blog.washingtonpost.com— The Obama campaign measures online donations every 15 minutes, and the source said that online money was pouring in at the rate of more than $500,000 per hour.
Jan 27, 2008View in Crawl 4
@Sinnic. heh, you are actually a little right. We don't really know what Obama's platform is. The man just seems full of integrity, honesty and brains.... and.... uh *ahem* he's the only one capable of dethroning hillary.
Sorry man, but I can't continue on the economics discussion.You're of the school that says "I have to explain every intricacy of my school of oceanography before you can understand how Ron Paul takes a bath." Yes, I write long posts, but they are, as a rule, specific responses to individual issues at hand. You write four paragraphs of preemptive and wide-ranging conclusions loosely drawn from every polemic you've ever read, and then say "That's what Ron Paul believes, please respond." I simply can't take the time to respond unless I think it's going to result in a discussion, whether I win or lose, that will prove enlightening to other people trying to make a decision about Ron Paul. I'm not here to do a few bong hits and shoot the breeze about the implications of chapters 11 through 26 of the Samuelson book. If I specifically responded to everything you tried to pack in just one of your posts no one would read it. I wouldn't even want to read it. Believe me, I understand that you take this seriously, but I'm trying to debate Ron Paul and the specific policies he's put forward as a candidate. You're writing a book called "Everything I Know About Economics I Learned from Ron Paul." That's fine, but we're going different directions here. So I have to close down the economics discussion. I'm sure you'll find someone else who would like to go over all this. Again, sorry.I can, however, specifically address two comments in your bsegovia-related post.First, I was not referring to techniques that gave rise to Bush or Reagan. I believe Ron Paul is intentionally using the same techniques that gave rise to Hitler and Joseph McCarthy. That he is a demagogue. I am, of course, not comparing Ron Paul to Hitler in any other respect, although I'm sure I will be quoted as such at some time in the future, but I don't take the accusation of intentional demagoguery lightly either. It is, in fact, the core of my opposition to him.I'm not taking all this time to oppose him because I think he's going to win, or just because I disagree with him. I disagree with Romney too but I haven't said a word there. I speak out against Ron Paul because I believe he's lying to his own supporters, and creating a damaging new low in American politics. Which is quite an achievement.There are lots of definitions of demagoguery, but I like Sigmund Neumann's. He defines six qualities: -- He is “a man of the people”-- He “rises as an orator”-- He emphasizes “simplification and repetition” -- He promotes above all else himself as leader-- Professes no “abstract program”-- He stresses “the spoken word”-- He practices the “exclusion of counter-propaganda”In my opinion, Ron Paul has manipulated his supporters into a run a campaign that fits these criteria perfectly. To what end? I believe the intent of his strategy is to simplify his message to absurdity so it becomes a Rorschach test. People see in it what they want, rather than his actual legislative record, published opinions, or personal associations.Don't believe me? Go to Google and search on -- "Ron Paul believes" site:digg.com -- and have a look at the wide variety of answers his supporters have put after that phrase even on single issues. He has intentionally kept information to a minimum so that it doesn't interfere with his mainstream appeal. That's how people can say "I support either Ron Paul or Kucinich." That is demagoguery. It's also lying, and it's the fundamental basis of my opposition.I know that's a lot to swallow about a simple family doctor who's delivered over 4,000 babies, or any "man of the people," but the facts and his rhetoric speak for themselves.Second, I hate the Constitution? :-) According to Ron Paul supporters that appears to be an epidemic among people that don't agree with them. It's second only to Hating Freedom. For me, the Constitution and the Bible have a lot in common in this situation. I like them both, it's the people that appoint themselves the sole interpreters of each that I have a problem with.That said, you accusing me of hating the Constitution and then asking me to elaborate on your premise has the equation a bit backwards. If you're serious about the questions you listed at the end fine, but again, you'll have to be more specific. For now, I'll give you answers as specific as your questions:-- "Why does the 2nd ammendment hurt people?" --Uhmm, I don't know, why? Is this a riddle? "Because it's the only one with a bear in it?" I give up.-- " What are your thoughts on privacy?" --Thumbs up!-- "...and perhaps even the internets?"Big thumbs up!Actually, this turned fun. Keep throwing questions at me.------- ("This from the guy who said Ron Paul was the next Hitler" -- card? cashman? Grab it while it's hot!)
Hell, I thought of several good direct questions to get things kicking on the right foot. I'll save deeper details for later.On Ron Paul:What policies of his scare you the most? Do they scare you at all? If they scare you, then why? What policies do you like if any? Why is Kucinich better? What's your most important policy, and the change needed? I don't expect talking points on every single little position, but please don't give me "He'll destroy America" answers and leave me hanging without at least some deeper understanding of your thought patterns. Something like your demagoguery stab would be delicious, but lets keep it to policy please. Assume he isn't lying and I'll give you the same courtesy with whom I mistrust.:D
Real quick, I forgot this one.-- The Constitution comes up a lot in Ron Paul discussions, for obvious reasons, but I think that many of the statements made by Ron Paul supporters suffer from the same disease that many of the other campaign platform positions do -- standing firmly in a fort of ideology at the expense of reality, practicality, progress, or even faith in their fellow man.That's what states' rights are for. Again, wanna change these things? Change the Constitution. :)
how is kennedy for obama? kennedy wanted to eliminate the IRS, CIA, get out of vietnam, small government.... everything Paul wants to do. Obama doesnt have any real solutions, especially with problems the country has today.
thinkboxJan 27, 2008
Here comes the Hillary Clinton Whhhhhhaaaaaaambluence!
breezytreesJan 28, 2008
@Sinnic. heh, you are actually a little right. We don't really know what Obama's platform is. The man just seems full of integrity, honesty and brains.... and.... uh *ahem* he's the only one capable of dethroning hillary.
humptydankJan 30, 2008
Sorry man, but I can't continue on the economics discussion.You're of the school that says "I have to explain every intricacy of my school of oceanography before you can understand how Ron Paul takes a bath." Yes, I write long posts, but they are, as a rule, specific responses to individual issues at hand. You write four paragraphs of preemptive and wide-ranging conclusions loosely drawn from every polemic you've ever read, and then say "That's what Ron Paul believes, please respond." I simply can't take the time to respond unless I think it's going to result in a discussion, whether I win or lose, that will prove enlightening to other people trying to make a decision about Ron Paul. I'm not here to do a few bong hits and shoot the breeze about the implications of chapters 11 through 26 of the Samuelson book. If I specifically responded to everything you tried to pack in just one of your posts no one would read it. I wouldn't even want to read it. Believe me, I understand that you take this seriously, but I'm trying to debate Ron Paul and the specific policies he's put forward as a candidate. You're writing a book called "Everything I Know About Economics I Learned from Ron Paul." That's fine, but we're going different directions here. So I have to close down the economics discussion. I'm sure you'll find someone else who would like to go over all this. Again, sorry.I can, however, specifically address two comments in your bsegovia-related post.First, I was not referring to techniques that gave rise to Bush or Reagan. I believe Ron Paul is intentionally using the same techniques that gave rise to Hitler and Joseph McCarthy. That he is a demagogue. I am, of course, not comparing Ron Paul to Hitler in any other respect, although I'm sure I will be quoted as such at some time in the future, but I don't take the accusation of intentional demagoguery lightly either. It is, in fact, the core of my opposition to him.I'm not taking all this time to oppose him because I think he's going to win, or just because I disagree with him. I disagree with Romney too but I haven't said a word there. I speak out against Ron Paul because I believe he's lying to his own supporters, and creating a damaging new low in American politics. Which is quite an achievement.There are lots of definitions of demagoguery, but I like Sigmund Neumann's. He defines six qualities: -- He is “a man of the people”-- He “rises as an orator”-- He emphasizes “simplification and repetition” -- He promotes above all else himself as leader-- Professes no “abstract program”-- He stresses “the spoken word”-- He practices the “exclusion of counter-propaganda”In my opinion, Ron Paul has manipulated his supporters into a run a campaign that fits these criteria perfectly. To what end? I believe the intent of his strategy is to simplify his message to absurdity so it becomes a Rorschach test. People see in it what they want, rather than his actual legislative record, published opinions, or personal associations.Don't believe me? Go to Google and search on -- "Ron Paul believes" site:digg.com -- and have a look at the wide variety of answers his supporters have put after that phrase even on single issues. He has intentionally kept information to a minimum so that it doesn't interfere with his mainstream appeal. That's how people can say "I support either Ron Paul or Kucinich." That is demagoguery. It's also lying, and it's the fundamental basis of my opposition.I know that's a lot to swallow about a simple family doctor who's delivered over 4,000 babies, or any "man of the people," but the facts and his rhetoric speak for themselves.Second, I hate the Constitution? :-) According to Ron Paul supporters that appears to be an epidemic among people that don't agree with them. It's second only to Hating Freedom. For me, the Constitution and the Bible have a lot in common in this situation. I like them both, it's the people that appoint themselves the sole interpreters of each that I have a problem with.That said, you accusing me of hating the Constitution and then asking me to elaborate on your premise has the equation a bit backwards. If you're serious about the questions you listed at the end fine, but again, you'll have to be more specific. For now, I'll give you answers as specific as your questions:-- "Why does the 2nd ammendment hurt people?" --Uhmm, I don't know, why? Is this a riddle? "Because it's the only one with a bear in it?" I give up.-- " What are your thoughts on privacy?" --Thumbs up!-- "...and perhaps even the internets?"Big thumbs up!Actually, this turned fun. Keep throwing questions at me.------- ("This from the guy who said Ron Paul was the next Hitler" -- card? cashman? Grab it while it's hot!)
praxisseizureJan 30, 2008
Hell, I thought of several good direct questions to get things kicking on the right foot. I'll save deeper details for later.On Ron Paul:What policies of his scare you the most? Do they scare you at all? If they scare you, then why? What policies do you like if any? Why is Kucinich better? What's your most important policy, and the change needed? I don't expect talking points on every single little position, but please don't give me "He'll destroy America" answers and leave me hanging without at least some deeper understanding of your thought patterns. Something like your demagoguery stab would be delicious, but lets keep it to policy please. Assume he isn't lying and I'll give you the same courtesy with whom I mistrust.:D
praxisseizureJan 31, 2008
Real quick, I forgot this one.-- The Constitution comes up a lot in Ron Paul discussions, for obvious reasons, but I think that many of the statements made by Ron Paul supporters suffer from the same disease that many of the other campaign platform positions do -- standing firmly in a fort of ideology at the expense of reality, practicality, progress, or even faith in their fellow man.That's what states' rights are for. Again, wanna change these things? Change the Constitution. :)
mianus230Feb 1, 2008
me either, i'm venezuelan
ablankstareFeb 9, 2008
how is kennedy for obama? kennedy wanted to eliminate the IRS, CIA, get out of vietnam, small government.... everything Paul wants to do. Obama doesnt have any real solutions, especially with problems the country has today.
ablankstareFeb 9, 2008
<a class="user" href="http://www.cfr.org/bios/11603/">http://www.cfr.org/bios/11603/</a>