stof said: Reagan's "Tricke-down effect" was just as asinine and offensive on paper as it was in real life. Anyways. Here's a quick question for the Ron Paul fans out there. If he were out of the running, who would your second choice be? I think we can all agree that there really aren't any other candidates out there quite like him.

 The point was more or less that there was a method (albeit a crazy one) behind the madness. Agreed. Ron Paul is certainly one of a kind in this presidential race.

Ron Paul takes campaign donations from Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists.

Final-Fan said: Republicans haven't been true fiscal conservatives since before I've been alive. Whatever complaints you have about "tax and spend", surely you agree it's better than "don't tax but spend anyway"? That shit just comes back to bite you in the ass -- look at the percentage of federal spending devoted purely to paying off interest on the debt.

It does seem to ebb and flow doesn't it?  Goldwater kicked off the conservative resurgence in the 60's, but I don't think it got any real traction in the Republican party until the 80's under Reagan.  There were some truly strong and principled voices against government growth.  But it's one thing to do it as an opposition party, and entirely another thing do it as the majority party.  Again, the Republicans did well in the 90's on this front, but they got comfortable and fat and threw away that fiscal restraint in the oughties.  If the party ever wants to regain the mantle of "fiscal conservatives" again, it will need to work hard to prove it.  I hope they give it all they got, otherwise I see very little difference between the parties on this issue.

As far as "tax and spend" verus "don't tax but spend anyway"?  I choose neither.  Eliminate the spending and the other half of the equation is moot.  But If you had to choose the lesser of two evils, being in a debtor position could be some impediment to government growth.  For your little scenario, I'm  guessing you want to assume that spending will always be the same regardless of whether we tax too little or too much.  I don't buy it.

Deguello said: Ron Paul takes campaign donations from Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists.

 First of all, it was ONE White Supremacist.  Not plural.  Secondly, I would much rather Ron Paul have his money than him.  At least Ron Paul will put it to good use.  Just because you take money from people, doesnt mean you support what they do.  Im sure if a racist handed you $500 you would do the same thing. 

 

"Just because you take money from people, doesnt mean you support what they do."

Hell I think we can end 80% of political discussion if this argument axiom were followed. Nobody would ever say the corporations or the unions or special interest groups are getting their way when the candidates they support get elected.

By the way, the correct number of donations from White Supremacists is Zero, not One. If he fields a debate question like that he's dead meat.

And as for your assertion (without evidence, mind ya) of my acceptance of moneys from racists... would this be a gift of $500 from him to me with no strings attached? Or would I have to run for office and enact legislation in order to build a Jim Crow Utopia for him? Because I might think a bit before turning him down in the former.

Look, you can't just say stuff that's completely false if you want to remain credible. The only fiscal responsibility practiced in the '90s was done by the Democrats. Their Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 was instrumental to balancing the budget. They rammed it down the throats of Republicans, every last one of whom voted against the bill in stunning solidarity in both the House and Senate.

I agree that spending is a problem -- a big problem -- but cutting taxes never causes a commensurate reduction in spending. Look at the past seven years. And the Reagan years. Can you name even one era of American history in which cutting taxes led directly (in a cause-effect relationship) to a subsequent decrease in spending?

[P.S. "For your little scenario, I'm guessing you want to assume that spending will always be the same regardless of whether we tax too little or too much. I don't buy it."

[I guess what I'm trying to get across is that for decades now spending has been independent of tax revenue. I don't need to assume -- it's right there in the history books in the Current Events section. That being the case, I would rather not continue to send the country massively into debt.]

I have no knowledge of the racist money thing, but for me the real question would be: why does a racist want to give Ron Paul's campaign money? What would the racist like to see in a President that he sees in Ron Paul?

N-Syte said: @ damikira The US was right to be “bellicose toward Iran”. You may not have noticed, but Iran has been quite bellicose itself in recent years. A good portion of the Middle East was concerned about the Iranian threat, not just the West. Egypt and Saudi Arabia seriously discussed starting their own nuclear program as a counter to Iran. Why did the Europeans invest so much time and energy in talks with Iran if it was obvious they were not a threat? As suspicious as you are about intelligence gathering, it’s ironic to see how quickly you grasp on to intelligence suggesting they have dismantled the whole thing. Believe all positive news, but disregard anything negative? If you want to throw people behind bars for making decisions based on bad information, it’s your prerogative. To me it comes across as hysterics with very little grounded in reality. When I talked about regional arms races, the sole concern was not whether it would lead to a proliferation of long-ranged missiles, but rather to an increased number of “hot spots” across the planet. Do we really need more India-Pakistan nuclear stand-offs. Arms races invariably lead to such confrontations. If this still seems irrelevant to you, keep in mind global wars have been started over small conflicts in otherwise insignificant parts of the world. Besides, in this day and age, as easily as technology can be exported from one part of the globe to another, the only real resources limiting a country’s ability to build a dangerous arsenal is cash and connections. You scoff at the North Koreans, but they did aid Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions and stretched there arm to Syria and Iran. It would be nice if the only options in Pakistan were not a dictatorship versus a fanatical theocracy, but that’s the hand that has been dealt. Who do you align yourself with? The side cooperating in routing terrorist cells or the side sympathetic to their ambitions? My questioning the motivation of those who supposedly gave up their weapons programs is not tangential. I presume you welcome the outcome. What if it were a result of that bellicose rhetoric you abhor (bring on the cowboy analogies)? Seems funny that during the reign of this diabolical administration and its republican henchmen, we witnessed Lybia fall back in line, the Syrians leave Lebanon (notwithstanding the meddling of their Hezbollah proxies), Iran and North Korea supposedly giving up their nuclear ambitions, and Iraqis (Sunnis, Shi’ites and Kurds) helping US forces route local Al Queda. Sure it’s still a mess and the whole thing could backfire, but for you to just dismiss those achievements is disingenuous. It’s hardly a well thought position if your assumption is: everything bad is due to Bush incompetence/deceit while everything good is luck of the draw or would have happen anyway.

Sorry for the late reply, I've been at work all day.

No, the US wasn't right to threaten Iran. I don't understand why these things are ok for the US, yet unacceptable for other countries, We are not the police of the world and Iran did not threaten us. By "a good portion of the middle east" did you mean Israel? Has the US not done enough for Israel? It has been a country for sixty years now and should be able to handle its own affairs. Yes, Ahmenijad's various remarks about Israel and Jewish people have been despicable.. however, we have too many domestic problems in this country to send them yet more weapons and foreign aid -- and it would be very wrong to ask our military to fight a war around the world against ANOTHER country which did not threaten the US.

As far as my grasping on intelligence failures that support my opinions, Yes -- I would give more credence to the intelligence suggesting Iran has dismantled is program because of the simple fact that Bush, a man who has been unwilling -- to the point of absurdity -- to admit mistakes in the past said his -- very public -- positions on Iran were wrong.. making himself look more like a bloodthirsty despot than he already does it in the eyes of the world. Yes, I would like to see people who invade another country and killed hundreds of thousands of its citizens arrested. If I heard you had guns in your house and I came over there to assault you, I think you would want me arrested, too.

My point earlier was that these countries: North Korea, Iran and Libya.. do not have the resources for large scale long-range nuclear missiles and, as for your comment on "hot spots," the concept of mutually assured destruction has worked well in the past and there's no reason to believe it won't work in the future. Yes, there are theological zealots who might not mind this, such as al-qaida.., but even somewhat irrational governments like Iran, N Korea and Libya would not attempt this toward any nation -- even Israel (which DOES have nuclear weapons, thanks to the US.) North Korea did not actually sell Iran or Syria nuclear material, but missiles which may be capable of holding it, but we can also find information everywhere that shows the US, UK and Russia sell weapons to countries all the time, and I'm sure you are aware of how faulty North Korean missiles are..

I don't think either the military dictatorship or the islamic fundamentalists are good for Pakistan. Saying that Musharraf (or the current government) has been good for his country or ours would be to completely ignore a lot of things he's done...

In closing, al-Zarqawi's organization was NOT called al-Qaida In Iraq until after the invasion. Listen closely to anything bin Laden or Al-Zawahiri says -- the message is ALWAYS the same. The US seeks to take over Muslim lands, steal the oil and re-create The Crusades. The invasion has made his rhetoric plausible to a HUGE number of people in the Muslim world who would not otherwise take up arms against us. You might say that we are fighting terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here and you might also bring up that there hasn't been an al-Qaida attack since 9/11 -- but the only one before that was the 1993 attack on WTC.

The invasion of Iraq has been a dismal failure. It has cost so many lives, so many billions of dollars and caused nearly irreparable damage to US reputation and standing in the world.. and for what? some obtuse ideological goals? I don't see how any reasonable person could say it was worth it. This will be a black eye for the US for generations to come and for Iraq -- even longer.

 

 

stof said: Reagan's "Tricke-down effect" was just as asinine and offensive on paper as it was in real life. Anyways. Here's a quick question for the Ron Paul fans out there. If he were out of the running, who would your second choice be? I think we can all agree that there really aren't any other candidates out there quite like him.

"Trickle down" is a politically charged word meant to end any debate on the issue.  Why would any one want a system the just trickles down benefits on the unwashed masses?  Let it be a deluge by redistribution of wealth through confiscatory taxation!  Class warfare types throw the term around a lot, but usually do not have a firm grasp of the economic theory they are talking about.  Burdensome taxation on private enterprise to fund entitlement programs helps no one in the long run (except maybe politicians who enjoy buying votes with public dollars).  It is capital investment, not government bureaucracy that creates new sources of innovation and productivity.  And it is that which will drive economic growth and benefit society at large.

 

Deguello said: "Just because you take money from people, doesnt mean you support what they do." Hell I think we can end 80% of political discussion if this argument axiom were followed. Nobody would ever say the corporations or the unions or special interest groups are getting their way when the candidates they support get elected. By the way, the correct number of donations from White Supremacists is Zero, not One. If he fields a debate question like that he's dead meat. And as for your assertion (without evidence, mind ya) of my acceptance of moneys from racists... would this be a gift of $500 from him to me with no strings attached? Or would I have to run for office and enact legislation in order to build a Jim Crow Utopia for him? Because I might think a bit before turning him down in the former.

 There is a huge difference between a guy that has NO power at all giving $500 and a corporate company giving thousands of dollars to a campaign or administration.  That can actually make a difference.  And its just $500 in the context that Ron Paul received it in.  I don't see how it is wrong at all.  And with much bigger issues to report, Ron Paul getting $500 from a racist is extremely unimportant.  The news reports what they want to report.  Whos to say other racists dont give money to candidates?  There are a lot out there.  Do you think they don't donate? Vote?  Who cares.