Cain tops GOP polls; Where does he stand on 2A?

[LarryP]

Anyone who thinks Obama is down & out is fooling themself. Alot can happen by next year.

I was listening briefly to Bill Bennett's radio show this morning. Guess I had an urge for some good old fashioned morning hypocrisy.

Anyhow, he was saying how Obama is toast in the election that's 13 months away, UNLESS there's a strong third party challenge. I'm almost sure he was talking about Ron Paul, without, of course, mentioning his name. Stating his name would, afterall, violate his boss's orders and possibly get him fired.

But if the GOP intends to "earn" the vote of conservatives (I count myself nominally among them) they HAVE to to better than some boneheads like Romney, Cain, and Perry. If they nominate any of those (or a couple of the others) I hope RP DOES run third party or independent. I don't think he will, but a guy can hope. AND I further hope it throws the next election to Obama.

The Republican Party has GOT to realize that the future (young folks) are demanding a return to REAL limited government and lower taxes. As opposed to the lip service (lying) that they've mostly done about it for the past however many years.

[LarryP]

Anyone who thinks Obama is down & out is fooling themself. Alot can happen by next year.

I was listening briefly to Bill Bennett's radio show this morning. Guess I had an urge for some good old fashioned morning hypocrisy.

Anyhow, he was saying how Obama is toast in the election that's 13 months away, UNLESS there's a strong third party challenge. I'm almost sure he was talking about Ron Paul, without, of course, mentioning his name. Stating his name would, afterall, violate his boss's orders and possibly get him fired.

But if the GOP intends to "earn" the vote of conservatives (I count myself nominally among them) they HAVE to to better than some boneheads like Romney, Cain, and Perry. If they nominate any of those (or a couple of the others) I hope RP DOES run third party or independent. I don't think he will, but a guy can hope. AND I further hope it throws the next election to Obama.

The Republican Party has GOT to realize that the future (young folks) are demanding a return to REAL limited government and lower taxes. As opposed to the lip service (lying) that they've mostly done about it for the past however many years.

[DeanC]

Anyone who thinks Obama is down & out is fooling themself. Alot can happen by next year.

The quarterly finance reports are due 10/15. It will be interesting to see how well everyone is doing. Obama was WAY ahead on 7/15. Rumor is Michele will have gone into debt on the latest report. http://fec.gov/disclosurep/pnational.do

[Snowgun]

what would be awesome is if RP as independent ran AND Nader ran. A four way race that didn't act as a spoiler could produce some interesting results...

[yukonjasper]

The Ron Paul robots are everywhere. He's a spoiler and would cost us another 4 years of Obama if he splits out as an "independant". He's only an independant because he can't get enough support as a main stream candidate for a major political party to be taken seriously, so he essentially starts his own party of all the people who like him. He's too old, too out of touch and guess what you need to have a foreign policy. Isolationism is fine if everyone will leave you alone, but that ship has sailed. We are playing in the Global sandbox and with that comes some risks and responsibilities.

The reason no one wants him around is that his supporters are like frikken heroin addicts, super annoying, one track minded and just can't get enough Ron Paul............

I like the way this thread has drifted..............very nice driftage..............

So where do the candidates line up on 2A?

[DeanC]

So where do the candidates line up on 2A?

This question deserves it's own thread

[yukonjasper]

Is Ralph Nader still alive...............????? Holy Cow, there is a guy who should go away, no longer relevant and about as annoying as ManBearPig.............I'm surprised the two haven't teamed up I can see it now............Nader Gore - wait Gore Nader, what do you mean, I'm the smart one who should be President - look at all the disruption I've caused to the economy........that proves I should be President.

[ComradeBurg]

Isolationism is fine if everyone will leave you alone, but that ship has sailed. We are playing in the Global sandbox and with that comes some risks and responsibilities.

There is a big difference between being an isolationist and noninterventionist. Paul is the later which makes sense as we shouldn't be sticking our noses into other country's affairs. If they want trade relations with us that's great, if they are doing something we don't approve of that's fine we'll simply not perform transactions with them, but unless they've physically attacked us first there are no grounds to invade a foreign country (granted if they're harboring somebody that's attacked us there is grounds for going in and getting those who attacked us, but there are no grounds for overthrowing the country).

[chudrockz]

The Ron Paul robots are everywhere. He's a spoiler and would cost us another 4 years of Obama if he splits out as an "independant". He's only an independant because he can't get enough support as a main stream candidate for a major political party to be taken seriously, so he essentially starts his own party of all the people who like him. He's too old, too out of touch and guess what you need to have a foreign policy. Isolationism is fine if everyone will leave you alone, but that ship has sailed. We are playing in the Global sandbox and with that comes some risks and responsibilities.

The reason no one wants him around is that his supporters are like frikken heroin addicts, super annoying, one track minded and just can't get enough Ron Paul............

I like the way this thread has drifted..............very nice driftage..............

So where do the candidates line up on 2A?

Sorry about the driftage. However:

Ron Paul is NOT an "independent". He is a Republican. He's been elected to Congress as such what, fifteen times now? The only reason he seems like an "independent" is that the Republican Party has strayed sooo godawfully far from it's roots and platform as to be unrecognizable and indistinguishable from the Democratic Party anymore.

And as for the thread purpose, I still maintain that there is Ron Paul, and there is everyone else. Does anyone believe that ANY other candidate (other than possible Gary Johnson) would do ANYTHING to reign in the BATF, or reduce gun restrictions?

If anyone DOES believe that, I want some of what they're smokin'.

[yukonjasper]

The position you outline regarding "noninterventionlism" is soooo Naive and assumes a pre Global Economy mind set. Our interests are Global, our corporations are Global, our citizens are Global. If we were had the same Global Geopolitical and Geoeconomic landscape as existed in the 1970's, I could understand the philosophy. Take a look at the things you use every day. We are no longer a big manufacturing economy, so pretty soon all the stuff that people like to buy at Walmart at astonishing prices will no longer be avaialble to us because we let countries do as they please and not what is right and we decide to quit trading with them. We are no longer the 800lb gorilla and no longer the only place to market products. Many other countries have developed enough to take up the slack on what we don't want to trade. And then try to explain to the companies who derive much if not all of their income from Interational Trade that they have to stop being international, because there are a lot of bad countries out there that don't play like we want them to, so we have to look inward. Without someone to counter balance the tyrants, the list of countries we don't want to trade with could be a lot longer than it is today. Besides that, we leave our allies hanging out to get swallowed up.

It would be great to close your eyes and hope it all goes away, but like it or not, we are part of the fabric of the Global Economy and need to maintain our presence in that Economy. Is there room to get smarter about the whole thing, absolutely, but the types of plans being discussed by RP are polly annaish and highly risky to the balance of power in the World. Smarter foreign policy is cheaper and cheaper means resources can be reallocated. No foreign policy just means a shrinking economy as we get forced in on ourselves.

[ComradeBurg]

The position you outline regarding "noninterventionlism" is soooo Naive and assumes a pre Global Economy mind set.

The position you outline regarding "interventionism" is soooo Naive and assumes a validity to the initiation of violence mind set. You're statements also assume a complete inflexibility in the American economy.

Take a look at the things you use every day. We are no longer a big manufacturing economy, so pretty soon all the stuff that people like to buy at Walmart at astonishing prices will no longer be avaialble to us because we let countries do as they please and not what is right and we decide to quit trading with them.

First of all define what is "right." The idea that something right for America is right for the entire world shows a complete lack of understanding in the fact that different cultures have different sets of morals. What right does America have to decide what is right for China? How about Russia?

Second of all why would we stop trading with every manufacturing nation if we're not currently using military force against them? We receive a lot of goods from China now so why would we stop? In general our country doesn't agree with the politics of China but we're not taking military action against them so we can't have too much of a problem with them. If we moved away from interventionist policies why would we start a trade embargo with China?

Third, even if we did stop trade with manufacturing nations that would means we would simply have to start producing goods here. It's not like Americans will no longer received goods and services just because our government has placed a trade embargo on China. Economies are flexible.

Many other countries have developed enough to take up the slack on what we don't want to trade. And then try to explain to the companies who derive much if not all of their income from Interational Trade that they have to stop being international, because there are a lot of bad countries out there that don't play like we want them to, so we have to look inward.

Once again why would international companies become domestic-only? Companies like Google aren't doing business with China because we're at war with other nations. If the interventionist policies in Iraq ceased Google would remain unaffected. This is the difference between isolationism and noninterventionism. What you're explaining, forcing companies to cease overseas activities, is isolationism.

Without someone to counter balance the tyrants, the list of countries we don't want to trade with could be a lot longer than it is today. Besides that, we leave our allies hanging out to get swallowed up.

Umm... we are the tyrants. That's precisely the problem at the moment. We have military troops engaged in empire building throughout the world. It costs us buckets of money we don't have and is completely non-productive (and it creates a whole lot of bad feelings from the nations we're invading).

It would be great to close your eyes and hope it all goes away, but like it or not, we are part of the fabric of the Global Economy and need to maintain our presence in that Economy.

An economic presence is completely separate from a military presence. We can trade with one nation without having troops in another.

No foreign policy just means a shrinking economy as we get forced in on ourselves.

Noninterventionism is not the lack of a foreign policy, it is a foreign policy. Namely it's the policy of keeping out of other nation's affairs while keeping economic ties with those who want to. I would urge you to read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. Once you've read that I'd recommend reading The Myth of National Defense by Hans Herman Hoppe. With those two titles under your belt you'll have a far better understanding of economics and noninterventionism than most.

[R.E.T.]

So where do the candidates line up on 2A?

This question deserves it's own thread

True. Also keep in mind that the next President will most likely appoint some Supreme Court justices.That should be taken into account when selecting the next President

[chudrockz]

A (very) rare decent, honest, and friendly article on Dr. Paul, highly recommended reading.

http://iowastatedaily.com/opinion/artic ... mode=story

[Daddyo]

I was listening to Herman Cain on Glenn Beck this morning. Beck asked him specifically about the Federal Reserve question. His answer (as I recall) was to first point out that he was a FR president under Greenspan operating under entirely different economic circumstances and with a very different thinking as to the Fed's purpose. Glen I believe then asked him directly "Would you abolish the Fed?" Cain tap danced for a bit but ultimately said although he would not abolish the Fed, he would definitely "clip it's wings" which he also added Congress can do at any time. Not sure what that means.

As to his 9-9-9 deal, it sounds good at first with the 9% income tax, no payroll tax (does that include soc Sec?). But then you have to realize that you'll be paying another 9% on everything you buy. If you spend 100% of your income (as most of us must these days), you wind up paying 18% tax. Add in the fact that the 9% business tax is going to come right back at us in the form of higher prices and his 9-9-9 plan sounds to me like a 27% flat tax.

[DeanC]

I was listening to Herman Cain on Glenn Beck this morning. Beck asked him specifically about the Federal Reserve question. His answer (as I recall) was to first point out that he was a FR president under Greenspan operating under entirely different economic circumstances and with a very different thinking as to the Fed's purpose.

Bull ****ing ****. Greenspan and Bernanke are joined at the hip. What a lying sack of crap!