GOP Primary debate

[30ashopper]

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/05/05/firsts-south-debaters-square-south-carolina

Anyone else catch it? I tuned in for the first 45 minutes or so. Ron Paul was "Ron Paulish" as usual, always fun to watch. Cain, meh, his four point plan for everything got a little old. Santorum - thumbs down, he's like Dick Cheney with hair. Johnson had great perspective but like Paul his views are too libertarian for the republican (and the democratic) party.Tim Pawlenty overall probably won the debate. He really surprised me, I was expecting someone less composed and charismatic but he turned out to be the most presidential of all the candidates. He's going to be one of the front runners for sure.

 

[AlphaCrab]

Suprisingly, I found myself, once again, agreeing in theory with many of Ron Paul points. Unfortunately, I don't think the Republican Party has room for visionaries such as he. I saw no personal charisma in any of the other candidates, I don't think the Republican candidate for President will come from that pool.

 

[Smiling JOe]

According to the panel in the post-interview, Cain won the hearts at the debate, overwhelmingly.

 

[PearlSB4U]

Suprisingly, I found myself, once again, agreeing in theory with many of Ron Paul points. Unfortunately, I don't think the Republican Party has room for visionaries such as he. I saw no personal charisma in any of the other candidates, I don't think the Republican candidate for President will come from that pool.

Ron Paul's worldview/ideology is consistent but impractical.
If we could snap our fingers & instantly achieve the naive "system of government" envisioned by Paul, the end result would probably be closer to Hell than to Heaven.

 

[AlphaCrab]

Ron Paul's worldview/ideology is consistent but impractical.
If we could snap our fingers & instantly achieve the naive "system of government" envisioned by Paul, the end result would probably be closer to Hell than to Heaven.

Maybe what I actually appreciate about Ron Paul IS consistency.

 

[30ashopper]

Ron Paul's worldview/ideology is consistent but impractical.
If we could snap our fingers & instantly achieve the naive "system of government" envisioned by Paul, the end result would probably be closer to Hell than to Heaven.

I disagree. The first hundred and fifty years of this country were quite prosperous for many. Only in the last 70 or so have we seen the growth of the systems Paul would love to phase out. In looking at our current unemployment rate, manufacturing sector, and budget situation, the last 70 years haven't exactly brought us major gains in prosperity or stability. I can see how someone who is entirely dependent on government might see the first 150 years as hell, but the rest of us would probably get a long just fine (or even better) in Paul's vision of how things should be.

 

[AlphaCrab]

CNN poll Obama Vs Paul...Paul has the best chance of beating him if the elections were held today. Hmmm

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...oll-ron-paul-stands-best-chance-against-obama

 

[PearlSB4U]

I disagree. The first hundred and fifty years of this country were quite prosperous for many. Only in the last 70 or so have we seen the growth of the systems Paul would love to phase out. In looking at our current unemployment rate, manufacturing sector, and budget situation, the last 70 years haven't exactly brought us major gains in prosperity or stability. I can see how someone who is entirely dependent on government might see the first 150 years as hell, but the rest of us would probably get a long just fine (or even better) in Paul's vision of how things should be.

As I understand Paul's philosophy, "The Government" should address only national defense, the monetary system and relations w/ other governments. That is, he'd eliminate all government departments except Defense, Treasury & State. He thinks The Government has no role in the environment, work safety, education, agriculture,...maybe even commerce. This is what I call an ivory tower, naive & impractical philosophy.

I agree w/ many of Paul's libertarian ideas, especially keeping The Govt out of folks' bedrooms, women's wombs, Iraq & Afghanistan. I too, am against The "Patriot" Act.

I think that Libertarianism doesn't properly consider that we humans are not only individuals, but we're also social animals & we live in society & we must have adequate societal rules. There's no question, however, that our current societal rules/laws can be improved.

 

[30ashopper]

As I understand Paul's philosophy, "The Government" should address only national defense, the monetary system and relations w/ other governments. That is, he'd eliminate all government departments except Defense, Treasury & State. He thinks The Government has no role in the environment, work safety, education, agriculture,...maybe even commerce. This is what I call an ivory tower, naive & impractical philosophy.

I agree w/ many of Paul's libertarian ideas, especially keeping The Govt out of folks' bedrooms, women's wombs, Iraq & Afghanistan. I too, am against The "Patriot" Act.

I think that Libertarianism doesn't properly consider that we humans are not only individuals, but we're also social animals & we live in society & we must have adequate societal rules. There's no question, however, that our current societal rules/laws can be improved.

Generalizations, but yes, he feels the FEDERAL government does not have a role in many of the areas it currently meddles in.

 

[30ashopper]

Why do some automatically assume that singular/centralized solutions are better? These systems tend to squash individual freedom and innovation. Also the larger these systems become, the less they are capable of addressing the needs of the group they serve. Which isn't to say centralized doesn't work in all cases, but a lot of folks seem to make the mistake of assuming these system always work better despite ample evidence to the contrary.