US Republican Tim Pawlenty drops bid for 2012 race - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Pepin;31733367]Oh no, someone who doesn't take Al Gore seriously.[/QUOTE] for fucking real?

[QUOTE=Pepin;31733672]My point was to say that he doesn't at all believe that massive legislation is needed to fix the problem.[/QUOTE] but massive legislation is needed to fix the problem. else why even bother having a president do anything about it? [QUOTE=Pepin;31733672]Yes it is, he said it in the first debate this year, and he's made that point very in his most recent book. Yes, he recognizes a marriage as between a man and a woman, but he's made clear that there is no reason to enforce that view on others or to get the government involved.[/QUOTE] well that's a bit different than leaving it up to the states and if he still believes that then it's of little consequence to reality.

[QUOTE=thisispain;31733740]but massive legislation is needed to fix the problem.[/QUOTE] Short of destroying the entire world economy, no, it isn't.

[QUOTE=cqbcat;31727785]Polls mean nothing. I mean, it's good that Ron Paul came out at second. But how in hell did that bitch, Bachmann, come out on top? I watched the whole debate. She said nothing impressive.[/QUOTE] The main reason she won that poll, in my opinion, was because of the fact that she is an Iowa native. She had the advantages of being in the media spotlight and being an Iowa native but still came so close to being in second. I guess that just goes to show how popular the grassroots Libertarian faction with Ron Paul is getting.

[QUOTE=s0beit;31733758]Short of destroying the entire world economy, no, it isn't.[/QUOTE] well obviously when i said massive legislation was needed i meant destroy the entire world economy because i'm obviously a james bond villain. "Hah BOND YOU'LL NEVER STOP MY PLANS FOR A GREEN PLANET"

Good thing US was in the title or I would have thought it was a UK republican

[QUOTE=Pepin;31733672]My point was to say that he doesn't at all believe that massive legislation is needed to fix the problem.[/quote] We used to not have legislation about pollution and other causes of global warming, and look where that got us.

Guys guys it doesn't even matter every major media outlet is completely ignoring the fact that he placed second, in the 5 hours that I've watched Fox, CNN, MSNBC, local, and online today all at the same time he's not been mentioned ONCE. He will be shut out because he doesn't appeal to the party bosses on both sides.

[QUOTE=Pepin;31733367]He thinks it should at least be left to the states if anything. His own position is that it should be handled by private contract laws that the courts must enforce. The goal is to make it a non-public issue.[/QUOTE] I'd could respect the latter, but giving state government's the ability to determine what rights are entitled to who is not helping. [QUOTE=Pepin;31733367]Which means you think a fiat currency is a viable idea. Want to give me an example of fiat currency that doesn't have a short life expectancy? A fiat currency that doesn't loose a large part of its value over time? There is actually one example, but the economy was a combination of both.[/QUOTE] That's pretty unfair, fiat money, aside from China, didn't come into it's own until today (And even then it lasted through a few dynasties). I'd say it's been pretty successful combined with forex. And seriously, advocating the gold standard? Spending is good my man. [QUOTE=Pepin;31733367]What is unchecked? He believes in the rule of law. Could you give a description of what capitalism being checked in line? I'm guessing it has to do something with unequal distribution of wealth, but I'll wait for your response.[/QUOTE] A free-market position on issues like environmentalism is not exactly ideal. [QUOTE=Pepin;31733367]Now you're really stretching it. Want the rest of that quote? He's not in favor of it and would prefer just to deal with disruptive behavior on an individual basis. He is not at all for DADT.[/QUOTE] To be fair, he switched positions on this. [QUOTE=Pepin;31733367]Yes, and this is a states rights issue because the constitution was never intended to apply to the states. You can read about that [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights]here[/url]. Even Cenk Uygur holds that position. He upholds the states rights position on everything. Most people only uphold it on things they agree with.[/QUOTE] Uh, I don't see how obligating state governments to respect the rights of citizens is a bad thing. [QUOTE=Pepin;31733367]It's certainly a better approach, and we are seeing it today. It is now profitable for companies to be green, and it doesn't force smaller companies to go out of business because they can't pay the price for green technology. There is more to this than you think and I can recommend you a good lecture (if I can find it).[/QUOTE] A lot of that is due to subsidizing green energy, which I can't imagine Ron Paul is in favor of. [QUOTE=Pepin;31733367]Oh no, someone who doesn't take Al Gore seriously.[/QUOTE] Ahaha, oh wow. [QUOTE=Pepin;31733367]He doesn't think regulation is useful for what there are already laws for.[/QUOTE] ...

[QUOTE=Billiam;31734455]A free-market position on issues like environmentalism is not exactly ideal.[/QUOTE] Now that is not true. Green energy would be booming right now if the government didn't subsidize big oil and we didn't fight wars to protect overseas oil reserves.

[QUOTE=Derubermensch;31734616]Now that is not true. Green energy would be booming right now if the government didn't subsidize big oil and we didn't fight wars to protect overseas oil reserves.[/QUOTE] Like I said, the government has heavy subsidies on green energy as well. If anything we'd shift to natural gas in an unsubsidized energy market.

[QUOTE=Derubermensch;31734616]Now that is not true. Green energy would be booming right now if the government didn't subsidize big oil and we didn't fight wars to protect overseas oil reserves.[/QUOTE] No shit government subsidies for oil are detrimental to renewable energy sources. Government subsidies for renewable energy sources are what we need to do.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31734709]No shit government subsidies for oil are detrimental to renewable energy sources. Government subsidies for renewable energy sources are what we need to do.[/QUOTE] Or we could do no subsidies on both, and what's cheaper for the consumer and/or what is less detrimental to the society, depending on the consumers preference is what we will use.

[QUOTE=s0beit;31734736]Or we could do no subsidies on both, and what's cheaper for the consumer and/or what is less detrimental to the society, depending on the consumers preference is what we will use.[/QUOTE] The cheap option and the responsible option will not always go hand in hand.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;31732319]Thinks gay rights should be left up to the states (last time civil rights were left up to the states you needed a war for the right thing to be done) Thinks using gold as currency is a viable idea Believes unchecked capitalism totally won't screw everyone over Thinks 95% of Washington DC blacks are criminals Thinks charges could be brought against abortion doctors Is a republican, so if you think he "hasn't been bought" you're a joker Thinks prayer in public schools should be okay Doesn't believe in a seperation of church and state at all Introduced a constitutional amendment making it a crime to deface the flag Said Don't Ask Don't Tell is a "decent policy" Wants to do all he can to "offset the effects" of Roe V Wade Pro death-penalty "Free market environmentalist" Thinks climate change isn't a problem[/QUOTE] He's far from perfect, but he's also far from Bachmann.

[QUOTE=Billiam;31734850]The cheap option and the responsible option will not always go hand in hand.[/QUOTE] The difference is the non-cheap option if used on it's own will lower the quality of life for all people on the entire planet, except of course for the regions we don't control. One day the environmental option will [i]be[/i] the cheap option and at the current rate it wouldn't surprise me if it was in my life time.

[QUOTE=s0beit;31734963]The difference is the non-cheap option if used on it's own will lower the quality of life for all people on the entire planet, except of course for the regions we don't control. One day the environmental option will [i]be[/i] the cheap option and at the current rate it wouldn't surprise me if it was in my life time.[/QUOTE] Firstly, the effects of climate change can already be seen on our environment, hindering renewable energy will just prolong them. If we lift subsidies from oil and maintain our subsidies on renewable, the effect on the quality of life doesn't have to be dramatic. Secondly, lifting the major incentive to invest in renewable energy is not going to deliver the same progress we see today.

[QUOTE=Billiam;31734455]I'd could respect the latter, but giving state government's the ability to determine what rights are entitled to who is not helping.[/quote] And allowing the Federal Government to have full jurisdiction over the matter is worse. Sure it might be good if you get your way, but if not then you're against the very process you were just supporting. [QUOTE=Billiam;31734455]That's pretty unfair, fiat money, aside from China, didn't come into it's own until today (And even then it lasted through a few dynasties). I'd say it's been pretty successful combined with forex. And seriously, advocating the gold standard? Spending is good my man.[/quote] It didn't work very well in China as far as I'm aware because they needed constant tweaking. It worked out well in Britain, though I believe there was a mixture of currencies. Surely spending money that is essentially counter fitted is bad. [QUOTE=Billiam;31734455]A free-market position on issues like environmentalism is not exactly ideal.[/quote] Read up on it. It's actually pretty interesting, and it would certainly be best to have as much handled by the market than by the government. [QUOTE=Billiam;31734455]Uh, I don't see how obligating state governments to respect the rights of citizens is a bad thing.[/quote] It goes both ways, The Federal Government can also obligate the states to do bad things, and this is shown with the Federal Government trying to make the states reinforce the fugitive slave law. [QUOTE=Billiam;31734455]A lot of that is due to subsidizing green energy, which I can't imagine Ron Paul is in favor of.[/quote] Why not argue that theft is profitable? That's kind of like a kid selling lemonade, not making much money, and then the father giving him $5. Did that kid make a profit on that lemonade stand? Technically, profit is determined by difference of the price of the product and the cost of the raw materials and arranging them into a product. So no, subsides do not make an industry profitable. Also how is support of subsides not a support of corporatism? [QUOTE=Billiam;31734455]Ahaha, oh wow. ...[/QUOTE] I'm glad you found the humor in it, the seriously part was supposed to be a South Park reference. Surely anyone against mass legislation is insane.

[QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31733272]Because the states are what have the authority. I look at it as, the federal government shouldn't get in the business of gay rights. Gay rights, meaning marriage. Marriage meaning a religious institution. A religious institution meaning that the government shouldn't be involved in it.[/quote] States couldn't make the right call on slavery, and they can't make the right call on gay rights either. Make it federal. [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31733272]States can regulate. While I am not 100% Ron Paul on this, he doesn't say there shouldn't regulation. And we don't have unchecked capitalism in our society. We have corporatism, where the gov gives hand outs to corporations so people can buy votes. You're confusing true capitalism with what we have right now.[/quote] In the middle you described corruption, something that absolutely needs to be cracked down on. Less regulation will not crack down on anything. [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31733272]Lol K... From the wiki page -[/quote] I think the most damning comment you quoted was this: [release]Libertarians are incapable of being a racist because racism is a collectivist idea: you see people in groups. A civil libertarian as myself sees everyone as an important individual. ”[/release] Saying that he doesn't see race means turning a blind eye to racism. He's part of the problem, whether he directly wrote those articles or not. (Numerous papers from 1996 say he did, as I discovered in that other thread) [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31733272]Well, this is contextual(like everything else). He was an obstetrician for many, many years. If he delivered a baby, and there were complications, he could be sued. The logic I find in this is, is that because a baby could be hurt at any time during a pregnancy, then the doctor could be held responsible. I do tend to disagree with him on this issue, but I understand his side.[/quote] You're finding your own logic, I think. He's been quoted as saying that he is staunchly pro-life and that's good enough to deduce his views on the subject. [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31733272]This is the most stupid thing I've heard. That's like saying because I'm white, that I hate all black people. Horrible, Horrible thing for you to say, and it immediately reduces your levity in this argument.[/quote] Yes, generalizing someone based on their political affiliation is EXACTLY THE SAME AS judging someone based on their race. A group you choose to be with based on rigid values is EXACTLY THE SAME AS a group you are born to out of no choice of your own. Brain up. [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31733272]I'm an atheist, and I think people should be aloud to pray. Why not? You're confusing people being allowed to do something, with the institution mandating it. A school forcing people to pray = Not Fine A child praying during school = Fine[/quote] If a non-christian child in a predominantly christian area chooses to not join the "optional" prayer session, they'll undoubtedly be ostracized. Let's just keep prayer the fuck out of public schools, hmm? [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31733272]Sigh.... [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydxYFl8ZnL4[/media] Get the fed out of marriage, and because he defines marriage as a religious institution, it's removing religious power from the fed. That looks like separation of church and state to me.[/quote] He compared polygamy to slavery, I vomited, couldn't watch anymore because my screen had vomit on it [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31733272][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoZ1D2bylAo[/media] *backhand*[/quote] That's the 2003 one. In 1997 he introduced an amendment allowing states to ban flag desecration if they wanted to. Basically, he supported the state's right to violate the constitution if it felt that was the best course of action. Not a real rigid constitutionalist, now is he? [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31733272][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gBgskII7D0&playnext=1&list=PL46E5E4CE63439F41[/media] Watch the full thing.[/quote] Yeah, I did. He said it was a decent policy and never actually answered the question about whether or not gays should be able to serve openly. You proved my point. [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31733272][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAXAsg4RvdI[/media] Ahem* *bitchslap*[/quote] Good job Ronnie. That's one down. [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31733272]Removing subsidies from corporations. That means everything, including renewable energy.[/quote] How the fuck is that a good idea [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31733272][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vbMly74cZ8[/media][/QUOTE] Oh god he's talking about carbon credits

[QUOTE=Billiam;31735154]Firstly, the effects of climate change can already be seen on our environment, hindering renewable energy will just prolong them. If we lift subsidies from oil and maintain our subsidies on renewable, the effect on the quality of life doesn't have to be dramatic. Secondly, lifting the major incentive to invest in renewable energy is not going to deliver the same progress we see today.[/QUOTE] The first step in a sales pitch is to make clear that time is of the essence. This is why infomercials will always have a fake time limit of their offers. The government makes bad investments. They occasionally make a good call, but in general the government will invest in areas that are not needed and are not profitable. Take railroads/subways for example. I believe there is only one railroad in the world that makes money, and that is because it because it is heavily subsidized, so no real profit.

[QUOTE=Pepin;31735314]The first step in a sales pitch is to make clear that time is of the essence. This is why infomercials will always have a fake time limit of their offers. The government makes bad investments. They occasionally make a good call, but in general the government will invest in areas that are not needed and are not profitable.[/QUOTE] Making bad investments is not an inherent property of government, and something tells me your definition of things that are "not needed" is very different from mine.

[QUOTE=Pepin;31735314]The first step in a sales pitch is to make clear that time is of the essence. This is why infomercials will always have a fake time limit of their offers.[/QUOTE] If you're going to debunk that statement scientifically, then go ahead. [QUOTE=Pepin;31735314]The government makes bad investments. They occasionally make a good call, but in general the government will invest in areas that are not needed and are not profitable. Take railroads/subways for example. I believe there is only one railroad in the world that makes money, and that is because it because it is heavily subsidized, so no real profit.[/QUOTE] That's a pretty ambitious claim, subsidies on oil aren't exactly ideal, but they've helped make oil one the largest industries in the world.

Subsidy only funnels money from other sectors into very specific sectors where the demand did not exist. It is based on the whim of people in government and the people egging them on. Not only that, but subsidies usually land in the lap of a friend of a friend in government. They aren't evenly doled out to every company in the sector, but specific companies granted specific favors. I suggest you look into the history of steam ship subsidies, and the government's reluctance to end them in the face of crushing defeat on the premise that without government subsidy, America's steam ship companies would fail. If there is a demand for it, the market will cater to that demand. Granting specific privileges to specific companies not on the basis of their entrepreneurial talent but instead on the basis of their political clout is the problem. It is what you people fight against every single day if it were any other form of company you despise, yet you assume good results will come about if the right companies are subsidized. You are wrong.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;31735185][/QUOTE] I think what's funny Zeke, is that we agree on the issues, just not the candidates. The main reason I like Ron Paul is because he's for bringing the troops home, and using his presidential authority to do it. And I like his voting track record. I could care less about his social views, as more than likely anything that is a social view of his, that's not progressive, will not get past the house and senate. But besides that, I don't think he would legislate his personal views as the law of the land. Is he my perfect candidate? No. But do I think he's better than the other contenders? Yes. Much, much better. And the only thing we would end up arguing about is Austrian and Keynesian Economics. Personally, I don't think we have either system. But I do think either system would work if the right people are in the right places. But more than that, the system is corrupt, and I don't find Ron Paul to be corrupt. I know you do, but I haven't seen substantial proof to believe that. I apologize for the backhanded comments, I was just in the moment and sounded like an ass. Politics brings out the worst in me.

[QUOTE=s0beit;31735754]Subsidy only funnels money from other sectors into very specific sectors where the demand did not exist. It is based on the whim of people in government and the people egging them on. Not only that, but subsidies usually land in the lap of a friend of a friend in government. They aren't evenly doled out to every company in the sector, but specific companies granted specific favors. I suggest you look into the history of steam ship subsidies, and the government's reluctance to end them in the face of crushing defeat on the premise that without government subsidy, America's steam ship companies would fail. If there is a demand for it, the market will cater to that demand. Granting specific privileges to specific companies not on the basis of their entrepreneurial talent but instead on the basis of their political clout is the problem. It is what you people fight against every single day if it were any other form of company you despise, yet you assume good results will come about if the right companies are subsidized. You are wrong.[/QUOTE] The "will of the market" is not the most important thing in the world. Sometimes other things take precedence.

If there's anything the White House needs right now, it's a governor of Texas. We haven't had enough of those yet.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31735862]The "will of the market" is not the most important thing in the world. Sometimes other things take precedence.[/QUOTE] PEOPLE are the market. That's what people don't seem to understand. The people, us, everyone in the United States and all over the world command corporations. Not the other way around unless you allow them to take control of your government. What we want, they give. What they can't give, somebody else will best them and they will give. In this case though, I think the "will of the market" isn't the most important thing in the world, the "will of the politicians" and the "will of the green energy producers" obviously dwarfs the desire of the market at large, or, people.

[QUOTE=Pepin;31735177]It didn't work very well in China as far as I'm aware because they needed constant tweaking. It worked out well in Britain, though I believe there was a mixture of currencies. Surely spending money that is essentially counter fitted is bad.[/QUOTE] And surely basing your currency on a finite amount of a precious metal will lead to deflation. [QUOTE=Pepin;31735177]Read up on it. It's actually pretty interesting, and it would certainly be best to have as much handled by the market than by the government.[/QUOTE] Send me some literature specifically stating that unsubsidized green energy can compete with cheap and plentiful options like natural gas. [QUOTE=Pepin;31735177]It goes both ways, The Federal Government can also obligate the states to do bad things, and this is shown with the Federal Government trying to make the states reinforce the fugitive slave law.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]And allowing the Federal Government to have full jurisdiction over the matter is worse. Sure it might be good if you get your way, but if not then you're against the very process you were just supporting.[/QUOTE] Uh, if something is regarded as a fundamental right, than what is the problem with entitling that to everyone? [QUOTE=Pepin;31735177]Why not argue that theft is profitable? That's kind of like a kid selling lemonade, not making much money, and then the father giving him $5. Did that kid make a profit on that lemonade stand? Technically, profit is determined by difference of the price of the product and the cost of the raw materials and arranging them into a product. So no, subsides do not make an industry profitable. Also how is support of subsides not a support of corporatism?[/QUOTE] This is pretty much the argument people use against socialism. And to that I will respond with the usual good of the world, good of the people, and etc. etc. [QUOTE=Pepin;31735177]I'm glad you found the humor in it, the seriously part was supposed to be a South Park reference. Surely anyone against mass legislation is insane.[/QUOTE] No one in this thread is proposing something radical like banning oil; stripping it of it's subsidies would be good incentive to move to renewable energy. [editline]14th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=s0beit;31735944]PEOPLE are the market. That's what people don't seem to understand. The people, us, everyone in the United States and all over the world command corporations. Not the other way around unless you allow them to take control of your government. What we want, they give. What they can't give, somebody else will best them and they will give. In this case though, I think the "will of the market" isn't the most important thing in the world, the "will of the politicians" and the "will of the green energy producers" obviously dwarfs the desire of the market at large, or, people.[/QUOTE] Believe me, if I could afford green energy, I would use green energy and I'm sure multitudes of others would as well, but this isn't a matter of what the people want.

[QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31735826]I think what's funny Zeke, is that we agree on the issues, just not the candidates. The main reason I like Ron Paul is because he's for bringing the troops home, and using his presidential authority to do it. And I like his voting track record. [/quote] The reason I don't like Ron Paul is because he's using the big issues like war and the Fed where he DOES have a libertarian viewpoint to mask all the less popular issues (to most Americans) like gay rights, race relations, the environment, and church and state seperation where he holds a traditional ignorant Republican view. [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31735826]I could care less about his social views, as more than likely anything that is a social view of his, that's not progressive, will not get past the house and senate. But besides that, I don't think he would legislate his personal views as the law of the land.[/quote] When have a president's social views ever NOT come into play? [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31735826]Is he my perfect candidate? No. But do I think he's better than the other contenders? Yes. Much, much better.[/quote] He is better than every GOP candidate, and that's about it. [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31735826] But more than that, the system is corrupt, and I don't find Ron Paul to be corrupt. I know you do, but I haven't seen substantial proof to believe that.[/quote] I don't know if he's corrupt, but I don't believe he's [i]uncorruptable[/i] as so many people seem to think. [QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;31735826]I apologize for the backhanded comments, I was just in the moment and sounded like an ass. Politics brings out the worst in me.[/QUOTE] We're both golds, we can take it

[QUOTE=Bombardier.;31734962]He's far from perfect, but he's also far from Bachmann.[/QUOTE] ron paul: he's good enough