namelesstavern.net

Thanks for that.

I do not think Ron Paul has a chance. Hopefully this post won't get deleted like the last 4 did because I have a difference in opinion with a moderator. Oh by the way, false links will get your post deleted so here's a real one, not targeted at anyone.

http://www.hypocrites.com

Jay it's okay that you feel that way. I don't think there is a Ron Paul supporter who thinks that he'll get the delegates, we're not stupid. There is a bigger picture here, that you are missing, along with other people.

We believe in what we believe in, lock stock and barrell. We're going all the way because we believe in the message and the man and his stance on the issues. You could tell a Huckabee supporter, "You're stupid-your candidate is gonna end up backing out and supporting McCain" but it's the same thing. They're backing who they are for a reason.

My reason is much nicer to live with. I believe in Ron Paul and I believe in myself enough to not give up on that. My candidate isn't going to back out and support another candidate. There's something to be said for that. He's never changed through the years-I'm supporting someone who doesn't change on the issues.

I don't think you're stupid for backing Paul. In fact, he's the only Republican candidate I wouldn't cringe to see in office. I just don't think he has a chance. First off, Republican's have it bad as is, secondly, he's not enough of a yes man, money driven zombie to get approval from other Republicans. He's better off as an independant, although we all know what happens to the 3rd party.

I've shown Ron Paul to a lot of republicans. Every single one has the same thoughts on him at first - "Crack pot". After discussing the issues and answering them how Paul does, many find themselves in agreement. Conservatism isn't borrowing money from China to go nation building.

It's kind of sad how many people out there aren't going to put their support behind someone like Paul, someone behind in polls, in popularity, just because they can't see them coming out as the "winner," despite what they stand for. It's sad that people think in terms of winners and losers. I've heard it given many times as a reason to not support/vote for Paul, despite agreeing with many of his policies and views. They think it doesn't matter, and they'd rather vote for the lesser of two evils (usually Romney) in hopes of keeping the other (McCain) out. They see romney having a better chance of winning, even though they lean more towards Paul, and that's the factor that ends it for them. At least Huck's supporters don't fall for it, although I have a feeling that many of them base their support on religion, which disgusts me.

Average American logic: Who would want to support a loser? That's like saying I'm a loser! It doesn't matter what the winner stands for, I want to support the winner, so I can be seen as a winner!

Isn't it that sad that someone agrees with Ron Paul on the issues but won't back him because he can't win? I've heard many say, "you're wasting your vote!" but this, is a wasted vote. And I don't even believe in wasted votes.

No such thing as wasted votes. You vote for who you like the best and that's how it should be. I just think that there won't be enough people who will vote according to who they like the best because they are afraid of losing for 1, and 2, I don't think Ron Paul has enough people who like him the best for him to become the next President of the United States. Personally, he's the only republican who I've been able to agree with on a few things.

I hope he backs out. It would just be funny after thats all Ive heard from everyone that likes him. He wont back out ho noez hes not like everyone else! It would just give me a giggle hehe



Since when does Kaihnne go out on these nutcase tangeants? Someone must have hit the wrong switch in his head this week ><

Actually, I often type up long and thoughtful posts, only to sigh and delete them/press back on my browser. I figure, it's good to get my thoughts written out, but usually I don't see them contributing positively to what is being discussed, so I don't post what I have written. It seems my deleting skills are suffering as of late.

I would hope they aren't all nutcase tangents.

Conservatism isn't borrowing money from China to go nation building.

what kind of whacked fucking liberal pinko faggot bullshit is this.......

Kramer wrote:

Conservatism isn't borrowing money from China to go nation building.

what kind of whacked fucking liberal pinko faggot bullshit is this.......

Basically what he means is that our country is in debt to China. They pretty much own us.

While we have this debt, and the word itself can't possibly mean any sort of "conservatism", we also have our troops in countries all over the world. We spend a lot of money keeping them there.

By "nation building" he is mostly referring to Iraq, since that is the most recent nation we've attempted to build.

The national debt, and the nation building are not seen as "conservative" moves.

"Sound security can't be built on borrowed money."

I fear debt. Learning to use it to your advantage is infinitely useful in today's age, but I still fear it.

The national debt, and the nation building are not seen as "conservative" moves.

Then why do conservatives jizz themselves over Reagan when he ran the national debt up by more dollars than any president in history, and it wasn't even a time of war? Why the hate for Clinton when he's the only president who reduced it in virtually all the years of his term?

WHO is the conservative?

-Arlos

Arlos wrote:

The national debt, and the nation building are not seen as "conservative" moves.

Then why do conservatives jizz themselves over Reagan when he ran the national debt up by more dollars than any president in history, and it wasn't even a time of war? Why the hate for Clinton when he's the only president who reduced it in virtually all the years of his term?

WHO is the conservative?

-Arlos

Clinton gave too much money to poor people instead of rich people, therefore he is not fiscally conservative.

I repeat my chart from a previous thread:



Now, WHICH one of those was the fiscal conservative? Look at the vast increases in deficit spending under Reagan and then Bush 1, and doubly note it in Bush Jr's. term. Yet somehow these 3 are conservative darlings.

Then look at Clinton, who reduced the amount of deficit spending 7 out of 8 years he was in office, ultimately leaving with a budget surplus, which could've been used to actually pay down the size of the overall debt. Yet conservatives hate his guts.

I don't understand....

-Arlos

Arlos wrote:

The national debt, and the nation building are not seen as "conservative" moves.

Then why do conservatives jizz themselves over Reagan when he ran the national debt up by more dollars than any president in history, and it wasn't even a time of war? Why the hate for Clinton when he's the only president who reduced it in virtually all the years of his term?

WHO is the conservative?

Maybe because the legislative branch approves and pays the bills?

It has more to do with Tip O'Neill and Newt Gingrich than Reagan or Clinton. Our government operates best when there's balance. One party in power causes trouble and a lot of unbalanced legislation.

Clinton also was fiscally conservative in many regards, and was more a moderate. Clinton in 92 is much more a fiscal conservative than the Republicans are today. Sadly, the GOP has gone to the left fiscally, and the DNC has gone off the far left end promising to spend and spend and have big government solve every problem.

Arlos wrote:

The national debt, and the nation building are not seen as "conservative" moves.

Then why do conservatives jizz themselves over Reagan when he ran the national debt up by more dollars than any president in history, and it wasn't even a time of war? Why the hate for Clinton when he's the only president who reduced it in virtually all the years of his term?

WHO is the conservative?

-Arlos

Your Chart seems to refute your statement here sir. You sure you didnt mean bush jr ran the nat debt up more then any other pres in history?

To say that a President alone is responsible for that chart is dishonest. The President along with Congress are responsible.

In the case of Reagan, take a look at some of his budget proposals and State of the Union addresses. He frequently called and brought forth spending cuts. In part this was just a ploy, as Reagan knew there's no way he'd get it. Instead, in order to get what he really wanted (tax cuts and military spending), he compromised with Congress and signed their ballooning domestic spending packages. Also notice that the deficit decreases sharply in the middle of Reagan term, around the time the economy starts ramping up.

The case of Clinton is similar. In 1992 while Bush Sr was still President, the deficit was already in a decline as you can see by your graphic. This trend continued until 1994 when it flattened out. (Remember, the first two years in Clinton's presidency were Democratic Congress.)

In 1995 the Contract With America republicans and Gingrich came to power in Congress for the first time in ~40 or so years. I personally believe it was one of the few major reform periods in 20th century US history. The others being the Progressive movement, and New Deal democrats. In the first 100 days the new Congress voted on and passed an insane number of bills such as welfare reform, balanced budgets, job creation act, etc (Basically everything in the Contract). They even voted on term limits for Congress, which never had been brought to a vote before in its history. This would have made lifetime politicians in Congress a thing of the past: check out the roll call and who voted "Nay" to remain in power forever: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1995/roll277.xml -- It failed since it was a constitutional amendment and needed 2/3rds vote.

The Congress also "shut down" the government in order to force Clinton to sign the balanced budget in 1995 to decrease spending. It was more ceremonial than anything - actual government business went on as usual with the exception of a few bureaucracies.

The 1990's Congress and Clinton also had the fortune of riding the tech boom, which burst in early 2000, while Clinton was still President. As you can see in your graphic, the deficit began to spiral back toward the red during this time.

Bush Jr and the "new" Republican Congress completely wasted the reform period of the Contract with America cycle of Congressional reformers. For six years they controlled both branches but instead of being the outsiders they turned into what the Democratic Congress was before 1995: entrenched lifelong powergrabbers whose only purpose is the next election and paying off special interests.

In 2006, I expected reform from the Democratic Congress similar to the 1995 Contract Republicans, but I guess the Democrats weren't out of power long enough. After just 12 years of being a minority in the House, they didn't turn into reformers, they're the status quo.

It's disheartening.

Don't forget Clinton also raised taxes quite a bit. That set people's teeth on edge.

numatu wrote:To say that a President alone is responsible for that chart is dishonest. The President along with Congress are responsible.

it isnt dishonest it isnt accurate for sure but how is this dishonest?

The majority of the US government "budget" is fixed from what I understand. The only "increases and decreases" that are often talked about are on the percentage increases from year to year. When politicians talk about "cutting" spending they are talking about decreasing the year to year % increase (from say 5% to 2% increase for example) not on the complete budget. I think Reagan was the last to actually cut spending for real and he only cut by like 10%. (One of you google detectives verify this for me, I'm feeling too lazy to dig up info)

Evermore wrote:it isnt dishonest it isnt accurate for sure but how is this dishonest?

I think it's dishonest to use a chart or visual that you know is misleading in order to praise a president you may like and/or discredit another. If not dishonest, it's definitely unethical.