DescentBB

The Ron Paul revolution has ended today...



http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/07/ ... index.html

It's amazing how many people are against limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies.

It's as if they LIKE being raped ever day.

Testiculese wrote:It's as if they LIKE being raped ever day.

Some people do. But more importantly, a lot of people only know and think what their government tells them to know and think. I firmly belive there is a reason that critical thought isn't taught in public schools.

Without trying to spark yet another political debate ... let me just say that while Ron Paul stood for some good things and some needed changes, there were other reasons that prevented me from supporting Ron Paul.

Sorry your preferred candidate has not had better success in his campaign.

I firmly believe your firm belief is correct.

Dedman wrote:

Testiculese wrote:It's as if they LIKE being raped ever day.

Some people do. But more importantly, a lot of people only know and think what their government tells them to know and think. I firmly belive there is a reason that critical thought isn't taught in public schools.

"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.

An article on homeschooling, I saw that quote. Pure Nazi gold.

Funny, I read the same article today and had the same concerns. Yikes! What a scary quote!!

heh.. read your history. You guys are asking for something that has never existed.

I don’t know about “good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty“, but that stuff sounds a lot better than some of the crap they teach in school these days.

Ron Paul deserved a lot more attention than he got.

Paul demonstrates a simple truth - the media decides our elections. Paul got no airtime. He was largely ignored in all debates. He was never given a fair shake.

And even though I think some of his approaches are loony,
if an idiot like Huckabee can steal the headlines, why can't he?

In my opinion his ideas on monetary policy would have been the only hope for our economy, unless the same sort of convictions can have an effect through another route. Everyone else is just tweaking a broken system. I wonder what our new currency will look like.

The only hopes I had for this election were in him and Huckabee.

There is an element of interest, though, to see just how the next four years will turn out. Though if I weren't so young, I doubt that would be the case. A chance to see first-hand whether I was right or not.

lets hope he springs out with political momentum like Al Gore.
As much as you hate Al Gore (just coz your party tells you to), he really has moved his pet issue (global warming) forward into public consciousness with a huge HUGE momentum.

I hope this pans out similarly for Ron Paul, and we can keep his pet issues hot in the public mind.


Anyway - i believe this means that there are no longer any economic conservatives running for the USA presidency this election. Enjoy your liberal Republican/Democrat president, spend spend spend, dive dive dive.

roid wrote:As much as you hate Al Gore (just coz your party tells you to), he really has moved his pet issue (global warming) forward into public consciousness with a huge HUGE momentum.

Global warming remains something that I haven't looked into in any detail, but I've talked with my Dad on the subject, and he knows more about it than I do. He says that there are more creditable scientists against than for the notion that global warming is the immediate threat that we hear it is today. My opinion on the subject is, since when did it take a politician to advance a scientifically accurate/obvious position? I think it's mostly a political agenda, and one that's not limited only to Gore. I've heard Mr. Gore say, on a news interview, that people on the other side of the issue should be ignored by the media, comparing them with people who think the world is flat. I've heard that a volcanic eruption has seemingly devastating environmental effects, and yet the planet always recovers.

Of course, having said all that, I do believe that the less environment footprint businesses have the better. I love nature, personally, and I hate to see natural resources ruined by people with no care for their importance. Still, making it an irresistible political agenda makes me uneasy. It's a method of control.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:He says that there are more creditable scientists against than for the notion that global warming is the immediate threat that we hear it is today.

I'm always sceptical of people who claim that global warming (and to a partial extent, depletion of the ozone layer) is an immediate threat. Because that's what the majority of professionals on the matter are saying it isn't.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:My opinion on the subject is, since when did it take a politician to advance a scientifically accurate/obvious position?

Ever since 99% of people stopped being professional ecoscientists? Really, I can't think of any time ecoscientists themselves have been able to advance a scientifically accurate/obvious position to the mob on their own. People just don't listen to people that aren't important or aren't on advertisements.


And of course, the similar problem of the hole in the ozone layer is a very real problem, considering we have scientific proof of that the ozone does get depleted by some pollution and that there's very much a hole in it.

Thorne, yes, a volcano can change the dynamics of the climate for decades. The planet recovers fine. Some species are lost, some barely survive, some survive well enough.

The scientists that are arguing global warming problems are concerned that WE might be one of the species lost/maimed. We depend on a lot of things can be lost because of global warming, natural or man-made. (I think it's more natural than man made, but we most certainly have an impact)

My problem with the global warming debate is…

One side says…”Everything about global warming is going to be bad”
The other side says…”Global warming is no threat”

There has to be some truth in there somewhere.

TIGERassault wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:He says that there are more creditable scientists against than for the notion that global warming is the immediate threat that we hear it is today.

I'm always sceptical of people who claim that global warming (and to a partial extent, depletion of the ozone layer) is an immediate threat. Because that's what the majority of professionals on the matter are saying it isn't.

Actually, they aren't, if bodies like the NAS and AAAS agree that the issue of global warming requires immediate action.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

roid wrote:As much as you hate Al Gore (just coz your party tells you to)

Global warming remains something that I haven't looked into in any detail, but I've talked with my Dad on the subject

i didn't mean you personally, and didn't notice you posted before me.
i ment the OP, and/or people here in general.

I'd rather this thread was about issues of Economic Conservatism, rather than global warming which i don't want to talk to anyone here about.