Ron Paul choice of the troops march on the white house

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is Ron Paul "in bed" with conspiracy theorists? I thought that was only some of his supporters, not Ron Paul himself.

My impression of Ron Paul is that he's becoming a populist Libertarian--I mean already him and his supporters seem to measure their success by how many people show up at his rallies and how loud they shout. There's talk of pulling an electoral coup at the Convention and among his more vocal supporters there's virulent distrust of anything establishment related.

You'd think from all that he'd be a 30something Central American with a megaphone in one hand and a pistol in the other, not a 70plus Texan harping on about the inviolability of the Constitution.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
He's doing little to distance himself from them.

This is what I thought he was doing.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
My impression of Ron Paul is that he's becoming a populist Libertarian--I mean already him and his supporters seem to measure their success by how many people show up at his rallies and how loud they shout. There's talk of pulling an electoral coup at the Convention and among his more vocal supporters there's virulent distrust of anything establishment related.

You'd think from all that he'd be a 30something Central American with a megaphone in one hand and a pistol in the other, not a 70plus Texan harping on about the inviolability of the Constitution.

To that very last part: (from what I know) he does not believe the constitution to be perfect as illustrated by his support of many of the amendments.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is what I thought he was doing.

To that very last part: (from what I know) he does not believe the constitution to be perfect as illustrated by his support of many of the amendments.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is Ron Paul "in bed" with conspiracy theorists? I thought that was only some of his supporters, not Ron Paul himself.

He's been on Alex Jones to talk about the superhighway that will link Canada, America, and Mexico as part of a plot to destroy all three countries and replace them with single country.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He's been on Alex Jones to talk about the superhighway that will link Canada, America, and Mexico as part of a plot to destroy all three countries and replace them with single country.

lol!

No way! (yes, that's genuine disbelief).

Do you have a link? Sorry...busy at work (odd, I know...seems wrong).

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol!

No way! (yes, that's genuine disbelief).

Do you have a link? Sorry...busy at work (odd, I know...seems wrong).

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul349.html (though this could be fake I suppose)

FactCheck.org talks about it as well:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/wrong-paul/

Basically there's already a highway (or technically a trio of highways that sort of blend together) that already stands where the NAFTA Superhighway is supposed to be constructed. Somewhere there's a video of Alex Jones pointing to an actual, current, map and claiming it is a plan for constructing a highway.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul349.html (though this could be fake I suppose)

FactCheck.org talks about it as well:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/wrong-paul/

Basically there's already a highway (or technically a trio of highways that sort of blend together) that already stands where the NAFTA Superhighway is supposed to be constructed. Somewhere there's a video of Alex Jones pointing to an actual, current, map and claiming it is a plan for constructing a highway.

I feel a bit stupid/ignorant on this particular topic. But what is wrong with a superhighway that includes energy and transportation between the 3 countries. Wouldn't that be a good thing? Again, don't crush me because I am ignorant of this particular topic.

Edit - I read this:

"Paul (May 10, 1988): The American people have never reached this point of disgust with politicians before. I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration. "

Amazing. Those were fighting words in '88.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Do you ever say things that people don't expect you to say?

Also: That's where your link leads.

Originally posted by parenthesis
You got Blackboard in Murka too?

Yalern something every day.

Originally posted by inimalist
right, NRC had offices in Winnipeg, Calgary and Halifax. Other places in Canada have other arrangements, like London Ontario has a university that is also a hospital, and the MRI there is sometimes made available for research purposes. Potentially, someone like my supervisor, who rarely does MRI research, might be able to get time at a hospital at 3 in the morning, but for someone who depended on MRIs for their research, they can't work here any longer.

How much spending was taken away and why?

Most of Ron Paul's budget plans comes straight from military cuts which are the priority.

Originally posted by inimalist
[B]
Federal Conservatives want to change the mandate of the NRC to be more industry friendly so it is profitable and efficient. Wait a second, that's what you say Ron Paul wants to do. And you know what, Gary Goodyear, the Conservative Minister for Science and Technology, is a chiropractor who thinks that qualifies him to be a science minister, the same way Paul thinks being a doctor qualifies him as a scientist. OMFG!!! no way, they are also both creationists!!!!

Yes, a creationist who claims neither side as definite proof. I dont see anything wrong with that.

Where did he qualify himself as a scientist?

Originally posted by inimalist

Funny how the two people discussed thus far who support your position on science funding are not scientists and believe in creationism.

Even though its one of the low priorities. (Ending the wars, auditing the fed and hopefully easing our way out of the central banking grasp, and bringing back constitutional liberty is the main focus) All his views on federal governments role come from the constitution. Other than the section where dealing with promoting science and invention, the constitution does not permit government authority to subsidize science.

It has nothing to do with the individual states funding the state sponsored science. California passed bonds to be in debt so it could sponsor the state funded stem cell research because the gov isnt doing it.

When there are fewer federal regulations and federal subsidies of established corporations there will be more incentive and fewer barriers to innovative scientists and science-based companies entering the market.

Sorry, I've been pretty busy lately. stoned Plus.. all that reading.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
He's doing little to distance himself from them.

What could he do "medium" distance himself? 😛

Originally posted by Omega Vision

My impression of Ron Paul is that he's becoming a populist Libertarian--I mean already him and his supporters seem to measure their success by how many people show up at his rallies and how loud they shout.

Attention and awareness is a pretty big step. Success is being taken place at the local level where people are taking positions in their office.

Almost similar to what happened in iceland, sort of.

Originally posted by Omega Vision

There's talk of pulling an electoral coup at the Convention and among his more vocal supporters there's virulent distrust of anything establishment related.

You'd think from all that he'd be a 30something Central American with a megaphone in one hand and a pistol in the other, not a 70plus Texan harping on about the inviolability of the Constitution.

Nah

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is Ron Paul "in bed" with conspiracy theorists? I thought that was only some of his supporters, not Ron Paul himself.

Depends on what you decide is a conspiracy or not and if its fact or fiction. He speaks of bilderberg which is definitely a conspiracy.

Im sure a guy in his position is aware of a lot more than we know.

YouTube video

Thought this was interesting.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is Ron Paul "in bed" with conspiracy theorists? I thought that was only some of his supporters, not Ron Paul himself.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/ron-pauls-world/

Originally posted by Mairuzu
How much spending was taken away and why?

NRC had, in total, a $700 million budget, I'm not sure how much of that went to Winnipeg and the fMRI stuff. As the articles said, this was done because our conservative government didn't see the value in basic research and is retooling the NRC to be friendly to the private sector.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Most of Ron Paul's budget plans comes straight from military cuts which are the priority.

1) great, Winnipeg is in Canada though.

2) so? He explicity says he is going to cut funding to federal agencies responsible for science. He isn't making military cuts to fund science.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Yes, a creationist who claims neither side as definite proof. I dont see anything wrong with that.

you think there is a reasonable intellectual opinion that questions evolution?

wait... you believe in evolution, right?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Where did he qualify himself as a scientist?

The only reference to it is a clip the Amazing Atheist uses in a video ranting against Paul, so w/e, he may have only said it once or in some off hand way.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Even though its one of the low priorities. (Ending the wars, auditing the fed and hopefully easing our way out of the central banking grasp, and bringing back constitutional liberty is the main focus) All his views on federal governments role come from the constitution. Other than the section where dealing with promoting science and invention, the constitution does not permit government authority to subsidize science.

I think we've talked about these type of answers before. Saying: "We could, but we shouldn't" is no more convincing to me because your doctrine comes from the constitution than it would be if it came from a religious text.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
It has nothing to do with the individual states funding the state sponsored science. California passed bonds to be in debt so it could sponsor the state funded stem cell research because the gov isnt doing it.

When there are fewer federal regulations and federal subsidies of established corporations there will be more incentive and fewer barriers to innovative scientists and science-based companies entering the market.

1) California is not very representative of what most states will be capable of affording. I'm going to a conference in a week in North Dakota. The center that is holding it is a huge operation that exists exclusively due to federal grants. The state of ND itself probably couldn't afford it, and the type of research being done (basic research into vision and visual processes) is not marketable. Also, the "Its bad when one government does it but not when a different one does" theme that comes from Paul is nonsense to anyone not part of the American political tradition of "states rights", but hey, so is the idea that states could violate individual rights simply because they aren't a nation.

2) You continue to say "private sector! private sector", when you haven't addressed any of my points about how problematic the private sector is for science funding. Lets talk about this lab in ND, then. Why would the shareholders of any corporation allow them to invest in research that almost surely will not provide financial benefit to the corporation. Aren't CEO/CFOs legally bound to act in the fiduciary interests of their corporation? Wouldn't that make supporting the vision science center in ND a violation of the law?

Originally posted by inimalist
2) You continue to say "private sector! private sector", when you haven't addressed any of my points about how problematic the private sector is for science funding. Lets talk about this lab in ND, then. Why would the shareholders of any corporation allow them to invest in research that almost surely will not provide financial benefit to the corporation. Aren't CEO/CFOs legally bound to act in the fiduciary interests of their corporation? Wouldn't that make supporting the vision science center in ND a violation of the law?

You're referring to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

However, you're distorting what that law would actually cover. SOX is more about the handling of the finances than it is about curing diseases. If an organization cured a disease that destroyed it's long term profitability, it would not come under SOX's litigative repercussions. However, if one of the Executives falsely reported losses, due to that cure, to keep investors happy, that would fall under SOX.

Originally posted by inimalist
NRC had, in total, a $700 million budget, I'm not sure how much of that went to Winnipeg and the fMRI stuff. As the articles said, this was done because our conservative government didn't see the value in basic research and is retooling the NRC to be friendly to the private sector.

Seems like money is tight everywhere.

Originally posted by inimalist

1) great, Winnipeg is in Canada though.

2) so? He explicity says he is going to cut funding to federal agencies responsible for science. He isn't making military cuts to fund science.

With a 15 trillion dollar debt and him being the only candidate making legitimate cuts in a broke country filled with debt, i'm fine with the prosperity 1 trillion dollars would bring into America.

Originally posted by inimalist

you think there is a reasonable intellectual opinion that questions evolution?

wait... you believe in evolution, right?

I haven't studied it hardcore but it seems possible. Nothing I care too much about at the moment. Not against it but I cant say i'm fully aware of their studies.

Originally posted by inimalist

The only reference to it is a clip the Amazing Atheist uses in a video ranting against Paul, so w/e, he may have only said it once or in some off hand way.
[/quotes]

Lol I figured you'd watch something like that. Anything against Paul seems to be the exception.

[QUOTE=13931216]Originally posted by inimalist

I think we've talked about these type of answers before. Saying: "We could, but we shouldn't" is no more convincing to me because your doctrine comes from the constitution than it would be if it came from a religious text.

Just stating the reasoning behind Pauls policy and consistency. I believe cuts will be made eventually with a huge debt.

Originally posted by inimalist

1) California is not very representative of what most states will be capable of affording.

Why not? Compared to who else?

Originally posted by inimalist

I'm going to a conference in a week in North Dakota. The center that is holding it is a huge operation that exists exclusively due to federal grants. The state of ND itself probably couldn't afford it, and the type of research being done (basic research into vision and visual processes) is not marketable.

What exactly is being done here and for what purpose, again?

Originally posted by inimalist

Also, the "Its bad when one government does it but not when a different one does" theme that comes from Paul is nonsense to anyone not part of the American political tradition of "states rights", but hey, so is the idea that states could violate individual rights simply because they aren't a nation.

Lol stretching here. The Federal governments purpose is to defend the borders and defend the individuals liberties of the citizen. The citizen has more say of the laws being passed and chooses which state best suits them instead of countries if power was given to the federal government. Its the constitution that defends peoples liberties period regardless.

Originally posted by inimalist

2) You continue to say "private sector! private sector", when you haven't addressed any of my points about how problematic the private sector is for science funding. Lets talk about this lab in ND, then. Why would the shareholders of any corporation allow them to invest in research that almost surely will not provide financial benefit to the corporation. Aren't CEO/CFOs legally bound to act in the fiduciary interests of their corporation? Wouldn't that make supporting the vision science center in ND a violation of the law?

If there is a need for the lab in ND then it shouldnt be forced through taxes. I'm all for science funding but I believe we have bigger problems facing us currently.

I can't think of a single instance where states' rights has been a force for good in American history.

But hey, I'm from the south where states' rights has really just been an excuse to own slaves, oppress minorities, and neglect education.

And I'm terrified at the notion of decentralizing the public education system more than it already is. For every one county that may profit from the lack of Federal meddling there will be dozens of rural counties where education collapses for lack of funding.

Ron Paul slaps might be some of the most hilarious people walking God's green Earth today.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Just stating the reasoning behind Pauls policy and consistency. I believe cuts will be made eventually with a huge debt.

and I'm just pointing to what I see as a flaw in Paul's reasoning.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Why not? Compared to who else?

If California were a nation, it would be the world's eighth largest economy and is home to some of the most prestigious universities in the world and countless Nobel laureates.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Lol stretching here. The Federal governments purpose is to defend the borders and defend the individuals liberties of the citizen. The citizen has more say of the laws being passed and chooses which state best suits them instead of countries if power was given to the federal government. Its the constitution that defends peoples liberties period regardless.

And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

- 1 Corinthians 12:26

Originally posted by Mairuzu
If there is a need for the lab in ND then it shouldnt be forced through taxes. I'm all for science funding but I believe we have bigger problems facing us currently.

ok, you keep saying it should be, but can you justify that point? can you explain why it would be a good thing to have no federal science funding?