McCain answers Ron Paul's question, contrasted with Miss Teen

[galtgulch]

Ron Paul asked McCain a serious question about the president's powerful committee on economics and showed that McCain had no idea what he was talking about.

http://tinyurl.com/338v8u

The video also shows a beauty queen contestant answering her question in much the same manner.

To think that McCain might become our next president is frightening.

Incidental note that Ron Paul received the endorsement on the first round of voting of an organization in Alabama renown for being the conscience of the republican party. Ron Paul exempifies the traditional conservative values and adherence to the Constitution which is the basis for their endorsement. Huckabee came in second and Romney was at the bottom.

galt

[BaalChatzaf]

Ron Paul asked McCain a serious question about the president's powerful committee on economics and showed that McCain had no idea what he was talking about.

http://tinyurl.com/338v8u

The video also shows a beauty queen contestant answering her question in much the same manner.

To think that McCain might become our next president is frightening.

Incidental note that Ron Paul received the endorsement on the first round of voting of an organization in Alabama renown for being the conscience of the republican party. Ron Paul exempifies the traditional conservative values and adherence to the Constitution which is the basis for their endorsement. Huckabee came in second and Romney was at the bottom.

galt

If the United States were not involved in a war for its very survival, I might very well vote for Ron Paul (regardless of his opinions on abortion). But we are at war, and we do not need a Bugle That Sounds Retreat at this time.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Wolf DeVoon]

a war for its very survival

I'm reminded of something Churchill said in 1938: "The world is a very heavy thing to blow up."

Survival of civil liberty is certainly an open question, ditto CBS, Merrill Lynch, and General Motors. But it's a safe bet that Iowa and Nebraska will always be able to feed themelves. Northern California, Oregon, Washington, Big Sky country, Colorado, Utah, all safe and strong. Is there a threat to Vermont?

[BaalChatzaf]

a war for its very survival

I'm reminded of something Churchill said in 1938: "The world is a very heavy thing to blow up."

Survival of civil liberty is certainly an open question, ditto CBS, Merrill Lynch, and General Motors. But it's a safe bet that Iowa and Nebraska will always be able to feed themelves. Northern California, Oregon, Washington, Big Sky country, Colorado, Utah, all safe and strong. Is there a threat to Vermont?

Not as long as the wild weed is in demand. And there is good land in Vermont too, as well as plentiful moose and deer.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[galtgulch]

If the United States were not involved in a war for its very survival, I might very well vote for Ron Paul (regardless of his opinions on abortion). But we are at war, and we do not need a Bugle That Sounds Retreat at this time.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I believe that they came here because we were there! Also believe overthrowing a dictator is morally justified. I understand Saddam Hussein enjoyed watching as men he had killed were forced through industrial sized shredders feet first. I wish that that shredder was present in the courtroom during his trial and that he suffered the same fate he inflicted on his victims.

It is unfortunate that the people of Iraq have been unable to take advantage of the opportunity the US gave them to establish a limited Constitutional republican form of government such as we are supposed to have here. The invasion was not thought though well enough. The Iraq army should not have been disbanded, etc.

Our Congress did not declare war not that it should have. Saddam was given the impression that the US wouldn't get involved if he invaded Kuwait. Our interventions in the middle east go back to establishing the Shah of Iran in 1953.

To paraphrase General Longstreet's advise to General Lee at Gettysburg, "Not retreat, redeploy!"

How do we justify the presence of troops in Germany, Japan and South Korea any longer? Not to mention the other 130 countries where they are stationed?

galt

Edited January 27, 2008 by galtgulch

[sjw]

If the United States were not involved in a war for its very survival, I might very well vote for Ron Paul (regardless of his opinions on abortion). But we are at war, and we do not need a Bugle That Sounds Retreat at this time.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It's so easy to buy into that war propaganda, especially given the shock of 9/11. But you need to step back and look at the facts.

What war? Against whom? What were the historic causes of it? You claim we are fighting in a war--but I don't see military action, I see military occupation.

Shayne

[sjw]

I believe that they came here because we were there! Also believe overthrowing a dictator is morally justified.

It is not morally justified to use American tax payer dollars and lives to overthrow a military dictator half way around the world, or to use the CIA to set up alternative governments as they did back in the 50's.

People think we need the oil. Well we only need the oil because it was available and we became dependent. But it was only available because our government used taxpayer dollars on a business escapade into that region. They had no right. And now our whole infrastructure is dependent on foreign oil. If we had not done that, we would have built our infrastructure around resources we could peacefully obtain. If we had done that then today we would only be economically dependent on the resources from stable, peaceful regions. Cars might look a little different, or they might not if we could drill for more oil here, but we would be safe.

We should never have gotten involved in the middle east. We took a bunch of primitives and armed them to the teeth with money, technology, and weapons. Bush is still doing it. It's a travesty. We should leave and let the place rot--or change of their own natural accord if they so choose. But trying to force primitives to be free is not only an immoral waste of taxpayer money, it is dangerous to us, and to them.

Shayne

Edited January 27, 2008 by sjw

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

People think we need the oil. Well we only need the oil because it was available and we became dependent.

. . .

... now our whole infrastructure is dependent on foreign oil. If we had not done that, we would have built our infrastructure around resources we could peacefully obtain.

. . .

We took a bunch of primitives and armed them to the teeth with money, technology, and weapons. Bush is still doing it. It's a travesty.

Shayne,

Hear hear!

Michael

EDIT: We need desparately to do some intellectual efforts in the region because I don't see the monetary/military interests evaporating soon.

[Wolf DeVoon]

our whole infrastructure is dependent on foreign oil

Not to quibble, but it ain't so. There are huge untapped US reserves in Alaska, California, Florida, the Great Lakes, and the Atlantic coast. We have a surplus of natural gas, coal, and nuclear power technology for electric power generation. No geological or economic reason to import foreign oil.

W.

[sjw]

our whole infrastructure is dependent on foreign oil

Not to quibble, but it ain't so. There are huge untapped US reserves in Alaska, California, Florida, the Great Lakes, and the Atlantic coast. We have a surplus of natural gas, coal, and nuclear power technology for electric power generation. No geological or economic reason to import foreign oil.

W.

"Whole" is only a slight exaggeration--we are massively dependent. Untapped reserves may indeed solve the dependency problem--but only if they are actually tapped! And that takes years!

Shayne

[Kat]

That mashup was crap. I did not find it funny at all. It insults the viewers' intelligence. I hope that is not not from Ron Paul's official organization. I was actually starting to like the guy.

Kat

[sjw]

That mashup was crap. I did not find it funny at all. It insults the viewers' intelligence. I hope that is not not from Ron Paul's official organization. I was actually starting to like the guy.

It was of course not put together by the official campaign. There are tons of videos on YouTube put together by passionate supporters, working as individuals, not as part of the organization. If you want to know what the campaign sanctions, then visit their website!

Not that McCain didn't deserve the comparison. It's not "crap", it's the truth: McCain totally evaded Ron Paul's question and in a totally incompetent manner. He's a joke.

Shayne

[Kat]

Shayne, I'm glad to hear it is not endorsed by Ron Paul and I suspected it wasn't. I was on Ron Paul's site a little earlier today watching him on video for the first time, and like I said earlier, I was impressed. Maybe I'm just getting too old to get this mash-up craze. I said it was crap because it was very annoying to watch because of the choppiness, not anything McCain or anyone said. Whatever he was saying was interrupted by the dingbat. It was like when you are trying to watch something and someone has the remote and keeps flipping channels on you and you just want to turn the TV off.

Kat

[sjw]

Shayne, I'm glad to hear it is not endorsed by Ron Paul and I suspected it wasn't. I was on Ron Paul's site a little earlier today watching him on video for the first time, and like I said earlier, I was impressed. Maybe I'm just getting too old to get this mash-up craze. I said it was crap because it was very annoying to watch because of the choppiness, not anything McCain or anyone said. Whatever he was saying was interrupted by the dingbat. It was like when you are trying to watch something and someone has the remote and keeps flipping channels on you and you just want to turn the TV off.

Kat

Oh, I misunderstood the term "mashup". Yes there's lots of unprofessional stuff on YouTube. But here's ABBA giving him their full support! (Joke)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2srnz-sgGU

Shayne

[Wolf DeVoon]

Untapped reserves may indeed solve the dependency problem--but only if they are actually tapped! And that takes years!

Truthfully, it's probably hopeless. Even if the US had the political will to drill Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, offshore Los Angeles, etc, which is doesn't and won't, our rig count is low and oilfield development is a dying art. Tens of thousands of drillers and explorationists have retired, died, or quit the business because they couldn't make a living at it. Geology schools are churning out global warming quacks, oceanographers, earthquake scholars. Integrated majors like Exxon and Chevron are buying imported crude because it's easy. The Middle East discoveries were made 80 years ago. Those wells are still producing (although declining). The pipelines and tanker facilities exist. No brainpower or risk required, so long as we maintain absolute air, land, and sea superiority in the Persian Gulf and don't actually blow anything up, which is becoming less likely by the hour.

The future? -- Atlas shrugged a long time ago. Statism Beats Capitalism

W.

Edited January 28, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[Wolf DeVoon]

He's a joke.

I think Senator McPain has a good chance of beating Romney and winning the general election 50.1/49.9

W.