Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party VIII

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

If I had it my way, that would be a bannable offense.

[enterthemadness]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

If I had it my way, that would be a bannable offense.

Like a few meme?

[SentinelMind]

Originally Posted by SV Fan

I don't think it's about Ron Paul winning as much as it's about getting some of his idea's into the mainstream discussion for alot of people when it comes to Ron Paul.

Exactly. Paul will never get a fair shake from the media and he doesn't have the political markmanship to make it in this corrupt system. Nonetheless, Paul is honest, consistent, principled man who is offering solutions that our leaders need to take seriously. 15 Trillion dollars of debt is not sustainable. Paul is really the only GOP candidate I care about in this GOP primary now. In 2008 he was in the single digits, now he's second place in 20% and making headlines and turning heads. That's all he can do and now I'm glad he's doing it.

[Paradoxium]

Right or wrong at least he seems sincere about his own ideas. Divorced of ideals/ideas, it would be nice if more politicos were like that.

[enterthemadness]

Our debt is on pace for 16 Trillion by Election time. I think.

[Kelly]

Yep, and unemployment will not be below 7%....if Obama wins, he will again make history.

[8wid]

I think the US bankruptcy can start to be expected this summer once fuel prices and interest rates dramatically rise over those months. More foreclosures, lay offs, business closures, cost of living hikes, double dip recession which will become a global depression. More governments will collapse in Syria, Iraq, civil war will resume in the Sudan and the Eurozone may even default. American can put as money sanctions on Iran as they want, they won't be able to afford it for much longer.

[Thundercrack85]

Do you get a second nobel prize for reelection?

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by Kelly

Yep, and unemployment will not be below 7%....if Obama wins, he will again make history.

I think the unemployment rate goes below 8% good chance Obama gets re-elected. What Obama should do is come up with a Blue States job plan, basically take jobs out of the Red States and move them to the Blue ones. lol

I think more then the national rate as well it will be the States rate in general(ie who cares if the national rate is 9% if your state one is like 5.5%)

In terms of "swing" states

less then 7% - New Hampshire, Iowa, Virginia, New Mexico
between 7-8% - Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Colorado
more then 8% - Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Florida, Nevada

[Marx]

Yeah...the jobs situation is just wonderful here in Ohio.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by SV Fan

I think the unemployment rate goes below 8% good chance Obama gets re-elected. What Obama should do is come up with a Blue States job plan, basically take jobs out of the Red States and move them to the Blue ones. lol

That is a horrible idea.

[bell110]

Originally Posted by SV Fan

One thing I don't get is who the hell in America is neo-conservative other then rich people who want to make millions selling weapons?

I've always thought that neo-conservatives are a symbiotic relationship between rich people and religious people. The rich get their tax breaks and the religious get their social goals.

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by bell110

I've always thought that neo-conservatives are a symbiotic relationship between rich people and religious people. The rich get their tax breaks and the religious get their social goals.

I always picture the neo-conservatives as a bunch of people whose only interest is to see benefits for Big Business at any cost. They basically pander to the religious right because it's a strong voting block but in the big picture they can gives a rat's ass about social issues as long as legislation that benefits Big Business gets passed. It's my belief that if the religious right became an insignificant voting block the neocons would find another large group to pander to get there votes even if it means being pro gay marriage or abortion.

The top end of the neocons will basically play on peoples patriotism to get them behind ideas that really don't benefit them in the big picture, in the small hope that one day they can benefit on the legislation they try pass(because America is the greatest country in the world and does absolutely nothing wrong, unless a Democrat does it).

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by SV Fan

I always picture the neo-conservatives as a bunch of people whose only interest is to see benefits for Big Business at any cost. They basically pander to the religious right because it's a strong voting block but in the big picture they can gives a rat's ass about social issues as long as legislation that benefits Big Business gets passed. It's my belief that if the religious right became an insignificant voting block the neocons would find another large group to pander to get there votes even if it means being pro gay marriage or abortion.

The top end of the neocons will basically play on peoples patriotism to get them behind ideas that really don't benefit them in the big picture, in the small hope that one day they can benefit on the legislation they try pass(because America is the greatest country in the world and does absolutely nothing wrong, unless a Democrat does it).

Neoconservativism is typically more rooted in opposition to Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, a hawkish foreign policy, support some government intervention in the economy and some deficits.

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

....a hawkish foreign policy, support some government intervention in the economy and some deficits.

As long as Big Business can make a buck of it, top end neoconservatives are definitely for this.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by SV Fan

As long as Big Business can make a buck of it, top end neoconservatives are definitely for this.

Thank you for completely ignoring the point

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by SV Fan

I think the unemployment rate goes below 8% good chance Obama gets re-elected. What Obama should do is come up with a Blue States job plan, basically take jobs out of the Red States and move them to the Blue ones. lol

I think more then the national rate as well it will be the States rate in general(ie who cares if the national rate is 9% if your state one is like 5.5%)

In terms of "swing" states

less then 7% - New Hampshire, Iowa, Virginia, New Mexico
between 7-8% - Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Colorado
more then 8% - Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Florida, Nevada

None of those %'s include under-employment which probably pushes them up another 10%. Nor do they include, teachers, and others that do not pay unemployment, therefore cannot collect it, nor does it include those that have just stopped looking.

There is a lot missing in those numbers, that hit people in the pocket book.

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Thank you for completely ignoring the point

You trying to tell me the top end of the Neocons aren't for a hawkish foreign policy? What about Corporate welfare, seems they have no problems the government giving Big Business the benefit of people's hard earned tax dollars so they can make billions. When I see Republicans complaining that Obama wants to take away 5B in Oil Drilling Subsidies to companies making 20B+ in a quarter, something is wrong. I understand giving subsidies to start up business looking to create new products, but once your company makes more revenue annually then the subsidies it's time to stop giving it to them

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by SV Fan

You trying to tell me the top end of the Neocons aren't for a hawkish foreign policy? What about Corporate welfare, seems they have no problems the government giving Big Business the benefit of people's hard earned tax dollars so they can make billions.

Big Business doesn't have a political ideology. They'll support anything as long as it makes them money. Take Toshiba for example, they worked with Communists because it made them money. Or IBM, which worked with the Nazis because it made them money. Concepts like political ideology, war or peace, or whatever don't matter to corporations. If there's a way to make money, they'll support anything.

Neoconservativism on the other hand, is a legitimate political ideology supported by lots of Republicans who have nothing to do with Big Business. Take my dad or one of my best college buddies for example. They genuinely in an absurdly excessive amount of defense spending to the point of deficit spending. They believe in a strong national defense. And a foreign policy which tries to prevent the rise of any threats or rivals to the supremacy of the United States. Why do you think that Ron Paul lost Iowa? Because most Republicans have adopted a neoconservative belief in regards to foreign policy.

This has nothing to do with Big Business and everything to do with actual political ideology that average regular people believe in.

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Big Business doesn't have a political ideology. They'll support anything as long as it makes them money. Take Toshiba for example, they worked with Communists because it made them money. Or IBM, which worked with the Nazis because it made them money.

Concepts like political ideology, war or peace, or whatever don't matter to corporations. If there's a way to make money, they'll support anything.

Don't get me wrong the Democrats are equally guilty for bending over to Big Business, but the top end of the neocon wing of the Republicans is litered with people who have Big Business' interest first and formost(ie weapon manufacturers, Big Oil, Drug Companies, etc). When you have people in top ends of government directly benefiting on choices the government makes, you have problems(see Cheney and Halliburton as an in your face example and all the contracts they came out with due to Iraq war).

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Why do you think that Ron Paul lost Iowa? Because most Republicans have adopted a neoconservative belief in regards to foreign policy.

It probably doesn't help that you have media on both sides saying how he isn't a legitimate candidate and people are a bunch of sheep. If Fox news gave Ron Paul an equal pro voice for instance instead of the constant negative one, his vote total would be higher.

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

This has nothing to do with Big Business and everything to do with actual political ideology that average regular people believe in

The whole US government system has everything to do with Big Business. Big Business controls the media and funnels in money to both political departments through lobbyists and large campaign contributions. While neo conservative may be a political idiology, the people at the top are bought and paid for by Big Business(if not part of that establishment themselves)

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by SV Fan

Don't get me wrong the Democrats are equally guilty for bending over to Big Business, but the top end of the neocon wing of the Republicans is litered with people who have Big Business' interest first and formost(ie weapon manufacturers, Big Oil, Drug Companies, etc). When you have people in top ends of government directly benefiting on choices the government makes, you have problems(see Cheney and Halliburton as an in your face example and all the contracts they came out with due to Iraq war).

But again, that has nothing to do with actual ideology and more along the lines of Big Business essentially doing anything for a buck.

It probably doesn't help that you have media on both sides saying how he isn't a legitimate candidate and people are a bunch of sheep. If Fox news gave Ron Paul an equal pro voice for instance instead of the constant negative one, his vote total would be higher.

It wasn't the media that stopped Ron Paul, it was his views on foreign policy that stopped him. A lot of people are intrigued by Paul, but take a lot of pause when he makes comments on Iran and the Middle East. I've often argued with my dad on this where I do take Paul's position, but he refuses to believe any of it instead following the neoconservative viewpoint. My college buddy is the exact same way. Lots of Republicans are neoconservatives in regards to foreign policy. It's not that they're sheep, but more along the lines that they genuinely believe in it.

The whole US government system has everything to do with Big Business. Big Business controls the media and funnels in money to both political departments through lobbyists and large campaign contributions. While neo conservative may be a political idiology, the people at the top are bought and paid for by Big Business(if not part of that establishment themselves)

People at the top of every political ideology are bought by Big Business. The point of business is to make money by any means necessary. It's an incredibly simplistic goal. Big Business will work with neoconservatives, progressives, fascists, evangelicals, socialists, moderates, etc. as long as it makes them money.

You can't just attack one political ideology for its ties to Big Business when everyone does it.

[8wid]

As much as I've been behind Ron Paul, does it bother anyone else about his stance on eliminating the Department of Education, Federal subsidized loans for college students and everything about public education in general? Wouldn't he also be against the idea of government subsidized education at all levels? No more public universities, public elementary, middle, and high schools? Say good bye to government subsidized daycare and preschools, workshops too because they are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution? Are states allowed to make rules that force children to attend public education against their will under it too? I guess we don't need park rangers, museums, historically protected sites,monuments, or other areas funded with government money because it's not in the Constitution either...

[wiegeabo]

Originally Posted by 8wid

As much as I've been behind Ron Paul, does it bother anyone else about his stance on eliminating the Department of Education, Federal subsidized loans for college students and everything about public education in general? Wouldn't he also be against the idea of government subsidized education at all levels? No more public universities, public elementary, middle, and high schools? Say good bye to government subsidized daycare and preschools, workshops too because they are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution? Are states allowed to make rules that force children to attend public education against their will under it too? I guess we don't need park rangers, museums, historically protected sites,monuments, or other areas funded with government money because it's not in the Constitution either...

Paul would rather the States handle doing that, and managing their own education systems, instead of the Federal government. Those are all in the Constitution, though, under the 10th Amendment. Powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved for the States and people. Which is why he wants the States to do it.

The Department of Education is doing a **** job. At the very least it needs a complete overhaul because it's just wasting the taxpayers dollars.

As for subsidized loans, those loans have helped to raise the price of colleges to the extreme level it's at now. It's virtually impossible to go to a decent college without a loan, which just makes the problem worse.

[enterthemadness]

Originally Posted by wiegeabo

Paul would rather the States handle doing that, and managing their own education systems, instead of the Federal government. Those are all in the Constitution, though, under the 10th Amendment. Powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved for the States and people. Which is why he wants the States to do it.

The Department of Education is doing a **** job. At the very least it needs a complete overhaul because it's just wasting the taxpayers dollars.

As for subsidized loans, those loans have helped to raise the price of colleges to the extreme level it's at now. It's virtually impossible to go to a decent college without a loan, which just makes the problem worse.

Agreed. +9001.

[moraldeficiency]

The problem with states only educational levels is without some basic standards tossed around all it'll take is one bad stretch of political maneuvering to screw up the education of 10s of thousands of kids. Also it allows educations to be bought and withheld at a level that would be staggering.

Say 70% of states improve education I'd say at least 30% would utterly fail on basic levels. 30% of kids getting substandard education, that's a big deal. Now run that train of thought would it be fair for states to deny government jobs to people from other states because this state made religious education a necessity or that state thought this state's science basics were useless? That may sound odd but education levels are legal job requirements so this is already in place.

Eliminating the Department of Education much as I hate the way it's run, would be disastrous to the extreme.