Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread - Page 272 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

...

Page 272 of 844

First

72 172 222 252 262 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 282 292 322 372 472 772

Last

Page 272 of 844

First

72 172 222 252 262 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 282 292 322 372 472 772

Last

11-10-2011 , 03:34 AM

#6776

dmwGun

centurion

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 149

Of course Paul has a chance. It takes run up the polls for the media to give you 24/7 coverage. Given where his opponents are polling, his focus should be in getting his polling consistently into the high teens to low 20s. That number will defeat any media bias.

The media than starts losing credibility with the average viewer when they imply Paul has no chance.

Imagine seeing this type of poll number repeatedly:
Romney 27
Cain 25
Paul 22
Grinrich 11
Bachman 6
Hunstman 4
Perry 3
Santorum 2

The media narrative much switch. You don't get to hide Paul from the top contenders at that point. From that point on, he has a legit chance. It may (or may not) be slightly less than 22/100, but it's no longer 1 in 20.

11-10-2011 , 04:07 AM

#6777

tzwien

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 5,267

Ron Paul is owning. I'll have more motivation to deal with crap in this thread once he takes the lead in the polls.

11-10-2011 , 04:38 AM

#6778

LirvA

banned

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 43,574

lol wooooow Rick Perry

11-10-2011 , 06:08 AM

#6779

sterlinguini

adept

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 1,173

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sholar

Like, if you searched this thread, you wouldn't be able to find even one?

Lol right, I'm supposed to search the thread and read your 218 posts to try and find an actual coherent criticism that can be responded to intelligently instead of you just saying one.

[] Sholar is trying to have a discussion.

[x] Sholar achieving an exemplary post count regardless.

Last edited by sterlinguini; 11-10-2011 at 06:17 AM. Reason: lol you've posted 6 times since that last count a few hours ago. obsess much?

11-10-2011 , 09:57 AM

#6780

leavesofliberty

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fermion5

I haven't posted odds in a while... here's an update courtesy of bodog.

Mitt Romney 4/9
Rick Perry 11/2
Herman Cain 7/1
Newt Gingrich 7/1
Ron Paul 20/1
Jon Hunstman 30/1
Michele Bachmann 40/1

Quote:

Originally Posted by leavesofliberty

I'd consider betting against Rick Perry because he's unlikeable.

[X] - BOOM HEADSHOT

11-10-2011 , 10:32 AM

#6781

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fermion5

Perry's big gaffe

cliffs?

11-10-2011 , 10:42 AM

#6782

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddubois

And besides that currency competition isn't "highlight of Paul's economic program" either. "Stop spending so much ****ing money" is.

But Zygote asked me, specifically, what arguments I had against "hr1098". Beyond that's such a weird way to ask a question, hr1098 appears to be about legal tender laws.

This is such standard behavior in this Paul thread. Paul "detractors" "troll" the thread by pointing out specific behaviors of Paul(racist newsletter, bizarre debt ceiling plan, creationism, against incorporation, endorsing Chuck Baldwin). Ron Paul fans, detecting that they are going to lose that argument, switch back to huge big picture stuff. Then when the "trolls" go up to the big picture and say "of course I don't support the war on drugs, what's your point" the Ron Paul fans triumphantly point out that the detractors don't have any SPECIFIC criticisms of Paul.

But the whole thing that started whatever subtangent was a specific criticism! Zygote brought up currency competition to deflect attention from whatever we were talking about before that. Now you guys don't want to talk about it? Currency competition isn't important? THEN WHY IS PAUL SPONSORING BILLS ABOUT IT?

11-10-2011 , 10:45 AM

#6783

leavesofliberty

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

cliffs?

oh man, youtube dat ****.

11-10-2011 , 10:53 AM

#6784

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

ok, link?

look I was out late and someone apparently secretly switched my coffee with decaf and I gotta go to a ****ing funeral in an hour.

11-10-2011 , 10:57 AM

#6785

The 13th 4postle

banned

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 11,244

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

ok, link?

look I was out late and someone apparently secretly switched my coffee with decaf and I gotta go to a ****ing funeral in an hour.

There is a video in the CNBC debate thread.

11-10-2011 , 10:57 AM

#6786

leavesofliberty

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

ok, link?

look I was out late and someone apparently secretly switched my coffee with decaf and I gotta go to a ****ing funeral in an hour.

my bad

(using 2p2 android app)

11-10-2011 , 11:05 AM

#6787

leavesofliberty

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,296

'tis the season

11-10-2011 , 11:07 AM

#6788

MidyMat

veteran

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,453

I love Paul's expressions during Perry's gaffe.

11-10-2011 , 11:09 AM

#6789

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

luv u guys

11-10-2011 , 11:29 AM

#6790

Sholar

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,357

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlinguini

Your dedication to this shtick is impressive. Your Perry-esque lack of recall of information is definitely going to hamper our ability to have a discussion, since you are struggling to even remember the replies that were in response to you...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sholar

On "currency competition" I don't even know what the complaint is. We already have it (in the sense that people can and do choose to use a variety of currencies to transact in their daily life), and I doubt changing legal tender laws will have a significant impact on anything, anyway. People prefer to use the fiat currency for reasons that have nothing to do with the legal tender laws. But this isn't really economics...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sholar

What I am supposed to be arguing against? If you read my earlier post, you'd see that I think we already have it. Most of the time, most people use federal reserve notes. I don't see this changing, do you?

Legal tender laws are basically irrelevant. I don't know why you think they're important, so there's not much that can be done.

Quoting that entire post below is a little unkind to the thread, but I just want to point out that it was a reply to you asking this same thing...again and again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sholar

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlinguini

Love how anytime a RP critic is asked "who would you vote for" or "what are the most important issues iyo" there's NO RESPONSE

OK, here's a reply, just so the next time we wonder whether Ron Paul thinks that genocide proves that God doesn't exist--or that biological organisms aren't evolving, I might have gotten those mixed up--or whether letting Texas ban sodomy is a shinning example of individual liberty, or whether he has any clue what half of the words in economics mean this isn't brought up as some huge trump card.

Let's be clear: Ron Paul can be a woefully unqualified candidate on his own merits. I don't need to compare him to anyone else, and when the Santorum supporters invade the forum, you can bet that I'll be mocking their ridiculous arguments as well, at least until I stop caring about or drawing humor from their insanity.

Are we making a list of people who aren't going to be on the ballot next November who I'd like to be president? Because if that's the case, there are a lot of people better than Ron Paul. (And Ron Paul might not even be the best fringe candidate in the Republican primary.)

It's not that every single one of Ron Paul's positions is terrible. It's that the more than you learn about the man, the more you question his ability to think logically, surround himself with good people, and lead effectively.

Seriously, though, make a thread where people talk about the issues that they consider most important in a presidential candidate. If it's still running before it gets overrun by people shilling for Ron Paul, I'd even participate.

But you should already be able to infer that I'd prefer to support a candidate who cared about civil liberties more than states' rights. (And definitely a candidate who understood the difference.)

And maybe you could see that I'd rather a candidate who wasn't scientifically illiterate, and proud of it. One who had a nuanced enough grasp of the economy that he or she wasn't likely to make things worse. Not having racist newsletters attached to your name is a plus; I'd like a candidate who wasn't bigoted, or didn't have bigots ghostwrite. Are those the most important things? No, but they're pretty important, and shape approaches to myriad policies in ways both subtle and profound.

I'd want a candidate who didn't seek to impose some hackneyed utopian vision, but actually was interested in the practicalities of running a nation of 300 million persons. And of course it'd be great to stop some of the wars, both foreign and domestic: on crime, on drugs, on terror. And to laugh people who complain about the war on Christmas. There are a lot of things the federal government should do more of, and a lot it should do less of. I'd like someone who understood the difference. And who could articulate a vision for a tax policy and civil society that made sense. (That's too much: even one of those two would be enough.)

And I'd like someone who cared enough about these results, and achieving them, that he or she was willing to take some risks and show the leadership needed to make things happen.

So I'm very confident that come next November, the names on the ballot are going to fall well short of those ideals. And this isn't a comprehensive list, by any means. There's a limit to executive authority (well, at least according to the candidate I'm constructing here) so every single policy prescription isn't going to be enumerated here, nor am I really giving much thought to what I am including here and what I am omitting. Potentially some things that matter very much to me. I'll add those to my next rant.

Now, Ron Paul's not the worst guy running, not by a long shot. But is he someone whom I would unreservedly and passionately support? Of course not. But here, in this thread, half of the participants approach him with messianic fervor.

If you want to make the argument that Paul is slightly less rotten than the rest of the apples in the Republican field, go for it. Huntsman, at least, has the good humor to know that being a reasonable, literate person is disqualifying in the Republican party, and no one knows anything about Johnson. But it's not obvious that Paul is better than those two, at least to me, owing to my ignorance of the details of those two gentlemen's positions, perhaps, and that's within the extraordinarily narrow scope of active, declared Republican candidates.

So there's your answer. I'm sure there will be a torrent of poorly-thought-out criticisms of this poorly-though-out post, but I'm certain that my replies to most of them would be better situated in another thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

And obviously this.

11-10-2011 , 11:29 AM

#6791

leavesofliberty

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,296

yeah gaiyze stop trying to lure FlyWf into a substantive discussion about economics.

11-10-2011 , 11:36 AM

#6792

TheBug

grinder

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 515

The EPA? Lol. Way to utilize your gaffe adjacent positioning Dr. Paul!

11-10-2011 , 12:01 PM

#6793

The 13th 4postle

banned

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 11,244

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fermion5

Tom Woods discusses the Christian case for supporting Ron Paul on Iowa Radio show 11/9/11

Steve Deace is really influential in Iowa. He's basically the Rush Limbaugh of Iowa. He pushed for Huckabee hard and was against Romney in 08.

11-10-2011 , 12:08 PM

#6794

SL__72

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 16,497

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

This is such standard behavior in this Paul thread. Paul "detractors" "troll" the thread by pointing out specific behaviors of Paul(racist newsletter, bizarre debt ceiling plan, creationism, against incorporation, endorsing Chuck Baldwin). Ron Paul fans, detecting that they are going to lose that argument, switch back to huge big picture stuff. Then when the "trolls" go up to the big picture and say "of course I don't support the war on drugs, what's your point" the Ron Paul fans triumphantly point out that the detractors don't have any SPECIFIC criticisms of Paul.

It isn't that you don't have SPECIFIC criticisms of Paul or even that your criticisms have no merit, it is that they amount to picking nits when compared to what you even admitted was "huge big picture stuff."

All of the stuff you listed, even anti-incorporation, amounts to absolutely nothing when you compare it to his position on drug prohibition.

Add his position on freedom bombing Muslim children, and yes, I think it is fair to accuse you of trolling when you start complaining about a 40 year old newsletter that he has disowned and "zomg he believes in creationism, he clearly is incapable of logic."

You're essentially trying to drag the level of discourse down to something you'd see on cable news.

Last edited by SL__72; 11-10-2011 at 12:19 PM.

11-10-2011 , 12:36 PM

#6795

The 13th 4postle

banned

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 11,244

Detroit Free Press: Crowd at GOP debate ranks Mitt Romney, Ron Paul as favorites

11-10-2011 , 12:38 PM

#6796

The 13th 4postle

banned

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 11,244

11-10-2011 , 02:03 PM

#6797

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

Quote:

Originally Posted by SL__72

Uh, does it? Given what Paul would be able to do about the drug war(not a lot) and what he would be able to do about incorporation(select 1-2 SC justices), that's not quite so clear to me.

Quote:

Add his position on freedom bombing Muslim children, and yes, I think it is fair to accuse you of trolling when you start complaining about a 40 year old newsletter that he has disowned and "zomg he believes in creationism, he clearly is incapable of logic."

Am I not allowed to complain about bad things about Paul unless I disagree with everything he ever does? I voted for Obama in 2008 and complain about his Predator drone use constantly. Was that "trolling"?

FWIW, finding out that Paul endorsed Baldwin over McCain in '08 is pretty solid evidence that he "disowned" the newsletter(by, uh, eventually saying that some unknown person wrote it) out of political convenience. Baldwin is a solid paleoconservative, League of the South, Confederacy was the good guys, gays are ruining America type guy. Mises.org every day.

Quote:

You're essentially trying to drag the level of discourse down to something you'd see on cable news.

What? Without me, Max, and Sholar "trolling" this thread the discourse would solely consist of people posting video clips of cable news coverage of Ron Paul.

11-10-2011 , 02:11 PM

#6798

leavesofliberty

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

Uh, does it? Given what Paul would be able to do about the drug war(not a lot) and what he would be able to do about incorporation(select 1-2 SC justices), that's not quite so clear to me.

Am I not allowed to complain about bad things about Paul unless I disagree with everything he ever does? I voted for Obama in 2008 and complain about his Predator drone use constantly. Was that "trolling"?

FWIW, finding out that Paul endorsed Baldwin over McCain in '08 is pretty solid evidence that he "disowned" the newsletter(by, uh, eventually saying that some unknown person wrote it) out of political convenience. Baldwin is a solid paleoconservative, League of the South, Confederacy was the good guys, gays are ruining America type guy. Mises.org every day.

What? Without me, Max, and Sholar "trolling" this thread the discourse would solely consist of people posting video clips of cable news coverage of Ron Paul.

11-10-2011 , 02:24 PM

#6799

dmk

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 31,431

Quote:

Given what Paul would be able to do about the drug war(not a lot)

Can you elaborate on this? I find it hard to believe Paul can't do anything about the drug war. While he can't legislate as President, he can control what/how the various executive departments focus their efforts (and potentially end said departments)

11-10-2011 , 03:28 PM

#6800

dmwGun

centurion

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 149

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

Uh, does it? Given what Paul would be able to do about the drug war(not a lot)

Would he be able to not set things back, like trying to shut down California marijuana industry? I think he'd be able to pardon non-violent offenders.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

What? Without me, Max, and Sholar "trolling" this thread the discourse would solely consist of people posting video clips of cable news coverage of Ron Paul.

broken trolling theory

Page 272 of 844

First

72 172 222 252 262 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 282 292 322 372 472 772

Last

...

Page 272 of 844

First

72 172 222 252 262 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 282 292 322 372 472 772

Last