Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

One of us posted this on FB:

Newt Gingrich, 1995, on Infidelty and "Dune"

Newt IS the Kwizats Haderach!

GOP: Texas' Rick Perry will not be on VA ballot

By The Associated Press
Posted December 23, 2011 at 7:12 p.m.

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) Texas Gov. Rick Perry's name will not be on Virginia's March 6 Republican presidential primary ballot.The Republican Party of Virginia said Friday that Perry's campaign had failed to gather the required 10,000 signatures of registered voters, the threshold to get on the primary ballot.

State GOP spokesman Garren Shipley says the party is also validating petitions that Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul submitted by the Thursday 5 p.m. deadline to the State Board of Elections. The process of validating the signatures began Friday morning.

The 10,000 registered voters must also include 400 signatures from each of Virginia's 11 congressional districts.

I'm hearing a whole lot of scuttlebutt from my "Friends in Austin" that there's something damn fishy with this ...
they all are claiming the petition was filed on time, correctly, and with well over 15,000 signatures ...

not that I give a damn, of course, but you know I loves me some controversy .....

(I responded that it was just another clear-cut example of how the "Powers That Be" done thrown Niggerhead under the bus ...)
(worded it exactly that way, too ... swear-to-GAWD, I'll be referring to that Cheerleader from Paint Creek as "Niggerhead" for the rest of his natural life ...)

Scary! I keep reading where normally sensible people are turning into Ron Paul believers.

He wants to legalize marijuana, so...

Don't know if that is worth his stance on abortion, he is a fundie.

Mandy wrote:Don't know if that is worth his stance on abortion, he is a fundie.

That the Federal Government shouldn't fund it? I'm all for getting them as far out of our lives as possible.

The federal government doesn't fund abortions now, does it? Ron Paul is against abortion, not just federally funded abortion.

Yes it does, in certain cases: http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion ... nding.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is his platform to ban abortions? If not, I don't care if he's for or against it.

So you're against abortion coverage even when it's medically necessary? How is an abortion any different from heart bypass surgery if it saves the person's life?

Ron Paul signed this pledge http://www.sba-list.org/sites/default/f ... pledge.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; I don't know how much of this you can consider his platform, but it is very disappointing.

For one, it's an amendment to medicare and two, the Feds don't pay for ANY of MY medical coverage.

SandRider wrote: GOP: Texas' Rick Perry will not be on VA ballot

Sucks to be the victim of voter ID laws. I guess he's not for tort reform now.

Shaitan wrote:Since Obama is almost guaranteed a re-election unless something quite drastic occurs in the next 18 months (far from impossible, but IMHO relatively improbable), I am on the lookout for a strong, genuinely Libertarian candidate to throw my support behind. Garnering a significant % of the vote would be a good step forward for the mainstreaming of truly Libertarian ideals.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those unrealistically hardcore libertarians; you might call me (despite the contradictions inherent in the term -- anyone who knows me doesn't have to be told that I'm a walking contradiction!) a "liberal-tarian" to properly encompass the fullness of my ideas for future political/governmental reform. I think the government should get out of a lot of the things it is currently doing, and that the body of laws should be shrunk DRASTICALLY -- largely through the legalization/decriminalization of most nonviolent 'victimless' activities currently criminalized.

Although I am very much in favor of expanding the funding of gov't organizations like NASA, they are the exception. I would keep Social Security/Medicare (though I'd reform and simplify it greatly), but beyond that, what little of the current government remained would be greatly simplified. Most particularly the IRS and tax codes.

Anyhow, I think I made my point. I wouldn't vote for a Ron Paul (too much BS and baggage) type candidate, but I definitely am keeping an eye open for a libertarian worth voting for as a "protest/advocacy" vote.

Ron Paul is fantastic!
But it sounds like you would be more a Gary Johnson fan, and there is nothing wrong with that either.

Ron Paul would be a terrible president. He'd cut govt to the bone, take us back to the gold standard(I just threw up in my mouth), close all our military bases and cut ties with UN, and then he would hand even more money to the wealthy while taking everything away from the poor and middle class....all the things that helped get us here. He might torture a few gay people in the streets but I'm still not sure on that one.

So you'll get to take a few tokes in the wasteland that is Ron Paul's America......so what?

http://econproph.com/2010/06/20/one-mor ... -business/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Crysknife wrote:Ron Paul would be a terrible president. He'd cut govt to the bone, take us back to the gold standard(I just threw up in my mouth), close all our military bases and cut ties with UN, and then he would hand even more money to the wealthy while taking everything away from the poor and middle class....all the things that helped get us here. He might torture a few gay people in the streets but I'm still not sure on that one.

So you'll get to take a few tokes in the wasteland that is Ron Paul's America......so what?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can explain it more if it needs explaining

But just to sum up - your "econproph" follows Keynsian economics. Without knowing I'd guess he did not predict the current crisis, and therefore maybe you should question is diagnosis and prescription. Ron Paul follows Austrian economics. which is why he knew far in advance (and warned) about the housing and banking bubbles. This is all easily verifiable on youtube.

Crysknife wrote:Ron Paul would be a terrible president. He'd cut govt to the bone, take us back to the gold standard(I just threw up in my mouth), close all our military bases and cut ties with UN, and then he would hand even more money to the wealthy while taking everything away from the poor and middle class....all the things that helped get us here. He might torture a few gay people in the streets but I'm still not sure on that one.

So you'll get to take a few tokes in the wasteland that is Ron Paul's America......so what?

Gold Standard (or something like it, commodity-based currency) is necessary to prevent government from printing more money, leading us into hyperinflation. (If you're a Heinlein fan you ought to read "Time Enough for Love" which contains a part which explains it pretty well, although I find the incest pretty disturbing)
He wouldn't be "handing" or "taking" money to or from any class of people. And where exactly is the "here" that you think is good - 15 trillion in debt and rising? And I don't know what the gay comment means.

That's funny. Almost every liberal economist since Reagan told you exactly what was going to happen with trickle down economics and lack of regulation. Those are the reasons we had the financial crises. Krugman wad well ahead of anything the righties had. But they wouldn't listen.

I think someone should start an "Economics" topic.

Crysknife wrote:That's funny. Almost every liberal economist since Reagan told you exactly what was going to happen with trickle down economics and lack of regulation. Those are the reasons we had the financial crises. Krugman wad well ahead of anything the righties had. But they wouldn't listen.

I don't think you can support that. And it's not "righties" verses "lefties" as you characterize it. Krugman was FOR the housing bubble to get us out of recession - didn't work too well.

Probably should be a new thread depending how deep you want to go.

Spice Must Flow wrote:

Crysknife wrote:Ron Paul would be a terrible president. He'd cut govt to the bone, take us back to the gold standard(I just threw up in my mouth), close all our military bases and cut ties with UN, and then he would hand even more money to the wealthy while taking everything away from the poor and middle class....all the things that helped get us here. He might torture a few gay people in the streets but I'm still not sure on that one.

So you'll get to take a few tokes in the wasteland that is Ron Paul's America......so what?

Gold Standard (or something like it, commodity-based currency) is necessary to prevent government from printing more money, leading us into hyperinflation. (If you're a Heinlein fan you ought to read "Time Enough for Love" which contains a part which explains it pretty well, although I find the incest pretty disturbing)
He wouldn't be "handing" or "taking" money to or from any class of people. And where exactly is the "here" that you think is good - 15 trillion in debt and rising? And I don't know what the gay comment means.

We've ran a deficit since 1938 and it hasn't done any harm. The fact is, cutting spending now, laying off govt. workers, cutting key programs that help the sick and elderly, cutting taxes on the wealthy all add to one thing......THINGS GET WORSE! If you can explain to me how things get better then please do. Having less money circulating in the poor and middle classes does nothing but flood the money to the top again where it is hoarded. The definition of government is "redistribution" but there isn't enough. If the wealthy had created more jobs like republican economics said they should then we wouldn't be having this conversation. So the govt. needs to get that money out and get it to the people in various forms like SBA loans, education, healthcare, grants, infrastructure, etc....


The safety net programs work. They shouldn't be killed or crippled just because republicans fucked it up in the first place, which was their plan all along anyway. Before Social Security 50 % of the elderly in this country lived in poverty and died of disease and starvation and cold, now that number is down to 10% due to SS and other programs. It is viable till the year 2037 and can go on indefinitely with minor tweaks. If the Republicans get their way that money would go once again to the private marketplace to be gambled on and eventually lost when there is a market crash. But many wealthy people will get wealthier along the way. No thanks!

I mean, how do you see Republican economics helping anyone but the wealthy.....explain yourself.

Spice Must Flow wrote:

Crysknife wrote:That's funny. Almost every liberal economist since Reagan told you exactly what was going to happen with trickle down economics and lack of regulation. Those are the reasons we had the financial crises. Krugman wad well ahead of anything the righties had. But they wouldn't listen.

I don't think you can support that. And it's not "righties" verses "lefties" as you characterize it. Krugman was FOR the housing bubble to get us out of recession - didn't work too well.

Probably should be a new thread depending how deep you want to go.

I can't support it? What do you think everyone was saying when Reagan took office? He skyrocketed the debt and the deficit and handed all the money to the wealthy. What else COULD have happened?