I never said I liked the candidates at all, I just like him more than them and that he has some good ideas. That is it really
Oh yes to your question about the wars, no the wars were not necessary in the least bit. I ment some things as in torture.
Am I still here? Was I supposed to be gone? Is my opinion absolutely irrelevant? Why? Who gave you the authority to dictate whether I should be a part of this discussion or not?
Am I still here? Was I supposed to be gone? Is my opinion absolutely irrelevant? Why? Who gave you the authority to dictate whether I should be a part of this discussion or not?
Oh. Right. You're dodging the argument.
What argument have you made at all? The only thing you have said is saying "this guy is reallyyyy bad" no thats not an argument at all. All I asked was "your still here?" because the only thing you seem to be able to do is quote something and say that you dont like it.
I know im not the only one, but this forum is mainly made up of anything but Republicans. Newt Gingrich personally is the only one that I think would be able to beat Obama, his talent to win debates has always been amazing. But back onto why he would be a good president, Newt has a pro-growth strategy similar to the proven policies used when he was Speaker to balance the budget, pay down the debt, and create jobs. What he wants to do about Immigration is better than most candidates's plans for that matter, and his plan for education will hopefully help America's education system become a much better one than it is today.
All that needs to be said about Newt has been said. My argument isn't that I disagree with him period, but that, as you so nicely proved, he doesn't even know what the hell he wants. He's a politician running for PRESIDENT. He can't just " change his mind " about things. That's called being inconsistent.
All that needs to be said about Newt has been said. My argument isn't that I disagree with him period, but that, as you so nicely proved, he doesn't even know what the hell he wants. He's a politician running for PRESIDENT. He can't just " change his mind " about things. That's called being inconsistent.
From 1996-2012 i'm sure a lot can change in between that time period, but im sure you didn't even click the link to find out what were we discussing and just assumed he was being inconsistent.
For every true word spoken of Ron Paul two lies are spoken of him. I support Ron Paul, because everything I've actually seen/heard him say have been acceptable to me. Not to mention, voting for anyone other than him is voting for party politics.
For every true word spoken of Ron Paul two lies are spoken of him. I support Ron Paul, because everything I've actually seen/heard him say have been acceptable to me. Not to mention, voting for anyone other than him is voting for party politics.
You know he's not a libertarian (like he claims), right?
Why are you so stuck on a word? I don't care what he is, because I agree with his policies.
Well... when so many people are commenting on his so-called libertarianism I have to assume that's why some people rally to his cause. What exactly do you like about his policies? I've seen virtually nothing worth mentioning.
But back onto why he would be a good president, Newt has a pro-growth strategy similar to the proven policies used when he was Speaker to balance the budget, pay down the debt, and create jobs.
That's nice. I don't think it outweighs the other factors stated here though when put you add in the Pro Life, Anti-LGBT etc.
What he wants to do about Immigration is better than most candidates's plans for that matter, and his plan for education will hopefully help America's education system become a much better one than it is today.
Specifics please? I'm genuinely asking. I don't know crap about this year's elections.
Well... when so many people are commenting on his so-called libertarianism I have to assume that's why some people rally to his cause. What exactly do you like about his policies? I've seen virtually nothing worth mentioning.
-Non-interventionism(Not isolationism, despite the critics)
-While he technically "Doesn't support separation of church and state", if you look up his beliefs they basically amount to the same thing.
-He supports the only economic policy that is viable in the long run for our government. Namely, cutting services that our government currently provides us. Obviously everybody will be up in arms about that
-He generally doesn't let his religious beliefs define his policy, because he believes most of that stuff should be on a state level. That's kind of implicitly allowing all of it, because people could just travel to states where they can do whatever they want to do.
-Staunch defender of freedom, one of the few house members that actually had the balls to vote against the patriot act.
-He's never really flip-flopped on an issue. This is much more than any other candidate can say.
-Corporate deregulation. **** the haterz!
-He supports the only economic policy that is viable in the long run for our government. Namely, cutting services that our government currently provides us.
Well, from the few that I've seen and read, it looks like he's trying to make the government as limited as possible, which is good, but I don't think a laissez-faire economy would get the country to progress. I mean, we've already tried it before back around the late 1800's to the early 1900's and it didn't work very well for the long run.
But really, what do I know? I'm kinda glossing through the words as I type right now. I really need to research more of this crap.
More details about this? I genuinely want to know how pulling off from the UN is going to help us.
First off, I'd like to note that the UN is a giant ****ing joke. 22% of their funding comes from the United States, and we basically just use them as a scapegoat for when we want to go to war, completely ignoring them if we don't. Allow me to point out the irony in our use of them since the UN was initially formed with the intention of keeping peace. We've been doing this for 50 years, and I see no reason why we should even bother to take part in such a farce anymore. After all, it's not like there are trade penalties for non-members. I'd be more worried about what would happen to other nations if the U.S. pulled out.
p.s. Another reason I like Ron Paul is that he's constantly ranting to the house, trying to get them to actually do their jobs.
Well, from the few that I've seen and read, it looks like he's trying to make the government as limited as possible, which is good, but I don't think a laissez-faire economy would get the country to progress. I mean, we've already tried it before back around the late 1800's to the early 1900's and it didn't work very well for the long run.
I mean, our economy and science clearly progressed during that period, but working conditions were pretty bad. However, I'm pretty sure a lot of that had to do with historical factors as much as socio-political ones. And although we hear horror stories about the terrible pay workers got back then, honestly speaking is it even possible to raise a kid in the modern day on minimum wage? Maybe at 60 hours a week...
I guess I must also research a bit more about the 19th century workers, since I'm not quite sure what to think about it yet. I know that employers would fire their workers at the drop of a hat, but to me that's indicative of a workforce where labor is cheap, which would mean that for whatever reason an unemployed woman with skills in weaving, for instance, wouldn't be able to weave on her own and sell her work as an individual. Similarly, a machinist wouldn't be able to open up his own shop. Does anybody know why that would have been?
edit: As an afterthought, could it have been due to a high immigration rate? Lots of cheap unskilled labor readily available? If so it's a problem we still face what with overpopulation and whatnot. However a lot of that unskilled labor brings its own capital along with it now, instead of individuals stepping off Ellis island with nothing more than the clothes on their backs. And with the advent of the Internet, just about anyone can start their own business, so I don't see anyone being stuck in 90 hour weeks again no matter how de-regulated our businesses become.
Well, we did get a large increase in immigration, plus those Chinese guys from the Gold Rush started to look for actual jobs. More people flocked I think because of those big name guys like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford started making money for the US economy. When you compare it to other European countries and their declining economy of the time, it's not that far fetched to say that they had better opportunities by crossing over.
As for the whole UN thing, it would give off the impression that the United States is above the UN. Whether it's true or not, it's still going to affect foreign relations with allies and opponents alike. I think of the UN more as treehouse club: It's not very useful it a sense, but if you're in it, club members will like you. Or something like that, whatever.
Well, we did get a large increase in immigration, plus those Chinese guys from the Gold Rush started to look for actual jobs. More people flocked I think because of those big name guys like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford started making money for the US economy. When you compare it to other European countries and their declining economy of the time, it's not that far fetched to say that they had better opportunities by crossing over.
Which is ironic, because the "opportunity" ended up being mostly for Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford.
As for the whole UN thing, it would give off the impression that the United States is above the UN. Whether it's true or not, it's still going to affect foreign relations with allies and opponents alike. I think of the UN more as treehouse club: It's not very useful it a sense, but if you're in it, club members will like you. Or something like that, whatever.
At the very least I think that the U.S. should stop funding it. With 193 member nations why should the guy in debt be footing 22% of the bill? True, if we quit the UN back in the 50s we would have lost a lot of respect with the other nations, but I think at this point in time that anyone who knows what's actually going on would admire the U.S. for ceasing to use the UN as its private little scapegoat.
I never said I liked the candidates at all, I just like him more than them and that he has some good ideas. That is it really
Oh yes to your question about the wars, no the wars were not necessary in the least bit. I ment some things as in torture.
Your still here?
Why and what are these ideas you speak of? No we will not do your research for you.
I'm almost certain i've already said why at the top of page 3 somewhere.
Am I still here? Was I supposed to be gone? Is my opinion absolutely irrelevant? Why? Who gave you the authority to dictate whether I should be a part of this discussion or not?
Oh. Right. You're dodging the argument.
This is not a reason:
What argument have you made at all? The only thing you have said is saying "this guy is reallyyyy bad" no thats not an argument at all. All I asked was "your still here?" because the only thing you seem to be able to do is quote something and say that you dont like it.
Nice job scrolling down.
From 1996-2012 i'm sure a lot can change in between that time period, but im sure you didn't even click the link to find out what were we discussing and just assumed he was being inconsistent.
Like anime? Try Visual Novels.
You know he's not a libertarian (like he claims), right?
Why are you so stuck on a word? I don't care what he is, because I agree with his policies.
Like anime? Try Visual Novels.
Well... when so many people are commenting on his so-called libertarianism I have to assume that's why some people rally to his cause. What exactly do you like about his policies? I've seen virtually nothing worth mentioning.
That's nice. I don't think it outweighs the other factors stated here though when put you add in the Pro Life, Anti-LGBT etc.
Specifics please? I'm genuinely asking. I don't know crap about this year's elections.
-Non-interventionism(Not isolationism, despite the critics)
-While he technically "Doesn't support separation of church and state", if you look up his beliefs they basically amount to the same thing.
-He supports the only economic policy that is viable in the long run for our government. Namely, cutting services that our government currently provides us. Obviously everybody will be up in arms about that
-He generally doesn't let his religious beliefs define his policy, because he believes most of that stuff should be on a state level. That's kind of implicitly allowing all of it, because people could just travel to states where they can do whatever they want to do.
-Staunch defender of freedom, one of the few house members that actually had the balls to vote against the patriot act.
-He's never really flip-flopped on an issue. This is much more than any other candidate can say.
-Corporate deregulation. **** the haterz!
Like anime? Try Visual Novels.
More details about this? I genuinely want to know how pulling off from the UN is going to help us.
Well, from the few that I've seen and read, it looks like he's trying to make the government as limited as possible, which is good, but I don't think a laissez-faire economy would get the country to progress. I mean, we've already tried it before back around the late 1800's to the early 1900's and it didn't work very well for the long run.
But really, what do I know? I'm kinda glossing through the words as I type right now. I really need to research more of this crap.
First off, I'd like to note that the UN is a giant ****ing joke. 22% of their funding comes from the United States, and we basically just use them as a scapegoat for when we want to go to war, completely ignoring them if we don't. Allow me to point out the irony in our use of them since the UN was initially formed with the intention of keeping peace. We've been doing this for 50 years, and I see no reason why we should even bother to take part in such a farce anymore. After all, it's not like there are trade penalties for non-members. I'd be more worried about what would happen to other nations if the U.S. pulled out.
p.s. Another reason I like Ron Paul is that he's constantly ranting to the house, trying to get them to actually do their jobs.
I mean, our economy and science clearly progressed during that period, but working conditions were pretty bad. However, I'm pretty sure a lot of that had to do with historical factors as much as socio-political ones. And although we hear horror stories about the terrible pay workers got back then, honestly speaking is it even possible to raise a kid in the modern day on minimum wage? Maybe at 60 hours a week...
I guess I must also research a bit more about the 19th century workers, since I'm not quite sure what to think about it yet. I know that employers would fire their workers at the drop of a hat, but to me that's indicative of a workforce where labor is cheap, which would mean that for whatever reason an unemployed woman with skills in weaving, for instance, wouldn't be able to weave on her own and sell her work as an individual. Similarly, a machinist wouldn't be able to open up his own shop. Does anybody know why that would have been?
edit: As an afterthought, could it have been due to a high immigration rate? Lots of cheap unskilled labor readily available? If so it's a problem we still face what with overpopulation and whatnot. However a lot of that unskilled labor brings its own capital along with it now, instead of individuals stepping off Ellis island with nothing more than the clothes on their backs. And with the advent of the Internet, just about anyone can start their own business, so I don't see anyone being stuck in 90 hour weeks again no matter how de-regulated our businesses become.
Like anime? Try Visual Novels.
Well, we did get a large increase in immigration, plus those Chinese guys from the Gold Rush started to look for actual jobs. More people flocked I think because of those big name guys like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford started making money for the US economy. When you compare it to other European countries and their declining economy of the time, it's not that far fetched to say that they had better opportunities by crossing over.
As for the whole UN thing, it would give off the impression that the United States is above the UN. Whether it's true or not, it's still going to affect foreign relations with allies and opponents alike. I think of the UN more as treehouse club: It's not very useful it a sense, but if you're in it, club members will like you. Or something like that, whatever.
Which is ironic, because the "opportunity" ended up being mostly for Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford.
At the very least I think that the U.S. should stop funding it. With 193 member nations why should the guy in debt be footing 22% of the bill? True, if we quit the UN back in the 50s we would have lost a lot of respect with the other nations, but I think at this point in time that anyone who knows what's actually going on would admire the U.S. for ceasing to use the UN as its private little scapegoat.
Like anime? Try Visual Novels.