ron paul=awesome/kickass?

[Nickdfresh]

Then why is China turning into a superpower because of market reforms and deregulation? I'm not saying that their market is completely free by any means, but it just goes to show that deregulation has great economic impact and impact on well being. A lot of these people have went from peasant farmers to middle class in one generation. Markets work. Free markets, more so.

I'm not saying that markets are free from personal responsibility, but what happens if a government controlled industry fails? A lot of people are out of work. What happens in an industry that is deregulated with lots of competition? One company is out of business while there's many more hanging around. A free market is actually overall safer from collapse and more stable.

Um, China might not be the greatest example of libertarian virtue. And many of their economic policies, which include heavily subsidized relocation deals for multinational corp's by the central gov't, are Keynesian "mixed" economics on steroids and growth hormones. Not too mention the fascist, corrupt whores in their central gov't which isn't getting smaller...

[LoungeMachine]

Iowans can't get an election right at all, no matter which party.

See 2004

Umm, that was Ohio....

[LoungeMachine]

I wouldn't vote if I was dead...

Thank God...

One less inbred swamp vote to count......

[Combat Ready]

Um, China might not be the greatest example of libertarian virtue.

Yep, exactly right Nick. Good intentions, bad example.

[FORD]

Umm, that was Ohio....

No, Iowa fucked up worse, by picking the shitty candidate who made Ohio so easy for Chimpy and Rove to steal

[Nitro Express]

Um, China might not be the greatest example of libertarian virtue. And many of their economic policies, which include heavily subsidized relocation deals for multinational corp's by the central gov't, are Keynesian "mixed" economics on steroids and growth hormones. Not too mention the fascist, corrupt whores in their central gov't which isn't getting smaller...

China knew communism was a failure so they wanted the modernization that capitalism brings but with the control communism has. At the end of the day the government has all the guns so to speak. They might act nice and say, go to it and build your business but what's to keep them from taking it from you after you have built it up?

We can blame governments but frankly I think a lot of the problems stem from the people themselves. It just amazes me that people bank with banks who treat them like crap and charge fees to keep your money in their bank when there are other alternatives like credit unions and locally ran banks. It amazes me that anyone shops at Wall-Mart. Frankly, you are going to get the kind of government and commerce that you enable. All I know is the con artists are having a heyday because the public are so stupid.

[Pink Spider]

Um, China might not be the greatest example of libertarian virtue. And many of their economic policies, which include heavily subsidized relocation deals for multinational corp's by the central gov't, are Keynesian "mixed" economics on steroids and growth hormones. Not too mention the fascist, corrupt whores in their central gov't which isn't getting smaller...

I was really, really tired when I wrote that. I'm surprised that it was semi-coherent.

I didn't mean to imply that China is a good example of libertarianism. At all. I only meant to use China as an example for what happens when you go from an totally regulated economy to even a mixed market economy. When looking back, is probably not even part of the discussion. The second part didn't make sense an hour later either.
Lesson learned. Never go into economic rants at 4am.

[Dr. Love]

OMG YOU GUYS!! RON PAUL WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT!

:p

Romney's lead dips despite wins: Poll
by patricia zengerle
washington | tue feb 7, 2012 5:58pm est
(reuters) - despite his strong showing in early state contests in the race for the republican u.s. Presidential nomination, mitt romney's support nationwide has dipped slightly during the past month, according to a reuters/ipsos poll released on tuesday.

Romney was backed by 29 percent of republican voters in the telephone poll conducted february 2-6, down from 30 percent in a survey in early january, although the change was within the poll's margin of error.

The results suggest romney - despite his vast advantages in organization, fundraising and momentum after victories in new hampshire, florida and nevada - still has many doubters among republicans nationwide.

"he still hasn't really convinced all the republicans across the country that he's the guy to get behind," said chris jackson, research director for ipsos public affairs.

The former massachusetts governor's three rivals in the race to oppose democratic president barack obama in the november 6 u.s. Election were in a virtual tie for second, the poll showed. The gaps between the three were within the poll's margin of error.

support for ron paul, a u.s. Congressman from texas, grew by 5 percentage points to 21 percent. That moved him into second place and ahead of former house of representatives speaker newt gingrich, whose support slipped to 19 percent from 20 percent.

support for rick santorum, a former u.s. Senator from pennsylvania, rose by 5 percentage points to reach 18 percent, putting him just behind gingrich, according to the poll.

Republican strategist doug heye said romney's nationwide poll numbers were being held down partly because he is the front-runner in the republican race, making him a target for his rivals.

"the other candidates are all piling on romney," heye said, "and that's going to have an effect."

the reuters/ipsos poll also showed obama's approval rating ticking upward during the past month, a period in which favorable reports on the economy seem to have given his re-election effort some momentum.

Obama's approval rating in the new poll was 48 percent, up from 47 percent in january. His disapproval rating was higher, though: 49 percent, unchanged from last month.

"american popular opinion is not really changing abruptly," jackson said. "obama's in a good position, but ... This race could become much more competitive very fast if the economic news does not continue to be positive."

the u.s. Unemployment rate in january was 8.3 percent, down from 8.5 percent in december. A jobs report last friday was unexpectedly strong, and appeared to boost claims by obama and his re-election campaign that the economy, although still shaky, was continuing to recover.

The poll offered some encouraging signs for obama.

In a survey of registered voters, obama led romney, 48 percent to 42 percent, in a head-to-head match-up, a slightly larger margin than last month.

With gingrich as the opponent, obama led 50 percent to 38 percent - down slightly from the 52 percent to 38 percent advantage obama had in the january poll.

Is romney conservative enough?

In the republican race, many conservatives have worried that romney is not sufficiently conservative to be the republican nominee to face obama.

Gingrich, santorum and paul both have tried to stake a claim as the conservative alternative to romney.

Gingrich and santorum both have had shining moments during the state-by-state race for the republican nomination. Paul, known for his libertarian views, has shown the ability to consistently attract a core of loyal supporters.

Santorum won the iowa caucuses on january 3 by a razor-thin margin over romney, and gingrich shocked romney with a 12 percentage point victory in south carolina on january 21.

For the most part, however, the campaign has been dominated by romney - and punctuated by attacks on gingrich's character by romney's campaign and an independent "super pac" that supports the former massachusetts governor.

Romney has a strong organization and is maintaining a lead that is likely to build over time, heye said, boosted in part by the gingrich and santorum campaigns' lack of a broad organization.

Neither gingrich nor santorum submitted enough voter signatures to get on the march 6 primary ballot in the key state of virginia, for example.

"people tend to forget that," heye said.

Paul has not come close to winning any of the first five states to vote in the republican nomination process, and has stumbled to fourth-place finishes in the hotly contested contests in south carolina and florida.

But paul's campaign has built a following among those who support his calls for dramatically lower taxes, a $1 trillion cut in the u.s. Budget and much less u.s. Military involvement overseas.

"this poll further illustrates that ron paul is emerging as the real conservative alternative to mitt romney," paul spokesman jesse benton said in a statement.

The reuters/ipsos telephone poll of 1,033 adults included 881 registered voters, of whom 503 were democrats, 405 republicans and 125 independents.

The margin of error was plus or minus 3.1 percentage points for all respondents; 3.3 points for registered voters; 4.4 points for democrats; 4.9 points for republicans; and 9.6 points for independents.

[knuckleboner]

The feeling I get is that a lot of people equate libertarianism with anarchism, which is simply not true. There are basic things for a society to function like roads, police, courts and military. It's just how much government we need is where we disagree.

true. i'm a big fan of libertarianism, generally.

but, i think ron paul's impression of how much government is far less than most.

[knuckleboner]

Not saying I disagree entirely, but I'll pose this question:

How did the nation get by for over a hundred and some odd years without them?

just because the nation, as a whole, could get by, didn't mean that it was the right thing to do. prior to social security, almost half of all seniors lived below the poverty line. would the country have survived without it? yep. but i think we're better off for it.

[Nickdfresh]

Firstly, on all the political spectrum tests, I tend to come up as a left wing libertarian (meaning I'm more focused on civil liberties and political rights than economic ones)...

But if we're using China as an example of how freeing up markets in a pluralistic, "mixed-but-capitalist/semi-socialist (in the case of the Chinese)" economy can be a net positive, then we need to look at the economic nightmare of instantly deregulating everything and the trauma of oligarchs and the vast majority living in abject poverty that happened in Russia after the break-up of the Soviet Union. That was sort of true economic face of libertarianism...

[Nitro Express]

It still boils down to the quality of your citizens. There's an old saying what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. I have some friends who got through the fall of the Soviet Union. They had to grow their own food and they helped each other. They actually started a barter bank where they traded skills with each other and it worked very well. Then when better times come in these people thrive.

I think JFK had it right when he said don't ask what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country. We have been conditioned to expect the government to do everything for us. People don't take the initiative and just sit around for some government program to help them. Honestly, who would you rather hire, the go getters or the people who expect others to fix their problems? It's a no brainer knowing which group will thrive.

Sure we need a certain amount of government but from what I see, the government is doing a real lousy job. I really don't see much success there at all. It's become a big feeding trough and in fact, some what used to be great companies have gotten lazy and complacent as well feeding from the trough. It's easier to buy influence in Washington and have government money cover your loses or supply business that it is to compete for it in the worldwide market place.

At the end of the day failure is failure and winning is winning. I just laugh when people say we are saddling our kids with debt. Well if that actually is going to be the reality the smart kids are going to leave and then you have a country full of domesticated lazy people in a pool of debt. Not much of an asset there.

[Pink Spider]

Firstly, on all the political spectrum tests, I tend to come up as a left wing libertarian (meaning I'm more focused on civil liberties and political rights than economic ones)...

But if we're using China as an example of how freeing up markets in a pluralistic, "mixed-but-capitalist/semi-socialist (in the case of the Chinese)" economy can be a net positive, then we need to look at the economic nightmare of instantly deregulating everything and the trauma of oligarchs and the vast majority living in abject poverty that happened in Russia after the break-up of the Soviet Union. That was sort of true economic face of libertarianism...

Under the USSR everything was technically government property, including the people. Everyone was in a bread line like that under Soviet rule. If you can say that is the true face of libertarianism, I can say that 1,000 people standing in line for food is the true face of socialism. Our lines are shorter.

It also takes a while to adjust to a new economic system. A lot of those problems were caused by the Russian government still being corrupt, failing to adjust itself to a market system, paying off Soviet debts, making new debts and the first Chechen War. I would not call what they had "libertarianism". I doubt such a concept existed there.

Even under not so nice Putin, the tax rate actually went down and the GDP has went up over the past 10 years or so... Of course when you get into big business, it's mostly crony state capitalism. Unlike here, at least they're honest about it.

A more relevant example would be Germany. East Germany being absorbed into a capitalist (OK, capitalist friendly) system had less trouble adapting than Russia because at least part of the government and people knew what markets even looked like. Giving a quick look to Wikipedia - the per capita income for East Germany in 1984 in 2008 dollars was $21,000 in compared to the current per capita income of Germany being $44,729. A very big difference.

[Nitro Express]

While it's true that these allegations about Ron Paul have been out there for years, it's probably the Newt camp that's pushing this right now, out of desperation. Newt's been bashing him in just about every way possible on FAUX and anywhere else somebody sticks a camera in his face.

I wonder when Newt will accuse Romney of the same thing, basing it on the long standing Mormon doctrine that black folks are descendants of the 1/3 of the angels who were too lazy to fight Satan?

Actually Mormon Doctrine at least when I was a kid taught dark skin was a curse. The Africans were black because they were descendants of Cain. The native Americans were dark skinned because they were descendants of Laman who in the Book of Mormon was the bad guy. What's funny is suddenly the Mormon prophet had a revelation to allow people of color the priesthood after the BYU sports teams were getting protested on the road due to the church's prejudice against dark skinned people. Then if you go to Temple Square in Salt Lake City they always have some black missionaries there. They seem to like to have cute females. They also seem to like to have dark skinned missionaries in areas where they have a high Mormon population. It's all to create the illusion it's an international church now so the dolts think it's carrying forth the gosphel so they continue to give their money to the mormon god. Lately the new Mormon fad is to adopt a black kid from Haiti. So in the future lots of white geeky Mormon families are going to have at least one black kid. I notice they are phasing out Brigham Young and reinventing Joseph Smith now. Most of the old prejudice teachings were actually taught by Brigham Young. It's interesting how the unchanging gosphel of God constantly changes with the times to survive.

[Nitro Express]

Under the USSR everything was technically government property, including the people. Everyone was in a bread line like that under Soviet rule. If you can say that is the true face of libertarianism, I can say that 1,000 people standing in line for food is the true face of socialism. Our lines are shorter.

It also takes a while to adjust to a new economic system. A lot of those problems were caused by the Russian government still being corrupt, failing to adjust itself to a market system, paying off Soviet debts, making new debts and the first Chechen War. I would not call what they had "libertarianism". I doubt such a concept existed there.

Even under not so nice Putin, the tax rate actually went down and the GDP has went up over the past 10 years or so... Of course when you get into big business, it's mostly crony state capitalism. Unlike here, at least they're honest about it.

A more relevant example would be Germany. East Germany being absorbed into a capitalist (OK, capitalist friendly) system had less trouble adapting than Russia because at least part of the government and people knew what markets even looked like. Giving a quick look to Wikipedia - the per capita income for East Germany in 1984 in 2008 dollars was $21,000 in compared to the current per capita income of Germany being $44,729. A very big difference.

I went to the USSR in 1978 with my uncle who was a Russian history professor. Most Americans have never been inside a communist country. Let me tell you what buying something was like there and that is if you found something worth buying. First you had to get permission to buy the item. Then you had to have your money approved. Then you had to get permission to move the item. Then you had to get permission to get permission to exchange money for it. You basically wasted a whole day standing in various lines dealing with a bunch of nonsense. Of course all the nonsense created jobs. When your system sucks and you really don't have a real economy, you have to create dumb things for people to do to keep them busy. Also, you ate whatever came in. There was no going to a grocery store full of food. Sometimes nothing would come in for days and then it's all potatoes. So you eat mashed potatoes and if you are lucky enough to have soup you have to spent all day with it in the community kitchen or someone will steal your soup.

And those were the good things about the system.

The good thing about the potatoes was you could mash them, ferment them, make a still out of a pressure cooker. You knew you had good proof when you could pour some of the still juice on the seat of a chair and light it on fire. If there is a way to get drunk, a Russian will find it.