Has Ron Paul reached you yet?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Because private companies and university grants often don't supply enough money.

Government funds were not needed for the invention of gasoline.

Why are government funds needed to replace gasoline?

 

[LostAngeles]

...
Jerome: The federal government does encourage science and technology funding for GOOD REASONS. Unless,of course, you're a luddite/worship Yu Yevon.

That reference wins.

Except that the maesters had machina, but hey... organized religion.

 

[technoextreme]

Government funds were not needed for the invention of gasoline.

Why are government funds needed to replace gasoline?

Because the problem is far more involved than the invention of gasoline.

What energy problem?

Record breaking oil prices?
PS:
Moderators might want to split this topic off because while it is a reason why Ron Paul will never entice me it's an entirely different problem.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Record breaking oil prices?
PS:
Moderators might want to split this topic off because while it is a reason why Ron Paul will never entice me it's an entirely different problem.

No split needed.


Ron Paul explains why the price of oil is comparatively high.

It is the influx of newly created dollars into the world market by the Federal reserve.

Stop the Fed from printing new monies and the price will stabilize.

 

[ronpaulisright]

All the fed does is create inflation and devalue the currency.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

You would both be wrong. We've explained elsewhere, and I'm not in the mood to rehash it just for people who don't listen.

Oil is also rising partially due to speculation. Sure you know what that means.

LA: Well, yes, I remember Bevelle .. and Vegnagun... but eh, it popped into my head after playing FFX recently.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You would both be wrong. We've explained elsewhere, and I'm not in the mood to rehash it just for people who don't listen.

Weak dollar affecting oil prices

But if political leaders want lower oil prices, they should be promoting policies that strengthen the dollar.

In the short-term, dollar depreciation does not affect supply and demand, but it does affect speculation and investment in oil futures markets. As the dollar declines, commodities — including oil — attract investors. Investing in futures becomes both a hedge against a weakening dollar and an investment vehicle that could yield substantial profit, particularly in a climate of vanishing excess oil production capacity, increasing demand, declining interest rates, a slumping real estate market and crisis in the banking industry.

Central bank rate cuts have devalued the dollar, fueling the rise in crude prices

One factor that has sent the dollar down and oil up recently has been the Federal Reserve's months-long round of rate cuts. In an attempt to stimulate the ailing U.S. economy, the central bank has cut rates by three percentage points since September. But the rate cuts are also inflationary, weakening the dollar and sending oil prices higher.

"The weak dollar is a major detriment to the price of oil," said Stephen Schork, publisher of the energy industry newsletter The Schork Report. "It's keeping prices artificially high."

 

[Ladewig]

What if, hypothetically, I, as an American, support the CFR? What if a majority of Americans support the ideas pitched by the CFR? If that's what America wants, why would you want to deny it?

Just to play Devil's Advocate: it might be proper to deny it if the ideas were unconstitutional. Of course, if that many people really wanted it then their elected officials could introduce Constitutional amendments which would make the ideas legal, but until then, denying these ideas may be appropriate and just. I do not know what ideas are actually pitched by the CFR, but this site seems to think they are exceptionally unconstitutional. Of course, that site may be a touch unreliable.

 

[elbe]

Just to play Devil's Advocate: it might be proper to deny it if the ideas were unconstitutional. Of course, if that many people really wanted it then their elected officials could introduce Constitutional amendments which would make the ideas legal, but until then, denying these ideas may be appropriate and just. I do not know what ideas are actually pitched by the CFR, but this site seems to think they are exceptionally unconstitutional. Of course, that site may be a touch unreliable.

True enough. It's possible a majority of Americans would support witch burning, but that doesn't make it constitutional - or ethical. I was, I think, going more along the line of "if a majority of Americans think something is a good idea, how can you automatically claim that an opposite choice is best for the country?" You could be, of course, like ending segregation (although I don't know what the majority opinion of that was at the time). I guess I just expect more evidence than conspiracy nuts making unsupported claims that something, like globalization, is bad.

From what I've read on the CFR website they don't seem to push globalization a whole lot.

 

[Athyrio]

No, Ron Paul hasn't reached me, but I think reality has reached him today. It's time to say sayonara - way past your bedtime, RP.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Big announcement tonight.

 

[Tricky]

Big announcement tonight.

LOL. Yeah, that was a real big announcement. In fact, it was really no announcement at all. He suspended his presidential campaign weeks ago. It does look though like he is going to try to hammer in the wedge that is splitting the Republican Party into fiscal and social conservatives. Will this result in a splinter party? Possibly, but not likely. Will his "limited government" Republicans take over the party? Damned unlikely. Too much of the Republican base are people who want the government to be enforcing moral decisions.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

LOL. Yeah, that was a real big announcement. In fact, it was really no announcement at all. He suspended his presidential campaign weeks ago. It does look though like he is going to try to hammer in the wedge that is splitting the Republican Party into fiscal and social conservatives. Will this result in a splinter party? Possibly, but not likely. Will his "limited government" Republicans take over the party? Damned unlikely. Too much of the Republican base are people who want the government to be enforcing moral decisions.

He did not suspend his campaign until today, in fact in the last three primaries he received 17%, 14%, and 24% of the vote.

His ideas concern liberty in all aspects of life, not fiscal or social.

His campaign is going to have a convention at the beginning of September.

 

[Loss Leader]

He did not suspend his campaign until today, in fact in the last three primaries he received 17%, 14%, and 24% of the vote.

Yes, the very last three Republican primaries. Long after McCain had sealed the nomination and all the other candidates had dropped out. Let's take a look at those returns:

New Mexico - Paul got 15,319 votes. Out of approximately 302,000 registered Republicans in the state. That's less than 5% of registered Republicans.

South Dakota - 10,054 votes. There are 235,388 or so registered Republicans in South Dakota. Paul got about 4% of the Republican vote.

Idaho - 29,741 votes. They have 600,000 registered voters who are not required to vote by party. That's less than 5%.

Ron Paul is running at under 5% of Republicans across the board. Just like he has been. He isn't gaining and he isn't losing. And now his supporters won't even be on the floor of the real Republican convention.

 

[WildCat]

Big announcement tonight.

Great, now he's free to hire more of his family to do-nothing jobs paid for by his legions of idiots who sent him money for a campaign he never intended to seriously contend for anyway.

Idiots send Ron Paul money, Ron Paul never spends any of it, then hires his family to draw off those funds for years to come - viva the Ron Paul Revolution!

 

[Father Dagon]

Most importantly, Ron Paul is just a man. We need to stop idolizing humans. Even if he was elected he wouldn't be a dictator and couldn't rule by fiat. He would still be limited in the reforms that he could enact. He would still need to work with congress and deal with all of their egos and special interests.

What's Pauls track record on filibustring etc? The winners are those who know the rule book 10 times more than the rest and are ready to raise a storm at the drop of a hat over the most minute formalities. If Paul really is the (a bit too) nice guy he seems to be, he wouldn't understand why the congress is so uncooperative.