Originally posted by Strangelove
Being a quote unquote "big government liberal", I find it difficult to answer your question. But from what I can tell, those who want smaller government assume that the less government gets involved, the safer our rights and individual liberties. And I call it naïve because limiting government isn't always the best solution. In fact, running to any solution 100% of the time, whether it be small government or big, I would consider that naïve.
That's great, because I agree with that train of thought. I believe some areas of government have "become too large" and others are under funded. However, generally, our government is governing too much. (So I believe that a net change for the smaller is necessary.)
Originally posted by Strangelove
As you can see above, that's not what I said.
No, you did say that. Here is what you said:
Originally posted by Strangelove
I don't like Ron Paul because he (I would assume) follows the ideology of the statement "The government that governs best governs least." And I agree with Devil King, that's just a naive line of thinking, whether in foreign policy or the federal bureaucracy.
You said it was a "naive line of thinking" and I said that you said it was a naive line of thinking. I just wanted to know why you thought it was a naive way of thinking. You answered that question and I agree with your response for the most part.
Originally posted by Strangelove
It's pretty difficult to rebut "You don't know what you're talking about" without getting a little defensive. So if you think that I was trying to place myself above the debate, I apologize, because that is not the case.
I never said you don't know what you are talking about, I said that you missed the point of the statement. Even the smartest and most astute of individuals miss the point of things sometimes. The statement in question is still far from naive. You pointed out that liberties are lost the larger government becomes which is true. It is more naive to think that big government is currently the best solution for our country.
I work for the Federal Government. Currently, they are overhauling my branch.(Due to a lot of civilian pressure.) I have watched projects taken over and modified for the better. I have seen an operational budget for a specific division drop from a $2 million a year to $800,000 a year and the division was able to perform more work for less money JUST because things were previously being done inefficiently and incorrectly. This is all my brother-in-law does for his job; he takes over the project management for a division and works on correcting and perfecting it to bring down its operating costs while increasing its efficiency. In some instances, the operational budget decreases AND jobs are created. That's an ideal situation but it doesn't happen all of the time. You may be thinking, "Surely the Government isn't that messed up." I assure you, things are exactly like that almost everywhere in the Federal Government.
The above is part of what is meant by governing less. Improve the budgets, decrease operating size, eliminate unnecessary or extraneous programs, and try to eliminate inefficient program overlaps. (That may not be everything but I think you get the point.) True that some government contractors will have no longer have a place in the government and will lose their jobs if government is stream lined and corrected but there will be growing pains to "trim the fat".
Originally posted by Strangelove
I'm actually a pretty good debater in real life, I swear. I just fall back on bad habits while on the internets 😆
Great 😄 . The Internet can both improve you and worsen you...just depends on how you use it.
Actually, I said he was naive, first. And it is naive. When George Washington left office after his second term, he warned against entangling alliances and getting involved in the affairs of other nations. Well, this is what Ron Paul professes to be his position. But, George Washington left office in 1797. And every President that followed him has been involved in foreign affairs and entangling alliances. (I believe Jefferson was the first one to have to deal with the Middle East) I understand Dr. Paul is hitting a nerve with the anit-war crowd, but foreign relations is simply a matter of fact for a country in the modern world. Maybe that's what Deano would call the indoctrination techniques of one world government, maybe it's just world politics; but it's a matter of fact. And let's not forget that while there is a disaster in our current foreign relations policy, there's also some good that it can do if used properly.
Originally posted by Alliance
When I heard that, I blew several sphicters.
How many do we have, anyway?
Originally posted by Strangelove
But as I explained, it's not the only thing I meant.
I don't follow you.
I am trying to understand your above post...So when you said, "a naive line of thinking", a "naive line of thinking" is not the only thing you meant?
To recap, you denied having said "a naive line of thinking" and then I showed you that you did say that and now you are saying that by your statement you meant more than one thing and not just "a naive line of thinking"?
AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! 😆 😆
Dude, I am just bustin' your balls. 😈 😄
Originally posted by dadudemonFcko, I hate you now 😄
I don't follow you.I am trying to understand your above post...So when you said, "a naive line of thinking", a "naive line of thinking" is not the only thing you meant?
To recap, you denied having said "a naive line of thinking" and then I showed you that you did say that and now you are saying that by your statement you meant more than one thing and not just "a naive line of thinking"?
AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! 😆 😆
Dude, I am just bustin' your balls. 😈 😄
At RealClearPolitics.com, they average the state and national polls conducted by major news outlets. Here's where the Republicans currently stand:
National
Rudy Giuliani - 27.6%
Fred Thompson - 18.7%
John McCain - 13.4%
Mitt Romney - 12.7%
Mike Huckabee - 5.4%
Giuliani Advantage +8.9%
Iowa
Romney - 25.2%
Thompson - 15.3%
Giuliani - 14.5%
Huckabee - 11.8%
McCain - 8%
Romney Advantage +9.9%
New Hampshire
Romney - 25.5%
Giuliani - 21.3%
McCain - 16.7%
Thompson - 10.8%
Huckabee - 5.2%
Romney Advantage +4.2%
Originally posted by Strangelove
At RealClearPolitics.com, they average the state and national polls conducted by major news outlets. Here's where the Republicans currently stand:National
Rudy Giuliani - 27.6%
Fred Thompson - 18.7%
John McCain - 13.4%
Mitt Romney - 12.7%
Mike Huckabee - 5.4%Giuliani Advantage +8.9%
Iowa
Romney - 25.2%
Thompson - 15.3%
Giuliani - 14.5%
Huckabee - 11.8%
McCain - 8%Romney Advantage +9.9%
New Hampshire
Romney - 25.5%
Giuliani - 21.3%
McCain - 16.7%
Thompson - 10.8%
Huckabee - 5.2%Romney Advantage +4.2%
I'll ask the same question as I did in the Democratic thread: Will any of these people PREVENT WAR?
Update on polls from RealClearPolitics.com
National:
Giuliani - 27.8
Thompson - 14.5
Romney - 12.8
McCain - 12.5
Huckabee - 9.3
Paul - 4.7
Iowa:
Romney - 26.4
Huckabee - 23.6
Giuliani - 13.2
Thompson - 11.4
McCain - 6.6
Paul - 4.8
New Hampshire:
Romney 33.0
Giuliani - 18.4
McCain - 16.2
Paul - 6.8
Huckabee - 6.6
Thompson - 4.8
It's amazing how little they let Ron Paul speak. That guy has 5 % of the official polls. Wins a huge amount of Straw Polls, was polled as winner of earlier debates, has the most watchers on youtube (youtube debate), polls amazing in online and text message polls and yet still gets like a few seconds to talk.
H-how exactly can a serious News Station (well, I guess they were serious sometime, trying to be FOX News II nowadays it seems) justify that?
Except for that, he owned of course. What the hell this Thompson fella is doing I don't know, Giuliani is a slimy bastards that should die, Romney as well, though in a different way. Huckabee seems to be the least vomit inducing (except for Paul of course who makes any reasonable person cream their pants (I'm joking (he's good though))). Well, all in all I would say though that all Republicans suck so much that the socialists ( I decided we real liberals should take our word back and call Democrats what they are) seem almost desirable.
Also, I counted the responses every candidate was granted:
Giuliani 13
Romney 13
Thompson 10
McCain 10
Hunter 9
Huckabee 8
Tancredo 7
Paul 6 (one of which whether he would run as independent ... very issue related)
Don't see how that is fair at all to either Paul or Huckabee.
Originally posted by Bardock42Ouch for Ron Paul.
Update on polls from RealClearPolitics.com[b]National:
Giuliani - 27.8
Thompson - 14.5
Romney - 12.8
McCain - 12.5
Huckabee - 9.3
Paul - 4.7Iowa:
Romney - 26.4
Huckabee - 23.6
Giuliani - 13.2
Thompson - 11.4
McCain - 6.6
Paul - 4.8New Hampshire:
Romney 33.0
Giuliani - 18.4
McCain - 16.2
Paul - 6.8
Huckabee - 6.6
Thompson - 4.8 [/B]
Originally posted by Bardock42Giulliani shouldn't run at all. His issues are the worst. Looks like it'll be a Guilliani--Clinton election.
It's amazing how little they let Ron Paul speak. That guy has 5 % of the official polls. Wins a huge amount of Straw Polls, was polled as winner of earlier debates, has the most watchers on youtube (youtube debate), polls amazing in online and text message polls and yet still gets like a few seconds to talk.H-how exactly can a serious News Station (well, I guess they were serious sometime, trying to be FOX News II nowadays it seems) justify that?
Except for that, he owned of course. What the hell this Thompson fella is doing I don't know, Giuliani is a slimy bastards that should die, Romney as well, though in a different way. Huckabee seems to be the least vomit inducing (except for Paul of course who makes any reasonable person cream their pants (I'm joking (he's good though))). Well, all in all I would say though that all Republicans suck so much that the socialists ( I decided we real liberals should take our word back and call Democrats what they are) seem almost desirable.
Also, I counted the responses every candidate was granted:
Giuliani 13
Romney 13
Thompson 10
McCain 10
Hunter 9
Huckabee 8
Tancredo 7
Paul 6 (one of which whether he would run as independent ... very issue related)Don't see how that is fair at all to either Paul or Huckabee.