Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Of course Ron Paul ever the classy statesman and American denies there was anything that was said...and wants to focus on the issues.
The body language alone would indicate something was said that wasnt..."hey lets go out to dinner and be buddies"
Rick Perry.....presidential material??????? I think not.
Ron Paul???? I think so.
COH please
"In a short, congenial speech, Paul says, “The truth is, I wish there were a much more interesting story than that because I don’t even recall the moment that was occurring and I don’t remember exactly what he said. We didn’t have any cross words.”
In Short......do we want a guy who doesn't REMEMBER what was said in the White House. We've already had our share of the senile (ronnie) and the stupid (dumbya). BOTH seriously damnaged our country!!!!!
oh please
Ron Paul on a bad day is better than any other gop or democrat candidate or incumbent out there.
he wants to focus on the issues.....it has always been about the message of freedom and liberty...
he also wont comment on his opponents individually in interviews.....what is your reasoning behind that??
@jame.....ROTFFL hysterically! You are funny. Need o go on the stand-up circuit!
If I recall correctly, Paul had put out an attack ad that targeted Perry not long before the debate. Many have assumed this exchange was related to that. Who knows?
I've often wondered what the relationship was like between a governor and the members of his state's congressional delegation. I'd imagine it varies from good to bad with this one in particular falling in the bad category.
I do not care for either politician but, of the two, Paul is definitely the more cerebral. I can't imagine that endears him to Perry. And I can't imagine the anti-intellectual Perry is too fond of Paul.
he wants to focus on the issues.....it has always been about the message of freedom and liberty...
Except when he tap dances (i.e. panders to the GOP base) around the issue of a woman's right to choose.
Ron Paul exposed his hand when he bent over for the teavangelists in Iowa. Perry=too stupid, Paul=too old.
again the left is taking the partisan stance.
imagine if boner grabbed obama by the arm and put his finger in obamas face.
now what would be your response???
oh and douglas
he doesnt tap dance around it at all.
it should be the states who decide..not the federal government...per the constitution.
he isnt on the good side of either crowd.....guess that happens when you dont want to use aggression against your fellow americans and uphold the constitution.
peace.
Ron Paul says there was no argument, no harsh words, no fight. Are you saying Ron Paul is a liar, James? If you think he's a liar, why on earth would you want him for president? Lying about something so small like is really bizarre, don't you think?
the left
I know many of the names on here....and they are left wing.
they want to attack Ron Paul.....not the issue that happened. and why the media ignores it.......
hey but good thing...msnbc will have 3 headline articles today on Perry....now dont think they are pushing him on us or anything.
bonos
no he wants to focus on the issues...he doesnt like the drama that is why he doesnt comment on his opponents in interviews usually.
its really quite simple...besides...if he complains too much then he would look weak to the general public who decide who to vote for because oprah or the 5 o clock news tells them too,.
he is in this to win...not lose.
In Short......do we want a guy who doesn't REMEMBER what was said in the White House.
I would be more worried if Paul took anything Perry said seriously enough to remember it.
reddirthippy
now that was the funniest comment on here by far.
thanks.
imagine if boner grabbed obama by the arm and put his finger in obamas face.
now what would be your response???
Doesn't matter what MY response would be. How would the Secret Service respond? ;-)
another funny comment...thanks douglas
point being...it wouldnt be taken lightly......now like him or agree with him or not...the american people should be outraged that one politician feels he has the right to try to physically assault an elder statesman.
to me that is the issue....and it should not be partisan.
the american people should be outraged that one politician feels he has the right to try to physically assault an elder statesman.
Maybe Paul should have gone all 2nd amendment on him. Would have made for great b-roll.
ok douglas...the jokes were funny.....
I personally think this is a bit more serious....like I said....imagine perry laid his hands on one of your beloved democrats....would it make the news then??
just because this is ron Paul its no big deal right??
lets be consistent here.
I'm not sure what your point is, james. It made the news when Perry did it to Paul or we wouldn't be talking about it. Any two public figures in this kind of confrontation would be news. I don't know who is down playing this in your mind. Paul is downplaying it more than the media.
From your seeded article:
It wasn’t just Paul’s pugilistic fans who found the photos compelling. It popped up everywhere from DrudgeReport.com to ABC News, with everyone asking if the two politicians were feuding while the cameras weren’t rolling.
It wasn't swept under the rug by a long shot.
douglas
because it was reported down in the lower section doesnt mean it was reported on.
it wasnt headline news....imagine if obama grabbed hilary in the last election....do you think that would of made headline news??
and the average american isnt looking at the drudgereport.
now like him or agree with him or not...the american people should be outraged that one politician feels he has the right to try to physically assault an elder statesman.
Does make me wonder what he feels he has a right to do to other folks. There is something about Perry that invokes a gut level of distrust. I get the same feeling from Romney and Geithner. Anytime I see or hear them the first thing I feel I need to do is check my back pocket and make sure my wallet is still there; the second thing is take a shower.
and the average american isnt looking at the drudgereport.
Of course not. Drudge is a partisan hack. The average American is looking at ABC News, though.
the average american looks at the headlines online...and watches news at 5 or 6.....and then they wouldnt find it...hell I am a Ron Paul nut and didnt find it till later.
I know many of the names on here....and they are left wing.
Oh noez! Better go call the secret police!
imagine if boner grabbed obama by the arm and put his finger in obamas face.
Difference is that Obama is the actual president of this country
michelle
I also gave the example of obama grabbing hilary''s arm in the last election.
its unacceptable no matter who does it.
if perry grabbed reids arm for instance...I would be almost as outraged......outraged nonetheless.
Difference is that Obama is the actual president of this country
So if it's the President it's assault, if it's a Congressman it's no big deal. Got it.
naughty
exactly...it shows exactly how partisan we are in this country..that we only apply the law when it suites us...both the dems and repubs are that way...anything that fits their agenda.
that is why I am a libertarian.....they are fair and universal...there is no agenda but freedom and rights....of ALL americans. is some of their platform a bit scary?? sure...because we have been condiditioned to be dependent....but not any more scary than this fat oppressive government that stifles individualism and freeddom.
I like Ron Paul more than any other candidate right now and I'm in line with most of his policies but most Libertarians strike me as anarchist conspiracy theorist types so I distance myself from the party. In all fairness though they seem to be the only party that advocates personal responsibility and knows what freedom is but I still intend to remain independent. Hopefully Paul gets the GOP nod so I can do more than just sit on my ass on election day.
I am a left winger and I like Ron Paul. I don't agree with him on all issues. I definitely agree with his foreign policy. But I believe he is honest, I respect his consistency in his principles. I have never seen him contradict himself, which is a common flaw in a partisan politician. So much so that he said he would supports Dennis kucinich for president, (if he wasn't running) who is a liberal. He supports him for the same reasons I like Paul. It takes a lot of guts (and honesty) for a right wing politician to stand in front of a auditorium full of right wingers and say that you would support a liberal for president because you believe he is an honest man with integrity.
gillanator
thanks for the honest assessment....most partisans would not do so....and yes you are correct.....and EVERY american should have the same assessment as you..
he is not the status quo...and that is what we need right now....only fearmongers believe that he would institute libertarian policies overnight ending every department and program...he has stated over and over again the very first thing he would do is end the endless state of war and bring troops home...and unlike obama you can believe him at this word.....and all the money we use for that he would use half of it on this country and its social programs.
he is a man of priinciple and its sad that we as a nation do not embrace someone like him or kucinich and iinstead people like obama or mccain palin etc.
So if it's the President it's assault, if it's a Congressman it's no big deal. Got it.
Funny, I don't recall typing that. Just pointing out the the Secret Service's first priority is the president.
This is why I rarely comment here anymore.
and unlike obama you can believe him at this word.
I would hope so James, but I believe that Obama like other presidents, was sincere when he made his promises. I don't know what happens between the campaign trail and the Oval Office that makes a president abandon his promises. I happen to like Paul as he is. I am not sure what the result of not conforming once you take office would result in?
Bottom line regarding this article James. It sure looks like Perry has an aggressive posture. And Paul's reaction supports that. I don't like or trust Perry in the least. I believe him to be a wart on the ass of society. Where Paul is an asset.
Sorry, but Paul's comment about 'sweating out' the military of Iraq/Afghanistan by claiming that the air-conditioners are a waste of money and that if he took them away, we'd all just come home was callous, economically foolish, and shows just how little he knows about the military and how myopic his viewpoints are.
Air conditioners are NOT for servicemembers, they are for equipment. That equipment, if it were to fail (as a result of oh, I don't know - excessive HEAT?) would cost WELL more than $20 billion to replace/repair.
Every piece of military gear has a minimum and a maximum operating temperature on it, and inside a 10 foot rigid shelter it can easily get in excess of 200 degrees if the AC fails. They won't even turn on at that point.
No AC=no radios=no comm to pilots=crashed aircraft and dead pilots.
No AC=no fire control center=no artillery support=dead troops
No AC=cooked off ammunition=dead troops
No AC=no computer assets=no intelligence briefings=no bolos=suicide bombers going undetected=dead troops
And if he thinks taking our ACs away is a way of 'toughing us up' -
First of all, You go spend 18 months there first @!$%#, then talk about it.
Second of all, the only time we're IN those shelters are when we're working in them. Otherwise, we're outside , in the heat.
I got a better idea, let's cut the air conditioners off in Congress, starting with his office. The amount of hot air generated out of there is causing them to work overtime.
student
since I have done two tours over there myself I couldnt disagree with you more.
Ron Paul doesnt want us over there...without AC no one would want to be over there.
it makes perfect sense...you are right many ac is for the equipment......so if equipment not working right there is no reason for us to be there.
besides...he has already stated that the one thing the president can do is control the troops.
and he would bring them home.
keep grasping at straws.
oh and he already gives back money...one of the few..if not the only one to do so.
I thought he said "I would cut off the air conditioning in the Green Zone".
Sorry, but Paul's comment about 'sweating out' the military of Iraq/Afghanistan by claiming that the air-conditioners are a waste of money and that if he took them away, we'd all just come home was callous, economically foolish, and shows just how little he knows about the military and how myopic his viewpoints are.
I think you missed the point of his comment. He wants to bring troops in Iraq/Afghanistan stateside. It wasn't to "toughen the troops up", it was to get us out of the middle east. He understands there's a reason the Muslim community hates the US. And he's taking away the reasons for the hate.
"ithout the AC, no one would be there?" I can guess what branch you were in...come on now. I've done 4 tours there, and the only AC I had was a HMMWV window unzipped. Or the cool breeze caused by a bullet snapping over my head.
Let's be realistic, you start pulling troops out today, you'll still have equipment there for another 6-7 months because of the transit time to/from Japan to bring the ships necessary to bring it back. We don't bring most of our equipmentment back and forth when we deploy, we RIP. So you have to leave a reduced force there for security - what do you think would happen to that reduced force when you pull all of the infantry out ? They have a word for it - massacre. It costs the US taxpayers about 1 million per dead US servicemember.
It costs 20k per servicemember to fly him and his personal equipment from the US into/outof theater on chartered flights, roughly 500k to charter the flight due to risks. That plane will hold 300 passengers and their equipment, you're looking at needing - what, 200 planes to get everybody out ?
200 planes x 500,000 = 100 million
It's not like our ships steam for free either. Travel time from Iraq/Afghanistan to the US? About 8-9 weeks, depending on port calls.
What about the convoys transporting all of that equipment out of the theater? Convoys make great targets, especially in large groups. You'd be doing convoys for the next 3 months just to get everything out of there, we don't have the flatbeds necessary, that's why we use civilian contractors.
And then there's the fact that most of our equipment is beyond it's service limitations as it is, and we'd have to spend hundreds of billions to repair/replace it once it leaves theater.
As I said, it's myopic. It shows a lack of grasping the enormity of the situation. Bumper sticker solutions never work.
You have only two options.
A phased withdrawl, slow and steady over the course of a year
Cut and run, leave everything behind and take the loss.
Cutting the ACs is stupid, especially when you consider that paying servicemembers only what they spend for housing vs a set amount would save 100 x as much over a year. Or, stop making us buy GSA products when the commercial open purchase is cheaper. Or, stop penalizing units for having money left over at the end of the FY.
You can cut a LOT of money out of the military without hurting troops - you just have to THINK a little first.
The Green Zone (Arabic: المنطقة الخضراء) is the most common name for the International Zone of Baghdad. It is a 10-square-kilometer (3.8-square-mile) area of central Baghdad, Iraq, that was the governmental center of the Coalition Provisional Authority and remains the center of the international presence in the city. Its official name beginning under the Iraqi Interim Government is the International Zone, though Green Zone remains the most commonly used term.
Considering it is Perry, Paul is lucky he didn't get branded, shot in the head, screwed and hung on the bumper of a broke down pickup truck with a cross painted on the hood.
Considering how little anything is respected by these motherless pieces of political @!$%# its no surprise to me that they have no respect for each other.
Both ignorant liars.
After all, they are right wing jesus machine political clerics running for a job neither is remotely qualified for...
Representing all the American people.
What did Ron Paul lie about? Why is he ignorant? How the F*#! is he right wing?
geezing
please explain your post....I hope you are not trolling....a post like that leads me to believe you are as that post had no reality involved whatsoever.
please explain your stance
To be fair, right or wrong if we are going to say who looks more presidential; then I'd say the slight edge still goes to the guy with the 'take charge' look and not the guy with the 'huh' expression.
From the article:
To be fair, Rick Perry’s body language in the photo is dominant. Perry looks like he’s giving Paul a stern warning and calling him “son,” while Paul’s body language is comparatively passive. He’s slouching just slightly and appears to be fiddling with his coat button while looking at Perry with widened eyes, which could easily be interpreted as an air of innocence
I'm sorry but if Paul can't even handle Rick Perry it's not good for your argument that he's the best guy to put up against other foreign leaders meaner and crazier . . .what's he going to to Chavez? Look wide eyed and grab a coat button.
Although it might explain a bit about his foreign policy platform
Watch it . . .I have a coat button and I'm not afraid to use it!
ruth
you havent seen Ron Paul in his younger years then...he keeps it cool now with age....25 years ago he had more spirit than all the other candidates put together...and would of knocked perry on his ass for sure.
to say he wouldnt be up to the job is nonsense...he doesnt change his values to suite others.
shows right there he has conviction...and that is more PRESIDENTIAL than perry, obama, mccain or any other politician out there.
Ron Paul at 76 shouldnt have to be physically fighting men 20 years younger.....his eyes wide open are probably because he was suprised that perry was doing that......a wtf moment.
I always liked this video of him....shows some anger in this one.....great video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hJTisovvjc&list=FLIZZqwWm6tVQBvZkYjSWrjg&index=23
Oh please - even if it's true, nobody can vote on the Ron Paul from 25 years ago . . .we are stuck with the guy that likes to go on Alex Jones today.
I know so many Paul fans have these stars in their eyes which seem to make them unable to see plain truths but really, defending how lame he looks by saying that he would've have definitely been cooler 25 years ago?!
Tell you what . . . find that Ron Paul from 25 years ago and get him to run, it's as good a plan as trying to get this guy elected.
he is better now with the cooler head...he knew that perry wouldnt have the balls to hit him...if anything he was probably hoping he would so Perry would be ended.
I want a president that can keep his cool.
tired of the idiot bush's and obama for president..men who cant think past their own egos.
naughtynumbernine, I had to look up who Chuck Liddel was . . .
my comment was not as much directed at who I would be supporting but moreso how the majority of the voting public sees "presidential".
Like it or not people generally do not want to vote for a wimpy guy, much as i like Mitch Daniels personally this was one reason I thought it was good he got out of the race . . .he just was not going to be popular with that persona.
(it's not about what I like . . .unlike some people who take allegiance to only one candidate and will not even consider listening to what others have to say, I like to do my homework on candidates and learn all about them. I enjoy learning about their background and experience and all things politic . . .but I recognize that I am in the minority there, most of the voting public does not want to expend too much of their time researching the candidates and they vote with their gut. They vote for who they like or gives them a sense of security, etc.
You know, the old adage about voting for who they'd rather have a beer with. Just think about that . . .who is the majority of the public going to say they'd rather have a beer with? Ron Paul or Rick Perry? Sorry, but you gotta admit it's Perry ---- this may very well be one of the things Romney also has to get past)
I actually did that a few days ago on Ron Paul's website believe it or not. I didn't know much about him at all until then. The rest of the GOP candidates seem too right wing for me. I might check them out when the elections get closer. I tried looking at Obama's policies but I couldn't find them on his website.
Actually if we went strictly by my likes in a candidate I should have more empathy with the Paul supporters . . .I had 2 candidates last time; one i was excited about and one I was intrigued with, neither of which was Huckaby, and neither of which went very far in the race.
; (
but I didn't become myopic and unable to support anyone else.
If I could make a wish for any candidate at all this time around . . .maybe Petreus.
I do like someone with real-world experience. And, of course, who doesn't love Christie.
Clearly, there was some confrontation. But Ron Paul's response dismisses and diminishes Perry's thuggish behavior. Ron Paul just sucked all the oxygen out of that story, made it go away, and succeeded in taking away any extra face/news/blog time Perry could get out of it.
I'm not for either candidate, but Ron Paul showed some very smart, calculated people skills here.
Rick Perry is clearly a pugnacious cowboy/loose-cannon type. Ron Paul was, frankly, a bit wimpish. whether Paul's alleged lack of memory is cleverly denying Perry any "ink" over the confrontation or genuine (which would admittedly not be good at all) it was clearly something threatening -- Paul moved to the far side of his podium -- but didn't stand up to Perry and was, frankly, a bit wimpish. certainly, i don't expect he could hold his own in a scuffle against Perry but that's what security is for, knowing that they can and will handle it. neither is presidential.
both, however, want to stick it to the average American and those who aren't white Christian heterosexual men; there's no difference in their conservative vs libertarian objectives, just Perry uses a metaphorical offensive weapon like a sword to run "them" thru, while Paul claims a metaphorical defensive weapon like a shield ("protecting rights") to bash or simply decapitate.
RuthAnn:
You know, the old adage about voting for who they'd rather have a beer with. Just think about that . . .who is the majority of the public going to say they'd rather have a beer with? Ron Paul or Rick Perry? Sorry, but you gotta admit it's Perry...
um, no. not in the least. i guess it depends on what you mean by 'have a beer' (no Clintonesque 'definition of 'is' is' there) or maybe how you have it.
there's certainly a list of others with whom i'd rather have a beer, but if it's just Perry and Paul as choices, frankly i'd pick Paul because frankly i don't see much if anything to Perry than what's right there, a very simple if not simplistic person -- not much intellectually, not even the kind of "frat boy" i'd rather have a beer with, but just a shoot-from-the-hip, "ruffest, tuffist, rootin'-tootin'est" Yosemite Sam cowboy-type (including the 2-dimensionality). "Rio Grande Rick"
You want proof then? Is that it? Fair'nuff
Here is the lying old sob demagoging or pandering to who exactly?
That wasn't hard to look up, want a hundred others? And no one really needs me to google Perry lies for them do they? I mean come on, they are politicians not saints, its fair to call them liars and impossible to say they aren't.
No trolling there.
Ignorant? I got to prove ignorant about a man who wants to put us back on the gold standard which is so far beyond a hairy pair of underwear its mind boggling to the world. The guy who wants to try and pass a constitutional amendment to force a balanced budget? Or shall we talk about the flame tailed creationists? Got any climate deniers in that duet?
And here's a laugher, I'll leave it to you all to see which one of them fits which standard of ignorance we would apply. So no trolling there I see.
Because like creationism, birthers, secessionists, gold standard or any other measure or example, ignorance is ignorance, and then to deny that all those things reside either exclusively or predominately in the hyper politicized religious right and the republican party of god is not reflective of reality.
Why is it right wing? Well, to be fair, I geuss that's more opinion/perspective then fact. But in my opinion that sheet is so god damn far right wing I don't know what to call it.
What it isn't is the Party of Eisenhower, Goldwater or Reagan.
You know, the old adage about voting for who they'd rather have a beer with. Just think about that . . .who is the majority of the public going to say they'd rather have a beer with? Ron Paul or Rick Perry? Sorry, but you gotta admit it's Perry ---- this may very well be one of the things Romney also has to get past)
No way. I would much rather have a beer with Ron Paul. Actually anyone who can process a thought should prefer Paul. But I would rather run over Perry with a tractor trailer. So he does have one up on Paul in that sense. : )
Ron Paul was the star attraction hands down,and the only candidate on the stage who would have passed a fact truth test! When he remarked about the MANDATEDHVP injection for 12 year old by saying"it wasn't that he did it but the way he did it...by executive order." This alone flies in the face of the constitution touting phonies in the teabagging party. Talk about narcissistic,Nazi,omnipotent acts! REPUBLICAN =LIARS and HYPOCRITES! If I wanted to waste my vote...Paul would have it. Since I won't throw away my vote...the repukes won't get it!
Nancy Reagan had to believe that she had descended into the Twilight Zone! Her facial expression reflected the same. She looked more at ease in the company of Obama.
#3 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 11:28 AM EDTNot Perry's first instance of aggressiveness on the campaign trail. Another example --
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/iowa-2012
Mr Perry's skillful exit from the exchange, his calmly assertive demeanour (note the way his initially attentive eyes narrow into a challenging "kiss off" grin, the way he presses his index finger softly into Mr Hjelm's chest) and the folksy leavening of his denigrating parting shot, all suggest to me a seriously skilled retail politician whose swagger remains mostly charming even when he's being an impatient prick.
For whatever reason, Paul is giving Perry a free pass on the incident during the debate. Maybe it's a nod to Reagan's 11th Commandment -- maybe something else. Either way, I saw the photos, and I have no doubt that Perry's intent was to intimidate Paul.
#4 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 11:29 AM EDTThe amount of disrespect displayed in that photo is disturbing.
I may not agree with everything Mr. Paul stands for, but I have always viewed him as a honorable statesman and a gentleman.
He certainly doesn't deserve any condescending behavior from Rick "The Snake" Perry.
#5 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 11:33 AM EDTagree
and lets hope that the gop has the brains to keep perry out...and maybe out of poltics forever.
and lets hope that the gop has the brains to keep perry out...and maybe out of poltics forever.
I'll be satisfied if you have the brains not to vote for Perry when the GOP choose him over Paul.
and lets hope that the gop has the brains to keep perry out...and maybe out of poltics forever.
Wow. Aren't YOU the cock-eyed optimist?
I have voted for ron but have since regretted that decision. I will only vote gotp in the primaries....I am still a registered (r) as far as that is concerned and will vote the one most likely to be passed thru adn embarassed by NOT getting elected in 2012. So far the field is open.
I will vote for no gop but Ron Paul
I'm with you there James.
hey naughty
its a matter of principle with me.....I do not believe no matter how much it sounds good that we can continue on the current course of expanding government power...endless state of war and decreasing individual rights.
Its Ron Paul or nothing for me......or the Libertarian Party.
You made the front page with a Ron Paul Story James.........congratulations!
#7 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 11:42 AM EDTyea I know....probably because Rick Perry's name was in it also.
the one I really wanted didnt make it...oh well....at least this one did.
But did James do Paul any favors? He's got this story showing Paul being berated like a child, which Paul is tring to play down. But James tells us it should be a major news story and that Paul- despite saying nothing happened when James KNOWS something BIG happened- is a man of incredible integrity. What's the truth? This is a big deal (as James says) or it's not (as Paul says)? Paul had total integrity (as James says) or he's not (as James implies when he says the truth is in the picture not in Paul's words)? I'm confused. Sure wish someone had left a microphone on...
there is no contradiction.
Ron Paul showed class...and his usual behavior by wanting to focus on the issue vs. drama...however the media and the people of this nation ignored this story....they or we can make it a big deal even if Ron Paul wants to ignore it and be the better man...its up to us to hold Perry accountable for his actions..
You know james, if you really believe in libertarian ideals then you should stay out of their personal affairs . . .maybe Ron Paul enjoys being berated and was a consenting partner . . .Rick Perry was just doing his thing and Ron Paul says it was nothing -- you said yourself that there are already laws in place to protect people from assault, Paul is aware of this also, so if he says nothing happened then maybe he was into it . . . maybe he was hoping for a chance to unveil that menacing 'look' he gave Perry . . .
You should be about freedom, man --what 2 consenting adults do is their own business! if this is how the candidates want to roll then that is their business and we should not force our will upon them. If you think that behavior is inappropriate that might be your problem not theirs, stop trying to push your rules on them!!!!!
(sarc)
It's funny how many times in my Navy career I have seen some overbearing type-A, bunghole, seriously underestimate a (Warrior) simply because he happened to be 135 lbs. and quiet, and wore glasses.....
Actually it didn't happen very often, but the times it did........They just stood out like the 4th of July!
W.E.B. Griffin wrote about this phenomenom in his Army books.
Does Perry really think that his wagging his finger, and squinting eyes is going to make Ron Paul tremble?
This is a guy that wants a letter of Marques, so he can profit from the REAL bad guys!
Perry is a grade -A ball sniffin' Mama's boy, when it comes to testicular fortitude. imo.
#8 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 11:42 AM EDTagree
and he has become my new object of scorn.......there are things that once you do I will never forgive you.
Now of course I am a Ron Paul fan...so this is going to piss me off...but for any politician to lay their hands on another....shows a complete lack of respect for our system and their position.
Perry deserves to go bye bye from politics forever.
imo
I am not a Ron Paul fan, but I would have grabbed perrywinkle's finger and broke it.
Very educational that I find out that politicians in one state don't converse with each other for the benefit of everyone in their state. Ron Paul has never met the governor of Texas. I wonder how many other politicians within the same state do exactly the same. Guess it's sort of like the FBI, CIA, and other government agencies that don't talk to each other until maybe we have a 9/11 crisis.
I really like Ron Paul, a gentleman and scholar who undoubtedly is authentic and true to his beliefs. He would make a fine president except that where our country is right now and the changes that would have to be made with his own beliefs are so far apart.
#9 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 11:49 AM EDTits those changes that this country needs...we do not need an endless state of war.
James,
I understand that Libertarianism appeals to a small group of Americans who love to loathe anything government and think a private sector knife fight is the only way to get something done.
Unfortunately for you guys, the majority of people do not agree with this philosophy.
People want reasonable regulations that safeguard us against lethal products and toxic polluting. We want programs that help the less fortunate go to college and that give temporary assistance to those who have fallen on hard times. Most importantly re Weds debate, we want Social Security.
Ron Paul is probably the most extreme ideologue of the entire group of GOP candidates. His answer to every problem is that Govt did it. The world is not that black & white. Yes, maybe govt needs to get out of area A, but perhaps they are doing a great job in area B.
I mean, you want people to jump and cheer for the private sector - well, the private sector has let many millions of Americans down. They have devalued the American worker, while enriching the executive class. They have created more jobs overseas than they have here at home in the last decade. Now before you say, "That's because of regulations and Obamacare...", it is actually because Americans will not work for $50 dollars a week, and we will not tolerate toxic chemicals in our waterways.
Ron Paul is probably the most extreme ideologue of the entire group of GOP candidates.
No, Bachmann and Perry are easily as extreme...just on a different set of issues. Paul is not a first-string member of the God Squad.
well, the private sector has let many millions of Americans down
the federal government has let EVERY american down
They have devalued the American worker
no that would be the federal reserve...which isnt government by the way...its a money cartel...funny that libertarians would be against it huh??
They have created more jobs overseas than they have here at home in the last decade
due to the devaluation of the dollar by the fed and the artificial tampering of the market by the government.
brian
listen bud...we could bring down our wages by 75% and it wouldnt alter our standard of living....everyhting would cost less...we have artificially increased our wages to levels that have put us out of work.....
if we all made 3 dollars an hour again...we all would still go on.....corporations want to make money...so they would have to lower their prices to accomadate...we would then be in contention to compete for jobs.
its really very simple....raising wages just raises costs....its a gimmick by the rich to make us think we are improving.
no that would be the federal reserve...which isnt government by the way...its a money cartel...funny that libertarians would be against it huh??
Oh, boy. You see, that is my point re extreme ideologues. The private sector is a Teflon ghost to you guys. It simply does what it does and we should just accept it. Reaganomics shifted all the leverage to the executive and away from the worker. It enabled them to drain the value out of the worker via stagnant wages and lost benefits while building crony-laden boards to approve egregious salary increases for one another and hysterically sized bonus packages. Yet you say, "Nah, it was the Fed's grip on our monetary policy which did this."
if we all made 3 dollars an hour again...we all would still go on.....corporations want to make money...so they would have to lower their prices to accomadate...we would then be in contention to compete for jobs.
In what bubble, James. This is a global economy. If Americans made 3 dollars an hour again (which unfortunately may happen) we would live in shanty towns. We would become like one of these Congo nations that has extreme wealth guarded by the state-run military and extreme poverty controlled by the same.
You think that overnight a TV is going to go from $600 to $6 dollars in cost? No, Sony will fire as many workers as needed, cut production and sell to those who can afford it. The executives/board will make sure that their wealth is protected.
its really very simple....raising wages just raises costs....its a gimmick by the rich to make us think we are improving.
I mean, if you needed any further evidence that this is simply not true, again just look at the average American worker over the past 30 years. Their wages have been virtually stagnant. They funded "lower middle class" lifestyles on credit because that was the only way they could manage it. That evaporated and they were left to face their pathetic wages and extreme debt. They can't even afford the very basics of life now without a credit card.
I don't want to live NEAR any company that isn't regulated. I certainly wouldn't want to work for them. Look at how they disregard the regulations they ALREADY have. james.....if you do, go for it. I'm sure that coal mining company would really LOVE you to go and work in the mines without worrying about anything so frivolous as safety measures! Ron and rand can be teammates down there!
brian
by your post its obvious you ignore history.,,,executive power has increased since FDR.....RP wants to decrease the power.
its unbelievable to me anyone would believe in the federal reserve...its corrupt and a scam..pure and simple...as far as the global economy is concerned.
well we move and shake things...if we refused to artificially enhance the market...others would follow...and if they didnt..fine..they would lose jobs and they would come here...they eventually would go broke as all do who employ that system eventually.
and sure...tvs would go down to 6 dollars...would it happen overnight?? nope...but then its just like everything else...the market will have it expensive at first to exploit those with money...and then as demand decreases the price lowers and lowers so they can make money.
stop ignoring history and basic economics.
pet
regulations just hurt the poor and help the rich.
there are laws in place to protect individuals from assault....its just that our government has purposefully not protected individual rights to gain more control over the masses.
that is what people do not get.
there are already laws that protect you from assault...and from people polluting and destroying your property.
regulations just hurt the poor and help the rich.
Yeah, not so much. But you keep telling yourself that.
RP wants to decrease the power.
By giving the keys to the country over to the private sector executives!
Do you know nothing of the sociopathic greed that is a corporation untethered from regulation and oversight? You think they are going to do the right thing, or the most profitable thing? Did GE dump PCBs in the Hudson and Housatonic rivers because they thought that's what was best for their customers and the nation?
and sure...tvs would go down to 6 dollars...would it happen overnight?? nope...but then its just like everything else...the market will have it expensive at first to exploit those with money...and then as demand decreases the price lowers and lowers so they can make money.
And what would that process look like, James? I don't mean in your Libertarian fantasies, I mean in real life. What would America look like after all the various investments that average Americans have made just go *poof* overnight? Where families are out on the street waiting for the market to adjust to their $50 dollar per week paycheck so that they can rent a decent room somewhere.
This is classic adolescent, Libertarian bravado. It's about turning freedom into chaos and anarchy.
Douglas, how could institutionalized wealth exist if it wasn't for regulations?
Douglas, how could institutionalized wealth exist if it wasn't for regulations?
Institutionalized wealth was/is created where there is a lack of regulation. Landed aristocracies in the past and the corporate citizens of today. Monopolistic behaviors, predatory lending, Vegas-like securities and stock transactions.
brian
its called following the constitution. the three branches were supposed to be equal in power...not one person above all else.
its dangerous to give the executive branch more power than the others
as far the process goes..it would look llike one of the least regulated industries...electronics.
the lcd tv when first oout....expenisve...what 5k?? 10k?? now all can afford...1k
freedom is not scary...only to authoritarians is freedom scary...and to those who are slaves and are scared of taking care of themselves.
its dangerous to give the executive branch more power than the others
It's dangerous to give corporations control of our government.
and sure...tvs would go down to 6 dollars...would it happen overnight?? nope...but then its just like everything else...the market will have it expensive at first to exploit those with money...and then as demand decreases the price lowers and lowers so they can make money.
I'm not sure you understand how manufacturing works. Prices have as much to do with parts supply as consumer demand. A constrained parts supply will drive up price just as much as high consumer demand. Quality control by the manufacturer also determines the price of commodity parts. Hard drives are a good example of that.
douglas
everything would decrease in price...its quite simple
brian
It's dangerous to give corporations control of our government
they already do...hence all the money given to the democrats and republicans...funny...Ron Pauls money comes from individuals...not corporations,.
corporations do not want a government that leaves them alone...they want a government they can use.
everything would decrease in price...its quite simple
Sorry, james, nothing is as simple as Libertarians try to make it.
sorry douglas
freedom is simple.....only authoritarians thinks its not.
nothing is as simple as Libertarians try to make it.
None of the convoluted policies Democrats and Republicans make ever work, so why wouldn't some simplicity see some favorable results?
naughty
exactly...everything they do worsens things....minimum wage and welfare started to decrease the amount poor....it has increased it...why continue it then?? not only hasnt anything changed it is bankrupting america.
why cant people be responsible for themselves??? if they need help those who would like to help them can....we are already the most charitable nation in the world...imagine if we had 40% more of our income???
its amazing to me that people are so afraid of growing up.
James is there now or ever have been a Libertarian government? Anywhere?
no....freedom is a relative new concept....humans as a whole are afraid of freedom....that is why we have always have had someone to "protect" us ...ie kings, lords...now government......the rich always explain to the poor how they can protect them if they just give them money to take care of them.....the scared live in fear and give it up.
I have some good quotes for you first one from an unlikely source...well both of them that i will put up here.
"Expose yourself to your deepest fear; after that, fear has no power, and the fear of freedom shrinks and vanishes. You are free."
— Jim Morrison
freedom is simple.....only authoritarians thinks its not.
Freedom is simple...if you are all alone. If you want to be a member of society, then it is no longer simple. It is why we have laws. And regulations. A regulation is simply a type of law.
When Libertarians say, I'm not opposed to that law, I just think it should be applied on the state level. What difference does what level it is applied on make?
I've heard some gun owners, surprisingly, say they wish all gun laws were federal so that they could have uniform laws from state to state. Not a terribly Libertarian position, eh?
douglas
you are kidding right when you said what does it matter what level its on??? its called following the constitution....good lord.
in regards to the gun lovers saying that...no not libertarian....I have also heard gun owners saying they should have the right to carry guns whereever they want....again gun rights do not trump personal property rights....a business owner should be able to decide if he wants guns allowed in their business.
in regards to freedom...you should be free to do what you want as long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others....how is that wrong??...seriously
there are laws in place that protect us from harm...only the government willingly refusing to enforce the laws have made us yell and scream for MORE laws to protect us.
regulations just hurt the poor as they decrease competition and isolate those already in power and keep them in power.
best and most obvious example of this is the federal reserve....of course I could argue that any regulation is bad and show you how it hurts the poor and keeps the rich rich.
yellowdog
sure it does...depends on the point you are trying to make....why dont you just say it.???
you are kidding right when you said what does it matter what level its on??? its called following the constitution....good lord.
Not from a constitutional standpoint. From a practical standpoint.
If the constitution said we all should wear facepaint like in Braveheart, is that practical? Just because it is in the constitution?
The constitution is not perfect. That's why it has been amended.
And I notice that many of the proponents of states rights only champion it when it benefits them, Paul included.
I am trying to determine whether an untried and undetermined age governmental entity is for real or Utopian bull@!$%#.
I am trying to determine whether an untried and undetermined age governmental entity is for real
Actually, it's not untried. You can find the roots of libertarianism in the articles of confederation...That's important because the articles of confederation were our constitution from 1776-1781. Yes, they were there before the constitution we know today was ratified in 1789. In fact, Madison and Hamilton had to trick the delegates to attend the Philadelphia convention, under the guise that they'd be modifying the articles of confederation. Instead, they wrote and adopted the US Constitution.
So yeah, I'd say going from rebel colony to most powerful nation in the world is a pretty good example of what libertarian ideology can do.
The constitution is not perfect. That's why it has been amended.
Then get it amended before you start preaching about how it doesn't matter what level of government hold plenary powers. Until then, the document says it needs to be done at the state level...Hence, the enumerated powers of congress and the 10th amendment...Which, coincidentally, have been modified - but - they left plenary powers to the states...
Oh wait...You can't without a super majority...And let's face it the majority doesn't agree we should turn our backs on federalism and adopt nationalism, which is what you're proposing.
Then get it amended before you start preaching about how it doesn't matter what level of government hold plenary powers.
Should women have waited until they got the right to vote before they started preaching about it?
Should women have waited until they got the right to vote before they started preaching about it?
Fair enough. Just be very clear what you're advocating then - nationalism.
Fair enough. Just be very clear what you're advocating then - nationalism.
[nash-uh-nl-iz-uhm, nash-nuh-liz-]
noun
1.
national spirit or aspirations.
2.
devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism.
3.
excessive patriotism; chauvinism.
4.
the desire for national advancement or independence.
5.
the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.
Really?
matt , I appreciate your attempt to explain libertarian form of government.
Pretty sure RP-L could have decked RP-Y and got away with it considering RP-Y's stance, finger and the fact he is physically laying hands on him. I'd a decked him.
#11 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:12 PM EDTRon Paul is a bit past his prime as far as pugilist days.
and has about 20 years on Perry.
I mean no offense to Paul but, frankly, Rick Perry's HAIR could probably beat him up.
Rick is the kind of guy who would try to beat him up too. We don't need a bully boy for president; we need a principled leader. Ron Paul 2012!
#12 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:05 PM EDTyea thats what we need another ideological hothead as president...@!$%# we already have that now.
What a confrontation! A Texas blowhard wagging his finger at a Texas Libertarian goofus doofus. All in all it brings great credit upon the state of Texas (that also gave us Dubbya the great wrong country warrior.)
#13 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 2:20 PM EDTagain the comment shows how partisan politics are destroying this county...if it was perry doing it to hilary I guess you would be making jokes too???
just curious.
again the comment shows how partisan politics are destroying this county...if it was perry doing it to hilary I guess you would be making jokes too???
Probably, if she had that goofy look on her face
and then said she had no recollection whatsover of any 'cross words' . . . although I have to admit I kind of like that phrase, in my mind it gets a sweet southern drawl effect . . .'there were no cross wahds spoken between us'
....because I don’t even recall the moment that was occurring and I don’t remember exactly what he said. ~Ron Paul
Ron Paul might be a very nice man; presidential material, he's not. This is at least his third time running for president. Does he know that?
#14 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 3:32 PM EDTthere are more photos about this too. There are like 4 or 5 photos about this incident. See how in this one photo Ron Paul is standing in the middle of his podium but in one of the other photos it shows Perry has moved all the way to the middle of Ron Paul's podium forcing Ron Paul to the side of how own podium. Also, a 3rd podium shows Hunstman in the middle of
Ron Paul and Rick Perry as if Huntsman has moved into the middle to try to keep them apart and resolve whatever issue Perry was angered about. In that 3rd picture with Huntsman between Paul and Perry it is clear that Perry is looking directly at Ron Paul belittling Ron Paul, while Ron Paul is looking down and away from Rick Perry like a little boy who is being scolded by his father and can't look his father in the eye. Huntsman's expression looks like he's witnessing a situation where a bully is berating his victim and Huntsman is letting it play out because he's powerless to do anything about it.
#15 - Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:23 PM EDTI have seen all the photos
and I hardly think Ron Paul is scared of what Rick Perry thinks...or says.
when you stand up in a gop debate in the bible belt like he did back in may and say heroin should be legal you dont care about being popular or upsetting people.
when you call out foxnews saying that they and rupert murdoch are responsible for the support of the iraq war.....you do not care about upsetting people.
when you call out the federal reserve....arguably the most powerful institution in the world as being corrupt and make it known you want it ended and preach it to millions...you dont care about upsetting people.
peace.
I'm reposting this because I did some typos last time I posted it.
There are more photos about this incident. There are like 4 or 5 photos about this incident. See how in this one photo Ron Paul is standing in the middle of his podium but in one of the other photos it shows Perry has moved all the way to the middle of Ron Paul's podium forcing Ron Paul to the side of how own podium. Also, a 3rd photo shows Hunstman has entered into the incident and Huntsman is sort of inbetween Ron Paul and Rick Perry as if Huntsman has gotten involved to try to keep them apart, and resolve whatever issue Perry was angry at Ron Paul about. In that 3rd picture with Huntsman between Paul and Perry it is clear that Perry is looking directly at Ron Paul belittling Ron Paul, while Ron Paul is looking down and away from Rick Perry like a little boy who is being scolded by his father and can't look his father in the eye. Huntsman's expression looks like he's witnessing a situation where a bully is berating his victim and Huntsman is letting it play out because he's powerless to do anything about it.
#16 - Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:38 PM EDTrick perry is definitely going too far and it's downright thuggish. I'm a democrat but I do agree with some of Ron Paul's positions but even if I didn't agree with any of Ron Paul's positions I am a good enough person to realize that Perry is way out of bounds. He's bullying Ron Paul. Ron Paul is probably denying it because he thinks that admitting to it would make him look small and unpresidential. Perry is trying to make Ron Paul look and feel like a wimp.
#17 - Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:41 PM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
