The Inconvenient Truth About Newt

[nyffman]

I would vote for anyone the Republicans run. Even Ron Paul, should he be nominated. But it's not going to happen. For one thing, some of his positions, although you two and quite a few others (key word "few") may like them, are too extreme for the vast majority of the country as things stand right now. I'm not saying they're all bad ideas, just that he will encounter resistance that will make it impossible to implement them.

[Chandler CCW]

I would vote for anyone the Republicans run. Even Ron Paul, should he be nominated. But it's not going to happen. For one thing, some of his positions, although you two and quite a few others (key word "few") may like them, are too extreme for the vast majority of the country as things stand right now. I'm not saying they're all bad ideas, just that he will encounter resistance that will make it impossible to implement them.

His biggest obstacle is his own party. If he does get the nomination, it'll be like Satan vs. Jesus in the general election.

[nyffman]

His party may be an obstacle but a bigger one is that some of his positions are waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy out of the mainstream.

[gyrfalcon]

His party may be an obstacle but a bigger one is that some of his positions are waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy out of the mainstream.

What positions does he have that are outside the mainstream? Reducing the size of the federal government? Pulling troops out of foreign countries?

If Ron Paul was elected he wouldn't be able to do a lot of the things he wants without the support of the houses. If he's anything, he would be a stopgap to the runaway federal government.

[goett047]

His party may be an obstacle but a bigger one is that some of his positions are waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy out of the mainstream.

What positions does he have that are outside the mainstream? Reducing the size of the federal government? Pulling troops out of foreign countries?

If Ron Paul was elected he wouldn't be able to do a lot of the things he wants without the support of the houses. If he's anything, he would be a stopgap to the runaway federal government.

And that is the first step to reducing the size of the government. You have to stop walking forwards before you can take any steps backwards.

If either party could put up somebody I agree with more, they'd get my vote. Until then I will vote for who I think is best, not simply the lesser of two evils.

[nyffman]

His party may be an obstacle but a bigger one is that some of his positions are waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy out of the mainstream.

What positions does he have that are outside the mainstream? Reducing the size of the federal government? Pulling troops out of foreign countries?

If Ron Paul was elected he wouldn't be able to do a lot of the things he wants without the support of the houses. If he's anything, he would be a stopgap to the runaway federal government.

Since you mentioned it, there are a lot of people who pay little or no taxes. I think they might object to reducing sugar daddy govt. His position on Iran getting nukes is pretty far out if he really believes they are similar to Soviet Russia or Israel. A lot of people are more likely to be able to name the contestants on American Idol, or some other pseudo reality show than to have heard of or know anything about the federal reserve. Don't misunderstand. Just because I think he's out there, doesn't mean I wouldn't support him if his party nominated him or that I don't agree with a lot of his positions. I'm kind of "out there" myself. I just don't buy into the messianic hope that his hardcore supporters seem to have.

[ComradeBurg]

Since you mentioned it, there are a lot of people who pay little or no taxes. I think they might object to reducing sugar daddy govt.

Like the smart wealthy individuals who keep their money offshore because the government will steal a great deal of it if they bring it into the country? Not everybody who is fortune enough to evade the revenuers is a poor individual living off of the government's dole.

His position on Iran getting nukes is pretty far out if he really believes they are similar to Soviet Russia or Israel.

It's pretty far out to believe that Iran will have the infrastructure to develop nuclear weaponry and a delivery system capable of getting a nuclear warhead here faster than we can develop an effective countermeasure. Iran isn't the Soviet Union, they're nowhere near our technologic development like the Soviet Union was. When we were in the arms race with the Soviets it was a cat and mouse game with both countries leaping ahead of the other periodically. Iran is, at most, at the stage we were during World War II when we were still developing the atomic bomb. The entire thing is a moot point in all honesty.

A lot of people are more likely to be able to name the contestants on American Idol, or some other pseudo reality show than to have heard of or know anything about the federal reserve.

Yes more people than ever know about the Federal Reserve thanks in part to Ron Paul's speeches. The bottom line is we have two options; end the Federal Reserve or face economic collapse. If you think the unlikely threat of a nuclear Iran is a threat imagine the threat of millions of hungry Americans partaking in food riots in your city. An complete economic collapse is far more worrisome than a remote country successfully building a nuclear weapon.

Just because I think he's out there, doesn't mean I wouldn't support him if his party nominated him or that I don't agree with a lot of his positions.

This is an attitude I never understood, even if you don't really agree with the guy you'll vote for him so long as he gets the endorsement of your preferred party? That would seem to indicate you don't have much of a stance other than whatever the Republican Party states. It's best to be an independent thinker and not vote for a candidate simply because he has a R or D after his name. Remember it's not red vs. blue it's all one part of purple.

I just don't buy into the messianic hope that his hardcore supporters seem to have.

This we agree on. Many people seem to think Ron Paul is going to instantly cure all the ailments in the United States. This belief is naive. On the other hand I do believe he will do a great deal of good if he manages to get the office, far more good than any other candidate.

[nyffman]

Since you mentioned it, there are a lot of people who pay little or no taxes. I think they might object to reducing sugar daddy govt.

Like the smart wealthy individuals who keep their money offshore because the government will steal a great deal of it if they bring it into the country? Not everybody who is fortune enough to evade the revenuers is a poor individual living off of the government's dole.
True. But those people don't care if the size of govt is reduced or not.

His position on Iran getting nukes is pretty far out if he really believes they are similar to Soviet Russia or Israel.

It's pretty far out to believe that Iran will have the infrastructure to develop nuclear weaponry and a delivery system capable of getting a nuclear warhead here faster than we can develop an effective countermeasure. Iran isn't the Soviet Union, they're nowhere near our technologic development like the Soviet Union was. When we were in the arms race with the Soviets it was a cat and mouse game with both countries leaping ahead of the other periodically. Iran is, at most, at the stage we were during World War II when we were still developing the atomic bomb. The entire thing is a moot point in all honesty.

Well, if someone keeps blowing up their missles and infecting their systems with viruses, true enough. But the consequences of them getting both the warheads and delivery systems are too dangerous for us and pretty much anyone who doesn't believe in the old guy climbing out of the well. And we would be in that subgroup. Because of their apocalyptic world view, they are not comparable to the Soviets who Reagan defeated in the cold war.

A lot of people are more likely to be able to name the contestants on American Idol, or some other pseudo reality show than to have heard of or know anything about the federal reserve.

Yes more people than ever know about the Federal Reserve thanks in part to Ron Paul's speeches. The bottom line is we have two options; end the Federal Reserve or face economic collapse. If you think the unlikely threat of a nuclear Iran is a threat imagine the threat of millions of hungry Americans partaking in food riots in your city. An complete economic collapse is far more worrisome than a remote country successfully building a nuclear weapon.

Most people who need to know, aren't listening. Something about leading a horse to water...........

Just because I think he's out there, doesn't mean I wouldn't support him if his party nominated him or that I don't agree with a lot of his positions.

This is an attitude I never understood, even if you don't really agree with the guy you'll vote for him so long as he gets the endorsement of your preferred party? That would seem to indicate you don't have much of a stance other than whatever the Republican Party states. It's best to be an independent thinker and not vote for a candidate simply because he has a R or D after his name. Remember it's not red vs. blue it's all one part of purple.

Get used to it. Not all things in life are cut and dried. Besides. I pretty clearly stated previously "I like Paul on a lot of issues." Look it up.

I just don't buy into the messianic hope that his hardcore supporters seem to have.

This we agree on. Many people seem to think Ron Paul is going to instantly cure all the ailments in the United States. This belief is naive. On the other hand I do believe he will do a great deal of good if he manages to get the office, far more good than any other candidate.

[gyrfalcon]

Well, if someone keeps blowing up their missles and infecting their systems with viruses, true enough. But the consequences of them getting both the warheads and delivery systems are too dangerous for us and pretty much anyone who doesn't believe in the old guy climbing out of the well. And we would be in that subgroup. Because of their apocalyptic world view, they are not comparable to the Soviets who Reagan defeated in the cold war.

Iran could have nukes and the delivery systems today and it wouldn't make much of a difference. Nuclear weapons are powerful but they're not some magical weapon. Do you think Iran would really launch a nuke at the U.S., Israel, or almost any other county offensively? North Korea has nukes and is advancing its delivery systems to ranges over a thousand miles...

[ComradeBurg]

Well, if someone keeps blowing up their missles and infecting their systems with viruses, true enough. But the consequences of them getting both the warheads and delivery systems are too dangerous for us and pretty much anyone who doesn't believe in the old guy climbing out of the well. And we would be in that subgroup. Because of their apocalyptic world view, they are not comparable to the Soviets who Reagan defeated in the cold war.

The consequences to other countries in the Middle East may be dire if Iran gets a nuclear weapon but again they're so far behind the curve the changes of them getting a delivery system to land a nuclear weapon on American territory before we devise an effective countermeasure are so slight as to be basically zero. In all honesty I'd be surprised to learn Iran hasn't obtained a nuclear weapon from a former Soviet breakaway as many of those countries are in dire need of money and surplus nuclear weapons are probably worth a great deal on the black market.

Also their apocalyptic world view is not really an issue for us because, again, even if they had a nuclear weapon they're so far away from us that getting it here is practically impossible. It certainly isn't a high enough possibility to justify murdering Iranian people, which is all that will happen if we enter a conflict with them (while our military likes to call innocent civilians caught in a drone strike collateral damage let's make no mistake, those deaths are murder at the hands of the United States government and are in no way justifiable and certainly make a great deal of ill-will in that region towards us).

This concern over a nuclear armed Iran is a giant boogeyman, especially when you consider the real and imminent threat our country is face economically.

Most people who need to know, aren't listening. Something about leading a horse to water...........

Who do you think is supposed to listen? Our country has successfully abolished to central banks in its history, we can abolish a third. The people who need to know are everybody. Nobody likes being screwed over and once you teach them how screwed they are due to America's inflationary policies they will eventually demand the problem be corrected. Education isn't an easy or fast process but I've witnessed enough people waking up to this fact that I know the process does work.

Get used to it. Not all things in life are cut and dried. Besides. I pretty clearly stated previously "I like Paul on a lot of issues." Look it up.

You're expecting me to go back through this thread, read everything you've already posted, and make my comments accordingly? I don't know where you think you are right now but that kind of attitude doesn't fly here on MNGunTalk.

[nyffman]

I believe you are right about the state of their technology in regard to the delivery system. I just don't trust our govt to do the right thing at the right time if left to their own judgement. With little exception, since at least Viet Nam, they have directed wars on a weak kneed political basis rather than going in,killing people, breaking things and getting out. Iraq knows this and is more willing to push it to the edge because of the fact. Besides, they have, what? Thousands, millions of delivery systems in the terrorist suicide bombers who would gladly carry some of their nuclear material in a dirty bomb to NY or any of our cities. I have no current confidence in our border security to keep them out. It's more complicated than just saying Iran doesn't have a missile that can reach us.

[ex-LT]

... they have, what? Thousands, millions of delivery systems in the terrorist suicide bombers who would gladly carry some of their nuclear material in a dirty bomb to NY or any of our cities. I have no current confidence in our border security to keep them out. It's more complicated than just saying Iran doesn't have a missile that can reach us.

Beat me to it. A nuclear warhead is much smaller than a conventional one. If they can smuggle it into the states, all they need is one or two devout jihadists to deliver it to its final destination and detonate it. Even the most sophisticated anti-ballistic missile defense system ever devised would be useless against this scenario.

[DeanC]

Hey if they caught that guy in Times Square with the propane tank and the children's alarm clock hooked up to the bag of Scott's Turfbuilder Plus why can't they catch a guy with a nuke?

Frick, there are so many nuke sniffers around that portable toilets at concerts are setting the things off.

[ComradeBurg]

I just don't trust our govt to do the right thing

You could have stopped right there. We're in complete agreement.

With little exception, since at least Viet Nam, they have directed wars on a weak kneed political basis rather than going in,killing people, breaking things and getting out.

That may have something to do with the fact that since World War II we've not actually been attacked so it has been difficult to justify declarations of war. To bypass this pesky problem the boys in Washington came up with all sorts of new phrases for war and tried to differentiate them from being war but declaring these new policies limited in action and scope. That way they can go to war with a nation without having to take the responsibility of actually declaring war.

Besides, they have, what? Thousands, millions of delivery systems in the terrorist suicide bombers who would gladly carry some of their nuclear material in a dirty bomb to NY or any of our cities. I have no current confidence in our border security to keep them out. It's more complicated than just saying Iran doesn't have a missile that can reach us.

Dirty bomb maybe but nuclear device? A nuclear weapon isn't something that fits inside of a briefcase and can be carried around by an individual (regardless of what spy movies claim). In order to have a nuclear device of any destructive potential you need a good amount of fissionable material to create critical mass. That means a notable quantity of a super heavy element with surrounding equipment needed to start the chain reaction needs to be lugged around. A terrorist isn't walking into this country with a nuclear device.

On top of that I put forth this question: is it justifiable to murder somebody because you believe they may hold a future threat? In such a case why is it not OK for me to preemptively murder my neighbor if he does something I consider to be threatening?

I will also put forth the fact that bombin Iran would create a great recruiting mechanism for terrorist organizations in the area and we'd likely see a large surge of recruits flowing into such organizations. Therefore bombing Iran in the hopes of stopping terrorism is like hoping that printing money will get us out of our economic depression.

[DeanC]

...bombing Iran in the hopes of stopping terrorism is like hoping that printing money will get us out of our economic depression.

That's gold, Jerry, gold!