Options

Ron Paul, The Conspiracy '08

145791062

Posts

  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The problem is that Ron Paul is less known than the other candidates, and the people who haven't heard of Ron Paul are likely to be the ones who wouldn't be sympathetic to his ideology (Since if they were, they would have already heard of Ron Paul by now.). Which means that this number can only go up over time.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    imbalancedimbalanced Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Sami wrote: »
    Conservativism: We always knew it was a form of mental retardation, science backs us up. More at 11.

    Academics are biased liberally anyway

    Not even remotely true, and the people who usually say what you just said tend to be the people who didn't actually get into higher ed.

    Haha. I have already graduated from "higher ed" and let me tell you. I was the only "conservative" in my entire department, with the exception of one guy who was craaaaazy. Maybe it is different by geographical location, but Georgetown was in no way middle of the road.

    imbalanced on
    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Sami wrote: »
    Conservativism: We always knew it was a form of mental retardation, science backs us up. More at 11.

    Academics are biased liberally anyway

    Not even remotely true, and the people who usually say what you just said tend to be the people who didn't actually get into higher ed.

    Haha. I have already graduated from "higher ed" and let me tell you. I was the only "conservative" in my entire department, with the exception of one guy who was craaaaazy. Maybe it is different by geographical location, but Georgetown was in no way middle of the road.
    One school is an excellent sample size. Also, you are wrong, seeing as how I know a bunch of people who go to Georgetown who are conservative. And they aren't exactly the only ones.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Sami wrote: »
    Conservativism: We always knew it was a form of mental retardation, science backs us up. More at 11.

    Real life is biased liberally anyway

    I fixed that for you.

    Plutonium on
  • Options
    jotatejotate Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    My public school had a jazz band. We also went over jazz during history, and English (the jazz age, Great Gatsby, etc). We also had a music theory class for kids interested in music, which I didn't take.

    What else do you want?

    About half of the schools in my home district have cut all music programs because of lack of funds.

    jotate on
  • Options
    MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Sami wrote: »
    Conservativism: We always knew it was a form of mental retardation, science backs us up. More at 11.

    Real life is biased liberally anyway

    I fixed that for you.

    Yeah, there's a direct correlation between how far you go in school and how liberal you tend to be. One could interpret that as evidence that academia is a vast liberal echo chamber and brainwashing machine. I prefer to interpret it as evidence of the superiority of liberal views.

    MrMister on
  • Options
    imbalancedimbalanced Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    imbalanced wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Sami wrote: »
    Conservativism: We always knew it was a form of mental retardation, science backs us up. More at 11.

    Academics are biased liberally anyway

    Not even remotely true, and the people who usually say what you just said tend to be the people who didn't actually get into higher ed.

    Haha. I have already graduated from "higher ed" and let me tell you. I was the only "conservative" in my entire department, with the exception of one guy who was craaaaazy. Maybe it is different by geographical location, but Georgetown was in no way middle of the road.
    One school is an excellent sample size. Also, you are wrong, seeing as how I know a bunch of people who go to Georgetown who are conservative. And they aren't exactly the only ones.

    I never said my story was indicative of the vast majority of schools, just that the previous statement where people who think academics are liberal only say that because they didn't "get into higher ed" is patently false. That's almost the same argument as "people who watch Fox News are rednecks who falsely believe the press has a liberal bias."

    imbalanced on
    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • Options
    MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Well, there's a difference between academics being liberal and being liberally biased. Kind of like climatologists all believe in global warming, but not by virtue of insidious groupthink.

    MrMister on
  • Options
    poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Since claims of liberal or conservative bias are primarily rhetorical, you can use the amount which you hear the words as a pointer for how much rhetoric the opposite site is using.

    Or, in simpler terms, the fact that a lot of conservatives call CNN the Communist News Network means that a lot of conservatives are complete dicks.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Options
    RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    This may be the wrong thread for this, but I saw Gravel's name come up a couple times and dismissed as "crazy". What's wrong with him?

    He's pro-choice, pro stem cell research, pro universal health care, pro gay marriage, pro drug legalization, anti Iraq war, anti military action in Iran, anti Gitmo, anti Patriot Act, and one of the only Dems who is anti Mexico border fence.

    Not being defensive, but genuinely curious: what makes him crazy?

    I agree with him on most issues but he thinks the "Fair Tax" (having everything be sales tax) is a good idea. I'm not sure there's a serious idea out there that will screw the country harder.

    RandomEngy on
    Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    This may be the wrong thread for this, but I saw Gravel's name come up a couple times and dismissed as "crazy". What's wrong with him?

    He's pro-choice, pro stem cell research, pro universal health care, pro gay marriage, pro drug legalization, anti Iraq war, anti military action in Iran, anti Gitmo, anti Patriot Act, and one of the only Dems who is anti Mexico border fence.

    Not being defensive, but genuinely curious: what makes him crazy?

    I agree with him on most issues but he thinks the "Fair Tax" (having everything be sales tax) is a good idea. I'm not sure there's a serious idea out there that will screw the country harder.

    I think that's sufficiently out in left field that it would never get passed, though. Much like most of Paul's ideas.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    So, are you saying that Ron Paul's slogan should be:

    "Ron Paul: Too crazy to be able to get anything done!"

    shryke on
  • Options
    Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Daedalus wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    This may be the wrong thread for this, but I saw Gravel's name come up a couple times and dismissed as "crazy". What's wrong with him?

    He's pro-choice, pro stem cell research, pro universal health care, pro gay marriage, pro drug legalization, anti Iraq war, anti military action in Iran, anti Gitmo, anti Patriot Act, and one of the only Dems who is anti Mexico border fence.

    Not being defensive, but genuinely curious: what makes him crazy?

    I agree with him on most issues but he thinks the "Fair Tax" (having everything be sales tax) is a good idea. I'm not sure there's a serious idea out there that will screw the country harder.

    I think that's sufficiently out in left field that it would never get passed, though. Much like most of Paul's ideas.
    Well thats seems to be part of my problem with Ron Paul. People seem to love him personaly, but think his ideas are wacked. (and many of them are IMO). I mean you don't have to agree with all of a candidate's ideas, but when you are constantly are saying: That would never pass, or he wouldn't get support to do that. Are you not really saying he is so far out of it, that he is not a good candidate?

    A candidate is suposed to represent all the people and govern according to their intrests.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • Options
    jotatejotate Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    shryke wrote: »
    So, are you saying that Ron Paul's slogan should be:

    "Ron Paul: Too crazy to be able to get anything done!"

    Or we could avoid labeling the leaders of our country with blanket slogans.

    Or not.

    jotate on
  • Options
    PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    shryke wrote: »
    So, are you saying that Ron Paul's slogan should be:

    "Ron Paul: Too crazy to be able to get anything done!"

    I find it a testament to how fucked up the Bush presidency is, that "I promise not to do anything at all" is actually seen as a positive in the public's eyes.

    Plutonium on
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jotate wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    So, are you saying that Ron Paul's slogan should be:

    "Ron Paul: Too crazy to be able to get anything done!"

    Or we could avoid labeling the leaders of our country with blanket slogans.

    Or not.

    Why not in this case? Ron Paul's defender blow off any criticism of his crazy ass plans by saying "Yeah, but he'll never get it passed anyway, so don't worry about it". It seems like the perfect description.

    shryke on
  • Options
    jotatejotate Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    shryke wrote: »
    jotate wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    So, are you saying that Ron Paul's slogan should be:

    "Ron Paul: Too crazy to be able to get anything done!"

    Or we could avoid labeling the leaders of our country with blanket slogans.

    Or not.

    Why not in this case? Ron Paul's defender blow off any criticism of his crazy ass plans by saying "Yeah, but he'll never get it passed anyway, so don't worry about it". It seems like the perfect description.

    Because Ron Paul offenders blow off most of his good ideas with "He can say that because he doesn't have to worry about actually being elected."

    jotate on
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jotate wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    jotate wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    So, are you saying that Ron Paul's slogan should be:

    "Ron Paul: Too crazy to be able to get anything done!"

    Or we could avoid labeling the leaders of our country with blanket slogans.

    Or not.

    Why not in this case? Ron Paul's defender blow off any criticism of his crazy ass plans by saying "Yeah, but he'll never get it passed anyway, so don't worry about it". It seems like the perfect description.

    Because Ron Paul offenders blow off most of his good ideas with "He can say that because he doesn't have to worry about actually being elected."

    Um, what? How is this a response?

    shryke on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jotate wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    jotate wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    So, are you saying that Ron Paul's slogan should be:

    "Ron Paul: Too crazy to be able to get anything done!"

    Or we could avoid labeling the leaders of our country with blanket slogans.

    Or not.

    Why not in this case? Ron Paul's defender blow off any criticism of his crazy ass plans by saying "Yeah, but he'll never get it passed anyway, so don't worry about it". It seems like the perfect description.

    Because Ron Paul offenders blow off most of his good ideas with "He can say that because he doesn't have to worry about actually being elected."
    In this case, everyone's right!

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    This may be the wrong thread for this, but I saw Gravel's name come up a couple times and dismissed as "crazy". What's wrong with him?

    He's pro-choice, pro stem cell research, pro universal health care, pro gay marriage, pro drug legalization, anti Iraq war, anti military action in Iran, anti Gitmo, anti Patriot Act, and one of the only Dems who is anti Mexico border fence.

    Not being defensive, but genuinely curious: what makes him crazy?

    I agree with him on most issues but he thinks the "Fair Tax" (having everything be sales tax) is a good idea. I'm not sure there's a serious idea out there that will screw the country harder.

    I think that's sufficiently out in left field that it would never get passed, though. Much like most of Paul's ideas.
    Well thats seems to be part of my problem with Ron Paul. People seem to love him personaly, but think his ideas are wacked. (and many of them are IMO). I mean you don't have to agree with all of a candidate's ideas, but when you are constantly are saying: That would never pass, or he wouldn't get support to do that. Are you not really saying he is so far out of it, that he is not a good candidate?

    A candidate is suposed to represent all the people and govern according to their intrests.

    Because it's really nice to see a candidate that isn't soulless, poll-driven, and fake, and that will invariably mean he's a bit nutty.

    Just in this case it's a good deal more than "a bit".

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    shryke wrote: »
    So, are you saying that Ron Paul's slogan should be:

    "Ron Paul: Too crazy to be able to get anything done!"

    Oddly enough, many Rondroids actually do use that argument while defending him.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    If he happened to get the Republican nod in the primaries how many of you would vote for Paul against some of the Democratic front runners?

    Organichu on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    If he happened to get the Republican nod in the primaries how many of you would vote for Paul against some of the Democratic front runners?

    Well, he might have a fighting chance if he ran against William Jefferson. But I don't think that Jefferson will get the nod.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    If he happened to get the Republican nod in the primaries how many of you would vote for Paul against some of the Democratic front runners?

    Well, he might have a fighting chance if he ran against William Jefferson. But I don't think that Jefferson will get the nod.

    Yeah, I don't see the Democrats electing a slave-banging, Hitler-loving queer like Jefferson.

    shryke on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    So people here would rather have Hillary then Paul?

    (can't tell how much you guys are joking. ;D)

    Organichu on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    So people here would rather have Hillary then Paul?

    (can't tell how much you guys are joking. ;D)

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    So people here would rather have Hillary then Paul?

    (can't tell how much you guys are joking. ;D)

    I'd rather have Obama. But if it were between those two then Hillary, easily.

    moniker on
  • Options
    flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Clinton and Obama aren't really that different on the issues.

    flamebroiledchicken on
    y59kydgzuja4.png
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    So people here would rather have Hillary then Paul?

    (can't tell how much you guys are joking. ;D)

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

    But I'm asking about you guys specifically.:?:

    Organichu on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Clinton and Obama aren't really that different on the issues.

    There is a great deal more to a person than where they stand on policy.... Even if you were to ignore everything else and just focus on the wonkishness I'd still prefer Obama due to my pet issues and Hillary's 'agnosticism' towards nuclear power.

    moniker on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    So people here would rather have Hillary then Paul?

    (can't tell how much you guys are joking. ;D)

    I'd rather have Obama. But if it were between those two then Hillary, easily.

    I dunno, Barack doesn't horrify me like Hillary but there's definitely some stuff I don't like about him.

    I'm still pretty undecided on my vote.

    Organichu on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    My only real problem with Obama right now is his pledge for supporting ethanol. Plants only convert 0.5% of solar energy, plus the fact that they required additional resources for maitanence and extraction. Or to put it another way:

    bethanol.gif

    http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=22

    "If you want to use plants most effectively as an energy source for transportation, the best way is to burn them whole (no processing needed!) in a combined cycle biomass electric generator at 60% efficiency and use the output to charge electric vehicles. That requires no technology breakthroughs, uses the full energy content of the plant, and is far more efficient than refining a small part of the plant or even most of the plant, using cellulosic technology, into ethanol to power the 20% efficient internal combustion engines of cars."

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    Dance CommanderDance Commander Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Corn based ethanol is a huge loser in terms of CO2 production. First, it has less energy than normal gasoline, so although the fuel is cleaner by the gallon, you'll get worse mileage. Secondly, getting the ethanol into a usable form requires a lot of energy in itself, and the grid energy in this country is hardly clean. Ultimately, it actually ends up being worse for the environment to burn ethanol mixtures in your car, even though it does make your car slightly cleaner.

    There are other biofuel solutions out there that work a lot better, but unfortunately they don't amount to subsidies for corn farmers so politicians won't push them.

    err.. I missed that quote. All of that stuff too, presumably.

    Dance Commander on
  • Options
    flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    There was a pretty great article in the last issue of Wired about different groups trying to make cellulosic ethanol more efficient. I could totally get behind that.

    flamebroiledchicken on
    y59kydgzuja4.png
  • Options
    TalousTalous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Anyone who is blowing Ron Paul off as a 'crazy' obviously has not listened to his policies and the reasoning behind them.

    If you have no problem being the intellectual equivalent of Bill O'Reilly, I suppose that's your choice. I feel that as soon as you start getting bat-shit insane mixed up with principled and consistent it's time that you do some research. Or when you're a democrat and you identify more with last night's Fox News paid Florida audience... maybe it's time to take a look at your beliefs and critically examine why it is you hold them.

    Talous on
    Glampgrotz - Black Orc - Ulthuan TSM
    SS13 Rules Post
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Talous wrote: »
    Anyone who is blowing Ron Paul off as a 'crazy' obviously has not listened to his policies and the reasoning behind them.

    If you have no problem being the intellectual equivalent of Bill O'Reilly, I suppose that's your choice. I feel that as soon as you start getting bat-shit insane mixed up with principled and consistent it's time that you do some research. Or when you're a democrat and you identify more with last night's Fox News paid Florida audience... maybe it's time to take a look at your beliefs and critically examine why it is you hold them.

    There is no amount of reasoning that will make the gold standard "not crazy".

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Does he advocate the "Fair Tax"?

    shryke on
  • Options
    TalousTalous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Verdancy wrote: »
    I'm sorry but private industry IS cleary more efficient than the government. Sit through a year of lowest bidder contracts, and state authorized vendors, and red tape in getting anything useful done and you'd understand. This is especially true in the field of education where everyone's children are being taught mostly by people that couldn't do anything else with their lives and wanted the awesome schedule and summers off. Working in a public school system coming from a private school education is quite a shock.

    Cite sources or get out. Your anecdotes are worthless, and that you take them as indicative of some greater social trend speaks only of your own ignorance. There are numerous instances of privatisation dragging down efficiency and safety standards.

    How about the Walter Reed Veteran hospital?

    Also I think some people here don't realize that the Department of Education was founded in 1980. I think we know how that turned out. The quality of education has gone up and we now have the smartest and brightest students in all the world! All we needed to do was pour money into this bureaucracy.

    One thing that didn't need to be privatized was our money printing system. Now our currency (one dollar) is worth 4 cents compared to it's worth when they established the Federal Reserve in 1913.

    Here are some Republicans talking about the Fair Tax:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=CW4fa6Z_4Po

    Talous on
    Glampgrotz - Black Orc - Ulthuan TSM
    SS13 Rules Post
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Talous wrote: »
    How about the Walter Reed Veteran hospital?

    Walter Reed was outsourced to a private firm, as was addressed, I seem to recall, in this very thread.

    But you're not interested in actual reading, are you? You just wanted to show up and get your big blubbery man-cry on.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Sugar based ethanol is quite a bit better in terms of energy than corn based, but thanks to our friends in Iowa and the corn lobby we have hefty tariffs on sugar and subsidies on corn preventing us from using that. (Remark about early primary in Iowa being crooked goes here). People always talk about cellulosic ethanol in terms of efficiency, but my impression is that the technology and infrastructure for it isn't quite there yet. Cellulose is mostly a structural part of plants and is much more abundant that the sugars used for other ethanols, but as a result processing ethanol out of it is a lot more complicated.

    Photovoltaic solar power tends to be a bit overblown in terms of it's usefulness. It has a very large problem that will prevent it from taking over as a large part of power generation: it has random output depending upon weather, which goes to zero at night. To avoid the risk of cloudy skies causing brownouts during peak times, you would still need to be sitting on a lot of backup generation. Solar is still useful because it is positively correlated with peak consumption (where wholesale energy prices skyrocket relative to off-peak), but solar thermal is probably a better option for a power plant.

    Obama's support of nuclear shows (to me at least) that he has a more sophisticated and less public opinion driven energy outlook than the other dems, as do some of his other positions (not necessarily ethanol). Clinton being "agnostic" on nuclear just further cements my negative opinion on her calculative nature. Energy policy, among other things, is something you don't want to deal with by putting your finger into the wind.

    ...and on topic, has Paul said anything about energy?

    Savant on
This discussion has been closed.