Paultards Send Shot At RedState to Comrade Wonkette
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Pffffft. A definite fizzle.
I suggested that the whole thing was easy to resolve. All RedState had to do was pick a percentage say 60%, and then go through the National Republican Platform, and any candidate whose views did not agree with the platform 60% of the time would be banned. Their response was to ban me from RedState, I assume because a couple of the anointed would fall short of the 60%, and a few of the non-anointed would not.
Paultards, I like that.
Business as usual:
Total public debt in this country at $9 Trillion, nice present to pass on to our children and grandchildren. It is kind of like being told when you turn 18, that you owe $40,000, because you parents took an around the world vacation, but what the hell, as long as the band plays on, right?
Annual Interest payments of $400 Billion, every year (and climbing), that is 2x the annual cost of the war in Iraq.
An economy that is dependent on the US dollar continuing to be the international safe haven for wealth. Have you looked at the relationship between the US $ and the EURO lately? As the EURO continues to become more popular, who are we going to borrow that $9 Trillion from? I suspect that Mainland China will continue to lend us more and more, I guess the question is, and what will they want in return? Say what you will about the Chinese, but long-term planning in China is measured in 100s of years, not until the next election. What the hell, we will all be dead in 100 years, will let our grandchildren and great-grandchild worry about, right?
Retarded? Yea, I am retarded, for thinking that any of this will matter to anyone who likes Politics as usual. I just can't seem to help myself. By the way, if you don't mind, could you pass this on to RedState, as I said I was banned from the site, and since I told them that their website was the best example of a functioning [redacted because we're prudes] I had ever seen, I figure they are blocking my e-mail as well.
Thanks for listening, or reading, or whatever.
No, no Mr. McDonald, we got your email. We just recognized it as being from a Paultard.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | McCain's Excellent Adventure — Comments (54) »
Paultards Send Shot At RedState to Comrade Wonkette 15 Comments (0 topical, 15 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...you wouldn't be trying so get us to change our ways.
But rejoice! You've been here for more than six months: you may sing your praises of your man-god without fear.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Make your own spreadsheets
Both Paulians and Paultards
Deserve snarky scorn.
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
Morgan,
The difference is that Huck at least agrees with the SoCons, a rather large group of Republicans. RP is hated by NeoCons and, while pro-life, he does not exude "compassionate conservatism" the way Huck does. And, I don't know for fact, but I'd guess RP would have the standard Libertarian viewpoint on gay marriage, also unpopular with SoCons. So if both the SoCons and NeoCons dislike you, you're left with the diminishing number of old school "conservatism is the negation of ideology" PaleoCons. Oh, and the anti-Semite conspiracy theorists. Good luck.
I'd support Ron Paul if it weren't for his:
1) Desire to eliminate the Fed
2) Weak approach to WOT
If he changed on one OR the other, I'd consider supporting him. He has other issues too, but these are the two biggest disagreements I have with him.
********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_
I'll go ahead and take a shot at #1. As for #2, I disagree that he has a 'weak approach', but I'm clearly in the minority on that and I'd rather not focus on that in this post.
Anyways, with regard to abolishing the Federal Reserve: Yes, he would like to abolish it at some indeterminate point in the future. And he would like to eventually return to a hard money. But he is pragmatic enough to realize that this won't happen, and more importantly that it cannot and should not happen quickly. What he would like to see in the short term is a legalization of competing currencies; that is, allow people who wish to use something other than Federal Reserve Notes in order to transact business to do so. If a vendor was willing to accept gold, for example, as payment, and a customer was willing to pay in gold, that would be legal.
Now, I don't pretend to know much about monetary or fiscal policy, but certain people much more knowledgeable than me (such as Steve Forbes, Alan Greenspan, Peter Schiff and others) consider the idea of allowing competing currencies a decent idea.
that's abolishing the study of history. See, I can maybe, just sort of imagine a banking system without a fed, but a commerce system without a standard currency?
We did this way back in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. A prominent, populist democrat president even destroyed the first central bank during that time. There were competing regional and state currencies, and for some odd reason we gave it all up. Maybe because having a universally accepted mode of exchange leads to a better economy, but what the he**, it's only well documented history after all.
The more substantive problem is Paul's complete failure to advance any legislation to effect the changes he claims to want to make. And that's assuming you believe the changes he wants to make are correct in the first place, which Becker, Moe, me, and many others here aren't willing to concede either.
Look I do not want to make light of the problem of the National Debt. I suppose on some level it is a kind of problem, sort of. But not really.
I am nearly fifty years old and have heard many many many people saying the exact same things about the debt, the deficit, and the burden to future generations, and yet the sky has not fallen yet. In fact the percentage of deficit to GDP has gone down during most of that time.
Only if our economy tanks while spending goes up far more than now will it begin to be a problem just on virtue of the cost of debt service.
I would prefer we not have a big debt, but I also would prefer to be rich and handsome.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
but if the dollar goes into a protracted decline, then foreign investors will start dumping T-bills. Interest rates will rise, the economy will slow down, and the dollar will decline further.
That said, I think if borrowing from foreigners allows us to cut taxes, it's a good investment. But there are dangers to it, just like there are to any leveraged investment.
Like any enterprise, the government also owns things called assets that offset liabilities. I just wish they would sell them when they get rid of them. Giving prime real estate to local municipalities when closing defense sites (forts, ports, camps, bases) is not a good use of the assets. Selling them to private enterprises for top $$ would have been wiser. Places like Great Lakes Naval Air Station in Glenview, IL and Fort Ord in Cali were just tossed away to locals. My Florida money went to build those facilities and buy that property, and I got nothing in return.
-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- I see abortion as a pro-choice issue... the baby's choice would be life.
-- imwithfred --
The Feds have an obscene amount of land locked up for non-productive uses. Sell it to people who will make use of it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
... charge market rates for its use while the feds still own it..
There should be no free rides for anyone.
Free stuff from the Govt is welfare.
Gar
Will Ana Marie Cox and Erick be going on a war bond tour anytime soon?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
A) Paultard? Come on, just weak sauce. If name-calling is the best you've got, maybe try LGF's 'Paulian', at least it implies insanity without being just childish and rude to both Down's sufferers and their families.
B) If you can do better than name-calling, try this: Make a spreadsheet of the positions of the candidates that you do treat in a serious manner, along with Ron Paul's, and try to pick the actual ideas and positions that invalidate him. Try to enunciate what that criteria is, I'd love to hear it.
I've heard a bunch of talk of how this is private property, you can choose to treat subjects as you wish, and I totally agree. But to be called RedState, expect to be called on the inconguity of the name, and the growing distance from the reality of the frustration out there over spending, corruption, and nanny-statism.
I'll take this place more seriously when Huckabee is rightfull treated to the double-helping of Paul scorn he deserves. The guy is simply not a Republican, much less a conservative, or remotely liberty-minded.