Ron Paul shuts down New Gingrich
I keep saying that I really do like Ron Paul's domestic ideas, his foreign policy would be a disaster and lead to genocide in Israel, and probably WWIII. There are a lot of unfriendly govts right now that covet what their neighbors have and with the US not watching and acting they will be much more likely to take a chance. American, British, and French isolationism allowed WWII to become WWII and not just a localized scuffle.
Wondering when this sideshow attraction is gonna end and when the real candidates are gonna start showing up. If any of these people, with the slight exception of Ron Paul, gets elected, I'm moving to Europe. Paul and Huntsman are the only ones left who have the slightest chance of winning against Obama. Paul is too "states rights", too anti-science, and has been quoted being against the civil rights act. I can't get behind some of Huntsman's tax policies, and he doesnt support gay marriage. The rest of them are crazier than a fox
Santorum would like the US to be a theocracy. He will get the evangelical right, he will not even get the fiscal right, not to mention moderate GOP and independents. No one but the church crowd is showing up.
Romney doesnt have a shot against Obama because conservatives couldnt care less about him. Mitt would pull a good portion of the independent vote, and even some moderate dems who dislike Obama, but he will alienate true conservatives in the process. Mitt would lose due to poor turnout.
Gingrich has great ideas but a ton of baggage. He is the type that would probably do better in the general election than the primaries.
Paul is great on domestic policy. I would love to see his 1 trillion of budget cuts come true. If he only had a practical foreign policy.
Huntsman is irrelevant. He has some good ideas and would make a good cabinet member but he has no shot. His problem is the same as Gary Johnson, they just dont have anything in the campaign to get anyone excited.
Blank, whats wrong with state's rights? Outside of defense and monetary policy, which the states cannot possibly do themselves, what is the fed govt doing that the states could not do better for themselves?
.......And Gingrich goes down for the count !!
I'm ok with some states rights. But sometimes its good for everyone to be on the same page. Like education for example. If we give states too much control over curriculum, pretty soon the whole bible belt will think it's ok to teach creationism along side evolution as scientific fact. It's not science, or fact, and if you want to teach it to your kids, you can take them to church and not subject my children to it. Then soon after, kids are gonna get rejected from serious jobs because they think that the earth might have been created 6000 years ago. It's scary. But Paul's the only person up there who supports the decriminalization of marijuana. Unless he can make that his claim-to-fame, I don't think I can give him my vote
Jimmy you would probably be surprised but I'm voting Ron Paul.
Paul "your bullshit makes the flowers grow"
I agree with most of this.Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
Santorum will just get the evangelicals, that's pretty much it.
Romney, from what I see is just BARELY right of center, and I mean BARELY.
Gingrich is probably the most intelligent and well versed of the candidates, his baggage really doesn't bother me all that much.
Paul says a lot of things that no one else will say, whether he could get them done or not is another story. His foreign policy is pretty unconventional, but I don't think it's quite as isolationist as the media portray it. I think we do need to scale back our interventionist policies a bit.
Huntsman has some good points, and has been getting a little traction lately. I won't count him completely out at this point, in 08 McCain was so far out that he was flying commercial airlines and basically had no money and ended up with the nomination.
Dept nf Education as we know it wasnt around until 1979 end the bible belt didnt just teach creationism before it so this argument is moot. I do agree with you in a way though. The lack of educational choices in this country is a disaster. I am a firm believer in school vouchers and in school choice.
A little note of fact on education. Since the foreation of the Dept of Ed and federal education standards, American test scores have steadily declined as compared to the rest of the world, while at the same time, spending more per student than any other country.
Not surprised at all with your change in candidate as a lot of Obama supporters are having buyers remorse. I would expect you to go more towards Romney though as his often revisited and revised views are very centric.
i like ron paul b/c he is more of a 3rd party than republican, romney is a puppet, newt is antichrist, perry is dumber than bush, and santorum should of changed his last name. lol
Paul "your bullshit makes the flowers grow"
Romney is a puppet and its obvious. GOP really needs to dump their philosophy of people waiting their turn for establishment support and basicly stay out of it until the voters decide on their nominee. They are hurting themselves because we end up with just more of the same every election.
Think about how bad of candidates Gore and Kerry made that Bush beat them.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
ya the GOP didn't do themselves any favors with the lot they have running.
Paul "your bullshit makes the flowers grow"
Correlation does not imply causation. There are many of other variables that affect test scores.
Disagree, Romney would do much better because anti Obama sentiment is so huge they'll vote for him just to oust Obama.
Gop will vote party line regardless, they did it with McCain. He's the only one with a shot at pulling moderate dem and independent.
And I hate admitting that cause I hate Romney.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Almost as much as I hate ron Paul and santorum and gomer pile .....I mean huntsman
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
There's no way Obama will win majority vote again. Any GOP candidate at this point will beat him because we are all fed up with Obama.
Ron Paul just comes off too eccentric And is old but has the best ideas.
Quoted for future reference. If its any of these people aside from Ron Paul vs. Obama, Obama will win by a landslide. Again.
I call a 55/45% win by majority vote, with Obama taking a little more than half the electorate.
Quote me
LOL no way it'll be close either way
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
I think he bruised his rep a little bit with the D's when he signed the NDAA, not sure how much his signing statement is worth, but Romney is the epitome of what everyone was barking against this year: money in politics.
As is Obama with his billion dollar campaign.
I still wonder if Obama is going to try to run on his record or if it will just be about flooding the airwaves with negativity.
My guess is that he will go a out 90% negative and only run on his record in states he has already won such as Cali and NY.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
Romney is the BEST chance to win sorry.
Ron Paul would get slaughtered in a general election and hammered by Obama in a debate.and frankly he's not a GOP person. He's very far out in his domestic and foreign policy. His supporters ARENT conservative people.
Newt lost his mojo when he got off message.
Santorum wont pull independents
Either way election will be very very close, no landslide in either direction as the anti establishment sentiment is very deep
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Good video Random. I hadn't seen it yet.
Republicans don't like Romney. He's Bush Jr. 2.0.
Then you haven't studied Romney. He's nowhere near George bush on issues.
They don't like him but they can live with him.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Romney as a Massachusetts governor was far more liberal than bush. He ran a venture capitalist company that did positive things. Bush ran several start ups that failed.
I don't think Romney is as big govt as bush turned out to be
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
You mean the venture capital company that did positive things like breaking down and selling half of its holdings, laying off thousands of people so Romney and friends could make a couple million? That kind of positive? Or am I reaching there.
Hey. I guess it's just the way capitalism works right? Lol.
Figured you would say that, its the current talking point going around
Newsflash, capitalism isn't designed for EVERYONE to succeed, businesses fail. What he did with boehn was invest in companies or strip them down to make them competitive, sometimes layoffs are inevitable. Sometimes people come in, liquadate a company for profit because its business model ISNT PROFITABLE.
Solydra was the same thing except the only problem with that is Obama used TAX PAYER money and govt subsidized loans.
If someone wants to use their private capital to make money, as long as its legal, so what. If someone approached me tomorrow and said hey, $10000 investment we can buy out this failing company and sell its assets for $100,000, well have to lay everyone off ......I'd do it in a heartbeat. Laying people off that would already be fired anyway, what's the big deal?
People do it with cars ALL THE TIME. Someones $1000 wrecked RSX type s, someone will come in, buy it, and part it out in pieces to make more money.
Venture capitalists do the same thing. If its a proven business model, they'll keep it, if not they part it out.
No one talks about the jobs he created from staples etc
When did having a job become a right? Its not a right, its a privledge you EARN.
our domestic auto companies are incompetent and not competitive becauee of unions. We SHOULD lay off jobs to make it more efficient and streamline work, instead, the workers say no, even though we are bankrupt, we want a raise.
real world doesn't work that way.
Socialized investment and private losses is wrong.
Private investment and private losses/gains is perfectly American
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
So what you would do with YOUR MONEY, is continue to lose money so you could save a few jobs right?
Then I say you should open a business with negative revenue and create jobs, and keep it open regardless of profit.
Put your words into action
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
I wouldn't buy a bad business in the first place. I'm more of a "collective" thinker. If I'm gonna sink 10k into a failing business, I'm gonna re-invent it, make it profitable again, that way, instead of a quick 100k, I have a continuous stream of revenue. I guess thats the difference between people with a lot of ideas, and people with one idea. The RSX is a bad example. If I part out the car, no one else is gonna to hungry because of it. If I sell off a company for 100k, but then 10 people can't feed their children next week, then I haven't really gained anything.
Sure it's a proven model. It works to make a few people a couple bucks fast. It's too easy.
but what if the business model ISNT PROFITABLE? Sometimes a business is just BAD. Take a restaurant. The owner is facing bankruptcy because his business is failing (could be from bad management, bad menu, bad location, whatever). Hes going under no matter what. Someone could come in, buy him out, liquidate his assets , lay people off (Who were going to be laid off anyway), and walk away making money (which is the goal of any business). What is wrong with that? Maybe the guy with the money doesnt want to own a restaurant and just wants to make money. SO WHAT?
If 10 people cant feed their children next week, guess what, they werent going to feed their children ANYWAY when the business gets repoed by the bank, or creditors, whatever.
There is NOTHING wrong with liquidating a company an making a profit , even if layoffs occur.
Who are we to tell people who are investing THEIR money what they can do with it, how many jobs they HAVE to save, etc? What they do with THEIR MONEY is THEIR BUSINESS. People get fired or laid off everyday, boo hoo. Find another job. IVE BEEN LAID OFF, it sucks, but , i moved on.
In your world you want to dictate how to make profit, how much profit is "ok", and no one ever gets laid off. That is simply a fantasy land.
PEOPLE GET LAID OFF, COMPANIES DOWNSIZE, ITS PERFECTLY OK.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Bullshit, if you could make 100% profit you would. I dont think anyone is that above financial gain.
SOme businesses CANNOT BE SAVED no matter what. They go under. Or they have to be downsized, or broken up into pieces. If you can save the company you will of course, but what about the company that ISNT SAVEABLE? Look at KODAK, they arent viable, they got too far behind on technology, ran into the ground by FUJIFILM and now theres nothing left. Someone will buy them though for pennies on the dollar and slice them up and part them out. SO WHAT?
If I'm gonna sink 10k into a failing business, I'm gonna re-invent it, make it profitable again, that way, instead of a quick 100k, I have a continuous stream of revenue.
you act like thats ALL romney did. Obviously he didnt. Companies he could save , they did(BURGER KING). Companies that could be expanded, he did (STAPLES). Companies that couldnt be saved, they gutted and made a profit. Again, SO THE FUCK WHAT?
I guess thats the difference between people with a lot of ideas, and people with one idea.
I was just showing how 1 persons assets could be worth more in the hands of someone with more options. One persons bankruptcy could be another persons gold mine. Again, it comes down to who is smart, who has connections, and in many cases, who has the money to turn a company around.The RSX is a bad example. If I part out the car, no one else is gonna to hungry because of it. If I sell off a company for 100k, but then 10 people can't feed their children next week, then I haven't really gained anything.
The 10 families you talk about were going to be out of a job anyway, so nothing changed. IF they save the company , then they got lucky.
What if someone bought the company and instead of 10 workers, cut it down to 5 workers, and returned the company to profitability because their workforce was too big. Would you be just as upset then? Or would you still call him a bad guy cause "he cut 5 workers".
Whats wrong with being easy? So people should only make money if its HARD?Sure it's a proven model. It works to make a few people a couple bucks fast. It's too easy.
It just sounds to me like you think every company HAS to keep jobs and has to employ people regardless of their revenue stream. People go into business to become wealthy. The real world operates on numbers and cents. If you can make your company more efficient by downsizing, and to be competitive, then do it. Sucks to lay people off but it sucks to go out of business too. If you experience a boom and want to hire 100 more people then you should do it. But when the boom dies, those 100 extras gotta go. Should we artificially keep them because "its the right thing to do"?
Not every business owner fires people to buy themselves another yacht or mansion.
If you hate what Romney did, then you should be bashing OBama for letting Solyndra waste 500MILLION dollars in YOUR MONEY, and LAYOFF 1000 WORKERS.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
This train of thought is logical, but it's this mentality that breeds corruption. Money above morals, screwing over other people to make a quick buck. While I believe money is very important, I could never say it is OK for people to get laid off.
define OK
Its not a moral argument, its a dollars and cents argument. You either trim the fat and excess, or you continue doing what GM does, which is continue paying higher than normal wages and employing 1000s of people they DONT NEED. Theyll continue being bankrupt and having to be bailed out. Their work force is subpar and overpaid, they NEED To lay people off, fire people who underperform, and pay people the normal competitive wage. But the unions wont let that happen. So GM sends their business to China.
No one WANTS layoffs, because layoffs mean you arent expanding. But sometimes LAYOFFS HAVE TO HAPPEN , its just part of business. If you dont lay people off, then you raise your prices, and make yourself even more uncompetitive.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
this aint showfriends its showbusiness :P
Some people are cutthroat and are like Gordon Gecko, they buy just to liquidate. But theres no law saying you have to have compassion.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Define NEED. You and Jimmy are the first to jump on someone when they say CEOs dont NEED multi-multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Lol. Now we see what GREED actually means!
Jimmy get your ass in here. This is your definition of greed! LOL. Figured it was a one way street....
When your sales are slumping you shouldn't keep your work force the same.
When your sales are down you shouldn't continue to pay people uncompetitive wages
They don't need the hundreds of workers they can't fire who sit in a room and collect 30+$/HR because the union says so.
That good enough?
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
CEO SHOULD MAKE MILLIONS IF THE COMPANY IS HEALTHY. Just like if GM could afford to pay a screw Turner 60k a year they should. Bit they can't because they are making inferior products that don't sell, and what they do sell is more expensive to make than their competitions product.
So why should the cycle stay the same? Because morally you don't think people should be laid off?
In a little more practical than that
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Business is just as much about money as it is business ethics. But yes, in that example would be understandable and logical. Of course layoffs have to happen here and there, but like I said I don't think it's OK. When you say that something is OK it sounds like you mean it's a positive thing, atleast that's how I take it.
What's unethical about trying to keep your doors open? What's unethical about making profit?
Show me a business that Romney took over that was well in the black and he gutted it. Then maybe ill have a little sympathy.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Whats unethical about it is that people think the profit motive and short term gain is always the best way to go about everything and that's simply not the case. We've applied it to too many things: healthcare, education, energy and look where we're at. It costs $50,000 to get a broken leg fixed, it costs $100k to get a good education, it costs almost $4 for a gallon of gas (that's been cut by alcohol!). All because people want to make a profit off of it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
