RoR: Forum

I wasn't able to put up more than those 8 names (plus the 'none' and 'other').

Here is the full list. Does anyone have any others names (not that I can add them)?

Michelle Bachman,
Haley Barbour,
Bob Barr,
Jeb Bush,
Eric Cantor,
Jim DeMint,
Jeff Flake,
Newt Gingrich,
Rudy Giuliani,
Mike Huckabee,
Bobby Jindal,
Gary Johnson,
Jon Kyl,
Sarah Palin,
Rand Paul,
Ron Paul,
Tim Pawlenty,
Mike Pence,
Rick Perry,
Mitt Romney,
Marco Rubio,
Paul Ryan,
John Shadegg,
Tom Tancredo,
Fred Thompson,
None of these,
Other (please specify)

Post 1

Saturday, June 5, 2010 - 12:27pm

Ron Paul polls well and he is not half bad, but it is the other half that worries me.
I had to look up Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry and many of the others. Michele Bachmann's family farm gets subsidies, as so many do, but also she and her MD husband have a "counseling" business that derives its teachings from Jesus. Rick Perry alternately refused federal education funds and but accepted bailout funds. And so it goes... I know that some here like Fred Thompson but remember that the original John Galt Speaks Video began with "Mr. Thompson" speaking about sacrifice. I used to send money to GOPAC and listen to Newt Gingrich tapes. I even made my daughter listen to one when I had her trapped in the car. But now? Not so much...

That is the problem with the conservatives. While Ron Paul is, indeed, the most libertarian of them, the bar is low enough to step over. And I do not have the big problem with the Federal Reserve that he and his supporters seem to. I understand the bank and its not-really-public-not-really-private nature, but how is that different from anything else the government does? The Fed is the not the cause of all of our problems. As long as the Treasury accepts FRNs for gold and silver coins of US Mint manufacture, it looks like a gold-backed system to me.

The "right-to-life" (so-called) platforms are problematic, of course. Objectivists can generate a lot of truly important confusion by insisting that pro-life is pro-choice. I mean that. Break through those assumptions of theirs because the "pro-choice" crowd is really the "anti-life" gang, are they not -- and vice versa for the living death of forced pregnancy.

Ayn Rand (reluctantly) endorsed Richard Nixon. He severed the last ties of the dollar to gold, bridged diplomacy with China, envisioned Asia after Vietnam, and launched the Environmental Protection Agency. Is that what you want? That would mean diplomacy with Iran (and delivering military secrets about Israel to help balance the power in the region). It would mean halting the sale of US bullion coins. (Ron Paul might not do that -- unless he had to -- but how about President Bachmann or President Perry?) It would mean new regulations of things the government does not now regulate. Space flight, maybe? Underseas colonization? Sealing the borders? How do you know? What principles do any of these people actually give evidence of over the course of their public careers? Again, yes, Ron Paul... more or less the best of a weak lot...

Post 2

Saturday, June 5, 2010 - 1:05pm

Michael, some of the points you make are valid, but they don't help much with the actual question of who, among those that might be candidates, should get the vote. Your contribution isn't much help in that area.

And, I for one am not going to be able to get past the idea of advice on presidential candidates from an anarchist :-)

The Fed holds more responsibility for our monetary problems than any other single aspect of today's government - it is not possible to have the kind of bubbles we have experienced without credit expansion. The Fed constitutes government control over the price of money. It is like the government jumping in and controlling the price of gasoline, except that they work hand in hand with the treasury, borrowing and printing, so that they are also controlling the supply of money. That massive interference in the market place on something as fundamental as money and credit is a disaster. I can't believe that you seem to be okay with it.

You don't have a problem with Goldman Sachs applying for the bank status needed to belly up to the Fed's 'free money' window? Or the regulatory powers the new Finance Reform legislation gives the Fed (like the permission to take over any business that it deems a danger to the country's financial security, or like the permission to loan from a slush fund to any organization deemed to big to fail - without any authorization from congress, or taking over the job of setting salary caps for executives, or running a consumer financial watch-dog agency to stop 'unfair' financial practices)?

Post 3

Saturday, June 5, 2010 - 2:20pm

I went with Other, because Jeff Flake and Gary Johnson weren't on the list of 8 possibilities you listed (though they were on the addendum for post 0). I would probably have to flip a coin to choose between those two.

Post 4

Sunday, June 6, 2010 - 6:43pm

SW: "Michael, some of the points you make are valid, but they don't help much with the actual question of who, among those that might be candidates, should get the vote. Your contribution isn't much help in that area. "

Well, of course, Steve, you want an objective answer that tells you what to think. I do not have that because the question does not allow it. This is about politics and politics is about compromise. Oh, not merely meeting you halfway on principles, old friend, but truly gutting those principles for the immediate gain of position. Politics is the art of making friends and making promises and keeping the one without keeping the other. I think that is from Atlas Shrugged. Sorry, old man, but you have to think for yourself here.

Sarah Palin... high school student council president then, and President of the United States tomorrow.

Politics looks like this.

Post 5

Sunday, June 6, 2010 - 8:49pm

Michael wrote, "Well, of course, Steve, you want an objective answer that tells you what to think."

Michael, I've never needed anyone else to think for me and your unfounded, gratuitous insults don't change that fact. I put the poll up there to generate intelligent discussion, but instead I got your unpleasant comments.

As to your evaluation of politics looking like an Alice Cooper music video... I have no doubt that many things look like that... to you.

Post 6

Sunday, June 6, 2010 - 11:22pm

Politics is rarely anywhere near as cool as an Alice Cooper video.

And I'm not that big of a fan of Alice Cooper videos.

Post 7

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 - 12:03am

Possibly Hayward from that BP company he is about primed for the job. Mike Huckabee is very observant in his public speculations.. After all if its public, it is controversial. Prolife/Prochoice obviously a dead issue it is her choice from the onset.
Right to keep and Bear arms. So be it. Once the bag pipes of scotland were considered a weapon The instrument is a toll of Home Land security. Pain ,woe and short term gratification seem to be the wave of the future. Doxa sells , so what.
The drug war and its moral invenory is a sham we all know it okay if served in pill.
What labour versus business why labor if it aint worth the business huh huh huh. If shops want to sell a thousand dollar o-ring who cares. Its thier right to ask for it. it is your responsibility to find a better o-ring.
To put it bluntly King Midas ain't never gonna shit a goldbrick.

Post 8

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 9:41am