Ron Paul is awesome . . . .

[bpwallace49]

A very reasonable man . . .I wish he was the GOP nominee

 

That is all . .

[caddyman]

A very reasonable man . . .I wish he was the GOP nominee

 

That is all . .

 

you are hilarious. A reasonable man because he criticized Cheney? You just keep getting better.

[bpwallace49]

you are hilarious. A reasonable man because he criticized Cheney? You just keep getting better.

 

A reasonable man because he follows his conscience . . NOT blindly following the company/party line.

 

Rare to find a politican that actually speaks his mind, and not what his/her party tells them to say. That goes for BOTh parties.

[wiegie]

Ron Paul is an idiot.

[untateve]

Ron Paul is an idiot.

 

Because?

[isleseeya]

Because?

 

He has two first names

[westvirginia]

Ron Paul is an idiot.

 

That might be a little strong...

[Avernus]

Ron Paul is an idiot.

 

 

that's a bit much...he's one of the few people out there that actually sound like they have any common sense...

 

he doesn't fit what your idea of politics are....but people like the old system way too much....which is a lot like the current system (a system that can be manipulated)

[westvirginia]

that's a bit much...he's one of the few people out there that actually sound like they have any common sense...

 

he doesn't fit what your idea of politics are....but people like the old system way too much....which is a lot like the current system (a system that can be manipulated)

 

I don't think it's even politics with weigie - it's the fact that Paul wants to re-hitch the dollar to gold?

[Perchoutofwater]

Ron Paul would be a far better president than the one we currently have and the guy that ran against him. He is far from perfect, and has some strange quirks, but he actually acknowledges we have a constitution, and it isn't like he praises socialists or hangs out with man made disaster creators.

[TimC]

Ron Paul is the best out there. Cause pickings are pretty slim. He is smarter than the other 535 or whatever Congressman by a mile.

[Perchoutofwater]

Ron Paul is the best out there. Cause pickings are pretty slim.

 

We are more interested in how our elected officials appear on TV, and who can get the best sound bite, slogan, or zinger, and not on their actual voting record and their history. That is the reason we are where we are today. We've been voting style over substance for some time now, and for that we deserve what we get.

[billay]

man made disaster creators.

is this the new euphemism for terrorists, or has DMD gotten filter happy again?

[Savage Beatings]

NOT blindly following the company/party line.

 

Dude... you are the embodiment of following the party line.

[billay]

[/b]

 

We are more interested in how our elected officials appear on TV, and who can get the best sound bite, slogan, or zinger, and not on their actual voting record and their history. That is the reason we are where we are today. We've been voting style over substance for some time now, and for that we deserve what we get.

In a sense, I agree with you, but I think what the American electorate has an infantile need for isn't as much style over substance, as it is an even more basic desire for reassurance.

 

The God That Fails

 

By DAVID BROOKS

Published: December 31, 2009

 

During the middle third of the 20th century, Americans had impressive faith in their own institutions. It was not because these institutions always worked well. The Congress and the Federal Reserve exacerbated the Great Depression. The military made horrific mistakes during World War II, which led to American planes bombing American troops and American torpedoes sinking ships with American prisoners of war.

 

But there was a realistic sense that human institutions are necessarily flawed. History is not knowable or controllable. People should be grateful for whatever assistance that government can provide and had better do what they can to be responsible for their own fates.

 

That mature attitude seems to have largely vanished. Now we seem to expect perfection from government and then throw temper tantrums when it is not achieved. We seem to be in the position of young adolescents — who believe mommy and daddy can take care of everything, and then grow angry and cynical when it becomes clear they can’t.

 

After Sept. 11, we Americans indulged our faith in the god of technocracy. We expanded the country’s information-gathering capacities so that the National Security Agency alone now gathers four times more data each day than is contained in the Library of Congress.

 

We set up protocols to convert that information into a form that can be processed by computers and bureaucracies. We linked agencies and created new offices. We set up a centralized focal point, the National Counterterrorism Center.

 

All this money and technology seems to have reduced the risk of future attack. But, of course, the system is bound to fail sometimes. Reality is unpredictable, and no amount of computer technology is going to change that. Bureaucracies are always blind because they convert the rich flow of personalities and events into crude notations that can be filed and collated. Human institutions are always going to miss crucial clues because the information in the universe is infinite and events do not conform to algorithmic regularity.

 

Resilient societies have a level-headed understanding of the risks inherent in this kind of warfare.

 

But, of course, this is not how the country has reacted over the past week. There have been outraged calls for Secretary Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security to resign, as if changing the leader of the bureaucracy would fix the flaws inherent in the bureaucracy. There have been demands for systemic reform — for more protocols, more layers and more review systems.

 

Much of the criticism has been contemptuous and hysterical. Various experts have gathered bits of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s biography. Since they can string the facts together to accurately predict the past, they thunder, the intelligence services should have been able to connect the dots to predict the future.

 

Dick Cheney argues that the error was caused by some ideological choice. Arlen Specter screams for more technology — full-body examining devices. “We thought that had been remedied,” said Senator Kit Bond, as if omniscience could be accomplished with legislation.

 

Many people seem to be in the middle of a religious crisis of faith. All the gods they believe in — technology, technocracy, centralized government control — have failed them in this instance.

 

In a mature nation, President Obama could go on TV and say, “Listen, we’re doing the best we can, but some terrorists are bound to get through.” But this is apparently a country that must be spoken to in childish ways. The original line out of the White House was that the system worked. Don’t worry, little Johnny.

 

When that didn’t work the official line went to the other extreme. “I consider that totally unacceptable,” Obama said. I’m really mad, Johnny. But don’t worry, I’ll make it all better.

 

Meanwhile, the Transportation Security Administration has to be seen doing something, so it added another layer to its stage play, “Security Theater” — more baggage regulations, more in-flight restrictions.

 

At some point, it’s worth pointing out that it wasn’t the centralized system that stopped terrorism in this instance. As with the shoe bomber, as with the plane that went down in Shanksville, Pa., it was decentralized citizen action. The plot was foiled by nonexpert civilians who had the advantage of the concrete information right in front of them — and the spirit to take the initiative.

 

For better or worse, over the past 50 years we have concentrated authority in centralized agencies and reduced the role of decentralized citizen action. We’ve done this in many spheres of life. Maybe that’s wise, maybe it’s not. But we shouldn’t imagine that these centralized institutions are going to work perfectly or even well most of the time. It would be nice if we reacted to their inevitable failures not with rabid denunciation and cynicism, but with a little resiliency, an awareness that human systems fail and bad things will happen and we don’t have to lose our heads every time they do.

[Perchoutofwater]

is this the new euphemism for terrorists, or has DMD gotten filter happy again?

 

The Obama administration in an attempt to be more P.C. started using the term man made disasters in the place of terrorist attacks a few months ago. This is just my feeble attempt at making fun of that.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

David Brooks is awfully smart. Too smart to run for public office, but he'd make a fine public servant.

[Perchoutofwater]

In a sense, I agree with you, but I think what the American electorate has an infantile need for isn't as much style over substance, as it is an even more basic desire for reassurance.

 

For better or worse, over the past 50 years we have concentrated authority in centralized agencies and reduced the role of decentralized citizen action. We’ve done this in many spheres of life. Maybe that’s wise, maybe it’s not. But we shouldn’t imagine that these centralized institutions are going to work perfectly or even well most of the time. It would be nice if we reacted to their inevitable failures not with rabid denunciation and cynicism, but with a little resiliency, an awareness that human systems fail and bad things will happen and we don’t have to lose our heads every time they do.

 

I truly believe there will be additional failures in all sectors and that is one to the reasons I continue to questions the intelligence of sending more money to Washington for more centralization whether it be in the for of health care, retirement, etc... There are really only three things I think the federal government should do:

 

1. Protect us with a strong military and border control. A++++ on the strong military as it is easily the strongest in the world (and could actually be scaled back some), but F with the border control because our politicians don't have the balls to do what the Constitution mandates them to do. They are afraid of losing the immigrant vote, and the campaign contributions of shady businesses that hire illegals.

 

2. Regulate trade between the states - Yes the federal government should do this, but is should be trimmed way back to what it was intended to be, and not an excuse to regulate the hell out of everything. Basically it should make sure that here is free trade between the states and that Texas doesn't charge Arizona $60 a barrel for oil and Massachusetts $80 a barrel for oil (excluding transport costs).

 

3. The federal government should be involved in the environmental regulations, but those regulations need to be firmly based in fact and not theory. It does no good for Texas to have very strict environmental laws if Oklahoma is dumping toxins into the Red River and has hundreds of smoke stacks bellowing right across the border. We need environmental regulation, it just needs to be sensible and based in proven fact not theory or hype. And even then a cost benefit analysis should be run on all items that do not pose an immediate risk of disturbing life (and I'm not talking the live of a toad nobody has heard of).

[westvirginia]

From billay's post:

 

At some point, it’s worth pointing out that it wasn’t the centralized system that stopped terrorism in this instance. As with the shoe bomber, as with the plane that went down in Shanksville, Pa., it was decentralized citizen action. The plot was foiled by nonexpert civilians who had the advantage of the concrete information right in front of them — and the spirit to take the initiative.

 

But hey, the gov't screws stuff up and the answer is "MORE GOV'T"

[wiegie]

I don't think it's even politics with weigie - it's the fact that Paul wants to re-hitch the dollar to gold?

that is exactly it

[bpwallace49]

Dude... you are the embodiment of following the party line.

 

I dont even belong to a political party genius . . . . .

[Savage Beatings]

I dont even belong to a political party genius . . . . .

 

Everything that I've seen you post represents an apology for the Democrat Party whether or not you "officially" belong to the party. I suppose you think of yourself as an independent. Keep living the lie.

[westvirginia]

Everything that I've seen you post represents an apology for the Democrat Party whether or not you "officially" belong to the party. I suppose you think of yourself as an independent. Keep living the lie.

 

skins redux?

[TimC]

I dont even belong to a political party genius . . . . .

 

I thought you were Ted Kennedy in heaven.

[bpwallace49]

I thought you were Ted Kennedy in heaven.

 

Then I will now bless you my son . . .