Ron Paul Thread

[Tombstone RJ]

I'm starting a thread just for Mr. Ron Paul. We know the mainstream media isn't going to cover his election but by-god, we are! So, I encourage everyone here to post links to Paul's campaign for the presidency and to post information about his political position on things like the economy and foreign policy.

I've liked RP for a long time as he was a Libertarian first, and then he joined the GOP because he knew it was the only way for him to have a platform on which to speak his mind. Sad, but that's the way DC works. At heart, he's a Libertarian and IMHO, this is what DC needs--a true independent thinker.

I don't know how far his campaign will go, I can only hope that the GOP will promote his campaign and give him an honest chance at being the GOP nominee for the presidency.

[W*GS]

Jon Stewart gave him serious props on his 15 Aug show:

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:394630" width="512" height="288" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier">The Daily Show - Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>

[broncocalijohn]

He is a man that should be respected, honest and has a great message. Somehow, that doesn't work in Presidential elections lately. Domistically, he perks the ears up but on foreign issues, he turns many people off.

[DenverBrit]

There is no doubt the media is ignoring Paul. The GOP are probably not lifting a finger.....or worse, using influence....to marginalize him.


Ron Paul Wears Invisibility Cloak In News Media's Eyes
by Frank James

- August 16, 2011

Busted. That's what we in the news media are in the matter of the presidential campaign of Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

Famous and not so famous critics have pointed out in the past day that journalists for the most part have ignored Paul even when he succeeds at a level other Republican presidential candidates haven't.

As far as many political reporters have been concerned, the congressman might as well be wearing one of those Harry Potter invisibility cloaks. He's there but we apparently can't see him.

For instance, despite putting in a strong second place showing in the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa on Saturday and polling consistently well in polls of voters nationally or in caucus and primary states, the 74-year old Libertarian was mostly ignored.

Tim Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor, got much more attention for dropping out of the race than Paul did for nearly winning.

As Comedy Central star Jon Stewart put it Monday, sometimes journalists appear to go to extremes to ignore Paul who will turn 76 on Saturday.

Stewart's Daily Show demonstrated how absurd things have gotten by showing a clip of Fox New Channel's Chris Wallace during a post-mortem of the straw poll.

Wallace ticks off the GOP's top tier of candidates as Rep. Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry and then adds one more name — Rick Santorum, the former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania.

"Rick Santorum! He didn't get half of what Ron Paul got. He lost to the guy who lost so bad (Pawlenty) he dropped out of the race."

It's not only Stewart who cried shame on the news media but a roundly respected and long-time member of the Washington press corps, Roger Simon of Politico.com.

Simon wrote Monday:

I admit I do not fully understand Ron Paul and his beliefs. But I do understand when a guy gets shafted, and Ron Paul just got shafted...

I am far from a Libertarian. I believe big government is swell as long as it does big things to help the common good. But after Ames, it was as if Paul had been sentenced to the Phantom Zone...

And I don't disagree that some of his beliefs — legalizing heroin, the right of states to secede — are strikingly peculiar (though he has been elected to a congressional district in Texas 12 times). But if Bachmann's victory at Ames was good enough to gain her enormous publicity and top-tier status, why was Paul's virtual tie good enough only to relegate him to being ignored?

So what's the answer to Simon's question? The leading reason has to be because most journalists accept the conventional wisdom that Paul can't get Republican nomination.

A number of his views just don't line up well with GOP orthodoxy. And that's true despite how some of his fiscal views anticipated the arrival of the Tea Party.

Paul opposed President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq from the start and called for withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan long before other Republicans started talking about that. He clearly sees a much smaller role for the U.S. military in the world.

He can cause some jaws to drop, as he did last week in Iowa, when he takes unorthodox views, like speaking sympathetically of Iran's desire to get a nuclear bomb.

He wants to end the Federal Reserve and put the U.S. back on the gold standard.

Those views are so beyond where the rest of the GOP is, it's hard to imagine Paul winning enough Republican delegates to win the nomination.

Then there's the issue of Paul's supporters. Just like in 2008, they bring a fervor unmatched by other candidates that has led to his success raising cash through money bombs and in having his excited boosters make their presence known at Republican events like CPAC and on the Internet.

But their devotion isn't seen as being wide enough. So while those supporters are seen as being energized enough to give him success, they aren't seen as numerous enough to get him the nomination.

Also, this is Paul's third run for the White House and it's not like he came close either time before.

So for some practical reasons Paul gets discounted. He's not seen as a viable candidate when it comes to winning the nomination let alone the general election.

Of course, some would say the same for Bachmann or Santorum.

Bachmann has the novelty factor. She's a new face in national politics and that is certainly a draw. That still doesn't explain why Chris Wallace would mention Santorum and not Paul. That's a headscratcher.

In any event, after the straw poll, Paul should've gotten more media respect just based on the results in Iowa, even if he's a long shot to become the nominee. [Copyright 2011 National Public Radio]

[Arkie]

The war on terror is not a war between nations. Ron Paul supports violent retribution against terrorists. He supports accurately analyzing and evaluating any clear and present danger and going after them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque


The issue of marque and reprisal was raised before Congress after the September 11 attacks[30] and again on July 21, 2007, by Congressman Ron Paul. The attacks were defined as acts of "air piracy" and the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 was introduced, which would have granted the president the authority to use letters of marque and reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state. The terrorists were compared to pirates in that they are difficult to fight by traditional military means.[31] Congressman Paul also advocated the use of letters of marque to address the issue of Somali pirates operating in the Gulf of Aden on April 15, 2009. However, the bills Congressman Paul introduced were not enacted into law.

http://www.thenorthwestreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ron_paul_terminator.jpg

[Arkie]

Jon Stewart gave him serious props on his 15 Aug show:

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:394630" width="512" height="288" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier">The Daily Show - Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>

Sad but true!

[orinjkrush]

i think it's actually Dr. or (Col, USAF ret.) Paul, not Mr.

he called the financial meltdown. that's enough for me. nobody else in politics did. he's spot on regarding QE1, QE2, and the upcoming QE3.

whether you like his agenda or not, at least you know what he stands for. unlike flip flop McCain, the erstwhile rebel, or Barrack Hussein O., of Manchuria.

i think we should give his ideas a try, the others' aren't working.

If Romney, Perry or the O man gets elected, we should all just move to wherever Baja is.

[epicSocialism4tw]

i think it's actually Dr. or (Col, USAF ret.) Paul, not Mr.

he called the financial meltdown. that's enough for me. nobody else in politics did. he's spot on regarding QE1, QE2, and the upcoming QE3.

whether you like his agenda or not, at least you know what he stands for. unlike flip flop McCain, the erstwhile rebel, or Barrack Hussein O., of Manchuria.

Ron Paul is anti-establishment, and he's principled because he believes that the US' problems are tied with the distance it keeps putting between itself and the rights given in the constitution.

Its pretty wild to think that a pro-constitution movement in the united states is now viewed as "extremist" by the imperialists who now run this country.

We have the power to throw those imperialists out on their butts. We just have to continue to convince people of the truth of the matter and to make our votes mean something tangible...REAL change. Our government was designed to facilitate peaceful revolution. The imperialists are clinging to their fortunes and making a living off of the American people. We CAN vote them out.

[W*GS]

Its pretty wild to think that a pro-constitution movement in the united states is now viewed as "extremist" by the imperialists who now run this country.

From 2000-2008, you couldn't help but blow Bush, he who used the USC as asswipe...

Your discovery of the Constitution dates from Obama's inaugural, no earlier.

You're a will-o-the-wisp... Not surprising.

[epicSocialism4tw]

From 2000-2008, you couldn't help but blow Bush, he who used the USC as asswipe...

Your discovery of the Constitution dates from Obama's inaugural, no earlier.

You're a will-o-the-wisp... Not surprising.

Evidently you've neither a mind for the way that politics is moving in the country or a mind for my position on Bush. Not that I blame you. I really don't care what your position is on Bush either.

I did change my mind on Bush from 2004 to 2006. We all found out that he was a big government progressive. That's not what he presented himself as previously. In retrospect (after the Obama disaster of a presidency) Bush did provide alot of leadership in the couple of years after 9/11. Obama probably would have held a tour blaming republicans for it and divided the nation. But Bush jumped the shark with Harriet Myers and the Patriot Act for me. That was the end.

You act as though changing ones opinion in light of changing events is a bad thing.

People all over the country have changed their opinions on Obama, and we all see that he's just not capable of being an economy president when thats what he was elected to do on the tail end of the massive Bush spending spree. Obama just isn't an option anymore. Its time to move on.

[Arkie]

I remember when Bush was president, and W*GS attacked liberals back then. He's the only person I know that's a partisan bandwagon fan. Some of those arguments he had with LABF went on for pages.

[alkemical]

I remember when Bush was president, and W*GS attacked liberals back then. He's the only person I know that's a partisan bandwagon fan. Some of those arguments he had with LABF went on for pages.

...and well before then from the DPO days.

[alkemical]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTgZJpiEWxOzZlwAQObhoY99dvG4ELUI SP6IwSVvuMb-XjsQelcMA

I WANT YOU: To disagree and fight amongst each other while I retain complete control.

[W*GS]

I remember when Bush was president, and W*GS attacked liberals back then. He's the only person I know that's a partisan bandwagon fan. Some of those arguments he had with LABF went on for pages.

I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt, at first.

But then, as more facts came to light regarding the war against Iraq, and his administration's utter bungling of the whole thing, including screwing up the war in Afghanistan because of the war in Iraq, I came to distrust the Bush regime.

Once the financial crisis hit, and the utter inability of his lackies to deal with it in any substantive and credible way, I became extremely disillusioned with the whole anti-government mantra that's become so fashionable among so many Republicans and the 'bagger ninnies.

We're now seeing what happens when anti-gubmit folks gain real political power - they totally **** things up. Since the GOP is now riddled with ideologues using the fiscal future of the US as a bargaining chip, and are interested in eviscerating government, without making it better, I've become quite disgusted with the whole sordid dogma.

I don't think endlessly growing government is the answer, as some liberals want, but I don't think mindlessly shrinking government, especially as stupidly as the 'baggers and the GOP want to do, is the answer either.

I'm not enamored of Obama or the Democrats, but more because of their willingness to roll over to the 'baggers, instead of doing what we all know is right, which is to adjust (rather than demolish) SS/Medicare/Medicaid, cut the military down hugely, and raise revenue, primarily from those at the top who have benefitted tremendously since Reagan, whereas the rest of us have not - not even close.

Once you realize that median earnings, in constant dollars, over the last decade have increased a whopping 2%, you begin to understand that the government has become far too tilted to toadying to the mega-rich, and we need to make it more answerable to all of us, not just the elite.

[Obushma]

I remember when Bush was president, and W*GS attacked liberals back then. He's the only person I know that's a partisan bandwagon fan. Some of those arguments he had with LABF went on for pages.

Or the times he's claimed to be a Libertarian. The guy bends over and grabs his ankles for whoever is in power. He's a piece of ****, pro big government hack. The guy is pro Cap and Trade, pro central banking, pro globalism. Everything the US constitution is against. Its people like him that truly want to see America fail.

[Tombstone RJ]

The war on terror is not a war between nations. Ron Paul supports violent retribution against terrorists. He supports accurately analyzing and evaluating any clear and present danger and going after them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque



http://www.thenorthwestreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ron_paul_terminator.jpg

This is where US Special Forces come into play. Surgical strikes and very specific targets. This is where the rubber meets the pavement for the CIA and our intelligence community too.

Screw this big war crap. Bring our troops home and instead practice real foreign policy diplomacy and gather intel. Only go to war as an absolute last choice.

[DenverBrit]

The war on terror is not a war between nations. Ron Paul supports violent retribution against terrorists. He supports accurately analyzing and evaluating any clear and present danger and going after them.


Not exactly.

Ron Paul: I wouldn't have killed bin Laden

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20062264-503544.html

[Obushma]

Who started the Tea Party?

On my phone so I can't embed the video, if someone could it would be greatly appreciated.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?309900-Who-Started-The-Modern-Day-Tea-Party-Movement-(video)&p=3479610#post3479610

[DenverBrit]

Who started the Tea Party?

On my phone so I can't embed the video, if someone could it would be greatly appreciated.


<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6bNiDx7qTjA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[W*GS]

Or the times he's claimed to be a Libertarian. The guy bends over and grabs his ankles for whoever is in power. He's a piece of ****, pro big government hack. The guy is pro Cap and Trade, pro central banking, pro globalism. Everything the US constitution is against. Its people like him that truly want to see America fail.

You're one of the turds that is creating the problems we're having now, bub.

Move to effin' Somalia to see your anti-gubmit bull**** in action. But you don't have the balls to do it, ya chicken****.

[Obushma]

You're one of the turds that is creating the problems we're having now, bub.

Move to effin' Somalia to see your anti-gubmit bull**** in action. But you don't have the balls to do it, ya chicken****.

You dumb ass, Somalia isn't a constitutional republic. Its ran by tribal dictators. Nice attempt at spin though you globalist bastard.

[W*GS]

You dumb ass, Somalia isn't a constitutional republic. Its ran by tribal dictators.

Tough ****.

You want a constitutional republic but don't want to pay for it.

You'll get a tribal dictatorship with your anti-gubmit rhetoric, dickhead.

[epicSocialism4tw]

This is where US Special Forces come into play. Surgical strikes and very specific targets. This is where the rubber meets the pavement for the CIA and our intelligence community too.

Screw this big war crap. Bring our troops home and instead practice real foreign policy diplomacy and gather intel. Only go to war as an absolute last choice.

War is an industry for us now. An industry that we shop out to people who pay us for it. The Saudis, Euros, etc.

There's a reason why we only enter "moral" wars in conflicts where we have financial stakes. Hello Libya.

[Tombstone RJ]

War is an industry for us now. An industry that we shop out to people who pay us for it. The Saudis, Euros, etc.

There's a reason why we only enter "moral" wars in conflicts where we have financial stakes. Hello Libya.

blah, I'm not buying it. The more we actually use our military, the weaker we become. The threat of an asskicking is way more effective than actually sending troops off to war. The more we are engaged in actual war, the more our military becomes fatigued and tired, and the more our enemies know how to oppose us because they know what we can and can't do (and the more it costs us in human lives--trained soldiers--and hardware).

It's time to pull our troops back, regroup, train, get our military home.

Also, if Paul gets into office, you damn well know he's going to increase our own capacity to be energy independent. He's smart enough to know that if we don't have to depend on black gold, then there is no excuse for war.

[Arkie]

Happy Birthday Ron!

[Tombstone RJ]

Ron Paul dominated the New Hampshire Straw Poll.

Ron Paul 45%
Mitt Romney 10%
Rick Perry 8%
Thaddeus McCotter 8%
Gary Johnson 6%
Michelle Bachman 5%
Herman Cain 5%
John Huntsman 3%
Rick Santorum 3%
Newt Gingrich 1%
Paul Ryan 1%
Rudy Giuliani 1%

[Arkie]

Ron Paul has the biggest voice of grassroots supporters. It just isn't big enough yet to get past the big money lobbyists. Paul will except money from anyone, but he won't let it affect his policies. That's why lobbyists won't give him any because it's just throwing away their money. Get your heads out of the sand, and take a look for yourselves who can be bought here (http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2011/lobbyists-pay-millions-honor-congress-executive-branch/).

Obama got $1,703,605 and Ron Paul got $352. That's $1.7m well spent, and somebody threw away $352 Ha!

[mhgaffney]

Ron Paul has been receiving more campaign contributions from active duty military than all the other candidates combined -- including Romney and Obama.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28904.htm

[Meck77]

Peter Schiff on Ron Paul's personal portfolio of investments.

Most of his stocks are up several thousand percent. His worst stock was up 300%.



http://youtu.be/mjwOT8pmydE

[mhgaffney]

Smart guy.

Do you have details on his various investments?

[TonyR]

What's the worst that Ron Paul could do? Try to get America back on the gold standard, only to find that he doesn't have the votes in Congress to do it? I am not just being funny. Though Paul has some radical domestic policy ideas, I just don't see any of them getting passed into law. And in foreign policy and national security matters, the areas where he would exercise the most unchecked discretion, he is the candidate you'd least expect to unwisely provoke or launch a war.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/why-does-ron-paul-scare-you/243987/


My fear is simple: Paul, like Bachmann, is comfortable being the only no vote on massively popular legislation. His ideological rigidity would result in a de facto government shutdown wherein almost all legislation would require a two-thirds majority in both houses in order to override Paul's veto. Like Conor, I find aspects of Paul's ideology attractive; Paul's defense of civil liberties, desire to end the drug war, and foreign policy restraint are all sensible.

But imagine the debt-ceiling debacle with Paul or Bachmann in the White House. Imagine the 2008 financial crisis if the government had a president unwilling to act. Or consider more mundane legislation, like passing an annual budget. Paul wouldn't need to get his nutty domestic policy agenda passed into law in order to wreak havoc; he'd only need to stymie the most basic and routine actions of the US government. -- Patrick Appel

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/08/whats-wrong-with-ron-paul.html

[mhgaffney]

Tony,

Yes -- but we are already at gridlock. Ron Paul would probably take his case to the people -- and would rely on massive public support to break the deadlock.

MHG

[Obushma]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoqY6CpgpSE&feature=player_embedded

<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xoqY6CpgpSE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Arkie]

<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GR4WYqabTxU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Tombstone RJ]

What's the worst that Ron Paul could do? Try to get America back on the gold standard, only to find that he doesn't have the votes in Congress to do it? I am not just being funny. Though Paul has some radical domestic policy ideas, I just don't see any of them getting passed into law. And in foreign policy and national security matters, the areas where he would exercise the most unchecked discretion, he is the candidate you'd least expect to unwisely provoke or launch a war.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/why-does-ron-paul-scare-you/243987/


My fear is simple: Paul, like Bachmann, is comfortable being the only no vote on massively popular legislation. His ideological rigidity would result in a de facto government shutdown wherein almost all legislation would require a two-thirds majority in both houses in order to override Paul's veto. Like Conor, I find aspects of Paul's ideology attractive; Paul's defense of civil liberties, desire to end the drug war, and foreign policy restraint are all sensible.

But imagine the debt-ceiling debacle with Paul or Bachmann in the White House. Imagine the 2008 financial crisis if the government had a president unwilling to act. Or consider more mundane legislation, like passing an annual budget. Paul wouldn't need to get his nutty domestic policy agenda passed into law in order to wreak havoc; he'd only need to stymie the most basic and routine actions of the US government. -- Patrick Appel

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/08/whats-wrong-with-ron-paul.html

Wow peeps in the media don't like Paul, call me stunned. SHOCKED! Fact is, the media wants more hype, either someone they can love (Oba) or someone they can hate (Bachmann) but they just don't want anyone who makes freaking sense. No thanks.

The media loves being all about the media brother.

[mosca]

Wow peeps in the media don't like Paul, call me stunned. SHOCKED! Fact is, the media wants more hype, either someone they can love (Oba) or someone they can hate (Bachmann) but they just don't want anyone who makes freaking sense. No thanks.

The media loves being all about the media brother.
Yup - I think that's the main reason Bachmann and Perry are getting publicity.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Ron Paul, as usual, is not going to be the Rep. (or any other party) candidate for president, nor is Perry, nor is Buchanon, for good reason, all 3 of these radical individuals are horrible choices to run the country, worse than the established slugs from the right wing from which a candidate will be.

[mosca]

I don't think anyone by the last name Buchanon is running, Beerslug. Thanks for the info, though.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I don't think anyone by the last name Buchanon is running, Beerslug. Thanks for the info, though. :)Yep, not so far. I meant Bachmann but was thinking of something else when I posted.

Thanks for correcting me.

[Tombstone RJ]

Ron Paul, as usual, is not going to be the Rep. (or any other party) candidate for president, nor is Perry, nor is Buchanon, for good reason, all 3 of these radical individuals are horrible choices to run the country, worse than the established slugs from the right wing from which a candidate will be.

You're welcome not to post in this thread bro. Your opinion is noted, thanks. Be sure to not come back.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Be sure to not come back.

Lets hope so.

Thats the douche who instigated the SteveTensi drama.

[barryr]

Ron Paul is deemed an outsider by the media, so they certainly do not want him to win. The media enjoys the status quo and no rocking the boat. They think mavericks are cute for a small amount of time, but are too scary since they are not predictable. If Paul becomes too serious a candidate, expect things he said and did 30 years ago to become suddenly important that was all but ignored then and distorted if need be to make him look bad. That is the game that is played in DC and the media.

[Rigs11]

ron paul hates fema.durrr.

[TonyR]

Wow peeps in the media don't like Paul...

Actually the guy in the first link I posted was being at least moderately supportive of Paul.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

You're welcome not to post in this thread bro. Your opinion is noted, thanks. Be sure to not come back.You should have qualified your thread with a better title then, something like the .... 'For Ron Paul Lovers Only Thread', for example.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Lets hope so.
Thats the douche who instigated the SteveTensi drama.

So judging by the Right Wing talking points you are littering the board with, without any attempt at simple commentary or a personal view point, and the fact you had to change your username..... you are trying to hide from your wife now?

[Tombstone RJ]

You should have qualified your thread with a better title then, something like the .... 'For Ron Paul Lovers Only Thread', for example.

LOL

yah, 'cause morons like you don't get it... seriously, the first post in this thread--post #1 by me, should have given you a clue.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

LOL
yah, 'cause morons like you don't get it... seriously, the first post in this thread--post #1 by me, should have given you a clue.Why are you acting like you are ignorant/uneducated, or did you forget what you posted?
So, I encourage everyone here to post information about his political position on things like the economy and foreign policy.


I guess this applies to you...eh?

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt"

[Arkie]

A tech lobbyist describes his job.


Political Opinions: How does the process work in your industry.

AB SMITH: You agree that my name isn’t going to be in the article?

Political Opinions: Yep… it’s agreed… if I published.. I would never get another story from you again.. so it’s in both our interests.

AB SMITH: Put it this way, legally, I could donate an unlimited amount of money to anyone I want. I will give you a generic example, a law is in the process of taxing computers. Some environmental group is stating that the additional costs of recycling a computer is costly and that the people buying them should pay a 10% additional tax to cover the costs. They hired a lobbyist firm to make their cause and now there is a percentage of congress that is on board with this. Now we got tech firms calling us right and left (in this example). The problem is the law states that I can only donate a $5,000 or so per company. IE: The company can only donate $5,000 to a politician. But the system is so freaking backwards that when something like a tax on computers show up in congress that I could spend huge amounts of money for my lobby effort. In this example, I want to stress that this isn’t happening.. it’s just an example of how much money I could gather in about 8 hours if I needed it for this or that effort. In this case, I would just inform a counterpart of this problem, and they would address their client… within a day I start the ball rolling to have millions of dollars in Washington…

The key is not to have the checks come from my office, the key is to have it come from other like minded areas. So in reality, I generally call another Lobbyist that represents the firm in question.

I would get $5,000 from AOL because they want to continue to throw that ‘buy AOL now icon on your desktop)
I would get another $5,000 from Intel because they want to continue to sell processors
I would get another $5,000 from AMD because they want to continue to sell processors
I would get another $5,000 from Microsoft because they want to sell Vista
I would get another $5,000 from Norton, because they want to sell their anti-virus stuff
I would get another $5,000 from Valve, because they want to sell video games
I would get another $5,000 from CDW, because they want to sell more products
I would get another $5,000 from Google, because they want more people to visit their site
I would get another $5,000 from Ebay, because they want more people to buy stuff from their site
I would get another $5,000 from Yahoo, because they want more people to visit their site.
I would get another $5,000 from Redhat, because they want to sell more servers

The funny thing is I didn’t even get to the computer manufacturers yet…

I would get another $5,000 from Dell so their product isn’t taxed
I would get another $5,000 from HP so their product isn’t taxed
I would get another $5,000 from Apple so their product isn’t taxed
I would get another $5,000 from local firm ABZ so their product isn’t taxed
I would get another $5,000 from regional firm ACB so their product isn’t taxed

When all is said and done, my 8 hours of effort (1 business day) I could have anywhere between 5-10 million… all in $5,000 dollar donations from all the industries and firms that touch the PC.

Political Opinions : Woah, you thought of that list off the top of your head in 2 seconds?

AB SMITH: What do you think I do for a living?

Political Opinions: How did that relate to Ron Paul?

AB SMITH: With him, I could send millions to his pocket, and if he intended to vote against my wishes, that money wouldn't matter… he would still vote against my wishes. He’s a big problem if he ever made it into office.. thank God it looks like he won’t… not because I don’t like the man as an American.. it’s just that he would make my job hard.

[alkemical]

So...lets start up our own PAC, and become corrupt to fight corruption!

[Tombstone RJ]

Why are you acting like you are ignorant/uneducated, or did you forget what you posted?


I guess this applies to you...eh?

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt"

Your post #37 does not "post information about his (Ron Paul's) political position on things like the economy and foreign policy" it simply states that you don't like him and let me quote you: "Ron Paul, as usual, is not going to be the Rep. (or any other party) candidate for president, nor is Perry, nor is Buchanon, for good reason, all 3 of these radical individuals are horrible choices to run the country, worse than the established slugs from the right wing from which a candidate will be."

Again, let me reiterate: if you don't like RP, please do not post on this thread.

[Tombstone RJ]

A tech lobbyist describes his job.


Political Opinions: How does the process work in your industry.

AB SMITH: You agree that my name isn’t going to be in the article?

Political Opinions: Yep… it’s agreed… if I published.. I would never get another story from you again.. so it’s in both our interests.

AB SMITH: Put it this way, legally, I could donate an unlimited amount of money to anyone I want. I will give you a generic example, a law is in the process of taxing computers. Some environmental group is stating that the additional costs of recycling a computer is costly and that the people buying them should pay a 10% additional tax to cover the costs. They hired a lobbyist firm to make their cause and now there is a percentage of congress that is on board with this. Now we got tech firms calling us right and left (in this example). The problem is the law states that I can only donate a $5,000 or so per company. IE: The company can only donate $5,000 to a politician. But the system is so freaking backwards that when something like a tax on computers show up in congress that I could spend huge amounts of money for my lobby effort. In this example, I want to stress that this isn’t happening.. it’s just an example of how much money I could gather in about 8 hours if I needed it for this or that effort. In this case, I would just inform a counterpart of this problem, and they would address their client… within a day I start the ball rolling to have millions of dollars in Washington…

The key is not to have the checks come from my office, the key is to have it come from other like minded areas. So in reality, I generally call another Lobbyist that represents the firm in question.

I would get $5,000 from AOL because they want to continue to throw that ‘buy AOL now icon on your desktop)
I would get another $5,000 from Intel because they want to continue to sell processors
I would get another $5,000 from AMD because they want to continue to sell processors
I would get another $5,000 from Microsoft because they want to sell Vista
I would get another $5,000 from Norton, because they want to sell their anti-virus stuff
I would get another $5,000 from Valve, because they want to sell video games
I would get another $5,000 from CDW, because they want to sell more products
I would get another $5,000 from Google, because they want more people to visit their site
I would get another $5,000 from Ebay, because they want more people to buy stuff from their site
I would get another $5,000 from Yahoo, because they want more people to visit their site.
I would get another $5,000 from Redhat, because they want to sell more servers

The funny thing is I didn’t even get to the computer manufacturers yet…

I would get another $5,000 from Dell so their product isn’t taxed
I would get another $5,000 from HP so their product isn’t taxed
I would get another $5,000 from Apple so their product isn’t taxed
I would get another $5,000 from local firm ABZ so their product isn’t taxed
I would get another $5,000 from regional firm ACB so their product isn’t taxed

When all is said and done, my 8 hours of effort (1 business day) I could have anywhere between 5-10 million… all in $5,000 dollar donations from all the industries and firms that touch the PC.

Political Opinions : Woah, you thought of that list off the top of your head in 2 seconds?

AB SMITH: What do you think I do for a living?

Political Opinions: How did that relate to Ron Paul?

AB SMITH: With him, I could send millions to his pocket, and if he intended to vote against my wishes, that money wouldn't matter… he would still vote against my wishes. He’s a big problem if he ever made it into office.. thank God it looks like he won’t… not because I don’t like the man as an American.. it’s just that he would make my job hard.

this is so disturbing and so true about the District of Corruption. None of the lobbyists want RP in office because he doesn't play their games...

[DenverBrit]

Your post #37 does not "post information about his (Ron Paul's) political position on things like the economy and foreign policy" it simply states that you don't like him and let me quote you: "Ron Paul, as usual, is not going to be the Rep. (or any other party) candidate for president, nor is Perry, nor is Buchanon, for good reason, all 3 of these radical individuals are horrible choices to run the country, worse than the established slugs from the right wing from which a candidate will be."

Again, let me reiterate: if you don't like RP, please do not post on this thread.

Why?? There's nothing here to indicate this is only for Paul supporters. It's a ****ing football forum with a with wide mix of political and religious views.

When did it become the 'Ron Paul Mane'?

[Tombstone RJ]

Why?? There's nothing here to indicate this is only for Paul supporters. It's a ****ing football forum with a with wide mix of political and religious views.

When did it become the 'Ron Paul Mane'?

^5ROFL!

ok, ok, I get it. post away brother...

[DenverBrit]

^5ROFL!

ok, ok, I get it. post away brother...

I've done so.

[Tombstone RJ]

I've done so.

yes, unfortunately you have. congrats.

[DenverBrit]

yes, unfortunately you have. congrats.

It was a positive post, lighten up.

[Tombstone RJ]

It was a positive post, lighten up.

well, you have so many posts on the entire OMane man!! it's so difficult to know which one you are referring to. Unless--wait a second--yes, unless you are now confirming this is a Ron Paul thread!

:wave:

[DenverBrit]

well, you have so many posts on the entire OMane man!! it's so difficult to know which one you are referring to. Unless--wait a second--yes, unless you are now confirming this is a Ron Paul thread!

:wave:


Really?? Here, let me help.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3257415&postcount=4

[Arkie]

Ron Paul can win. These are just some excerpts from the article.

Ron Paul Can Win (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/ron-paul-can-win_b_939993.html)

It's hard to tell if the idea that Ron Paul cannot win in 2012 is more ignorant, in its complete lack of historical sophistication, or more arrogant, in its claim to certainty amid all the complexity of 300 million lives and the myriad issues that affect them.

Sometimes, perhaps once in a few generations, a nation can undergo what a mathematician or physicist would call a "phase change." The classic example of such a thing is a pile of sand. Every grain you add makes the pile slightly steeper and slightly higher without moving any of the other grains inside the pile, until eventually one grain is added that causes an avalanche of sand down the sides of the pile, moving thousand of grains and changing the shape of the pile.

Such behavior can be exhibited by all complex systems, and a nation -- it should be obvious -- is much more complex than a pile of sand.

We cannot see past a phase change. I don't know if the U.S.A. will have undergone one at the time of the 2012 election, but the necessary conditions for one are all in place, as far as I can tell.

The average American may not know what is to be done, but she can sense when the system has exhausted all its possibilities. At that point, not only does the phase change become reasonable; it becomes desirable -- even if what lies on the other side cannot be known.

If Ron Paul has committed support from 10 percent of the adult population, and most of that 10 percent support him precisely because they believe he represents a whole new political system, an entirely new political settlement, then we may be close to critical mass -- just a few grains of sand short of the avalanche.

Another piece of evidence that the nation is close to a phase change and a gestalt switch is the very fact that the prevailing paradigm (from which the mainstream media, established political class, etc., operate) has to ignore huge amounts of data about Ron Paul and the movement around him to continue to make any sense. The studied neglect of data as "irrelevant" is invariably indicative that the neglected data are hugely important. If information doesn't really matter, why go to all the effort of ignoring it?

Specifically, on all the metrics that a year ago everyone accepted as useful indicators of political standing, Ron Paul is not just a front-runner but a strong one.

First, and most directly, he does extremely well in polls. The organization of his grassroots support is not just excellent; it is remarkable, by historic and global measures. His ability to raise money from actual voters is second to none. His appeal to independents and swing voters is an order of magnitude greater than that of his competitors. Secondarily, he has more support from military personnel than all other candidates put together, if measured by donations; he has the most consistent voting record; he has the magical quality of not coming off as a politician; he oozes integrity and authenticity, and, as far as we know, he has a personal life and marriage that reflects deep stability and commitment.

It is worth returning to Churchill's career for an even more delicious example: just days before he became the great wartime leader, his career had been written off as that of a kook, and he was being discussed as someone who had extreme ideas and whose thinking did not reflect the mood of the nation. The House of Commons was abuzz with his decline and imminent fall.

And then, rather suddenly, something he had been saying for many years -- that there was something rotten in the state of Germany -- became so obvious that it could no longer be avoided. Once the nation saw that he had been right all along, he became the leader of the free world in very short order. His career changed. Britain changed. The world changed. No one had seen that coming, either. In fact, everyone thought they knew what was coming: the kook was about to disappear into political backwaters, if not the political wilderness.

If Paul wins, it won't be because he is the kind of candidate Americans have always gone for. It will be precisely because Americans have collectively decided on a dramatically new way of doing business -- a new political and economic paradigm -- and then he'll not only have ceased to be a long shot; he'll be the only shot.

[Meck77]

Ron Paul Crushes the Field in New Hampshire Straw Poll


On Saturday, his 76th birthday, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas won the New Hampshire Young Republicans presidential straw poll.

Paul took 45 percent of the 302 votes cast while former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who is leading in the Granite State, took second place with 10 percent.

“Ron Paul’s message of traditional conservatism -- fiscal restraint, limited government, and strong national defense -- is clearly the future of the Republican Party,” said state Sen. Jim Forsythe, Paul’s New Hampshire chairman who spoke at the event. “The other candidates know that and sound more like him every day. But there are convenient copies, and there’s the real thing.

“It takes more than a sound bite and a flip-flop to fool New Hampshire voters,” added Forsythe. “That’s why there’s real momentum here for Ron Paul.”[/b]

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/sto...ire-straw-poll

[Rohirrim]

It cracks me up that people in America are flailing around for a new system, or ideology, in the mistaken belief that they have nothing else. I suppose it's due to the fact that we are awash in propaganda instead of actual, political dialogue. You know what worked? Progressivism. It was devised in response to actual conditions on the ground. A real life solution to the failures of capitalism without succumbing to the excesses of ideological puritanism. Like most of the best American solutions, it was pragmatism over ideology. It created the middle class in America. It built every dam, wired and plumbed every community, built the highway system, the space program, etc etc. It made our education system the best in the world. It made us the strongest and richest country in the world. And the greedy bastards have been trying to bring it down ever since it started.

Finally, with Reagan, they got what they wanted: A fifty percent tax cut for the rich and the opening assault on the labor movement. That was good for starters, anyway. Since then, we have steadily defunded progressive government and funneled all that public wealth into private pockets. It's been the biggest ponzi scheme rip-off in history. A complete rewriting of regulations and the tax code. You can see where it's gotten us. Recently, that rewriting of regulations allowed the greedy bastards to suck the equity out of American home ownership, the last vestige of economic liberty. And that's still not enough. Greed never rests, and never sleeps.

Now, the crack-pot right wingers want us to double down. The rich are not rich enough. They need more tax breaks. Government is not weak enough. We need to drown it so it can't raise enough money to fix a pothole. They suck the money out of government and then call deficits a crisis. Of course, when they hold the upper hand they say that deficits don't matter. And then, there's the libertarian wing: Every man for himself (as if we were still living in frontier cabins).

Mankind has evolved, over 3 million years, into a creature who can ponder black holes and quasars on the edge of the universe, but he still can't come up with a political ideology more astute than the law of the jungle? Societies exist and succeed because they improve life for the greatest number of their constituents. Our Constitution says that our government exists to serve the "general welfare" of our citizens. Common sense. Why else would it exist? Yet, somehow, a large percentage of our society has been duped into thinking that they would be better off under some feudal system that turns their government into the machine that the wealthy use to turn them into economic serfs while offering them no benefits whatsoever? Simple stuff. Why do the rich and powerful want a weak and ineffectual government? Because regulations on business and benefits for citizens cost them money.

The rich now are richer than anybody has ever been in the history of the world. They don't need any more help. They don't need to chip in for healthcare or education. They can buy their own. They don't need jobs. They don't even need to create jobs. There are billions of people buying their cheap products in China and India and the labor is cheaper. No health care over there. No safety regs. No labor regs. Why should they worry about the paltry markets in America? Why support the workers in America? The workers in America need to lower their standard of living to match workers in the rest of the world (of course, the rich don't buy into that concept for themselves). Why should any global capitalist continue to owe allegiance to America? Or taxes? They are global. They could care less about the well being of nations. All they care about are customers. That's what capitalism is all about. Dog eat dog. Winner take all. Who wants to live in a society governed by those principles? Right wingers and libertarians. That's who.

[TonyR]

...a large percentage of our society has been duped into thinking that they would be better off under some feudal system that turns their government into the machine that the wealthy use to turn them into economic serfs while offering them no benefits whatsoever? Simple stuff. Why do the rich and powerful want a weak and ineffectual government? Because regulations on business and benefits for citizens cost them money...

Great post. You'd think this would be apparent to more people after the financial meltdown. All the righties need to watch Inside Job.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/

[Requiem]

More than 3 million years though, Ro. :D

[Rohirrim]

More than 3 million years though, Ro. :D

Yeah, but before the australopithecines, you really couldn't call them "mankind." ;D

[alkemical]

It cracks me up that people in America are flailing around for a new system, or ideology, in the mistaken belief that they have nothing else. I suppose it's due to the fact that we are awash in propaganda instead of actual, political dialogue. You know what worked? Progressivism. It was devised in response to actual conditions on the ground. A real life solution to the failures of capitalism without succumbing to the excesses of ideological puritanism. Like most of the best American solutions, it was pragmatism over ideology. It created the middle class in America. It built every dam, wired and plumbed every community, built the highway system, the space program, etc etc. It made our education system the best in the world. It made us the strongest and richest country in the world. And the greedy bastards have been trying to bring it down ever since it started.

Finally, with Reagan, they got what they wanted: A fifty percent tax cut for the rich and the opening assault on the labor movement. That was good for starters, anyway. Since then, we have steadily defunded progressive government and funneled all that public wealth into private pockets. It's been the biggest ponzi scheme rip-off in history. A complete rewriting of regulations and the tax code. You can see where it's gotten us. Recently, that rewriting of regulations allowed the greedy bastards to suck the equity out of American home ownership, the last vestige of economic liberty. And that's still not enough. Greed never rests, and never sleeps.

Now, the crack-pot right wingers want us to double down. The rich are not rich enough. They need more tax breaks. Government is not weak enough. We need to drown it so it can't raise enough money to fix a pothole. They suck the money out of government and then call deficits a crisis. Of course, when they hold the upper hand they say that deficits don't matter. And then, there's the libertarian wing: Every man for himself (as if we were still living in frontier cabins).

Mankind has evolved, over 3 million years, into a creature who can ponder black holes and quasars on the edge of the universe, but he still can't come up with a political ideology more astute than the law of the jungle? Societies exist and succeed because they improve life for the greatest number of their constituents. Our Constitution says that our government exists to serve the "general welfare" of our citizens. Common sense. Why else would it exist? Yet, somehow, a large percentage of our society has been duped into thinking that they would be better off under some feudal system that turns their government into the machine that the wealthy use to turn them into economic serfs while offering them no benefits whatsoever? Simple stuff. Why do the rich and powerful want a weak and ineffectual government? Because regulations on business and benefits for citizens cost them money.

The rich now are richer than anybody has ever been in the history of the world. They don't need any more help. They don't need to chip in for healthcare or education. They can buy their own. They don't need jobs. They don't even need to create jobs. There are billions of people buying their cheap products in China and India and the labor is cheaper. No health care over there. No safety regs. No labor regs. Why should they worry about the paltry markets in America? Why support the workers in America? The workers in America need to lower their standard of living to match workers in the rest of the world (of course, the rich don't buy into that concept for themselves). Why should any global capitalist continue to owe allegiance to America? Or taxes? They are global. They could care less about the well being of nations. All they care about are customers. That's what capitalism is all about. Dog eat dog. Winner take all. Who wants to live in a society governed by those principles? Right wingers and libertarians. That's who.


Humans are easy to herd.

[alkemical]

http://www.freedomfeens.com/AUDIO/Complyacin_radio_ad.mp3

[Rohirrim]

Great post. You'd think this would be apparent to more people after the financial meltdown. All the righties need to watch Inside Job.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/

I've really got to see that. It's been on my list of things to do for a while.

[TailgateNut]

I've really got to see that. It's been on my list of things to do for a while.

Snap to it. It was definately interesting.

Deregulation and twisting of arms, hand in hand. The miracles of business controlling goverment.;)

[mosca]

It's mandatory viewing, Ro - just be forewarned that it may raise your blood pressure and leave you even more pissed off than you are now.

[Obushma]

It cracks me up that people in America are flailing around for a new system, or ideology, in the mistaken belief that they have nothing else. I suppose it's due to the fact that we are awash in propaganda instead of actual, political dialogue. You know what worked? Progressivism. It was devised in response to actual conditions on the ground. A real life solution to the failures of capitalism without succumbing to the excesses of ideological puritanism. Like most of the best American solutions, it was pragmatism over ideology. It created the middle class in America. It built every dam, wired and plumbed every community, built the highway system, the space program, etc etc. It made our education system the best in the world. It made us the strongest and richest country in the world. And the greedy bastards have been trying to bring it down ever since it started.

Finally, with Reagan, they got what they wanted: A fifty percent tax cut for the rich and the opening assault on the labor movement. That was good for starters, anyway. Since then, we have steadily defunded progressive government and funneled all that public wealth into private pockets. It's been the biggest ponzi scheme rip-off in history. A complete rewriting of regulations and the tax code. You can see where it's gotten us. Recently, that rewriting of regulations allowed the greedy bastards to suck the equity out of American home ownership, the last vestige of economic liberty. And that's still not enough. Greed never rests, and never sleeps.

Now, the crack-pot right wingers want us to double down. The rich are not rich enough. They need more tax breaks. Government is not weak enough. We need to drown it so it can't raise enough money to fix a pothole. They suck the money out of government and then call deficits a crisis. Of course, when they hold the upper hand they say that deficits don't matter. And then, there's the libertarian wing: Every man for himself (as if we were still living in frontier cabins).

Mankind has evolved, over 3 million years, into a creature who can ponder black holes and quasars on the edge of the universe, but he still can't come up with a political ideology more astute than the law of the jungle? Societies exist and succeed because they improve life for the greatest number of their constituents. Our Constitution says that our government exists to serve the "general welfare" of our citizens. Common sense. Why else would it exist? Yet, somehow, a large percentage of our society has been duped into thinking that they would be better off under some feudal system that turns their government into the machine that the wealthy use to turn them into economic serfs while offering them no benefits whatsoever? Simple stuff. Why do the rich and powerful want a weak and ineffectual government? Because regulations on business and benefits for citizens cost them money.

The rich now are richer than anybody has ever been in the history of the world. They don't need any more help. They don't need to chip in for healthcare or education. They can buy their own. They don't need jobs. They don't even need to create jobs. There are billions of people buying their cheap products in China and India and the labor is cheaper. No health care over there. No safety regs. No labor regs. Why should they worry about the paltry markets in America? Why support the workers in America? The workers in America need to lower their standard of living to match workers in the rest of the world (of course, the rich don't buy into that concept for themselves). Why should any global capitalist continue to owe allegiance to America? Or taxes? They are global. They could care less about the well being of nations. All they care about are customers. That's what capitalism is all about. Dog eat dog. Winner take all. Who wants to live in a society governed by those principles? Right wingers and libertarians. That's who.

Hey Ro, do us a favor. Grab your neck, and swiftly pull it out of Ted Turners a-hole. You sound like a typical CFR, Neo liberal douche, who's policies got us here in the first place. You're such a political dunce, you're blind to the fact that it's your "progressive" ilk that birthed the Neo Conservative party.

So before you go spouting off at the mouth, study some history. Ron Paul couldn't be anything further from what you posted above. I'm tired of the corruption that your party created, and so are many other Americans.

[Rohirrim]

Hey Ro, do us a favor. Grab your neck, and swiftly pull it out of Ted Turners a-hole. You sound like a typical CFR, Neo liberal douche, who's policies got us here in the first place. You're such a political dunce, you're blind to the fact that it's your "progressive" ilk that birthed the Neo Conservative party.

So before you go spouting off at the mouth, study some history. Ron Paul couldn't be anything further from what you posted above. I'm tired of the corruption that your party created, and so are many other Americans.

Damn. You're still around, eh? And they're still giving you posting privileges at the institution as well? Actually, I find your love for that silly old man kind of heartwarming. Light a candle at the shrine for me.

[mhgaffney]

Ron Paul is a silly old man?

Unbelievable -- stupefying -- words cannot describe how stupid a remark that is...

[Tombstone RJ]

It cracks me up that people in America are flailing around for a new system, or ideology, in the mistaken belief that they have nothing else. I suppose it's due to the fact that we are awash in propaganda instead of actual, political dialogue. You know what worked? ProgressivismROFL!. It was devised in response to actual conditions on the ground. A real life solution to the failures of capitalism without succumbing to the excesses of ideological puritanism. Like most of the best American solutions, it was pragmatism over ideology. It created the middle class in America. It built every dam, wired and plumbed every community, built the highway system, the space program, etc etc. It made our education system the best in the world. It made us the strongest and richest country in the world. And the greedy bastards have been trying to bring it down ever since it started.

Finally, with Reagan, they got what they wanted: A fifty percent tax cut for the rich and the opening assault on the labor movement. That was good for starters, anyway. Since then, we have steadily defunded progressive government and funneled all that public wealth into private pockets. It's been the biggest ponzi scheme rip-off in history. A complete rewriting of regulations and the tax code. You can see where it's gotten us. Recently, that rewriting of regulations allowed the greedy bastards to suck the equity out of American home ownership, the last vestige of economic liberty. And that's still not enough. Greed never rests, and never sleeps.

Now, the crack-pot right wingers want us to double down. The rich are not rich enough. They need more tax breaks. Government is not weak enough. We need to drown it so it can't raise enough money to fix a pothole. They suck the money out of government and then call deficits a crisis. Of course, when they hold the upper hand they say that deficits don't matter. And then, there's the libertarian wing: Every man for himself (as if we were still living in frontier cabins).

Mankind has evolved, over 3 million years, into a creature who can ponder black holes and quasars on the edge of the universe, but he still can't come up with a political ideology more astute than the law of the jungle? Societies exist and succeed because they improve life for the greatest number of their constituents. Our Constitution says that our government exists to serve the "general welfare" of our citizens. Common sense. Why else would it exist? Yet, somehow, a large percentage of our society has been duped into thinking that they would be better off under some feudal system that turns their government into the machine that the wealthy use to turn them into economic serfs while offering them no benefits whatsoever? Simple stuff. Why do the rich and powerful want a weak and ineffectual government? Because regulations on business and benefits for citizens cost them money.

The rich now are richer than anybody has ever been in the history of the world. They don't need any more help. They don't need to chip in for healthcare or education. They can buy their own. They don't need jobs. They don't even need to create jobs. There are billions of people buying their cheap products in China and India and the labor is cheaper. No health care over there. No safety regs. No labor regs. Why should they worry about the paltry markets in America? Why support the workers in America? The workers in America need to lower their standard of living to match workers in the rest of the world (of course, the rich don't buy into that concept for themselves). Why should any global capitalist continue to owe allegiance to America? Or taxes? They are global. They could care less about the well being of nations. All they care about are customers. That's what capitalism is all about. Dog eat dog. Winner take all. Who wants to live in a society governed by those principles? Right wingers and libertarians. That's who.

You talk alot but don't really say much. Just because people like me believe that DC is corrupt and the bureaucracy is part of the problem does not mean we don't want any government. We acknowledge that some government is always needed, this is a given.

However when the fed gov overrides each state's rights then there is a problem. The states have government too Roh. I'm sorry your wee little mind can't comprehend that their are multiple levels of government. Let me esssplain this for your pee brain:

Local municipalities (cities)
county government
state government
federal government

You see, that right there is 4 different levels of government. But your dumbass keeps harping on how us wingnuts don't want any government and that is just not true. We acknowlegde it is needed, but when it becomes so big that it reaches critical mass (can you say trillion $ deficit?) then the beast has grown too big and it starts to smother the very thing it's supposed to serve--THE PEOPLE.

How's Progressivism working in Cali Roh? Let me help you--it's not working. Also, you are a moron if you think "progressivism" created the middle class.

[Arkie]

It cracks me up that people in America are flailing around for a new system, or ideology, in the mistaken belief that they have nothing else. I suppose it's due to the fact that we are awash in propaganda instead of actual, political dialogue. You know what worked? Progressivism. It was devised in response to actual conditions on the ground. A real life solution to the failures of capitalism without succumbing to the excesses of ideological puritanism. Like most of the best American solutions, it was pragmatism over ideology. It created the middle class in America. It built every dam, wired and plumbed every community, built the highway system, the space program, etc etc. It made our education system the best in the world. It made us the strongest and richest country in the world. And the greedy bastards have been trying to bring it down ever since it started.

Finally, with Reagan, they got what they wanted: A fifty percent tax cut for the rich and the opening assault on the labor movement. That was good for starters, anyway. Since then, we have steadily defunded progressive government and funneled all that public wealth into private pockets. It's been the biggest ponzi scheme rip-off in history. A complete rewriting of regulations and the tax code. You can see where it's gotten us. Recently, that rewriting of regulations allowed the greedy bastards to suck the equity out of American home ownership, the last vestige of economic liberty. And that's still not enough. Greed never rests, and never sleeps.

Now, the crack-pot right wingers want us to double down. The rich are not rich enough. They need more tax breaks. Government is not weak enough. We need to drown it so it can't raise enough money to fix a pothole. They suck the money out of government and then call deficits a crisis. Of course, when they hold the upper hand they say that deficits don't matter. And then, there's the libertarian wing: Every man for himself (as if we were still living in frontier cabins).

Mankind has evolved, over 3 million years, into a creature who can ponder black holes and quasars on the edge of the universe, but he still can't come up with a political ideology more astute than the law of the jungle? Societies exist and succeed because they improve life for the greatest number of their constituents. Our Constitution says that our government exists to serve the "general welfare" of our citizens. Common sense. Why else would it exist? Yet, somehow, a large percentage of our society has been duped into thinking that they would be better off under some feudal system that turns their government into the machine that the wealthy use to turn them into economic serfs while offering them no benefits whatsoever? Simple stuff. Why do the rich and powerful want a weak and ineffectual government? Because regulations on business and benefits for citizens cost them money.

The rich now are richer than anybody has ever been in the history of the world. They don't need any more help. They don't need to chip in for healthcare or education. They can buy their own. They don't need jobs. They don't even need to create jobs. There are billions of people buying their cheap products in China and India and the labor is cheaper. No health care over there. No safety regs. No labor regs. Why should they worry about the paltry markets in America? Why support the workers in America? The workers in America need to lower their standard of living to match workers in the rest of the world (of course, the rich don't buy into that concept for themselves). Why should any global capitalist continue to owe allegiance to America? Or taxes? They are global. They could care less about the well being of nations. All they care about are customers. That's what capitalism is all about. Dog eat dog. Winner take all. Who wants to live in a society governed by those principles? Right wingers and libertarians. That's who.

A cradle to grave welfare system is unsustainable, but it seems to work great in the beginning until the other fellow runs out money.

[TailgateNut]

A cradle to grave welfare system is unsustainable, but it seems to work great in the beginning until the other fellow runs out money.


Keep telling yourself that this is the cause of our money woes in this country. It doesn't have anything to do with our bloated Military expenses, nor the fact that the rich and corporations are able to skirt and abuse our tax system.

You want to make a difference in our deficit and debt? Cut our Military budget in HALF and implement a flat tax system from poverty level to infinity with no deductions and escape clauses.

[Rohirrim]

You talk alot but don't really say much. Just because people like me believe that DC is corrupt and the bureaucracy is part of the problem does not mean we don't want any government. We acknowledge that some government is always needed, this is a given.

However when the fed gov overrides each state's rights then there is a problem. The states have government too Roh. I'm sorry your wee little mind can't comprehend that their are multiple levels of government. Let me esssplain this for your pee brain:

Local municipalities (cities)
county government
state government
federal government

You see, that right there is 4 different levels of government. But your dumbass keeps harping on how us wingnuts don't want any government and that is just not true. We acknowlegde it is needed, but when it becomes so big that it reaches critical mass (can you say trillion $ deficit?) then the beast has grown too big and it starts to smother the very thing it's supposed to serve--THE PEOPLE.

How's Progressivism working in Cali Roh? Let me help you--it's not working. Also, you are a moron if you think "progressivism" created the middle class.

We might have had a good discussion. You went for insults. Go **** yourself.

[Tombstone RJ]

Keep telling yourself that this is the cause of our money woes in this country. It doesn't have anything to do with our bloated Military expenses, nor the fact that the rich and corporations are able to skirt and abuse our tax system.

You want to make a difference in our deficit and debt? Cut our Military budget in HALF and implement a flat tax system from poverty level to infinity with no deductions and escape clauses.

Wow, that's very libertarian of you, congrats bro now you're talking!




































psst... you do understand this means less government right?

[Tombstone RJ]

We might have had a good discussion. You went for insults. Go **** yourself.

LOL


You don't like Ron Paul, right? Why are you even here?

[Arkie]

I agree with cutting down the military. It's only a third of the entitlement programs though.

[Rohirrim]

LOL


You don't like Ron Paul, right? Why are you even here?

You're still here? I thought I told you to go **** yourself?

[Requiem]

He would but he doesn't have any hands.

[TailgateNut]

There was another thread on this, but I'm too lazy to look for it and the GODAMN search feature is ****ed again.


So here it is. Passing it on down.








TO PEE OR NOT TO PEE..
I have a job. I work, they pay me.



I pay my taxes & the government
Distributes my taxes as it sees fit.


In order to get that paycheck, in my case,
I am required to pass a random urine test
(with which I have no problem).

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my
taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
So, here is my question:
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check
because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with
helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping
someone sitting on their butt - doing drugs while I work.

Can you imagine how much money each state
would save if people had to pass a urine test
to get a public assistance check?
I guess we could call the program "URINE OR YOU'RE OUT"!
Something has to change in this country - AND SOON!


P.S. Just a thought, all politicians should have to pass a urine test too!!

[TailgateNut]

I agree with cutting down the military. It's only a third of the entitlement programs though.

No comment about flat tax?

[Arkie]

No comment about flat tax?

I like the fair tax better.

[TailgateNut]

I like the fair tax better.


Exponetially higher percentage for higher income?:
$0-POVERTY LEVEL= 0%
Poverty to $30k=10%
$30k to 50k=15%
50k to 100K=18%
$100k to 200K 20%
$200k to 400K 30%
$400k to 1mil 35%
$1mil to 5mil 45%
Above 5mil 50%

This ^ sounds fair to me!

No deductions, no excuses, no escape clause, no tax shelters, no nothing.

Then once our debt is paid off, we can revisit those rates.





thumbsup:

[alkemical]

There was another thread on this, but I'm too lazy to look for it and the GODAMN search feature is ****ed again.


So here it is. Passing it on down.








TO PEE OR NOT TO PEE..
I have a job. I work, they pay me.



I pay my taxes & the government
Distributes my taxes as it sees fit.


In order to get that paycheck, in my case,
I am required to pass a random urine test
(with which I have no problem).

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my
taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
So, here is my question:
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check
because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with
helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping
someone sitting on their butt - doing drugs while I work.

Can you imagine how much money each state
would save if people had to pass a urine test
to get a public assistance check?
I guess we could call the program "URINE OR YOU'RE OUT"!
Something has to change in this country - AND SOON!


P.S. Just a thought, all politicians should have to pass a urine test too!!



The obvious answer is to be allowed to do drugs at work. this allows people to want to go to work, and cuts down on all that bull**** of drug testing.

[TailgateNut]

The obvious answer is to be allowed to do drugs at work. this allows people to want to go to work, and cuts down on all that bull**** of drug testing.

Glad you got the point.:spit:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

A flat tax is about as unfair as it gets insofar as the guy who makes $30 million and is taxed at ~30% isn't making anything even close to the same sacrifice or shouldering the same relative burden as the guy who makes $30K and is taxed at the same rate.

[Meck77]

Ron Paul on silver........... I bet the other candidates and most people wouldn't even understand this concept.


While Rep. Ron Paul wasn't asked directly about Bachmann’s $2 gasoline promise, the Texas GOP congressman planted his flag on the issue, too. "I can do much better than that," he said. "I can get you a gallon of gasoline for a dime."

"You can buy a gallon of gas today for a silver dime," Paul added. "A silver dime is worth $3.50. It's all about inflation and too many regulations."



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62955.html#ixzz1XL9neEB1

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62955.html

[Rohirrim]

I'd like to hear the specifics on exactly which regulations the oil industry believe force them to gouge the American people for gas? It's probably the ones that say they can't dump their waste products in our rivers and streams. I know that's the ones the Koch Bros. find so odious (since they get fined for violating them more than anybody else).

You want to see what these corporations would turn America into if they are allowed to kill all the regulations they want to kill? Just cross the border at Tijuana and go East. You'll see American corporations lined up, right next to each other. Battery makers, tire companies, chemical companies, etc. Then, walk around and look at the landscape around them. These American owned maquiladoras just dump their waste out the back door and pump their untreated pollution into the air.

I keep hearing about the greed side of the equation, but nobody ever seems interested in the quality of life question. Of course, in America now, the only thing we care about is money. It is the measure of value for our entire existence.

[Rohirrim]

Oh, and after watching Ron Paul in the debate last night, all I can say is, he's a silly old man.

[Tombstone RJ]

Ron Paul on silver........... I bet the other candidates and most people wouldn't even understand this concept.


While Rep. Ron Paul wasn't asked directly about Bachmann’s $2 gasoline promise, the Texas GOP congressman planted his flag on the issue, too. "I can do much better than that," he said. "I can get you a gallon of gasoline for a dime."

"You can buy a gallon of gas today for a silver dime," Paul added. "A silver dime is worth $3.50. It's all about inflation and too many regulations."



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62955.html#ixzz1XL9neEB1

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62955.html

Ron Paul gets it.

[Tombstone RJ]

I'd like to hear the specifics on exactly which regulations the oil industry believe force them to gouge the American people for gas? It's probably the ones that say they can't dump their waste products in our rivers and streams. I know that's the ones the Koch Bros. find so odious (since they get fined for violating them more than anybody else).

You want to see what these corporations would turn America into if they are allowed to kill all the regulations they want to kill? Just cross the border at Tijuana and go East. You'll see American corporations lined up, right next to each other. Battery makers, tire companies, chemical companies, etc. Then, walk around and look at the landscape around them. These American owned maquiladoras just dump their waste out the back door and pump their untreated pollution into the air.

I keep hearing about the greed side of the equation, but nobody ever seems interested in the quality of life question. Of course, in America now, the only thing we care about is money. It is the measure of value for our entire existence.

What Paul is suggesting is that too many regulations drive up the price of a product. There's too much red tape in DC and there's too much bureaucracy which leads to waste and corruption. I'd rather have a streamlined and efficient government rather than a bloated, overlapping, wasteful behemoth.

You keep harping on the same thing, that is, you keep making it sound like Ron Paul is talking about doing away with all government and ushering anarchy. He's not. He's talking about trimming all the excess fat off the monster that is DC.

[Meck77]

There was another thread on this, but I'm too lazy to look for it and the GODAMN search feature is ****ed again.


So here it is. Passing it on down.








TO PEE OR NOT TO PEE..
I have a job. I work, they pay me.



I pay my taxes & the government
Distributes my taxes as it sees fit.


In order to get that paycheck, in my case,
I am required to pass a random urine test
(with which I have no problem).

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my
taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
So, here is my question:
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check
because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with
helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping
someone sitting on their butt - doing drugs while I work.

Can you imagine how much money each state
would save if people had to pass a urine test
to get a public assistance check?
I guess we could call the program "URINE OR YOU'RE OUT"!
Something has to change in this country - AND SOON!


P.S. Just a thought, all politicians should have to pass a urine test too!!

Add Michigan as another state limiting welfare to 48 months. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jul2011/welf-j16.shtml

Detroit should get a little crazier after October 1st. Is that possible?

[Arkie]

Oh, and after watching Ron Paul in the debate last night, all I can say is, he's a silly old man.

Being old is a virtue for him. He remembers when Keynesian economics wasn't the only idea for the economy. He remembers before the middle-east became radicalized. He's wise from life experience, and has great foresight whether its economics or foreign affairs. As far as being silly, they've been calling him silly for years, but in hindsight, he's been right.

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TNDvLRUevSo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



What if he's still right?

[Smiling Assassin27]

No, he's not right, he's looney:

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/esp-ruhkZqQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Fences keeping us in? *facepalm*

[DenverBrit]

No, he's not right, he's looney:

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/esp-ruhkZqQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Fences keeping us in? *facepalm*

Apart from the 'keeping us in' comment, he was right about the silliness of a wall. Walls don't work, are outrageously expensive and there have to be much better alternatives.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Apart from the 'keeping us in' comment, he was right about the silliness of a wall. Walls don't work, are outrageously expensive and there have to be much better alternatives.

No one has claimed that walls work. What people have proposed is building walls as a part of a comprehensive strategy to prevent illegal immigration. The wall is not now, nor has it EVER been anything more than a piece of the solution.

Your point about a wall costing too much is obviously not a true cost-benefit analysis, however. What is illegal immigration costing the nation on a yearly basis? Since current existing immigration laws are not being enforced by the Executive Branch, a wall would be rather pointless. All this aside, the 'keeping us in' comment is what I was getting at. If he really believes this, he's more paranoid than I gave him credit for. :afro:

[peacepipe]

No one has claimed that walls work. What people have proposed is building walls as a part of a comprehensive strategy to prevent illegal immigration. The wall is not now, nor has it EVER been anything more than a piece of the solution.

Your point about a wall costing too much is obviously not a true cost-benefit analysis, however. What is illegal immigration costing the nation on a yearly basis? Since current existing immigration laws are not being enforced by the Executive Branch, a wall would be rather pointless. All this aside, the 'keeping us in' comment is what I was getting at. If he really believes this, he's more paranoid than I gave him credit for. :afro:

http://www.deportationnation.org/2010/08/new-data-deportations-surge-under-obama/

more are getting deported under obama than under bush.there's more man at the border under obama than under bush.

[Smiling Assassin27]

http://www.deportationnation.org/2010/08/new-data-deportations-surge-under-obama/

more are getting deported under obama than under bush.there's more man at the border under obama than under bush.

why do you insist on comparing everything this guy does to Bush? repeat after me, Bush was a dope and completely clueless with regard to immigration policy. saying Obama is better than Bush on immigration/deportations is like saying kim il jong is a bigger humanitarian than joe stalin.

the bottom line is that the problem is still rampant down there IN SPITE of Obama's impotent actions. we both know obama could be doing a LOT more but doesn't want to risk losing the Hispanic vote.

[DenverBrit]

No one has claimed that walls work. What people have proposed is building walls as a part of a comprehensive strategy to prevent illegal immigration. The wall is not now, nor has it EVER been anything more than a piece of the solution.

Your point about a wall costing too much is obviously not a true cost-benefit analysis, however. What is illegal immigration costing the nation on a yearly basis? Since current existing immigration laws are not being enforced by the Executive Branch, a wall would be rather pointless. All this aside, the 'keeping us in' comment is what I was getting at. If he really believes this, he's more paranoid than I gave him credit for. :afro:

One way to help stop illegal immigration is to fine those who employ them.

And I agree about the 'keeping us in' comment.'

[Smiling Assassin27]

One way to help stop illegal immigration is to fine those who employ them.

And I agree about the 'keeping us in' comment.'

I couldn't agree more. That is a law already on the books (1996), which also has many provisions that are just not being enforced dilligently.

[Tombstone RJ]

So just to keep the Ron Paul love going, I'm gonna occassionally post some interesting facts about Ron, like this one:

In the 1988 presidential election, Paul defeated Native American activist Russell Means to win the Libertarian Party nomination for president.[14] Paul criticized Ronald Reagan as a failure and cited large deficits as exhibit A.[27] On the ballot in 46 states and the District of Columbia,[37] Paul scored third in the popular vote with 432,179 votes (0.5%),[38] behind Republican winner George H. W. Bush and Democrat Michael Dukakis.[39] Paul was kept off the ballot in Missouri, and received votes there only when written in, due to what the St. Louis Post-Dispatch termed a "technicality".[40]

[Tombstone RJ]

This is why I want RP for president--he gets it:

According to Paul, his presidential campaign was about more than obtaining office; he sought to promote his libertarian ideas, often to school and university groups regardless of vote eligibility. He said, "We're just as interested in the future generation as this election. These kids will vote eventually, and maybe, just maybe, they'll go home and talk to their parents."[37] He traveled the country for a year speaking about issues such as free market economics and the rising government deficits:[41] "That's why we talk to a lot of young people. They're the ones who are paying these bills, they're the ones who are inheriting this debt, so it's most likely these young people who will move into this next generation in government."

[Requiem]

I want Ron Paul for President because he used to drive in a lesser series of NASCAR.

[Tombstone RJ]

More Ron Paul:

As a medical doctor, Ron Paul routinely lowered fees or worked for free in order to refuse to accept Medicaid or Medicare payments. As a member of Congress, he continues to refuse to sign up for the government pension that he would be entitled to in order to avoid receiving government money, saying it would be "hypocritical and immoral."

[Arkie]

The establishment got us into this mess. We the people must get us out. Who do you really trust is on the people's side?

<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CtDBp1OrCwI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Rohirrim]

If we build a fence, it will fence us in? That's some crackpot ****. And what is Paul's lead issue? Open currency and the gold standard. Just imagine if every state was printing its own currency? What about ever county? Every city? Imagine flying to NY from Denver and having to change your currency at the airport? I'm guessing NY's currency would be worth more than Mississippi's. And the gold standard? It would be a cluster **** of unimaginable proportions. And he's talking about silver dimes? Has he ever heard of the Hunt Bros. and the silver market? Or Jay Gould and the gold market?

[TheDave]

I will be very glad when this Ron Paul thing ends for the final time in a few months.

[Meck77]

I will be very glad when this Ron Paul thing ends for the final time in a few months.

It won't end TheDave. It's just now gaining steam.

[Obushma]

If we build a fence, it will fence us in? That's some crackpot ****. And what is Paul's lead issue? Open currency and the gold standard. Just imagine if every state was printing its own currency? What about ever county? Every city? Imagine flying to NY from Denver and having to change your currency at the airport? I'm guessing NY's currency would be worth more than Mississippi's. And the gold standard? It would be a cluster **** of unimaginable proportions. And he's talking about silver dimes? Has he ever heard of the Hunt Bros. and the silver market? Or Jay Gould and the gold market?

I'm positive the man is more knowledgeable on history then you Ro. Ill be happy to show the post where you were kissing his ass back in 08 when I get a chance.

[Arkie]

If we build a fence, it will fence us in? That's some crackpot ****. And what is Paul's lead issue? Open currency and the gold standard. Just imagine if every state was printing its own currency? What about ever county? Every city? Imagine flying to NY from Denver and having to change your currency at the airport? I'm guessing NY's currency would be worth more than Mississippi's. And the gold standard? It would be a cluster **** of unimaginable proportions. And he's talking about silver dimes? Has he ever heard of the Hunt Bros. and the silver market? Or Jay Gould and the gold market?

Hey watch the video in post #96. That was some crackpot **** back then!

[Arkie]

I'm guessing NY's currency would be worth more than Mississippi's.

Only if Mississippi inflated theirs.

[Rohirrim]

I'm positive the man is more knowledgeable on history then you Ro. Ill be happy to show the post where you were kissing his ass back in 08 when I get a chance.

That's where I differ from brain frozen troglodytes like you. I actually learn from my mistakes. I still agree with Paul's take on America being the policeman of the world. But that's not original to Paul. George Washington outlined that idea in his farewell address.

[Rohirrim]

Hey watch the video in post #96. That was some crackpot **** back then!

That video presents the idea that Ron Paul was the only voice speaking out about the housing bubble. He wasn't. He was only one of many who publicly stated that we were on shaky ground and destined to fail. Robert Schiller was another (but he's not a politician). He had also predicted the previous recession. Does that mean that open currency and a return to the gold standard is the answer? No. The primary "fix" we have to put in (IMO) is an amendment to the Constitution controlling the power of corporations and especially, changing the way campaigns are financed. Until we remove money from politics, the malfeasance of the banksters and Wall Street will continue, and these economic swings will go on for ever.

What destroyed our economy was not the results of Fannie and Freddie by themselves. That was the ignition. But the explosion was caused by the layer upon layer of insured betting on the housing market. And that was created because corporations were able to buy politicians to change regulations that benefited them to the detriment of the rest of us. Would Ron Paul be for, or against, those kinds of corporate regulations?

Notice that he also said that bombing Sudan was against a target that "...is no threat to the U.S." As misguided as that attempt may have been, it was directed against Osama bin Laden. I would have hardly called him no threat to the U.S. So, I guess not all of Paul's predictions worked out.

[mosca]

I will be very glad when this Ron Paul thing ends for the final time in a few months.
Why, because you're worried as a lock-step straight-ticket 'D' voter that someone might exist that can actually challenge your candidate who is currently in office?

Maybe you should stop and think why Ron Paul has so much support instead of merely wishing for his demise.

[mosca]

If we build a fence, it will fence us in? That's some crackpot ****. And what is Paul's lead issue? Open currency and the gold standard. Just imagine if every state was printing its own currency? What about ever county? Every city? Imagine flying to NY from Denver and having to change your currency at the airport? I'm guessing NY's currency would be worth more than Mississippi's. And the gold standard? It would be a cluster **** of unimaginable proportions. And he's talking about silver dimes? Has he ever heard of the Hunt Bros. and the silver market? Or Jay Gould and the gold market?
Ro, this is totally inaccurate. Why are you attempting fearmonger tactics? The U.S. was on a gold standard until 1973 when Nixon switched us to fiat money with Bretton Woods. We didn't have competing states currency before then.

Why are you so against Ron Paul? I would think that most of his views aligned with someone like you.

[Rohirrim]

Ro, this is totally inaccurate. Why are you attempting fearmonger tactics? The U.S. was on a gold standard until 1973 when Nixon switched us to fiat money with Bretton Woods. We didn't have competing states currency before then.

Why are you so against Ron Paul? I would think that most of his views aligned with someone like you.

Here's a very good explanation from Krugman:
Very few economists think this would be a good idea. The argument against it is one of pragmatism, not principle. First, a gold standard would have all the disadvantages of any system of rigidly fixed exchange rates--and even economists who are enthusiastic about a common European currency generally think that fixing the European currency to the dollar or yen would be going too far. Second, and crucially, gold is not a stable standard when measured in terms of other goods and services. On the contrary, it is a commodity whose price is constantly buffeted by shifts in supply and demand that have nothing to do with the needs of the world economy--by changes, for example, in dentistry.

The United States abandoned its policy of stabilizing gold prices back in 1971. Since then the price of gold has increased roughly tenfold, while consumer prices have increased about 250 percent. If we had tried to keep the price of gold from rising, this would have required a massive decline in the prices of practically everything else--deflation on a scale not seen since the Depression. This doesn't sound like a particularly good idea.http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/goldbug.html

[Arkie]

That video presents the idea that Ron Paul was the only voice speaking out about the housing bubble. He wasn't. He was only one of many who publicly stated that we were on shaky ground and destined to fail. Robert Schiller was another (but he's not a politician). He had also predicted the previous recession. Does that mean that open currency and a return to the gold standard is the answer? No. The primary "fix" we have to put in (IMO) is an amendment to the Constitution controlling the power of corporations and especially, changing the way campaigns are financed. Until we remove money from politics, the malfeasance of the banksters and Wall Street will continue, and these economic swings will go on for ever.

What destroyed our economy was not the results of Fannie and Freddie by themselves. That was the ignition. But the explosion was caused by the layer upon layer of insured betting on the housing market. And that was created because corporations were able to buy politicians to change regulations that benefited them to the detriment of the rest of us. Would Ron Paul be for, or against, those kinds of corporate regulations?

Notice that he also said that bombing Sudan was against a target that "...is no threat to the U.S." As misguided as that attempt may have been, it was directed against Osama bin Laden. I would have hardly called him no threat to the U.S. So, I guess not all of Paul's predictions worked out.

No, he said the threat was greater if we bombed them and Afghanistan. He said we were less safe instead of more secure. Then after the 9/11 attack, he was criticized for saying our foreign policies brought the attack upon ourselves. He tried to warn us about "blowback" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)) before the attack ever happened.

[TheDave]

It won't end TheDave. It's just now gaining steam.

As you would famously say... Wanna' bet on that?

Why, because you're worried as a lock-step straight-ticket 'D' voter that someone might exist that can actually challenge your candidate who is currently in office?

Maybe you should stop and think why Ron Paul has so much support instead of merely wishing for his demise.

1st, I won't be voting for Obama again... Already made that mistake once. So you can spare me the your candidate rhetoric. That and I've never voted straight ticket anything.

Oh, and the only places where "Ron Paul has so much support" are forums like this where his followers hang out.

Trust me, he will fade away like he always does... Luckily his brand of crazy just isnt that wide spread.

[mosca]

1st, I won't be voting for Obama again... Already made that mistake once. So you can spare me the your candidate rhetoric. That and I've never voted straight ticket anything.

You don't strike me as a Repub voter, and you say you won't be voting Obama, are you actually planning on voting for pres. in the upcoming election?

[TonyR]

...It's just now gaining steam.

Ron Paul is 76. Might be about time to switch from steam to internal combustion...

[Obushma]

Ron Paul is 76. Might be about time to switch from steam to internal combustion...

Its not about the man, its about the message.

[TheDave]

You don't strike me as a Repub voter, and you say you won't be voting Obama, are you actually planning on voting for pres. in the upcoming election?

FWIW, your perception of me is pretty funny.

Straight ticket D... Hilarious!

Yes I will be voting in the upcoming presidential election, now lets hope the Repubs actually give me something worth voting for.

[TheDave]

Its not about the man, its about the message.

'Cause 18th century monetary policy is the way to the future... :thumbs:

[Bronx33]

FWIW, your perception of me is pretty funny.

Straight ticket D... Hilarious!

Yes I will be voting in the upcoming presidential election, now lets hope the Repubs actually give me something worth voting for.



I fully agree right now i am pretty much in the air.

[Obushma]

'Cause 18th century monetary policy is the way to the future... :thumbs:

It is actually 20th century monetary policy, maybe you're a bit confused on your history? Ron Paul hasn't called for a "return to the gold standard", just a currency backed by something physical, as in not fiat. Keynesian economics has failed, Austrian school is making more sense to your average American when the two are studied side by side.

[TheDave]

It is actually 20th century monetary policy, maybe you're a bit confused on your history? Ron Paul hasn't called for a "return to the gold standard", just a currency backed by something physical, as in not fiat. Keynesian economics has failed, Austrian school is making more sense to your average American when the two are studied side by side.

Unfortunately you don't know your own candidate... He does not want to go back to brenton-woods monetary standards (which is nothing more than a relic from WWII). By his own words he wants to go back farther to the monetary policy used in the 17th and 18th century.

He wants strict ties to a particular commodity with the added bonus of competiting currencies and of course the abolishment of the federal reserve.

Like I said 18th century economics...

[Obushma]

Unfortunately you don't know your own candidate... He does not want to go back to brenton-woods monetary standards (which is nothing more than a relic from WWII). By his own words he wants to go back farther to the monetary policy used in the 17th and 18th century.

He wants strict ties to a particular commodity with the added bonus of competiting currencies and of course the abolishment of the federal reserve.

Like I said 18th century economics...

Which happened in 1913, therefore making it 20th century. Thanks for trying though, was a nice effort. No comment on Austrian theory vs Keynesian garbage?

[TheDave]

Which happened in 1913, therefore making it 20th century. Thanks for trying though, was a nice effort. No comment on Austrian theory vs Keynesian garbage?

We had competing currencies in 1913?... Really?

[Obushma]

By his own words he wants to go back farther to the monetary policy used in the 17th and 18th century.

Maybe you could post a link or video, I'd like to see exactly what you're quoting Dr. Paul on. You seem a bit confused on what you are trying to say.

Maybe you don't understand the differences in the two economic theories I posted, and that's okay, many don't.

[TheDave]

Which happened in 1913, therefore making it 20th century. Thanks for trying though, was a nice effort. No comment on Austrian theory vs Keynesian garbage?

Sorry I missed that one...

Lets skip the debate and deal with reality.

The year is 2011 not 1913, 1865, or 1776 for that matter. International finance and economics are what they are. Fiat currencies, fractional reserve banking and central banking systems are the tools of modern day economics. We can not compete without these tools... Period!

[Obushma]

Lets skip the debate and deal with reality.

The year is 2011 not 1913, 1865, or 1776 for that matter. International finance and economics are what they are. Fiat currencies, fractional reserve banking and central banking systems are the tools of modern day economics. We can not compete without these tools... Period!

You need a good dose of Tom Woods, here, you might learn something.

<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9FFhSr1A1do" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

...and my favorite Austrian vs Keynesian videos

<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/d0nERTFo-Sk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GTQnarzmTOc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Hope you can evolve Dave.

[TheDave]

You need a good dose of Tom Woods, here, you might learn something.



Hope you can evolve Dave.

Leave it to a RP follower to post a bunch of simplistic videos as a support of their flat earth economic views... FWIW here is a real good explanation for why Austrian Economics has failed.

I’ve long promised a post on Austrian Business Cycle Theory (Friedrich Hayek), and here it is. For those who would rather get straight to the conclusion, it’s one I share in broad terms with most of the mainstream economists who’ve looked at the theory, from Tyler Cowen , Bryan Caplan

and Gordon Tullock at the libertarian/Chicago end of the spectrum to Keynesians like Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong.

To sum up, although the Austrian School was at the forefront of business cycle theory in the 1920s, it hasn’t developed in any positive way since then. The central idea of the credit cycle is an important one, particularly as it applies to the business cycle in the presence of a largely unregulated financial system. But the Austrians balked at the interventionist implications of their own position, and failed to engage seriously with Keynesian ideas.

The bold explains everything you need to know about Austrian Economics. It shuns mathematics and the scientific method and because of this has failed to progress since the 1920's. There is a reason why Austrian economics is ignored by academia... and no its not some broad conspiracy theory.

Hint... It doesn't have anything to do with modern economics. The world simply passed your dated belief system up.

P.S. Were not going to get rid of the automobile either, so stop trying to go back to how things were in the 1800's and telling everyone that it is some form of progress.

[TheDave]

And before you ask... were not going to replace chemistry with Alchemy either.

[Obushma]

Leave it to a RP follower to post a bunch of simplistic videos as a support of their flat earth economic views... FWIW here is a real good explanation for why Austrian Economics has failed.



The bold explains everything you need to know about Austrian Economics. It shuns mathematics and the scientific method and because of this has failed to progress since the 1920's. There is a reason why Austrian economics is ignored by academia... and no its not some broad conspiracy theory.

Hint... It doesn't have anything to do with modern economics. The world simply passed your dated belief.

Wait, I thought you were saying he believed in some 18th century monetary policy? 1920 seems 20th century to me, maybe some high school night classes will help with that.

Anyways, you are wrong, central planning only leads to corruption as evidenced by tarp. The economy is not some mathematical mechanism to be controlled and regulated by the same poeple who create the money out of thin air.

[TheDave]

Wait, I thought you were saying he believed in some 18th century monetary policy? 1920 seems 20th century to me, maybe some high school night classes will help with that.





The last thing that Austrian economics did that was worth a damn was the early stages of "Business cycle theory" which happened in the 1920's... That statement had nothing to do with Ron Paul's idiotic 18th century belief of instituting competiting currencies.

Try to keep up...

[TheDave]

Anyways, you are wrong, central planning only leads to corruption as evidenced by tarp. The economy is not some mathematical mechanism to be controlled and regulated by the same poeple who create the money out of thin air.

None of this has anything to do with reality nor with Ron Paul's mis-guided economic beliefs.

[Bronx33]

Not real impressed with RPs views on iran either.

[Obushma]

None of this has anything to do with reality nor with Ron Paul's mis-guided economic beliefs.

Actually, it has everything to do w/ corrupt Keynesian philosophy. Take a night class and get back to me when you're versed in more then your central planning theory.

[TheDave]

Actually, it has everything to do w/ corrupt Keynesian philosophy. Take a night class and get back to me when you're versed in more then your central planning theory.

Actually, I already teach economics (part of the time).

and if you like, we could have a real economics debate, but just as a warning real econ debates involve math. I know, how crazy, a system made up of numbers uses math to better understand it.

Crazy stuff...

[TheDave]

Not real impressed with RPs views on iran either.

The guy is nothing more than a short term side show of the republican party... Luckily it all goes away in a few weeks.


By the way:

Obushma, who do you plan on voting for once RP leaves the stage?

[mhgaffney]

I think both of you need to listen to economist Michael Hudson. We are in an entirely new situation today.

http://michael-hudson.com/wp-content/uploads/audio/Hudson_July2011_Bonnie.mp3

[alkemical]

@thedave -

What are your thoughts on how to fix the system. Obviously something's broken.

[mosca]

The system is broken, and anyone who pretends that Obama or any of the status-quo Republicans (Romney, Perry, Bachmann, etc.) are actually offering solutions is being shamefully dishonest.

[alkemical]

http://www.skilluminati.com/Research/entry/rick_perry_vs_ron_paul_gop_body_language

http://www.skilluminati.com/img/rick-perry-ron-paul-1.jpg

[DenverBrit]

http://www.skilluminati.com/Research/entry/rick_perry_vs_ron_paul_gop_body_language

http://www.skilluminati.com/img/rick-perry-ron-paul-1.jpg

Perry loves to wag and poke in the chest with his finger.

Typical of someone who is all bluster and little else.

[alkemical]

Perry loves to wag and poke in the chest with his finger.

Typical of someone who is all bluster and little else.

If you can/hit the source link - they have some shots of LBJ too.

Primate politics.

[DenverBrit]

If you can/hit the source link - they have some shots of LBJ too.

Primate politics.

I saw that. It's a 'tradition.'

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-b86GkwbYxUk/ThqmUWey1vI/AAAAAAAAMLg/t3H_hDX478Q/s1600/richard-nixon-kitchendebate.jpg

Hey, Ruskie, wake up!!

[alkemical]

I think, in some ways - I've become a much bigger picture guy, by seeing some of the things that "we" forget... (primate politics for example).

I think often times, we forget the "human" side of the equation - and that we're still just animals.

[Obushma]

Obushma, who do you plan on voting for once RP leaves the stage?

I'll be writing in Ron Paul, along with at least a million other Americans.

This is the best Ron Paul video i've seen on youtube, you just can't hide the facts.

<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ohKz9OeiI0g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Arkie]

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff189/adamtro/goodnight.jpg

[Rohirrim]

Ron Paul's ideas would be great if we all still lived on farms. Judging by his speeches, he still thinks we do.

[alkemical]

Ron Paul's ideas would be great if we all still lived on farms. Judging by his speeches, he still thinks we do.

LOL, at the rate we're going - we will be working on farms.

[TheDave]

LOL, at the rate we're going - we will be working on farms.

That would SUCK... I hated mowing my lawn, can't even imagine large scale commercial farming.

[alkemical]

That would SUCK... I hated mowing my lawn, can't even imagine large scale commercial farming.

I can. ;)

[Tombstone RJ]

Ron Paul's ideas would be great if we all still lived on farms. Judging by his speeches, he still thinks we do.

I'll take RP any day of the week over oba. Your boy oba is a joke.

[Arkie]

I would take RP over any of the other major candidates. People who are paying attention and care enough to make a difference have been donating to RP. He gets the most money from private donors, and he gets more from active soldiers and veterans. But the telling sign, is the fact that he gets the least amount from special interests. He can't be bought. He can't be intimidated. However, he can barely compete solely on private donations with all the media propaganda and special interests countering him.

[alkemical]

I would take RP over any of the other major candidates. People who are paying attention and care enough to make a difference have been donating to RP. He gets the most money from private donors, and he gets more from active soldiers and veterans. But the telling sign, is the fact that he gets the least amount from special interests. He can't be bought. He can't be intimidated. However, he can barely compete solely on private donations with all the media propaganda and special interests countering him.

That's because Ron Paul doesn't care about image and marketing, and that's what gets him to lose.

[Tombstone RJ]

That's because Ron Paul doesn't care about image and marketing, and that's what gets him to lose.

Isn't it ironic that RP could lose because of all the wrong reasons? He's a great leader, he's consistent, he can't be bought, he loves this country and the young people in this country, he has the support of the grassroots people, yet he still won't win in your opinion because he is incorruptable.

this is why our country is so messed up.

[alkemical]

Isn't it ironic that RP could lose because of all the wrong reasons? He's a great leader, he's consistent, he can't be bought, he loves this country and the young people in this country, he has the support of the grassroots people, yet he still won't win in your opinion because he is incorruptable.

this is why our country is so messed up.


Not true: I didn't say he won't win because he's incorruptable. I said he won't win because he doesn't understand image and marketing. (Either that, or he's a tool of the NWO to get a correct demographic of who opposes...)

That's one of the things with Obama. He gets the marketing side, and his brand is bigger than the man. He sold people on "hope and change", and he let people's imaginations fill in what "hope & change" was.

it's why "W" transcended being a failed business man at every level he was employed. (Failed, being relative - the businesses may have failed - but he didn't financially - so in some weird way - he succeeded...)


In some ways - I think the peter principle applies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

The "figurehead" really represents the nation, moreso iconic-ally than in any "real" means. In many ways, we have exactly what we deserve.

[Tombstone RJ]

Not true: I didn't say he won't win because he's incorruptable. I said he won't win because he doesn't understand image and marketing. (Either that, or he's a tool of the NWO to get a correct demographic of who opposes...)

That's one of the things with Obama. He gets the marketing side, and his brand is bigger than the man. He sold people on "hope and change", and he let people's imaginations fill in what "hope & change" was.

it's why "W" transcended being a failed business man at every level he was employed. (Failed, being relative - the businesses may have failed - but he didn't financially - so in some weird way - he succeeded...)


In some ways - I think the peter principle applies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

The "figurehead" really represents the nation, moreso iconic-ally than in any "real" means. In many ways, we have exactly what we deserve.

We shall see. In the end marketing only goes so far and oba is not fooling anyone anymore.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." sorry oba, you're finished.

[alkemical]

We shall see. In the end marketing only goes so far and oba is not fooling anyone anymore.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." sorry oba, you're finished.


Or -

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

Marketing goes much further than you think it does. You are watching Obama create a 3rd party. We need one good "event" to happen, and his support will rise.

Know how I know this?

Rinse/Repeat.

[Rohirrim]

Or -

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

Marketing goes much further than you think it does. You are watching Obama create a 3rd party. We need one good "event" to happen, and his support will rise.

Know how I know this?

Rinse/Repeat.

What will they call this new party? The moderate Republicans? Ha!

[alkemical]

What will they call this new party? The moderate Republicans? Ha!


LOL, you can laugh. But it's the "Obama" party. it's going to be his "alternative" to the "tea party".

[Rohirrim]

LOL, you can laugh. But it's the "Obama" party. it's going to be his "alternative" to the "tea party".

Obama is turning into another Jimmy Carter. Once he leaves office he will be persona non grata to the political Left.

[alkemical]

Obama is turning into another Jimmy Carter. Once he leaves office he will be persona non grata to the political Left.

I heard the same thing about "W" before something big happened too.

[Smiling Assassin27]

“I like him. I like what he says, I do. I like what he says. I think he’s solid,” said Barry Manilow, who confirmed to TheDC in an interview at the Capitol on Thursday that he contributed to Paul’s last campaign for president.

“I agree with just about everything he says. What can I tell you?” Manilow added.




His name was Ron Paul, he was a nutcase....

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ahuvxRitU74/SFhtSwpqWzI/AAAAAAAAHAc/0eacKnDgKO0/s400/barry-manilow.jpg

[broncocalijohn]

That's because Ron Paul doesn't care about image and marketing, and that's what gets him to lose.

Not to mention conviction and sticks to what he believes in. He would be doomed in the WH. He is a more likeable Pat Buchanen imo. So many thing smake sense with him but other things just won't fly. There aren't too many people with political ethic morals but he is one of them.... and that helps cost him any chance.

[Obushma]

Mutually Assured Destruction vs Mutually Assured Respect: Ron Paul 9/15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoYGAxF-zWE&feature=player_embedded#!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PoYGAxF-zWE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[alkemical]

Not to mention conviction and sticks to what he believes in. He would be doomed in the WH. He is a more likeable Pat Buchanen imo. So many thing smake sense with him but other things just won't fly. There aren't too many people with political ethic morals but he is one of them.... and that helps cost him any chance.

Well - and that's why he will not go any "further" than the position he holds. He doesn't "desire" the position (out of greed, power, etc) enough to "sell out".

I guess, in many ways - it's a reflection on US.

[Tombstone RJ]

Well - and that's why he will not go any "further" than the position he holds. He doesn't "desire" the position (out of greed, power, etc) enough to "sell out".

I guess, in many ways - it's a reflection on US.

We shall see. If he gets onto the GOP platform for the Presidency and you had to pick between Barry Obama and Ron Paul, who would you vote for?

[TheDave]

We shall see. If he gets onto the GOP platform for the Presidency and you had to pick between Barry Obama and Ron Paul, who would you vote for?

Hilarious!

Where's that dumb & dumber video of "So your saying theres a chance" when you need it?

[Tombstone RJ]

Hilarious!

Where's that dumb & dumber video of "So your saying theres a chance" when you need it?

just think of it as a hypothetical situation... if RP is the GOP nomination for president, will you vote for him?

[TheDave]

just think of it as a hypothetical situation... if RP was the GOP nomination for president, would you vote for him?

No... under those conditions I would just sit home and let the Obama landslide take effect.

[Tombstone RJ]

No... under those conditions I would just sit home and let the Obama landslide take effect.

well alrighty then. Mind if I ask you why you are participating in this thread?

[TheDave]

well alrighty then. Mind if I ask you why you are participating in this thread?

It's a Ron Paul thread and I commented on Ron Paul... Did I miss something?

[mosca]

Hilarious!

Where's that dumb & dumber video of "So your saying theres a chance" when you need it?
People were saying that about a black guy getting elected president a few years back, too.

[Spider]

It's a Ron Paul thread and I commented on Ron Paul... Did I miss something?

.dayum you , dont you ever do something like that again ....even stayed on topic , your such an ass LOL......

[Arkie]

No... under those conditions I would just sit home and let the Obama landslide take effect.

The latest polls have Paul gaining on Obama. It's almost dead even at 39% to 38%. Give Obama another year to fall further, and the landslide will be against Obama, even if it's Ron Paul in this hypothetical scenario.

[TheDave]

The latest polls have Paul gaining on Obama. It's almost dead even at 39% to 38%. Give Obama another year to fall further, and the landslide will be against Obama, even if it's Ron Paul in this hypothetical scenario.

You guys are absolutely delusional... he will be out of the race in a matter of months.

Ron Paul Landslide...Hilarious!

[Arkie]

You guys are absolutely delusional... he will be out of the race in a matter of months.

Ron Paul Landslide...Hilarious!

Then it will be a Romney or Perry landslide, and we will get more of the same. :sickortir

[Requiem]

You guys are absolutely delusional... he will be out of the race in a matter of months.

Ron Paul Landslide...Hilarious!

Paul isn't going to get the nomination, but he will stay in the race for quite some time. You really think he is going to go out before the primaries and caucuses even happen? Iowa and New Hampshire are the first states up on the caucus and primary block and he is going to do well in both of them.

[Meck77]

Ron Paul wins California straw poll.....

Obama vs Ron Paul. Love it.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/17/california.straw.poll/

[Tombstone RJ]

It's a Ron Paul thread and I commented on Ron Paul... Did I miss something?

Yes, please see post #1.

[Requiem]

Chicago Tribute Article (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-18/news/ct-oped-0918-page-20110918_1_ron-paul-health-insurance-tea-party)

[Tombstone RJ]

Chicago Tribute Article (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-18/news/ct-oped-0918-page-20110918_1_ron-paul-health-insurance-tea-party)

Good stuff, thanks for posting this Req. Fact is, we need affordable health insurance and we also need the cost of health care in general to come down. We can get affordable health insurance by breaking up the health insurance cartel and allowing competing health insurance companies to operate across state lines. We also need medical co-ops for the general population.

There are answers to these problems.

[Requiem]

Here are some pictures from 2008!

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-ash1/v183/217/7/33804675/n33804675_32264970_6891.jpg

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-ash1/v183/217/7/33804675/n33804675_32264968_6277.jpg

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-ash1/v183/217/7/33804675/n33804675_32264979_9495.jpg

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-ash1/v183/217/7/33804675/n33804675_32264969_6558.jpg?

[Tombstone RJ]

I like the cranky old man running for president!

[Arkie]

These are FACTS, and if you don’t believe them, then it proves that they have done an excellent job censoring him.


Ron Paul polls consistently in a dead heat with President Obama (Rasmussen, Gallup, CNN);

Ron Paul consistently places in the top three in major Republican Primary polls despite lack of coverage;

Ron Paul is number two in fundraising and number one for individual donations;

Ron Paul has more military donations than all other GOP candidates COMBINED, as well as President Obama;

Ron Paul is the only candidate to accurately predict the housing bubble, economic crises and the devaluation of the dollar.

Ron Paul has spent his entire congressional career defending the Constitution, and has been elected to 12 terms with growing support from the people he represents in heavily democratic districts.

Why isn’t there more coverage of someone who meets all the requirements of a serious candidate?

They are censoring Ron Paul’s message of small, constitutionally-limited government, and he's the only candidate in either party running on this platform.

[Arkie]

Ron Paul wins California straw poll.....

Obama vs Ron Paul. Love it.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/17/california.straw.poll/

He's always done well in straw polls, but instead of "close seconds" and moral victories, he's beating Romney and Perry's combined totals!

[Tombstone RJ]

the media is ignoring Paul because they (in their infinite wisdom mind you) don't think he's electable... so yes, the media (again) is a huge factor is who gets elected.

please give the media the middle finger and keep voting for Paul!

[alkemical]

the media is ignoring Paul because they (in their infinite wisdom mind you) don't think he's electable... so yes, the media (again) is a huge factor is who gets elected.

please give the media the middle finger and keep voting for Paul!


Or is it that the 6 media companies have their investments elsewhere in whom wins?

[Tombstone RJ]

Or is it that the 6 media companies have their investments elsewhere in whom wins?

that too

[That One Guy]

Maybe Paul needs to get away from just the internet videos where he continues to cater to his fans and, instead, start getting his face out there more. He knows it's an uphill battle so he should be working a new place every night to ensure everyone sees his face and knows who he is.

[alkemical]

Maybe Paul needs to get away from just the internet videos where he continues to cater to his fans and, instead, start getting his face out there more. He knows it's an uphill battle so he should be working a new place every night to ensure everyone sees his face and knows who he is.

Not true: I didn't say he won't win because he's incorruptable. I said he won't win because he doesn't understand image and marketing. (Either that, or he's a tool of the NWO to get a correct demographic of who opposes...)

That's one of the things with Obama. He gets the marketing side, and his brand is bigger than the man. He sold people on "hope and change", and he let people's imaginations fill in what "hope & change" was.

it's why "W" transcended being a failed business man at every level he was employed. (Failed, being relative - the businesses may have failed - but he didn't financially - so in some weird way - he succeeded...)


In some ways - I think the peter principle applies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

The "figurehead" really represents the nation, moreso iconic-ally than in any "real" means. In many ways, we have exactly what we deserve.

Told ya

[Tombstone RJ]

Maybe Paul needs to get away from just the internet videos where he continues to cater to his fans and, instead, start getting his face out there more. He knows it's an uphill battle so he should be working a new place every night to ensure everyone sees his face and knows who he is.

isn't it funny how Obama has his entire campaign focusing on the strange tech called the "interwebz" and he knows it's vital to connect to the younger generation. However now it's just not enough for Paul, he also needs phone solicitors and tv ads and a big ole bus tour right?... Strange eh?

[Tombstone RJ]

Told ya

Hilarious!

[alkemical]

Hilarious!


I know what i speak of. I've seen this happen again and before. Sorry to burst your bubble. Most people's motivations to do anything doesn't exceed beyond hitting "like" on Facebook.

[Tombstone RJ]

I know what i speak of. I've seen this happen again and before. Sorry to burst your bubble. Most people's motivations to do anything doesn't exceed beyond hitting "like" on Facebook.

tell that to Obama

[That One Guy]

isn't it funny how Obama has his entire campaign focusing on the strange tech called the "interwebz" and he knows it's vital to connect to the younger generation. However now it's just not enough for Paul, he also needs phone solicitors and tv ads and a big ole bus tour right?... Strange eh?

Obama has captured people with substance-free but well delivered speeches, the fact that he's a successful black politician, etc. Paul currently isn't capturing attention the same. We can all complain about the unfairness of it but it wont get Paul elected. Grassroots has to, at some point, go mainstream or you're just not gonna get the numbers and name recognition that you need.

[Tombstone RJ]

Obama has captured people with substance-free but well delivered speeches, the fact that he's a successful black politician, etc. Paul currently isn't capturing attention the same. We can all complain about the unfairness of it but it wont get Paul elected. Grassroots has to, at some point, go mainstream or you're just not gonna get the numbers and name recognition that you need.

I agee, BO is a great campaigner and nothing else. I'll admit that Paul has to up the ante in his overall campaign in order to go head to head with the other talking heads (pun intended). That being said, he's got to do it carefully & tactfully. He's obviously not a media favorite.

[Arkie]

Ron Paul never was a soundbite guy. He's not a very polished politician. He lost his first congressional election and then barely won the next time, then his support kept growing because of his substance over style. Obama, on the other hand, was a rock star in 2008 with all show and no substance.

[That One Guy]

Ron Paul never was a soundbite guy. He's not a very polished politician. He lost his first congressional election and then barely won the next time, then his support kept growing because of his substance over style. Obama, on the other hand, was a rock star in 2008 with all show and no substance.

It is the system and just the way the system works. He realized it enough to not run again for pres as a libertarian but he needs to keep working the system if he actually wants to succeed.

[alkemical]

you have validated everything i've said.

:kudos:

[Arkie]

Fox News Poll: You decide (unless we don't like your decision)

Here's a screenshot of the poll they took down.

http://static.prisonplanet.com/p/images/september2011/230911debate.jpg

[mhgaffney]

Good to see Ron Paul won it.

Did he talk about auditing the fed?

It's the ONLY issue -- that matters at this point.

[Rohirrim]

Good to see Ron Paul won it.

Did he talk about auditing the fed?

It's the ONLY issue -- that matters at this point.

Wrong again. The most important issue in America is campaign financing and money in the political system. When it costs a billion dollars to run for the presidency, only billionaires will be president.

[mhgaffney]

You will never get campaign finance reform until we open Pandora's box and the people see how corrupt the system is.

End of story. You are wasting your time.

But this is typical of you, Ro. You always run away from the really important stuff.

[Rohirrim]

You will never get campaign finance reform until we open Pandora's box and the people see how corrupt the system is.

End of story. You are wasting your time.

But this is typical of you, Ro. You always run away from the really important stuff.

Important stuff? Like what, nano thermite? Campaign finance reform is the Pandora's box. Everything else, including solutions to the problems with the central bank, are secondary diseases to that first infection.

[That One Guy]

You will never get campaign finance reform until we open Pandora's box and the people see how corrupt the system is.

End of story. You are wasting your time.

But this is typical of you, Ro. You always run away from the really important stuff.

LOL

Gaff telling someone they're wasting their time on a political cause?

[Arkie]

Good to see Ron Paul won it.

Did he talk about auditing the fed?

It's the ONLY issue -- that matters at this point.

He never really got the chance, but he did say we have to "deal with the Fed." Not surprisingly, the moderators only let RP speak 5 times (the 2nd least among all 9 candidates), but he still won hands down.

[mhgaffney]

Important stuff? Like what, nano thermite? Campaign finance reform is the Pandora's box. Everything else, including solutions to the problems with the central bank, are secondary diseases to that first infection.

You mouth platitudes and then top it off with ridicule. It gets sooo old.

Try wrapping your pea brain around this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&feature=player_embedded

[Obushma]

Ron Paul on Daily Show again last night 9/26. 3 parts

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='512' height='340'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-26-2011/exclusive---ron-paul-extended-interview-pt--1'>Exclusive - Ron Paul Extended Interview Pt. 1</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:512px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:397934' width='512' height='288' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>


<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='512' height='340'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-26-2011/exclusive---ron-paul-extended-interview-pt--2'>Exclusive - Ron Paul Extended Interview Pt. 2</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:512px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:397935' width='512' height='288' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='512' height='340'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-26-2011/exclusive---ron-paul-extended-interview-pt--3'>Exclusive - Ron Paul Extended Interview Pt. 3</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:512px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:397936' width='512' height='288' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

[Obushma]

Bump for those who didnt watch the videos.

No One but Paul in 2012, Obama or Paul republicans, have your choice.

[Rohirrim]

I thought Jon Stewart got the better of the conversation. When you look at Ron Paul with a critical eye he is simply saying that he believes an idealized system which has never been tried (libertarianism and libertarian conceived free markets) will pretty much solve all our problems. That is simply utopianism, as Jon tried to gently point out.

Also, buried underneath all of Paul's attacks on our present government's inability to confront our modern problems is the real truth; It is not the government at fault. It is the fact that our government has been bought off by special interests. So, attacking the government is to go after the straw man. The real enemy is the ability of special interests to buy influence and control policy and government. Every government in history faces that challenge, as would any future libertarian, utopian society. Man is corrupt. Regardless of the system, there are those who try to manipulate the system for their own ends.

If the people are to have a government that is intent upon representing the will of the people, they must do what it takes to protect that government. As Eisenhower put it, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." And now, it's not only the military/industrial complex, but global corporatists with the power and wealth of countries.

[Obushma]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QhmF7sNlraU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[mosca]

pretty basic ad. hopefully the simple message gets through to the masses.

[Arkie]

Ron Paul claims to have over 100,000 donors. We'll find out later this month from the Federal Election Commission. Rick Perry has only 20,000+ donors.

[Arkie]

The establishment and media ignored Ron Paul again. The big news was Perry’s pastor dissing Romney’s faith, and not many knew about Ron Paul’s big win. He finished with 37% vote, more than 14% more than his closest rival, Herman Cain.

The establishment is scared. They know that polls have shown RP within striking distance of first place for the nomination and show him defeating Obama in a head-to-head matchup.

Last quarter, Ron Paul raised $8 million from over 100,000 different individuals for his presidential campaign. That's flat-out incredible with the media still doing everything they can to virtually censor RP's message. That's more than five times the number of donors for Perry's campaign.

Rick Perry and Mitt Romney have been raising money hand-over-fist from their pals on Wall Street and their big bankster buddies.

Of course, Ron Paul isn't going to be getting any fat checks from Wall Street fat cats any time soon.

http://www.ronpaul.com/images/BlackThisOut.png

[Rohirrim]

Ron Paul will always win straw polls, but never a general election. His rabid supporters flood the primary venues and cast their votes, but they don't have the numbers when it comes to the real deal. He'll never get the nomination.

[mosca]

Everyone knows that these political races rely on momentum. The guy who one day is the favorite suddenly finds himself in last place. And it's easy to see that the mainstream media and powers-that-be are doing whatever they can to stifle any of Ron Paul's momentum.

Guaranteed - if Romney or Perry were to win as many straw polls as Ron Paul, the media would laud it as a major shift in momentum and allow that candidate to use it as means to propel themselves to victory.

[Arkie]

Ron Paul will always win straw polls, but never a general election. His rabid supporters flood the primary venues and cast their votes, but they don't have the numbers when it comes to the real deal. He'll never get the nomination.

His support keeps growing. His 3rd quarter donations topped his 2nd quarter donations. Obama couldn't do that. Neither could Romney and Perry. Those three frauds are not making very many people excited. We've seen their act for too long.

It would be totally different if the media backed Paul.

[alkemical]

His support keeps growing. His 3rd quarter donations topped his 2nd quarter donations. Obama couldn't do that. Neither could Romney and Perry. Those three frauds are not making very many people excited. We've seen their act for too long.

It would be totally different if the media backed Paul.

"The Media" is given some label as they are somewhat powerful. What could be done to help "push" Ron Paul?

Are you evangelizing for him locally? Are you in contact with his election office (etc?)? Maybe there some information they could send you that you could use to help "be the media".

One of the important things is just finding the right channel to put the information into.

I don't want this to come across as any sort of "attacking" post - I just am curious as to what or how you can build support for Ron Paul.

[Arkie]

"The Media" is given some label as they are somewhat powerful. What could be done to help "push" Ron Paul?

Are you evangelizing for him locally? Are you in contact with his election office (etc?)? Maybe there some information they could send you that you could use to help "be the media".

One of the important things is just finding the right channel to put the information into.

I don't want this to come across as any sort of "attacking" post - I just am curious as to what or how you can build support for Ron Paul.

People who know me know I support Ron Paul, but I live in a small town of 600 people. The grassroots campaign has done a good creative job to find other ways to spread his message without the help of "The Media." The money bombs have been successful. The average person donates $80 to Ron Paul. That's a lot of donations to reach $8 million! The other candidates get the maximum donation (is it $5000?) from special interests and corporations. The other candidates may have the powerful establishment and media on their side, but Ron Paul has the blimp! How can you censor a blimp? The people are creative. :approve:

http://wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/ron-paul-blimp.jpg

[Tombstone RJ]

Everyone needs to vote for Ron Paul!! He's the real candidate of change.

--you want our troops to be brought home, vote RP.

--you want the Federal Reserve to be investigated, vote RP.

--you want Wall Street criminals to be brought to justice, vote RP.

--you want the dollar to be converted back to the gold standard, vote RP

--you want the deficite to be addressed, vote RP

--you want jobs created in America via manufacturing, vote RP

--you want the states to decide to legalize marijuana, vote RP

--you want a president who flips of the lobbiests and special interests, vote RP

--you want freedom of religion, vote RP

--you want the plutocracy kicked out of DC, vote RP

I could go on but what's the point. You either get it or you don't.

[Rohirrim]

- you want the Congress to do absolutely nothing because they're owned by the plutocrats?

Vote for anybody you want.

[Tombstone RJ]

- you want the Congress to do absolutely nothing because they're owned by the plutocrats?

Vote for anybody you want.

congress are lemmings for sure. It's funny that the new members of congress (Tea Party people) who are actually standing firm in what they want (bigger deficit cuts) are lambasted by the media.

A true leader in the white house can "lead" congress too.

[Obushma]

Ron Paul to propose $1T in specific budget cuts

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66114.html#ixzz1b2aMmbbo


Ron Paul’s opinions about cutting the budget are well-known, but on Monday, he’ll get specific: the Texas congressman will lay out a budget blueprint for deep and far-reaching cuts to federal spending, including the elimination of five cabinet-level departments and the drawdown of American troops fighting overseas.

There will even be a symbolic readjustment of the president’s own salary to put it in line with the average American salary.

During an afternoon speech in Las Vegas ahead of Tuesday’s debate, Paul will say that his plan for $1 trillion in cuts will create a balanced federal budget by the third year of his presidency.

“Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a plan to cut spending and truly balance the budget,” says an executive summary of the plan, which POLITICO obtained, along with detailed spending and taxation levels, ahead of its release. “This is the only plan that will deliver what America needs in these difficult times: Major regulatory relief, large spending cuts, sound monetary policy, and a balanced budget.”

Many of the ideas are familiar from Paul’s staunch libertarianism, as well as tea party favorites like eliminating the departments of education and energy. But Paul goes further: he’ll propose immediately freezing spending by numerous government agencies at 2006 levels, the last time Republicans had complete control of the federal budget, and drastically reducing spending elsewhere. The EPA would see a 30 percent cut, the Food and Drug Administration would see one of 40 percent and foreign aid would be zeroed out immediately. He’d also take an ax to Pentagon funding for wars.

Medicaid, the children’s health insurance program, food stamps, family support programs and the children’s nutrition program would all be block-granted to the states and removed from the mandatory spending column of the federal budget. Some functions of eliminated departments, such as Pell Grants, would be continued elsewhere in the federal bureaucracy.

And in a noticeable nod to seniors during an election year when Social Security’s become an issue within the Republican primary, the campaign says that plan “honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out.”

The federal workforce would be reduced by 10 percent, and the president’s pay would be cut to $39,336 — a level that the Paul document notes is “approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.”

Paul would also make far-reaching changes to federal tax policy, reducing the top corporate income tax rate to 15 percent, eliminating capital gains and dividends taxes, and allowing for repatriation of overseas capital without tax penalties. All Bush-era tax cuts would be extended.

And like the rest of his GOP rivals, Paul would repeal President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, along with the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform law enacted last year. Paul, a longtime Federal Reserve critic, would also push a full audit of the central bank, as well as legislation to “strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.”

[Rohirrim]

How does he feel about the child labor laws? Is he throwing those out too?

[Tombstone RJ]

How does he feel about the child labor laws? Is he throwing those out too?

oh puhleeeze. The DC ineptitude of the last 40 years has forced these issues and RP is the leader that America needs.

[Taco John]

How does he feel about the child labor laws? Is he throwing those out too?

Have you heard him say that he wants to throw out child labor laws or something?

[Rohirrim]

It's pure silliness. I gave it the respect it deserves.

[Taco John]

It's pure silliness. I gave it the respect it deserves.

So.... no.

[Rohirrim]

If Ron Paul was actually elected president (let's just imagine for a moment) and was able to (miraculously) implement such draconian cuts, this country would spiral into the ground like a burning zeppelin.

Just picking out a single element of this plan. Getting rid of education and energy. Education is our future. That is a core, national security issue for America. What, we should leave it to home-schooling? Energy is one the biggest issues facing America and the rest of the world. So, we shouldn't elevate it to cabinet level concern for the president?

[Rohirrim]

Besides, I don't see why people even care about the "size" of government. We are a large and powerful country. We should have a large and powerful government. I'm more concerned with who is in charge of it than I am about its size.

[Rohirrim]

Here's the irony: In the kind of world I'm talking about, where there are no lobbyists walking up and down the halls of Congress handing out checks, campaigns are publicly funded, and corporations are not people, Paul's ideas would get a fair hearing. But since he is a man of principle, and unwilling to compromise his principles, the corporate bosses in government and media will not give him a snowball's chance in hell at the presidency. You can't be selected unless you show that you are willing to be bought.

[alkemical]

That's the whole paradox of it, and one reason that feeds my pessimistic side.

[Tombstone RJ]

Besides, I don't see why people even care about the "size" of government. We are a large and powerful country. We should have a large and powerful government. I'm more concerned with who is in charge of it than I am about its size.

It's not the size, its the intrusiveness. Everyone acknowleged we need the fed gov, what we don't acknowledge is how intrusive it has become. We need it yes, but how it operates is what we are duscussing here.

[Tombstone RJ]

Here's the irony: In the kind of world I'm talking about, where there are no lobbyists walking up and down the halls of Congress handing out checks, campaigns are publicly funded, and corporations are not people, Paul's ideas would get a fair hearing. But since he is a man of principle, and unwilling to compromise his principles, the corporate bosses in government and media will not give him a snowball's chance in hell at the presidency. You can't be selected unless you show that you are willing to be bought.

you may be right, but that doesn't change the fact that he's the best candidate for the job.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's not the size, its the intrusiveness. Everyone acknowleged we need the fed gov, what we don't acknowledge is how intrusive it has become. We need it yes, but how it operates is what we are duscussing here.

Under Bush and the GOP, the government became exponentially more intrusive.

But I'm more concerned with government's failure to reign in the greedy pirates who reduced our economy to rubble.

[Rohirrim]

you may be right, but that doesn't change the fact that he's the best candidate for the job.

I'll be voting for Bernie Sanders. We don't need a new government. We just need to fix the one we've got.

[BABronco]

Besides, I don't see why people even care about the "size" of government. We are a large and powerful country. We should have a large and powerful government. I'm more concerned with who is in charge of it than I am about its size.

Whats the saying? A government big enough to give you everything you need is also big enough to take everything you have.

[Tombstone RJ]

I'll be voting for Bernie Sanders. We don't need a new government. We just need to fix the one we've got.

exactly, and this is why RP is needed.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'll be voting for Bernie Sanders. We don't need a new government. We just need to fix the one we've got.

+1 for Sanders.

[Meck77]

The plan in detail.

http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf

[alkemical]

A Ron Paul Economy

Posted by majestic on October 18, 2011

Ron PaulWhat would a Ron Paul economy look like? Suzy Khimm connects the dots for the Washington Post:

Ever wonder what Ron Paul’s America would look like? Then read the budget outline that Paul released as part of his 2012 presidential bid. It promises to cut $1 trillion during his first year in office, balance the budget by 2015, withdraw us from all foreign wars and eliminate five Cabinet-level agencies in the process. Economists across the political spectrum say the impact of such drastic government spending cuts would be majorly disruptive and harmful to the economy in the short term.

“At the scale he’s talking about, it’s unlikely you could have an immediate reduction in government without hurtling the economy into recession,” says Kevin Hassett, economic policy director for the American Enterprise Institute and chief economic adviser to John McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign. Hassett maintains that Paul’s plan for a limited government “would be really positive” in the long run. But he also believes that there would be better means to achieving that end. “I think that you could achieve his long-run objectives with less short-run disruptions,” he concludes.

By reducing the deficit from more than $1 trillion to $300 billion in just a year, Paul’s plan would upend the economy at a time when it’s already fragile, says Gus Faucher, director of macroeconomics for Moody’s Analytics. “That much deficit reduction in one year is going to be a huge drag on the economy . . . the reduction in spending is much greater than cuts in taxes,” says Faucher. “We’re seeing that impact in Europe right now, where severe fiscal austerity has caused big problems for the European economy.” While long-term deficit reduction is important, legislators need to make sure that the economy is strong before major cuts take effect, he adds, calling Paul’s plan “much more ambitious” than other Republican proposals to date…

http://www.disinfo.com/2011/10/a-ron-paul-economy/

[Tombstone RJ]

The plan in detail.

http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf

this is great stuff, thanks!

[Arkie]

I'm starting a thread just for Mr. Ron Paul. We know the mainstream media isn't going to cover his election but by-god, we are! So, I encourage everyone here to post links to Paul's campaign for the presidency and to post information about his political position on things like the economy and foreign policy.

I've liked RP for a long time as he was a Libertarian first, and then he joined the GOP because he knew it was the only way for him to have a platform on which to speak his mind. Sad, but that's the way DC works. At heart, he's a Libertarian and IMHO, this is what DC needs--a true independent thinker.

I don't know how far his campaign will go, I can only hope that the GOP will promote his campaign and give him an honest chance at being the GOP nominee for the presidency.

You want real substance on the only realistic plan to restore America:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EIAVKUqeuQw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

From the man who never flip flops and is always right:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7J2ATkTYOHU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Promises and lies are not enough to restore America. Words are cheap, but proof is in the pudding. The second video compares RP's record with some positions the establishment (Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry) would probably rather you didn't know about.

Here is a link to the column Herman Cain wrote in October 2008 in defense of the bailouts.

Bailouts Are a Win-Win for Taxpayers. (http://004eeb5.netsolhost.com/hc133.htm)