Pelican Parts Forums
Page 2 of 2 « Prev 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)
-   Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)
-   -   Fair & Balanced? (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/385704-fair-balanced.html)

Seahawk 01-06-2008 04:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaptKaos (Post 3685354)
Some candidates need to be in the debates to force the "leading" candidate to address issues that they don't particularly want to have to deal with.
Agreed. I am just starting to ramp up on the candidates and their positions and would like to see Paul in the mix with the other candidates. To date I have not watched any election coverage since it is all blather without real consequence beyond interpretation by the media, the loud and the blurry:)

Now that the votes are being cast, I'm in.

Rearden 01-06-2008 08:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kach22i (Post 3685789)
Ron Paul was awesome, the smirks he got from the others in the debate only prove that he has valid points to make.

Dr. Paul said the high cost of oil is more a reflection of the fall of the dollar. That oil priced in Euro's and other currencies have seen only minor price increases. He said the national dept and spending money we don't have on the Iraq war are the reasons, and that the price of oil is right in step with the price of gold. Of course this makes his point that we would not have this type of energy "inflation" if we were on the gold standard and balanced our budgets.
I was smirking too. It wasn't because his points were valid. The way he tied health cost inflation to the gold standard was just plain stupid.

Rick Lee 01-06-2008 08:04 AM
FWIW, I'm watching Wolf Blitzer's show right now and he will be in interviewing Ron Paul in a few minutes.

MRM 01-06-2008 09:07 AM
The whole gold standard idea is goofy beyond rational belief. It's an article of faith for a certain population who won't be convinced by logic that it's not just a bad idea but impossible. People who are interested in RP would do well to look into what it means to go back on the gold standard.

kach22i 01-06-2008 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MRM (Post 3686376)
The whole gold standard idea is goofy beyond rational belief. It's an article of faith for a certain population who won't be convinced by logic that it's not just a bad idea but impossible. People who are interested in RP would do well to look into what it means to go back on the gold standard.
Or you could take the "Gold Standard" talk as a euphemism for spending within your means.

Rick Lee 01-06-2008 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MRM (Post 3686376)
The whole gold standard idea is goofy beyond rational belief. It's an article of faith for a certain population who won't be convinced by logic that it's not just a bad idea but impossible. People who are interested in RP would do well to look into what it means to go back on the gold standard.
I don't know how it would be possible to go back to the gold standard, so that area of Paul's platform is sort of pie in the sky to me. Yes, we should work to get back some fiscal sanity in our monetary policy and not let the Fed just keep printing more money (actually creating it with computers now) and flooding banks with it at low interest rates. But backing every dollar in circulation with physical gold at Ft. Knox just isn't possible, even if everyone in Congress agreed with a Pres. Paul, which surely wouldn't be the case.

Moneyguy1 01-06-2008 09:45 AM
Saw Dr. Paul and his concerns on inflation and the demise of the dollar were quite insightful. Printing more and more money does dilute its value. Witness the Weimar Republic. It helps making the payback of international loans easier, but in the long run.......

96740 01-06-2008 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rearden (Post 3684983)
Ron Paul still polls less than 5% nationally. He is irrelevant. It's time to focus the debates down to the people who stand a chance of being the nominee.
+1

fintstone 01-06-2008 11:31 PM
Just the fact that the far left guys here who would never, ever vote coservative are upset that Paul and Keys were excluded tell me it was definitely the right thing to do...I didn't see them complain that Paul was not invited to the Demoncratic debates.

frogger 01-07-2008 03:54 AM
Joe Six-pack's wages and the price he pays for goods both increase beyond any increase he sees in his wages. In that regard, he seems to better understand the basics than you give him credit for.

I think the national debt, the budget deficit and the trade deficit are seriously hurting our country's future, and I'd like to see some serious, effective effort made to reverse this course.

WI wide body 01-07-2008 09:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by frogger (Post 3688010)
Joe Six-pack's wages and the price he pays for goods both increase beyond any increase he sees in his wages. In that regard, he seems to better understand the basics than you give him credit for.

I think the national debt, the budget deficit and the trade deficit are seriously hurting our country's future, and I'd like to see some serious, effective effort made to reverse this course.
You are entirely correct. Those three things you mentioned are far, far more important to the long term well being of our nation than terrorism and most of the bogeymen that our leaders often trot out to gain support through fear.

Terrorism will never, repeat NEVER, bring down our nation. It not only cannot happen but that is actually not even the terrorists goal. But those three little "minor" items that our politicians and the goobers who back them gloss over...most certainly could bring down our nation.

Dan in Pasadena 01-07-2008 10:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rearden (Post 3684983)
Ron Paul still polls less than 5% nationally. He is irrelevant. It's time to focus the debates down to the people who stand a chance of being the nominee.
Just wondering, on the Democratic side people like Chris Dodd, Tom Tancredo and Dennis Kucinich were included in debates until recently. Didn't they poll extremely low numbers too? I honestly don't know the answer, maybe regionally they had higher numbers but nationally it seems they could be considered "irrelevant" and yet they were included. Why not Paul on the Republican side?

lendaddy 01-07-2008 10:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan in Pasadena (Post 3688506)
Just wondering, on the Democratic side people like Chris Dodd, Tom Tancredo and Dennis Kucinich were included in debates until recently. Didn't they poll extremely low numbers too? I honestly don't know the answer, maybe regionally they had higher numbers but nationally it seems they could be considered "irrelevant" and yet they were included. Why not Paul on the Republican side?

FYI Tancredo is a Republican, and Kucinich is being excluded from debates.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:51 AM.
Page 2 of 2 « Prev 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website


DTO Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.