MT Consensus: Ron Paul

VINNY GOOMBA

Go Beavers wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Yeah, I haven't been around on here much, but I'm feeling inspired seeing the love for Ron on here, and with that always comes a polar opposite hatefest. Most of it is blind partisanship, although there is never admission of that. Sure, attack his ideas and his policy proposals if you can intelligently-- I really do not like when people attack the man. No one is perfect, but I do believe him to be a genuinely honest and caring person, who if he is crazy, it's mostly because he is still fighting this very tiring fight. The good news is, that his ideas are winning right now, so it has been worth it. He is going to take Iowa-- and it will be downplayed by the media, despite years past Iowa has always been VERY important. He can take a lot of these primaries-- I will be definitely money bombing for him tomorrow.

Hannity is the worst. No wait, OReilly is. No wait, Beck is. Hold on-- Coulter? Rush? They're all terrible. The only ones I like are Judge Napolitano and Stossel.

And yes, the pacifism thing is so worn out already. When this country is in need to true self-defense against aggression, Paul WILL act, with proper authorization from Congress.

How is Paul going to win Iowa? Is there something I'm missing?

Check the polls. He's at least statistically tied right now.

mikepegg44

Go Beavers wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Yeah, I haven't been around on here much, but I'm feeling inspired seeing the love for Ron on here, and with that always comes a polar opposite hatefest. Most of it is blind partisanship, although there is never admission of that. Sure, attack his ideas and his policy proposals if you can intelligently-- I really do not like when people attack the man. No one is perfect, but I do believe him to be a genuinely honest and caring person, who if he is crazy, it's mostly because he is still fighting this very tiring fight. The good news is, that his ideas are winning right now, so it has been worth it. He is going to take Iowa-- and it will be downplayed by the media, despite years past Iowa has always been VERY important. He can take a lot of these primaries-- I will be definitely money bombing for him tomorrow.

Hannity is the worst. No wait, OReilly is. No wait, Beck is. Hold on-- Coulter? Rush? They're all terrible. The only ones I like are Judge Napolitano and Stossel.

And yes, the pacifism thing is so worn out already. When this country is in need to true self-defense against aggression, Paul WILL act, with proper authorization from Congress.

How is Paul going to win Iowa? Is there something I'm missing?

ground organization, ground swell of conservatives and family values voters in Iowa, and if you listen to hannity, a history of Iowa voters supporting pacifism

Go Beavers

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Yeah, I haven't been around on here much, but I'm feeling inspired seeing the love for Ron on here, and with that always comes a polar opposite hatefest. Most of it is blind partisanship, although there is never admission of that. Sure, attack his ideas and his policy proposals if you can intelligently-- I really do not like when people attack the man. No one is perfect, but I do believe him to be a genuinely honest and caring person, who if he is crazy, it's mostly because he is still fighting this very tiring fight. The good news is, that his ideas are winning right now, so it has been worth it. He is going to take Iowa-- and it will be downplayed by the media, despite years past Iowa has always been VERY important. He can take a lot of these primaries-- I will be definitely money bombing for him tomorrow.

Hannity is the worst. No wait, OReilly is. No wait, Beck is. Hold on-- Coulter? Rush? They're all terrible. The only ones I like are Judge Napolitano and Stossel.

And yes, the pacifism thing is so worn out already. When this country is in need to true self-defense against aggression, Paul WILL act, with proper authorization from Congress.

How is Paul going to win Iowa? Is there something I'm missing?

Check the polls. He's at least statistically tied right now.

The polls have a lot of variation between them. CBS news has him 15 points behind Newt, and CNN 16 points.

Go Beavers

mikepegg44 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Yeah, I haven't been around on here much, but I'm feeling inspired seeing the love for Ron on here, and with that always comes a polar opposite hatefest. Most of it is blind partisanship, although there is never admission of that. Sure, attack his ideas and his policy proposals if you can intelligently-- I really do not like when people attack the man. No one is perfect, but I do believe him to be a genuinely honest and caring person, who if he is crazy, it's mostly because he is still fighting this very tiring fight. The good news is, that his ideas are winning right now, so it has been worth it. He is going to take Iowa-- and it will be downplayed by the media, despite years past Iowa has always been VERY important. He can take a lot of these primaries-- I will be definitely money bombing for him tomorrow.

Hannity is the worst. No wait, OReilly is. No wait, Beck is. Hold on-- Coulter? Rush? They're all terrible. The only ones I like are Judge Napolitano and Stossel.

And yes, the pacifism thing is so worn out already. When this country is in need to true self-defense against aggression, Paul WILL act, with proper authorization from Congress.

How is Paul going to win Iowa? Is there something I'm missing?

ground organization, ground swell of conservatives and family values voters in Iowa, and if you listen to hannity, a history of Iowa voters supporting pacifism

You think he appeals to the family values crowd? I don't know about that. I always see the family values people as wanting their religious morality legislated on a national level. I would think legalizing heroin would go over like a turd in the punchbowl with them. Maybe he appeals to the family who has a cranky dad who just wants to be left alone.

VINNY GOOMBA

Go Beavers wrote:

The polls have a lot of variation between them. CBS news has him 15 points behind Newt, and CNN 16 points.

They do.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main ... grich.html

CBS did a stellar job of giving him the least amount of airtime during their debate also. Anyway, I'm calling it now-- Paul takes Iowa, media will say Iowa is not important-- they've already started.

Go Beavers

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

The polls have a lot of variation between them. CBS news has him 15 points behind Newt, and CNN 16 points.

They do.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main ... grich.html

CBS did a stellar job of giving him the least amount of airtime during their debate also. Anyway, I'm calling it now-- Paul takes Iowa, media will say Iowa is not important-- they've already started.

Iowa not important? They can't backpedal on that one. It's probably the only reason we have ethanol in our gas.

polaris_x

Go Beavers wrote:

You think he appeals to the family values crowd? I don't know about that. I always see the family values people as wanting their religious morality legislated on a national level. I would think legalizing heroin would go over like a turd in the punchbowl with them. Maybe he appeals to the family who has a cranky dad who just wants to be left alone.

RW81233

Sludge Factory wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

Ok, that's cool. Sorry I misread that.
I would disagree with your main stance on the free market though. You say that right now we are living more in a cultural economy with the cultural values that matter being overwhelmingly white, upper-class, etc. The question is, why are those the current cultural values? Is it capitalism and the free market? I would say no, capitalism is dead in this country and has been for years now.

I think your disgust is misdirected at capitalism, when in fact, what it is that bothers you so much is corporatism. Corporatism protects the elite, the established. Corporatism favors overwhelmingly white, upper-class, heterosexual, masculine types. Capitalism and the free market would simply favor that which the market deemed to be most desired. What is most desired is determined by each segment of society that engages in the free market. Each segment of society itself being made up of individual people with individual desires. It is these individual desires, that if consistent and popular enough, dictate what is most culturally valuable or even dictate if cultural values itself are what the free market is based on.

Sludge this is NOT (edit) just for you, but anyway. I vote based on my beliefs, and whose ideas can help best at any one moment. I voted for Obama in the last election, because, while I knew he would sell-out, he was the best person we had for the job. Despite all of you saying he's been a total suck, he's actually done some good in office (certainly better than W. - which really doesn't mean he's done much). If they are votable in my state I will go for Stewart Alexander and Alex Mendoza (http://www.stewartalexanderforpresident ... g/home.htm). Second, as you all have rightly pointed out, I do think it's cool that Ron Paul is not your typical Republican/conservative, and that he upsets the norms in that particular party (one that is pretty reprehensible). Third, Ron Paul should ALWAYS have to answer for his racist past, you can't shout me down for it because you don't like it. It doesn't mean you shouldn't vote for him, but you should realize that to some he represents a pretty vile thing (and rightly so). Fourth, I really disagree with his following of Ayn Rand's economic policy - partially because she was inspired by a murderer (http://exiledonline.com/atlas-shrieked- ... nds-heart/), and partially because I don't see the "free market" ever becoming truly free. As such, basically the argument you are making for pure capitalism is the same others make for pure communism. In theory they work, but in our lived realities they don't - people get in the way of theory.

inlet13

RW81233 wrote:

partially because I don't see the "free market" ever becoming truly free.

Just curious here... you never answered my question, so I'll repeat it.

How "exactly" is letting supply and demand dictate prices and allocate goods and services a negative or unfair? What's the alternative to free trade that would be more "cultural" (as you put it)?

mikepegg44

Go Beavers wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

How is Paul going to win Iowa? Is there something I'm missing?

ground organization, ground swell of conservatives and family values voters in Iowa, and if you listen to hannity, a history of Iowa voters supporting pacifism

You think he appeals to the family values crowd? I don't know about that. I always see the family values people as wanting their religious morality legislated on a national level. I would think legalizing heroin would go over like a turd in the punchbowl with them. Maybe he appeals to the family who has a cranky dad who just wants to be left alone.

I think your assessment of who the "family values" crowd is is a little skewed. I think we would all like to believe they are Falwell clones, but they aren't all like that. My father-in-law is a pretty religious guy, family values are important to him, but as a catholic he thinks divorce is a lot worse than drug legalization.
but lets see what Paul has in common with them

Married 54 years...check
christian...check
Pro-life...(one of the things I disagree with him on but I see his point)

but lets see what he isn't...

a divorcee with fidelity issues
a mormon...(ooooooooooooh scary)

but back to your main point, yeah, I don't think he necessarily appeals to people who vote solely on religion, the moral majority types...santorum is probably their guy...

RW81233

inlet13 wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

partially because I don't see the "free market" ever becoming truly free.

Just curious here... you never answered my question, so I'll repeat it.

How "exactly" is letting supply and demand dictate prices and allocate goods and services a negative or unfair? What's the alternative to free trade that would be more "cultural" (as you put it)?

sorry...I was trying to respond to like 3 posts at once knew I'd leave something out. First, in the US we currently live in a Cultural Economy. Basically we buy and sell ideas through gigantic marketing programs (is a Lexus really 10k more useful than a Toyota?, are Nike's 100 dollars more useful than New Balance?), because, for the most part all these goods are essentially the same and for capitalism to continue to move forward they need to sell us ever more disposable goods at a faster and faster rate. If you've got 20 minutes check this out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8).

Getting back to your question supply and demand (or pure capitalism) only works at a fair level when everyone has transparent information on every single thing they are going to purchase. Are you suggesting that Ron Paul would cap various company's ability to market their products? Put differently, my 10 month old son will recognize nearly every junk food, fast food, beer, toilet paper, cleaning product, and so on brand within the next two years. He will have ideas one which one's are better/worse and why based on their advertising. He will (hopefully) never have had a McDonald's french fry by that time, but he will know that it is the most delicious thing in the world and that consuming it will make him happy. That's not good. However, if we eradicate the marketing industry won't that cripple our economy? Don't most people go to college now to get a job whose primary purpose is to convince others to buy their company's goods/services? Very few of us actually build/sell "things" it's more about creating the perceived "experience" one will have after they've bought that good/service.

Furthermore, will we set every price back to zero and eradicate our social history that has through various machinations of power decided what good/service is worth more than others? Who decided that housewives don't get paid for their services? Should that continue? Will migrant workers in Alabama get paid what they are worth (http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/09/ala ... migra.html)? How about women and children in Indonesia sewing our sneakers and clothes, building our computers, car parts, and so on?
You see when left to the "free market" people will be desperate to get paid anything just for the chance to live. Essentially real wages will plummet even further, and workers will be asked to do more with less. This is already happening around the world, and you want to expand it? How will this not benefit those who are already rich?

satansbed

RW81233 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

partially because I don't see the "free market" ever becoming truly free.

Just curious here... you never answered my question, so I'll repeat it.

How "exactly" is letting supply and demand dictate prices and allocate goods and services a negative or unfair? What's the alternative to free trade that would be more "cultural" (as you put it)?

sorry...I was trying to respond to like 3 posts at once knew I'd leave something out. First, in the US we currently live in a Cultural Economy. Basically we buy and sell ideas through gigantic marketing programs (is a Lexus really 10k more useful than a Toyota?, are Nike's 100 dollars more useful than New Balance?), because, for the most part all these goods are essentially the same and for capitalism to continue to move forward they need to sell us ever more disposable goods at a faster and faster rate. If you've got 20 minutes check this out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8).

Getting back to your question supply and demand (or pure capitalism) only works at a fair level when everyone has transparent information on every single thing they are going to purchase. Are you suggesting that Ron Paul would cap various company's ability to market their products? Put differently, my 10 month old son will recognize nearly every junk food, fast food, beer, toilet paper, cleaning product, and so on brand within the next two years. He will have ideas one which one's are better/worse and why based on their advertising. He will (hopefully) never have had a McDonald's french fry by that time, but he will know that it is the most delicious thing in the world and that consuming it will make him happy. That's not good. However, if we eradicate the marketing industry won't that cripple our economy? Don't most people go to college now to get a job whose primary purpose is to convince others to buy their company's goods/services? Very few of us actually build/sell "things" it's more about creating the perceived "experience" one will have after they've bought that good/service.

Furthermore, will we set every price back to zero and eradicate our social history that has through various machinations of power decided what good/service is worth more than others? Who decided that housewives don't get paid for their services? Should that continue? Will migrant workers in Alabama get paid what they are worth (http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/09/ala ... migra.html)? How about women and children in Indonesia sewing our sneakers and clothes, building our computers, car parts, and so on?
You see when left to the "free market" people will be desperate to get paid anything just for the chance to live. Essentially real wages will plummet even further, and workers will be asked to do more with less. This is already happening around the world, and you want to expand it? How will this not benefit those who are already rich?

yeah i have to agree for supply and demand to work there probably has to be a perfectly competitive market, however these don't exist in real life, just theory

Sludge Factory

RW81233 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

partially because I don't see the "free market" ever becoming truly free.

Just curious here... you never answered my question, so I'll repeat it.

How "exactly" is letting supply and demand dictate prices and allocate goods and services a negative or unfair? What's the alternative to free trade that would be more "cultural" (as you put it)?

sorry...I was trying to respond to like 3 posts at once knew I'd leave something out. First, in the US we currently live in a Cultural Economy. Basically we buy and sell ideas through gigantic marketing programs (is a Lexus really 10k more useful than a Toyota?, are Nike's 100 dollars more useful than New Balance?), because, for the most part all these goods are essentially the same and for capitalism to continue to move forward they need to sell us ever more disposable goods at a faster and faster rate. If you've got 20 minutes check this out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8).

Getting back to your question supply and demand (or pure capitalism) only works at a fair level when everyone has transparent information on every single thing they are going to purchase. Are you suggesting that Ron Paul would cap various company's ability to market their products? Put differently, my 10 month old son will recognize nearly every junk food, fast food, beer, toilet paper, cleaning product, and so on brand within the next two years. He will have ideas one which one's are better/worse and why based on their advertising. He will (hopefully) never have had a McDonald's french fry by that time, but he will know that it is the most delicious thing in the world and that consuming it will make him happy. That's not good. However, if we eradicate the marketing industry won't that cripple our economy? Don't most people go to college now to get a job whose primary purpose is to convince others to buy their company's goods/services? Very few of us actually build/sell "things" it's more about creating the perceived "experience" one will have after they've bought that good/service.

Furthermore, will we set every price back to zero and eradicate our social history that has through various machinations of power decided what good/service is worth more than others? Who decided that housewives don't get paid for their services? Should that continue? Will migrant workers in Alabama get paid what they are worth (http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/09/ala ... migra.html)? How about women and children in Indonesia sewing our sneakers and clothes, building our computers, car parts, and so on?
You see when left to the "free market" people will be desperate to get paid anything just for the chance to live. Essentially real wages will plummet even further, and workers will be asked to do more with less. This is already happening around the world, and you want to expand it? How will this not benefit those who are already rich?

I appreciate your comments in your reply to my earlier post but think it would be good if you read Vinny Goomba’s response to the racism issue as he worded it better than I ever could.

There is one thing I feel compelled to comment on in this most recent post of yours. Your last paragraph states that when left to the “free market…real wages will plummet…” and that “this is already happening around the world”. I thought earlier in one of your posts it was stated the free market doesn’t exist. So, how can something that doesn’t exist be known to make things worse? We don’t have a free market now, we have a distorted corporatist/government interventionist market that is messing up the economy. Further distortion to the market will further mess up the economy. By removing the distortion, i.e allowing for a free market, real wages might plummet, but in turn so to will prices and the cost of living. Competition creates an opportunity for lower prices because someone will always be looking to make a profit by undercutting their competitors. Crony Capitalism/Corporatism prevents this through extenuating protectionisms enacted through regulations that prevents many smaller companies from being inventive in their attempts to compete.

The fact of the matter is, if corporations were not so heavily protected through regulations by the government other smaller entities would more appropriately be able to compete with them, potentially offering better products/services at a lower price for those with less disposable income. Corporations thrive on the masses and selling items to the masses. If prices get so out of hand and the masses are no longer able to buy up their shit, they will have to shift how they price things.

inlet13

Before I begin... I must say... you really don't answer this question at all:

What's the alternative to free trade that would be more cultural (as you put it)?

So please do so in your response. I read and will respond to several paragraphs. The least you could do is answer the second portion of the original question posed now for the third time.

RW81233 wrote:

sorry...I was trying to respond to like 3 posts at once knew I'd leave something out. First, in the US we currently live in a Cultural Economy. Basically we buy and sell ideas through gigantic marketing programs (is a Lexus really 10k more useful than a Toyota?, are Nike's 100 dollars more useful than New Balance?), because, for the most part all these goods are essentially the same and for capitalism to continue to move forward they need to sell us ever more disposable goods at a faster and faster rate. If you've got 20 minutes check this out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8).

Sorry. I don't buy this at all. Clearly, Lexus must be worth 10k (or whatever the amount is) more or they would eventually take a loss, and if they continued to take a loss they would go out of business. Aside - I hate the Lexus Christmas commercials and have sworn off ever purchasing one because of them. I don't think Nike's are worth $100 more than New Balance in this world I live in. So, I can't comment there.

But, my premise is if the market doesn't demand the product (assuming costs are constant), it won't sell at 10k more than something else. Sure, there are elements that alter demand. I think there are certainly industrial make-ups like monopolostic competition where advertising matters more, but I don't see why that's a big deal. If you don't like ads, don't pay attention. I don't think people are inherently stupid enough to buy things they don't want repetitively.

RW81233 wrote:

Getting back to your question supply and demand (or pure capitalism) only works at a fair level when everyone has transparent information on every single thing they are going to purchase.

You say "only works at a fair level".... who decides fair? You? I'd rather have the market decide then you... or a government bureaucrat. Anyway, I think people have the necessary information to make purchases.

RW81233 wrote:

Are you suggesting that Ron Paul would cap various company's ability to market their products? Put differently, my 10 month old son will recognize nearly every junk food, fast food, beer, toilet paper, cleaning product, and so on brand within the next two years. He will have ideas one which one's are better/worse and why based on their advertising. He will (hopefully) never have had a McDonald's french fry by that time, but he will know that it is the most delicious thing in the world and that consuming it will make him happy. That's not good.

No offense, but you're all over the place with your arguments. I'm not suggesting Ron Paul would cap marketing at all.... I suppose you are since you're bringing that up. Why? I have no clue. Once again, I think we have a fundamental disagreement that human beings are innately sheep. I don't think they are, you seem to think they are. To clarify... Do I think people like McDonalds because of ads? No. Sure, ads may sway some to check a product or service (like Mcdonalds fries) out. But, people go back to McDonalds because it tastes good and is relatively inexpensive. Is it bad for you? Yes. But, it tastes good and is cheap... that's why people go back.... not the ads. Do I advocate McDonalds food? Nope. But, I'll continue to have it on occasion.

RW81233 wrote:

However, if we eradicate the marketing industry won't that cripple our economy? Don't most people go to college now to get a job whose primary purpose is to convince others to buy their company's goods/services? Very few of us actually build/sell "things" it's more about creating the perceived "experience" one will have after they've bought that good/service.

Once again, I'm not (nor is Ron Paul) advocating eradicating the marketing industry and I have no clue why you're bringing that up at all here. To me, it's not even slightly relevant or your not doing a good job of explaining why it is relevant. As for your latter point regarding jobs post-college in marketing, I can see what you're saying there. But, I don't completely agree. There are plenty of innovators, but certainly not enough. I don't think most people would consider themselves employed in the marketing industry

RW81233 wrote:

Furthermore, will we set every price back to zero and eradicate our social history that has through various machinations of power decided what good/service is worth more than others?

Huh? So, I guess what you're saying is marketing fools people into overvaluing products that aren't more valuable. Once again, I disagree. People make decisions based on their wants. They aren't sheep.

RW81233 wrote:

Who decided that housewives don't get paid for their services? Should that continue?

Who would pay housewives in your world? The government?

RW81233 wrote:

Will migrant workers in Alabama get paid what they are worth (http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/09/ala ... migra.html)? How about women and children in Indonesia sewing our sneakers and clothes, building our computers, car parts, and so on?

They wouldn't take the job, if they had a higher paying alternative... would they? So, in that sense,... no ones' forcing them to take it. Moreover, what's the alternative? Please, don't continue to dodge the "what's the alternative?" question.

RW81233 wrote:

You see when left to the "free market" people will be desperate to get paid anything just for the chance to live.

I don't agree. Many people, even working for low wages overseas,.... are making higher incomes than their parents. In other words, (taking the global recession out of the equation) in many cases, their economic circumstances are improving. And even if they aren't... I will once again ask the question that continues to be unanswered.... what's the alternative?

RW81233 wrote:

Essentially real wages will plummet even further, and workers will be asked to do more with less. This is already happening around the world, and you want to expand it? How will this not benefit those who are already rich?

I'd argue the world has become more "socialistic".... and less "capitalistic" in a lot of ways. Government as a percentage of GDP has grown, and grown. Yet, to counter you... real wages according to you "are plummeting and will plummet even further".... and I'm assuming.. you want more government as the solution. Despite the obvious rise in government/gdp. I may be incorrect though, because you haven't offered an alternative to the market based system of allocating goods and services.

pandora

Anyone notice on the debate tallest candidate on left heading right...
strongest in appearance down to smallest perhaps less forceful appearing candidates on the right
of the TV screen

perhaps subliminal

polaris_x

how do you ron paul conservatives feel about this plug from rachel maddow!?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTHrbYll ... re=related

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

how do you ron paul conservatives feel about this plug from rachel maddow!?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTHrbYll ... re=related

Rachel Maddow is a cartoon, like the rest of her kind.

I don't care what Yogi Bear, Bugs Bunny, or Homer Simpson think, why should I care what she thinks?

mikepegg44

polaris_x wrote:

how do you ron paul conservatives feel about this plug from rachel maddow!?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTHrbYll ... re=related

I hopefully some undecideds who watch a show for its differing view point see it. I don't particularly care for Maddow, it has nothing to do with her politics, i enjoy hearing the other side, it is her delivery. Her voice burns my brain. It is akin to hearing Ann Coulter speak...they both drive me bonkers...

she speaks the truth, I wouldn't necessarily call it a plug, but it is definitely the truth. I also don't think she should have used the GOP qualifier in referring to him...he is the ONLY candidate on either side

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

Rachel Maddow is a cartoon, like the rest of her kind.

I don't care what Yogi Bear, Bugs Bunny, or Homer Simpson think, why should I care what she thinks?

can you point me somewhere to where she blatantly lies like hannity or o'reilly!?? ... i think it's unfair to throw all these pundits in the same pot and call them all the same thing ...

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

I hopefully some undecideds who watch a show for its differing view point see it. I don't particularly care for Maddow, it has nothing to do with her politics, i enjoy hearing the other side, it is her delivery. Her voice burns my brain. It is akin to hearing Ann Coulter speak...they both drive me bonkers...

she speaks the truth, I wouldn't necessarily call it a plug, but it is definitely the truth. I also don't think she should have used the GOP qualifier in referring to him...he is the ONLY candidate on either side

i would say it's a plug because she made a point of emphasizing it when she didn't have to and also when she mentions where he is in the iowa polling ...

one of the major talking points amongst the GOP is BO's "soft" stance on Iran ... so, although I do believe BO will continue to support the MIC ... he isn't out there campaigning or building a case for war like his GOP counterparts ... so, if we were to categorize likelihood of war with all the candidates ... only paul and BO would fall in the not likely category ...