Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

The Republican debaes are being watched

RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 3:37:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The Republican debates have all the ingredients of bad television: Not just talking heads, but talking political heads, often run on obscure networks. The surprise is that the ratings have been very strong. Why?

I think it is because real ideas on how to fix the economy are discussed: energy, flat tax, regulation, etc. At this point everyone knows stimulus doesn't work, so listening to that being discussed is a waste of time. People are deeply concerned about the economy, and the Republican debates are the only serious discussion of it.

Republicans are very interested in getting a candidate who can both solve the problem of the economy and beat Obama. Obama is a total incompetent and cannot run on his record, so he's going to have to fall back on class warfare, appeals to special interests, and personal attacks on the opposing candidates. So even the mudslinging nonsense is of interest. Who can answer scurrilous attacks? It's important to know.

I think the process is working well. It's likely to end with a good candidate.

From the standpoint of pure debate, Gingrich wins every time. He has had one too many wife to please Republicans, but I doubt it would matter much in the general election. Interesting.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 3:43:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 3:37:38 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The Republican debates have all the ingredients of bad television: Not just talking heads, but talking political heads, often run on obscure networks. The surprise is that the ratings have been very strong. Why?

I think it is because real ideas on how to fix the economy are discussed: energy, flat tax, regulation, etc. At this point everyone knows stimulus doesn't work, so listening to that being discussed is a waste of time. People are deeply concerned about the economy, and the Republican debates are the only serious discussion of it.

Republicans are very interested in getting a candidate who can both solve the problem of the economy and beat Obama. Obama is a total incompetent and cannot run on his record, so he's going to have to fall back on class warfare, appeals to special interests, and personal attacks on the opposing candidates. So even the mudslinging nonsense is of interest. Who can answer scurrilous attacks? It's important to know.

I think the process is working well. It's likely to end with a good candidate.

From the standpoint of pure debate, Gingrich wins every time. He has had one too many wife to please Republicans, but I doubt it would matter much in the general election. Interesting.

Are you saying that Black Presidents have bad economic policy?

I guess you're a vicious racist too
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 3:52:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
New Gringrich polls bad in Intrade.

Mitt Romney has all the traits to be president. He flip flops and I have no idea what his core values and principals are and what he plans to get done. All I know is he worked in the private sector, and 'Obamacare' is nothing like what they have in Massachusetts. Yea....
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 3:53:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Gingrich is not winning the debates. He's just good at making smart remarks and hyping up the GOP field. He defends his opponents more than he defends himself. He seems to be trying to secure a VP spot by making friends with every hopeful. I think SNL nailed it with the skit of Gingrich joyfully responding "No" when asked if he really wanted to be President.

Gingrich really isn't saying anything. He's not offering solutions at all. He's the GOP cheerleader.

You know who's been winning the debates? The guy who proudly proclaims to be opposed to the Federal Reserve, will withdraw all troops, destroy the military industrial complex, cut all aggressive interventionist military spending, will legalize all drugs, illuminate the income tax, abolish the IRS, legalize prostitution, eliminate unnecessary Federal departments, and restore sound currency.

That's who's winning debates and offering real solutions that hold up to scrutiny.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 3:56:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 3:37:38 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The Republican debates have all the ingredients of bad television: Not just talking heads, but talking political heads, often run on obscure networks. The surprise is that the ratings have been very strong. Why?

I think it is because real ideas on how to fix the economy are discussed: energy, flat tax, regulation, etc. At this point everyone knows stimulus doesn't work, so listening to that being discussed is a waste of time. People are deeply concerned about the economy, and the Republican debates are the only serious discussion of it.

Republicans are very interested in getting a candidate who can both solve the problem of the economy and beat Obama. Obama is a total incompetent and cannot run on his record, so he's going to have to fall back on class warfare, appeals to special interests, and personal attacks on the opposing candidates. So even the mudslinging nonsense is of interest. Who can answer scurrilous attacks? It's important to know.

I think the process is working well. It's likely to end with a good candidate.

From the standpoint of pure debate, Gingrich wins every time. He has had one too many wife to please Republicans, but I doubt it would matter much in the general election. Interesting.

Hes just the most intelligent and articulate. Hes ok with me. But he can be a bit generic.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 4:01:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 3:53:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Gingrich is not winning the debates. He's just good at making smart remarks and hyping up the GOP field. He defends his opponents more than he defends himself. He seems to be trying to secure a VP spot by making friends with every hopeful. I think SNL nailed it with the skit of Gingrich joyfully responding "No" when asked if he really wanted to be President.

Gingrich really isn't saying anything. He's not offering solutions at all. He's the GOP cheerleader.

You know who's been winning the debates? The guy who proudly proclaims to be opposed to the Federal Reserve, will withdraw all troops, destroy the military industrial complex, cut all aggressive interventionist military spending, will legalize all drugs, illuminate the income tax, abolish the IRS, legalize prostitution, eliminate unnecessary Federal departments, and restore sound currency.

That's who's winning debates and offering real solutions that hold up to scrutiny.

Please name one stable nation without a central bank? Please show examples where no central bank has fared well.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 4:04:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 4:01:17 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/25/2011 3:53:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Gingrich is not winning the debates. He's just good at making smart remarks and hyping up the GOP field. He defends his opponents more than he defends himself. He seems to be trying to secure a VP spot by making friends with every hopeful. I think SNL nailed it with the skit of Gingrich joyfully responding "No" when asked if he really wanted to be President.

Gingrich really isn't saying anything. He's not offering solutions at all. He's the GOP cheerleader.

You know who's been winning the debates? The guy who proudly proclaims to be opposed to the Federal Reserve, will withdraw all troops, destroy the military industrial complex, cut all aggressive interventionist military spending, will legalize all drugs, illuminate the income tax, abolish the IRS, legalize prostitution, eliminate unnecessary Federal departments, and restore sound currency.

That's who's winning debates and offering real solutions that hold up to scrutiny.

Please name one stable nation without a central bank? Please show examples where no central bank has fared well.

Panama... and I would contrast that favorably with other Central American nations:

http://mises.org...
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 4:10:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 4:04:22 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/25/2011 4:01:17 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/25/2011 3:53:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Gingrich is not winning the debates. He's just good at making smart remarks and hyping up the GOP field. He defends his opponents more than he defends himself. He seems to be trying to secure a VP spot by making friends with every hopeful. I think SNL nailed it with the skit of Gingrich joyfully responding "No" when asked if he really wanted to be President.

Gingrich really isn't saying anything. He's not offering solutions at all. He's the GOP cheerleader.

You know who's been winning the debates? The guy who proudly proclaims to be opposed to the Federal Reserve, will withdraw all troops, destroy the military industrial complex, cut all aggressive interventionist military spending, will legalize all drugs, illuminate the income tax, abolish the IRS, legalize prostitution, eliminate unnecessary Federal departments, and restore sound currency.

That's who's winning debates and offering real solutions that hold up to scrutiny.

Please name one stable nation without a central bank? Please show examples where no central bank has fared well.

Panama... and I would contrast that favorably with other Central American nations:

http://mises.org...

It's still based on the US dollar which uses a central bank.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 4:21:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 4:10:37 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/25/2011 4:04:22 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/25/2011 4:01:17 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/25/2011 3:53:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Gingrich is not winning the debates. He's just good at making smart remarks and hyping up the GOP field. He defends his opponents more than he defends himself. He seems to be trying to secure a VP spot by making friends with every hopeful. I think SNL nailed it with the skit of Gingrich joyfully responding "No" when asked if he really wanted to be President.

Gingrich really isn't saying anything. He's not offering solutions at all. He's the GOP cheerleader.

You know who's been winning the debates? The guy who proudly proclaims to be opposed to the Federal Reserve, will withdraw all troops, destroy the military industrial complex, cut all aggressive interventionist military spending, will legalize all drugs, illuminate the income tax, abolish the IRS, legalize prostitution, eliminate unnecessary Federal departments, and restore sound currency.

That's who's winning debates and offering real solutions that hold up to scrutiny.

Please name one stable nation without a central bank? Please show examples where no central bank has fared well.

Panama... and I would contrast that favorably with other Central American nations:

http://mises.org...

It's still based on the US dollar which uses a central bank.

Also, why didn't Panama use gold or silver or other commodity? Then nobody would be able to influence the money supply? :p.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 4:56:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 4:21:08 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/25/2011 4:10:37 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/25/2011 4:04:22 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/25/2011 4:01:17 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/25/2011 3:53:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Gingrich is not winning the debates. He's just good at making smart remarks and hyping up the GOP field. He defends his opponents more than he defends himself. He seems to be trying to secure a VP spot by making friends with every hopeful. I think SNL nailed it with the skit of Gingrich joyfully responding "No" when asked if he really wanted to be President.

Gingrich really isn't saying anything. He's not offering solutions at all. He's the GOP cheerleader.

You know who's been winning the debates? The guy who proudly proclaims to be opposed to the Federal Reserve, will withdraw all troops, destroy the military industrial complex, cut all aggressive interventionist military spending, will legalize all drugs, illuminate the income tax, abolish the IRS, legalize prostitution, eliminate unnecessary Federal departments, and restore sound currency.

That's who's winning debates and offering real solutions that hold up to scrutiny.

Please name one stable nation without a central bank? Please show examples where no central bank has fared well.

Panama... and I would contrast that favorably with other Central American nations:

http://mises.org...

It's still based on the US dollar which uses a central bank.

Also, why didn't Panama use gold or silver or other commodity? Then nobody would be able to influence the money supply? :p.

ask Panama...

And, just because something isn't being used doesn't mean it doesn't work... Lots of countries have Socialized Medicine, despite its undeniable failure...

And, lots of countries have central banks... The question is whether these central banks have done bad or good
President of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 7:33:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 4:04:22 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/25/2011 4:01:17 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/25/2011 3:53:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Gingrich is not winning the debates. He's just good at making smart remarks and hyping up the GOP field. He defends his opponents more than he defends himself. He seems to be trying to secure a VP spot by making friends with every hopeful. I think SNL nailed it with the skit of Gingrich joyfully responding "No" when asked if he really wanted to be President.

Gingrich really isn't saying anything. He's not offering solutions at all. He's the GOP cheerleader.

You know who's been winning the debates? The guy who proudly proclaims to be opposed to the Federal Reserve, will withdraw all troops, destroy the military industrial complex, cut all aggressive interventionist military spending, will legalize all drugs, illuminate the income tax, abolish the IRS, legalize prostitution, eliminate unnecessary Federal departments, and restore sound currency.

That's who's winning debates and offering real solutions that hold up to scrutiny.

Please name one stable nation without a central bank? Please show examples where no central bank has fared well.

Panama... and I would contrast that favorably with other Central American nations:

http://mises.org...

Dude, Panama just pegged their currency to ours. That's not an example of lack of central bank, that's an example of copying the pricing of an existing central bank.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 7:39:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 7:33:13 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/25/2011 4:04:22 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/25/2011 4:01:17 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/25/2011 3:53:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Gingrich is not winning the debates. He's just good at making smart remarks and hyping up the GOP field. He defends his opponents more than he defends himself. He seems to be trying to secure a VP spot by making friends with every hopeful. I think SNL nailed it with the skit of Gingrich joyfully responding "No" when asked if he really wanted to be President.

Gingrich really isn't saying anything. He's not offering solutions at all. He's the GOP cheerleader.

You know who's been winning the debates? The guy who proudly proclaims to be opposed to the Federal Reserve, will withdraw all troops, destroy the military industrial complex, cut all aggressive interventionist military spending, will legalize all drugs, illuminate the income tax, abolish the IRS, legalize prostitution, eliminate unnecessary Federal departments, and restore sound currency.

That's who's winning debates and offering real solutions that hold up to scrutiny.

Please name one stable nation without a central bank? Please show examples where no central bank has fared well.

Panama... and I would contrast that favorably with other Central American nations:

http://mises.org...

Dude, Panama just pegged their currency to ours. That's not an example of lack of central bank, that's an example of copying the pricing of an existing central bank.

I can see he has some sort of point though. It's not as If a bank in Panama can go to the Federal Reserve and ask for money like banks can in America.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 4:43:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I want to thank geo, with help from jimtimmy, for derailing a serious thread with a load of irrelevant garbage. Posting virtually any topic in the forums is pointless these days because of singe-minded garbage like that. You should start your own threads rather than trashing other peoples.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 4:49:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think it is because real ideas on how to fix the economy are discussed: energy, flat tax, regulation, etc. At this point everyone knows stimulus doesn't work, so listening to that being discussed is a waste of time. People are deeply concerned about the economy, and the Republican debates are the only serious discussion of it.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 5:25:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Roy, you will be very very very disappointed November next year when Romney loses to Obama by a significant margin.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 8:26:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 4:43:08 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I want to thank geo, with help from jimtimmy, for derailing a serious thread

You said "From the standpoint of pure debate, Gingrich wins every time." And guess what. I responded directly to that. Perfectly relevant so what's the problem.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 9:27:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 3:37:38 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The Republican debates have all the ingredients of bad television: Not just talking heads, but talking political heads, often run on obscure networks. The surprise is that the ratings have been very strong. Why?

I think it is because real ideas on how to fix the economy are discussed: energy, flat tax, regulation, etc. At this point everyone knows stimulus doesn't work, so listening to that being discussed is a waste of time. People are deeply concerned about the economy, and the Republican debates are the only serious discussion of it.

Republicans are very interested in getting a candidate who can both solve the problem of the economy and beat Obama. Obama is a total incompetent and cannot run on his record, so he's going to have to fall back on class warfare, appeals to special interests, and personal attacks on the opposing candidates. So even the mudslinging nonsense is of interest. Who can answer scurrilous attacks? It's important to know.

I think the process is working well. It's likely to end with a good candidate.

From the standpoint of pure debate, Gingrich wins every time. He has had one too many wife to please Republicans, but I doubt it would matter much in the general election. Interesting.

In my opinion, there isn't enough time for serious debate in the GOP debate. They basically just present their opinion and that's it. Because they can't really debate, I am currently going with the candidate who's views mesh with mine the best, which is of course Ron Paul.

However, I haven't really had the time to watch the last few debates so some things may have changed,
PartamRuhem
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:36:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 8:26:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/26/2011 4:43:08 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I want to thank geo, with help from jimtimmy, for derailing a serious thread

You said "From the standpoint of pure debate, Gingrich wins every time." And guess what. I responded directly to that. Perfectly relevant so what's the problem.

Yeah, Roy, what's the problem with that statement? I strongly support Ron Paul as well. Everything Geo said makes PERFECT sense.

@darkkermit (i believe it was) This country, back in 1913. We didn't have a central banking system. We were doing swell without one. Britain did pretty good without one as well.

What we see is a difference in banks across the world. You can't just say that because most stable nations have a central banking system, that central banking is a sound system. As debaters, we all know that this can easily be invalidated with a single reference to something that contradicts it.

There are spinoffs, different interests rates, all kinds of variables that foreign countries may exempt/apply that ours does/doesn't. Basically, ours is sh!t and needs to get going.

We were fine in 1913, we will stay fine without a central banking system. It's just causing problems. Maybe not for everyone, but definitly for us.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:55:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 3:37:38 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Republicans are very interested in getting a candidate who can both solve the problem of the economy and beat Obama. Obama is a total incompetent and cannot run on his record, so he's going to have to fall back on class warfare, appeals to special interests, and personal attacks on the opposing candidates. So even the mudslinging nonsense is of interest. Who can answer scurrilous attacks? It's important to know.

Right - because Republicans don't appeal to special interests or trash talk their opponents. GET REAL. Also, what you call class warfare can refer to a genuine and legitimate disagreement with the "capitalist" paradigm. It's amusing to me that anyone who doesn't favor capitalist principles is automatically seen as less intelligent or credible. Btw the French Revolution was rooted in class warfare too. That term is an oversimplification of economic unrest or dissatisfaction and can apply to so many things at so many levels.

I think the process is working well. It's likely to end with a good candidate.

Mmk.

From the standpoint of pure debate, Gingrich wins every time. He has had one too many wife to please Republicans, but I doubt it would matter much in the general election. Interesting.

Ron Paul pwns those debates. Newt Gingrich can't beat Obama anyway.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:57:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 8:26:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/26/2011 4:43:08 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I want to thank geo, with help from jimtimmy, for derailing a serious thread

You said "From the standpoint of pure debate, Gingrich wins every time." And guess what. I responded directly to that. Perfectly relevant so what's the problem.

Truth.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 10:09:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also sorry to derail this precious thread, if my post was seen as such. To make it relevant I'll agree and say that I agree Ron Paul wins debates; the candidates just sort of roll their eyes or visibly don't take him seriously because they know his views are unpopular (and thus he very likely won't win the nomination), so they don't have to actually make better points or negate his. Also, running on a small government paradigm makes them look hypocritical or ignorant when they try to respond to his criticisms. Roy - What makes you think Gingrich wins over Paul, out of curiosity? What specific aspects make Gingrich stick out as the "clear" victor?

I agree that people are watching the debates because they're nervous about the economy. I think Republicans are very interested in beating Obama and people want to find out the best way to do that. I didn't think anyone would beat Obama, but now I think someone like Mitt Romney could. He's the only one I think who could do it.
President of DDO
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 10:22:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ron Paul has a completely unrealistic view of foreign policy, and its so far out that no one takes it seriously. He has a doctrine of equivalence, so that if the US has nuclear weapons then, he argues, it has to be okay for North Korea and Iran to have nukes. He would not sanction or even criticize nutcases. He implies that a free market in nukes would be fine. After all, everybody is equally entitled to nukes, so there is no way that anyone could be denied. He claims that if we just abandoned sanctions and criticism, then Iran and North Korea would be peaceful. He says they are just like the Soviet Union and would not risk using nukes for fear of retaliation.

Paul says that if somebody uses WMDs, then we have a reason to get upset, but until then it's not a problem. So if New York disappears under a mushroom cloud, we'll start looking for fingerprints or something. Its so nuts that no one thinks its worth disputing. When he is interviewed on television, no one asks him to support his view that Iran is completely rational and will respond favorably. He is calling upon faith in support of his ideology.

He wants to abolish the CIA so we have no intelligence information. If someone smuggles a nuke into New York, we will have nothing to go on except to look for fingerprints.

I think it's unfortunate his foreign policy ideas are so spaced out. He makes a lot of sense on economic issues, but he's not taken seriously. He'd be a good Secretary of the Treasury.

Gingrich wins by staying on the issues and having vast knowledge to support his opinions. He recites multiple historical examples to make his points. He gets below the top level of ideology to the substance of the individual issues and uses evidence. No one keeps up with that. He has a strong sense of what is possible and how to get there, having worked successfully with Clinton to both their credit. That comes across in the debates. He also refuses to attack the other candidates and stays on the issues. That's a good debate tactic because the audience really does not like ad hom attacks from a presidential type.

I'll grant that being a winning debater does not mean that he is a winning candidate. Democrats will use vicious personal attacks, since they cannot run on a record of accomplishment. Gingrich is open to that; he had what Republicans call "one wife too many." He often comes across as arrogant. Obama went through the whole election campaign based entirely on meaningless slogans -- and he won.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 10:28:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If say, Iran were to aquire nukes... and then decide to use these nukes.. Everyone in the world would gang up on them.

It isn't even worth worrying about. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to use nukes. If Iran did use a nuke, not only would they quickly be delt with, but not a single nuke from us or anyone else in the world would need to be fired for that to happen.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 12:11:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 10:28:19 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
If say, Iran were to aquire nukes... and then decide to use these nukes.. Everyone in the world would gang up on them.

It isn't even worth worrying about. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to use nukes. If Iran did use a nuke, not only would they quickly be delt with, but not a single nuke from us or anyone else in the world would need to be fired for that to happen.

Iran is on record as accepting the vision that a worldwide conflagration will bring about the return of the twelfth imam and the triumph of Islam.

"For his part, Ahmadinejad is living up to at least part of his call to the faithful. . . .
Ahmadinejad and others in Iran are deadly serious about the imminent return of the 12th imam, who will prompt a global battle between good and evil (with striking parallels to biblical accounts of "Armageddon").

An institute set up in 2004 for the study and dissemination of information about the Mahdi now has a staff of 160 and influence in the schools and children's magazines. " http://www.babylonforsaken.com...

Iran need not use nukes directly. Instead they could just give them to a terrorist group like al Qaeda. Paul says that everyone has an equal right to nukes, so under that logic it could be an open sale or gift without fear of US reprisal. Al Qaeda could then send the nuke to New York in a shipping container set to explode when it enters the harbor.

In a world full of nukes, how would it be traced to al Qaeda? Remember, no CIA. If it was traced to al Qaeda, how would the US retaliate? Nuke Pakistan?

You say that no one should have worried about the Soviets having nukes. I hate to tell you, but people worried a lot. The worry was about a mentally unstable person or group seizing control of a missile, or a desperate leader miscalculating. Most of the Left wanted the US to voluntarily disarm rather than take the risk. Iran is a great deal less stable, and al Qaeda barely comes from the same planet as the rest of us.
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 8:02:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
A country not having their own central banks is a recipe for disaster. Perfect examples of countries not having their own central bank resulting in disaster are Argentina in the early 00's and Greece, Spain, Italy, France, Latvia, Portugal, and Ireland today.
Not having your own central bank makes it so you can't devalue your currency and adjust to economic shocks, or huge bubbles. Not having your own currency also means that you cannot effectively run high deficits.

Also when you look at the economic data you find that in America before we had a central bank recessions were longer, more frequent, and deeper. After we got a central bank the economy did better.
http://www.nber.org...

Also when you look at data from the great depression the sooner a country left the Gold standard the sooner that countries economy recovered; having a Gold standard is similar to not having your own currency which means it is bad for the economy. http://thinkprogress.org...
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 8:11:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 3:37:38 PM, RoyLatham wrote:


I think it is because real ideas on how to fix the economy are discussed: energy, flat tax, regulation, etc. At this point everyone knows stimulus doesn't work, so listening to that being discussed is a waste of time. People are deeply concerned about the economy, and the Republican debates are the only serious discussion of it.


1)The flat tax would hurt the economy. We are suffering from a lack of demand and a flat tax would result in an even greater fall in demand because a flat tax would increase taxes on middle class consumers. A flat tax would mean that if you have income below 200,000 your taxes will increase while the richest get huge tax cuts. The result of a flat taxes increase on taxes on the poor would push poverty up by 160%, meaning America would have the same poverty rate as countries in Africa. For example if you make 25,000-40,000 under a flat tax you would see your taxes increase by around 100%
2)Pretty much all the republican 2012 candidates simply want to eliminate all regulations. This would be horrible for the economy. Environmental regulations such as the Clean air act, the acid rain capo and trade, mercury/arsenic/lead, the Ozone protection act, and other pollutant reducing regulations save the economy trillions of dollars and millions of lives
Also energy standard regulations save hundreds of billions of dollars by increase energy efficiency.
The fact that republicans just simply want to do away with ALL regulations is a sign that republicans are completely clueless idiots.
3)Stimulus doesn't work? The last stimulus kept millions of people out of poverty, created 2.5 million permanent jobs, and another 3 million temporary jobs; not to mention that the investments in the stimulus will save the economy 3 times more money than the cost of the total stimulus (in 10 years). How you consider that "not working" is beyond me.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2011 12:12:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 8:11:39 AM, Willoweed wrote:
The fact that republicans just simply want to do away with ALL regulations is a sign that republicans are completely clueless idiots.

Gingrich wrote a whole book advocating environmental regulation. It's obviously not true that Republicans want to eliminate all regulation. No one's ever said that, not even Ron Paul.
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2011 12:30:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think Mitt Romney will ultimately become the front runner because every other republican candidate receives such bad press like Rick Perry's debate blunders, Herman Cain's scandals, Newt Gingrich has had a few well known affairs which would bite him in the campaign, Mitt Romney is the only clean candidate

In my opinion
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2011 12:28:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/22/2011 12:12:49 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/18/2011 8:11:39 AM, Willoweed wrote:
The fact that republicans just simply want to do away with ALL regulations is a sign that republicans are completely clueless idiots.

Gingrich wrote a whole book advocating environmental regulation. It's obviously not true that Republicans want to eliminate all regulation. No one's ever said that, not even Ron Paul.

Newt, Paul, Perry, and Bachman have all said they want to eliminate all environmental regulations hell Paul says it on one of his websites