inevitable anyway. Maybe Greenspan figured that it was easier to go along with it than to fight it...and that it took him where he really wanted to go - towards the collapse of the paper dollar and the Big Government of the USA. So, we have a calamity a la Greenspan ready to set things back to zero with a gold standard. And we have our pal Ron Paul trying to fix the economy while there is still time, again by bringing back the gold standard. Both these chaps have the same end game in mind. And whatever the politicians and bankers of the world are doing will likely not stop it. We'll see. | ||
| Moxnix |
Jon Basil Utley, Associate Publisher of The American Conservative., explains why America’s evangelical Christians are an ungodly bunch. Logically, they should support Ron Paul. He opposes abortion, gay marriage and promiscuity. He’s never been divorced. Two of his brothers are ministers. And he’s a Baptist. What more could they want? What they want, Utley explains, is to live by the sword: Why...are evangelical leaders now opting for Santorum, and before him Gingrich? The one big area of disagreement with Ron Paul is war; foreign wars and the domestic one against drugs. For this they oppose him. Santorum supports unending war in Afghanistan, backing Israel without limit and a new war against Iran. Earlier there was a major far leftist candidate who supported all the issues that evangelicals oppose, and was a vocal proponent for expanding Israeli settlements on the West Bank and promoting the war on Iraq. He was overjoyed when open homosexuality became allowed in the military, he supports abortion, gay marriage and the leftist agenda for big, intrusive government; power to labor unions as well as expanded, unconstitutional police powers within the US. Evangelicals adore him and went all out to support him 2006, when he lost his primary race and ran as an independent for the Senate. He is Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. All this shows how evangelical leaders put support for wars ahead of their social values. Their support includes every new law giving Washington ever greater police powers over American citizens, such as the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act and the recent National Defense Authorization Act which tear asunder much of the Bill of Rights. Most also supported torture of prisoners of war (with the notable exception of Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship). All this comes with their “social values.” They loved George Bush. They were major supporters of the two wars against Iraq and the occupation of Afghanistan. Fear and ignorance of the outside world joins together with a belief that God uniquely favors America. Mostly poorer Southerners they also have strong affinity for the American military and its industrial complex. In addition, author Chris Hedges has written about how they are joined by many Northern blue collar families hurting from new technology, globalization, and poor schools in seeing government as out to undermine their communities and social values. Their solace is to hope for Armageddon. Evangelicals like to quote a biblical text that God favors those who favor the Jews. However, for them they mean only Jews who make wars and contribute to chaos in the Middle East. Jewish peacemakers are cursed in their view. No tears were shed for Yitzak Rabin who negotiated peace with the Arabs until Israeli fanatics killed him. Indeed Pat Robertson said that Rabin was killed because he was trying to thwart God’s plans. Herein lies their antipathy to Ron Paul, who in all other respects is a family values conservative. Indeed, most of them are Baptists who used to look upon Catholics with suspicion. Today they would prefer Senator Santorum or Newt Gingrich, both Catholics, to Ron Paul, who is Baptist. Santorum is no libertarian believer in limited government (he would use government to enforce his social values) and urges absolute support for Israel and the military industrial complex. These evangelicals don’t want peace because it would mean postponing Armageddon. That’s why their leaders oppose Ron Paul. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
What a crock. "Evangelicals" are pragmatic if nothing else. They would rather have a serial adulterer or a Catholic (or even a Mormon) who would show more restraint in Constitutional matters. It's the lesser of two evils. Evangelicals don't believe Paul can win. PERIOD. I believe it's also why Romney's numbers haven't been as strong as they could have been. Conservatives and Evangelicals will vote for Romney if there is NO other viable option, but they are looking for a viable option right up until the end. Evangelicals won't support ANY candidate advocating the US turning its back on Israel. EVER. Evangelicals would rather have a candidate who's white at the driven snow. Unfortunately, there isn't one of those on the planet, so they will pick from the tainted and blemished offerings available. And once again hold their nose and they pull the lever. We're kind of used to that. Been doing it since '92. | ||
| Moxnix |
Had a sneaking suspicion that Alan Greenspan, former Fed chief, was not as dumb as he pretended to be. When he was on the job he could barely say a straight sentence. Probably because he didn’t really believe what he was saying. Since he’s been unemployed, he’s begun to speak more clearly. In Thursday’s Financial Times he has an opinion on capitalism which is actually among the best in the series. In it, he makes a good point. Anti-capitalists are not really annoyed at capitalism. What bothers them is “crony capitalism:” “Crony capitalism abounds when government leaders, usually in exchange for political support, routinely bestow favors on private individuals or business. That is not capitalism. It is called corruption.” Or you could call it zombification...or geriatric capitalism...or, as Kurt Richebächer used to call it, “degenerate capitalism.” But it’s not real capitalism. The ‘greed’ that preoccupies Occupy Wall Street demonstrators is not a feature of capitalism, Greenspan points out. It’s a feature of human nature. He might have pointed out that socialists are just as greedy as capitalists. They are just more corrupt. Rather than get their gains by honest deception, they get it by brute force — by using the police power of government to take it from others. Greenspan provides an example of a corrupt system, designed to protect the wealthy from competition — immigration law. It keeps out qualified foreigners willing to work for less: “The H1B program is in effect a subsidy for the wealthy, a policy that is anathema to the supporters of capitalism.” Oh, yeah. Ron Paul. An evangelical friend told me he is too old. Reagan wasn't said me. My mind is rather set (that) Mr. Paul is the only candidate who can begin to fix the economy. Or, cheap domestic energy might do it. Nothing like a little evangelical bashing from the newsies who are always smarter than everyone else. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Bye Bye Ron Paul.  | ||
| Moxnix |
The country has been at war in two out of three years since 1989. The interesting thing about it is that 1989 marked an historic juncture. It was the year that the US had no more worthy enemies. The Berlin Wall fell that year. The Soviet Union bit the dust. Francis Fukayama said it was maybe the “end of history.” Charles Krauthammer said it was the beginning of a new world, with only one superpower. He called in a “uni-polar world.” But a country that has been taken over by its military industry cannot permit peace. It must make war — either against its own people or against some other people. Having no suitable enemies, the deficit-fatted pentagon, its rich lobbyists and the nation’s lard-butts who accept campaign donations had to find some unsuitable ones. That’s why all the candidates — except Ron Paul — are pro-war. | ||
| Cowboy |
Just look at the USA today continuly at each other. we need a good war every so often to keep us united. | ||
| Strokizator |
(he [Rick Santorum] would use government to enforce his social values) Isn't that exactly what the liberals do all the time? So is it a bad thing or not? | ||
| Xdigitalx |
The ONLY thing that keeps N. Korea from invading S. Korea is us. The ONLY thing that kept Russia from rolling over Europe was us. The ONLY think keeping China from rolling over Taiwan and Japan is us. The ONLY thing keeping the entire middle east from rolling over Israel is us. I can't think of a world that is better off for us by letting these nations have their way with our global allies. Can you? No, I can not.  I think part of the reason alot of kids are liking RP is cuz like he, they don't know or care about the problems "over there" as much as the other candidates do. They are just concerned about over here. Selfish. | ||
| Fahren |
I think part of the reason alot of kids are liking RP is cuz like he, they don't know or care about the problems "over there" as much as the other candidates do. They are just concerned about over here. Selfish. Is it selfish to place the oxygen mask over your own face before going to the aid of others? If you don't take care of yourself first, you will be in no condition to be able to help others. | ||
| Aesquire |
...country that has been taken over by its military industry... Speaking as a former tool of the military industrial complex.... What military industry? Convair? Vought? Douglas? Vultee? Grumman? Northrup? General Dynamics? North American? Curtis? Martin? Wright? Ryan? McDonnell? Keystone? Hall? All gone, merged into oblivion, or a sub, sub, subcontractor, Lock-mart-north-grum builds postal sorting equipment.... not for much longer. Of the great military contract companies, Colt is still around, and still has much pull. ( the main reason that US troops don't have a new rifle after 40+ years is Colt, and the politicians they cultivate ) Boeing would love to sell stuff to the military, but after building one of the ugliest jets ever...(x-32) they are still hoping to get a contract for a tanker...vs. Airbus. Note Boeing developed workable air-to-air refueling, and the 707 is the offshoot of that. As is every other jet they make today. (717, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787.....) Lot of money in selling converted airliners, but we will never buy enough to do the job. Every plane in the inventory that has the power to project force refuels in mid air. We never do have enough tankers.. The last time we had enough airplanes ( of any kind ) was 1945. Ok, maybe 1958. The entire army that GWB had was less than the Army deployed in Desert Storm. Thanks to WJC. Now BHO is going to make the next war harder, worse for the troops and families, and even more inevitable than before. Ron Paul? Other than the fact that the "Press" won't even admit he exists, seems to be highly problematic. I Don't know. Does he really want to "negotiate" with Iran? For the love of satan, Why? It's not like they will keep an agreement, they are run by people who actually believe it's a blessing in the eyes of their G-D to lie to infidels. Ron Paul guys, please enlighten me? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
That’s why all the candidates — except Ron Paul — are pro-war. Ron Paul's not anti-war. He is just willing to unplug the United States from the rest of the world. WHEN the war shows up on our shores, Ron Paul is more than willing to enter war then. The problem is that by that point in time what might have been a manageable issue becomes a MUCH larger issue. Ron Paul would have said that we had no business involving ourselves in a border dispute between Germany and Poland. Stepping in to defend Poland would have been no business of the United States. The issue is that had someone intervened in Poland, it might have prevented or at least heavily blunted Germany's progression across Europe. No one mobilized. No one took notice. No one bothered to create any sort of "interventionist policies". It's easy to say that we don't get involved until the United States is attacked, but by that point, it may be too late. What if we hadn't been attacked at Pearl Harbor? Would the US ever have entered the war? Under a Ron Paul Presidency, not only would we not have entered, but we probably wouldn't have even lent support. What would Europe have looked like after a decade of occupation? Germany failed in Russia, but only because of winter. What would have happened if Germany had retooled and had time to prepare? I believe Ron Paul speaks to the same naivety that was prevalent in the days leading up to our involvement in WWII.    This isn't some new argument. These are the same positions held prior to WWII. There wasn't even a "military industrial complex" yet. That term wasn't even part of the American lexicon until Eisenhower's farewell address in 1961. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
you mean we shouldn't help our allies when in need? Even though we have the means... but because some people are on unemployment we should not? Wait.. maybe Obaba or (if pigs do fly and Ron Paul becomes potus) should make the usa officially closed to giving any foreign aid to ANYONE including out allies and any country in need for next 10 years! I wonder what the world would think of us then? (Message edited by xdigitalx on January 30, 2012) | ||
| Blake |
"For war"??? How about "against islamist terrorists acquiring nukes"? Both sound entirely rational. One is honest. Evangelicals prefer honest. | ||
| Moxnix |
I'll still vote for RP in the primary, which in Missery is just a beauty contest. There are a few underlying qualities of his politics that could turn this country around, save capitalism, and embarrass the heck out of hog trough politicians. Still, in the general election, my ballot gets marked ABO. | ||
| Fahren |
ABO: "Amen Barack Obama?" | ||
| Hootowl |
"Is it selfish to place the oxygen mask over your own face before going to the aid of others? If you don't take care of yourself first, you will be in no condition to be able to help others." Well said. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
But that does not apply because we are not in a condition that we can not help others. Some people are, but the military is fine. (for now) | ||
| Moxnix |
Anyone But Obama | ||
| Fahren |
But that does not apply because we are not in a condition that we can not help others. Some people are, but the military is fine. (for now) Spending is spending. You think we should keep putting our military bills on a credit card? It's a very complex situation, this issue of spending cuts, our military budget, and the use of military force in overseas intervention. Saddam Hussein had a WMD that could have proven fatal to the US: he wanted, like Gaddafi in Libya, to remove the US dollar as the mode of valuation and payment for oil. Far deadlier to the US status quo than some dirty bomb (just harder to get US citizens scared about). So you can try to imagine a world in which the US dollar is no longer the world reserve currency - what that would mean for us here. And then you can see where US guns are pointing: targeting any country or regime that threatens to de-stabilize our hegemony. There is a lot of vested interest involved. But I digress from the interesting discussion of the merits and potential pitfalls of the various planks in Ron Paul's platform. Sort of. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The VAST majority of the spending is Unconstitutional. To blame 80% of the overbloated, Unconstitutional Federal Budget on the "military industrial complex" as Ron Paul does is ridiculous at best.  |
