ron paul's candidacy suddenly explained.

[First]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: loki8481
I wondered why he pushed his 4% brigade so far, and I figured it was ego... suddenly, it's all making a lot more sense:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...8220601&pf_rd_i=507846

Ron Paul pushed nothing. He didn't go looking for support. His support went looking for him.

I challenge anyone to find a Congressman as honest, with as much integrity, and as much respect for the the Constitution, the rule of law, and American freedoms and liberties.

if we could only add *practical* to the mix, i'd vote for him
- he lacks big time

Practical? You mean like invading Iraq? Or how about borrowing $3 billion a day from foreign countries? SS and Medicare entitlements that will be paid for by our great-great grandchildren?

No, practical as in not pretending that it is anywhere near realistic to abolish income taxes, the IRS, FBI, and CIA. Stop pretending that the U.S. economy and inflation is getting out of hand when neither is true. Stop pretending you don't partially agree with conspiracy theorists when you give several dozen interviews to Alex Jones. And most of all, stop pretending evolution isn't real.

That kind of practical.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Wearing libertarian garb but a Federalist at heart.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: loki8481
I wondered why he pushed his 4% brigade so far, and I figured it was ego... suddenly, it's all making a lot more sense:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...8220601&pf_rd_i=507846

Ron Paul pushed nothing. He didn't go looking for support. His support went looking for him.

I challenge anyone to find a Congressman as honest, with as much integrity, and as much respect for the the Constitution, the rule of law, and American freedoms and liberties.

if we could only add *practical* to the mix, i'd vote for him
- he lacks big time

Practical? You mean like invading Iraq? Or how about borrowing $3 billion a day from foreign countries? SS and Medicare entitlements that will be paid for by our great-great grandchildren?

No, practical as in not pretending that it is anywhere near realistic to abolish income taxes, the IRS, FBI, and CIA. Stop pretending that the U.S. economy and inflation is getting out of hand when neither is true. Stop pretending you don't partially agree with conspiracy theorists when you give several dozen interviews to Alex Jones. And most of all, stop pretending evolution isn't real.

That kind of practical.

Paul stated during a Republican debate even that we would need to change our ideas about what government aught to be in order to get rid of the IRS. The idea is not as unrealistic as many make it out to be. Only about 35% of our federal government's revenue comes from personal income taxes, which really brings into account how much money it spends. And while we MAY not face an immediate financial crisis, the head of the GAO is traveling the country telling people of a coming "fiscal cancer" that Congress and the administration refuse to listen to, while piling more fuel on the fire. I was unaware that Paul did any interviews with Alex Jones, I don't follow him.

Paul has his faults. He's not a leader, and he's not a great speaker either. A few of his ideas are unrealistic and/or plain over-the-line. But people supported him because both parties are moving in the wrong direction, individual rights are being threatened, the country has become more isolated from the rest of the world due to a failed foreign policy. Iraq is a mess, in more ways than I care to go into. Our deficit is climbing, and future entitlements are about to make it even worse.

People keep saying that they like some of his ideas, then vote for someone else who won't take up those ideas. The failed War on Drugs is a perfect example.

I don't even know why Paul threads are still popping up. The last 6 or so have all been started by Hillary supporters, I guess the self-hate is trying to infect the happy.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: loki8481
I wondered why he pushed his 4% brigade so far, and I figured it was ego... suddenly, it's all making a lot more sense:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...8220601&pf_rd_i=507846

Ron Paul pushed nothing. He didn't go looking for support. His support went looking for him.

I challenge anyone to find a Congressman as honest, with as much integrity, and as much respect for the the Constitution, the rule of law, and American freedoms and liberties.

if we could only add *practical* to the mix, i'd vote for him
- he lacks big time

Practical? You mean like invading Iraq? Or how about borrowing $3 billion a day from foreign countries? SS and Medicare entitlements that will be paid for by our great-great grandchildren?

No, practical as in not pretending that it is anywhere near realistic to abolish income taxes, the IRS

Its as realistic as believing it should be abolished. Allowing it to continue means you are ok with Congress spending us into oblivion. If you want Congress to spend less money, stop giving it money to spend.

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
FBI, and CIA.

We have both organizations and yet we still had 9/11 and yet we still somehow managed to go to war with Iraq. These organizations have consistently been infiltrated and corrupt Ron Paul wants to abolish these beaucratic organizations in favor of leaving intelligence gathering to the military where it'd assumably be more efficient and less prone to political corruption.

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Stop pretending that the U.S. economy and inflation is getting out of hand when neither is true.

When members of the Fed themselves admit possibilities of a severe economic recession will you agree that there is some validity to that statement, or are they liars too?

Either Ron Paul is completely impractical or you can't accept the possibility of a different perspective.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: loki8481
I wondered why he pushed his 4% brigade so far, and I figured it was ego... suddenly, it's all making a lot more sense:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...8220601&pf_rd_i=507846

Ron Paul pushed nothing. He didn't go looking for support. His support went looking for him.

I challenge anyone to find a Congressman as honest, with as much integrity, and as much respect for the the Constitution, the rule of law, and American freedoms and liberties.

if we could only add *practical* to the mix, i'd vote for him
- he lacks big time

Practical? You mean like invading Iraq? Or how about borrowing $3 billion a day from foreign countries? SS and Medicare entitlements that will be paid for by our great-great grandchildren?

nope .. none if what you picked ,, and nothing the other cool posters added before i could reply

*practical* as in ELECTABLE

he is not going to be Elected President in 08 [period]

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I wondered why he pushed his 4% brigade so far, and I figured it was ego... suddenly, it's all making a lot more sense:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...8220601&pf_rd_i=507846

Actually grassroots is when you don't push your supporters and they still contribute to your cause and support you. Ron Paul didn't ask for organized money bombs.

Obama makes tons of money off his books and popularity too. Omg, his true intentions have been revealed!

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: apoppin
he is not going to be Elected President in 08 [period]

No shit? :Q

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: apoppin
he is not going to be Elected President in 08 [period]

No shit? :Q

dig deeper!

Clearly this makes his campaign and everything else about him "impractical" .. --his "supporters" might as well write "Jesus" in on the ballot for all the difference it will really make.

 

[BansheeX]

The insinuation that Paul is in this race to make a profit just proves how dirt stupid some people here are. Does the candidate you support donate a portion of his pay to the treasury every year? Have they always voted for a balanced budget? Did they put up some of their own money to pay for Rosa Parks' $50000 medal when Paul voted against taxpayer funding for it? Have they been doing it their whole life without fail? Or do they just go around spending other people's money like it's no tomorrow and promising you endless welfare goodies that can't possibly be sustained? That's what I thought.

And don't even bother arguing with Evan, he just snaps back with defeatist nonsense about what is "realistic" without really explaining why it's impossible to get rid of those ABC agencies. Kind of self-fulfilling, isn't it Evan? The income tax is a stupid direct transfer from production to the government that does nothing to stimulate the economy en route. Not only that, it spawns a wasteful ABC agency (IRS) in order to be collected. You could do away with the income tax or a VAT alternative completely and still have the same revenue as ten years ago. They can't audit everyone, so they complicate and intimidate instead. The CIA should be rolled into the military and gather intelligence rather than this cloak and dagger crap they've been pulling all these years with Bin Laden and Iran and so forth going all the way back to its inception. The FBI... what exactly do they do that the states can't? How goes their endless trillion dollar war against drugs and the supply side? :/

 

[TallPilot]

Originally posted by: Farang
I hate how Libertarians think they've stumbled upon some secret we're all too dumb to understand, how they're revolutionaries, and how they hold the only legitimate point of view.

You don't like the truth?

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Paul has his faults. He's not a leader, and he's not a great speaker either.

Please don't take this as a flame, beacuse it's not intended that way. Why would you vote for a person as leader of this country that you freely admit is "not a leader"?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: bamacre

Paul has his faults. He's not a leader, and he's not a great speaker either.

Please don't take this as a flame, because it's not intended that way. Why would you vote for a person as leader of this country that you freely admit is "not a leader"?

So that the two parties can, hopefully, better see how far away they are from, well, sanity really. It's not like he ever had a real shot, we've all seen the numbers. It's the ideas, its the messages of fiscal responsibility, a more sane foreign policy, and more respect for our Bill of Rights, that need to be supported, and merged back into the two parties we have.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
It seems like pretty much anyone who votes for the Republicans likes and supports whatever war the US is involved in. For that reason alone, Ron Paul should have run either as an independant or as a Democrat. I'm pretty sure all of the wars the US has been involved in have been spearheaded by a Republican president over the past 30 years or so (Vietnam plus Iraq x 2, perhaps others).

Umm you need a history book or maybe an internet connection. :disgust:

JFK and Johnson remember those two guys? Johnson Was President during the Gulf of Tokin fiasco though.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: bamacre

Paul has his faults. He's not a leader, and he's not a great speaker either.

Please don't take this as a flame, because it's not intended that way. Why would you vote for a person as leader of this country that you freely admit is "not a leader"?

So that the two parties can, hopefully, better see how far away they are from, well, sanity really. It's not like he ever had a real shot, we've all seen the numbers. It's the ideas, its the messages of fiscal responsibility, a more sane foreign policy, and more respect for our Bill of Rights, that need to be supported, and merged back into the two parties we have.

While I can understand that, why would either of the two main parties listen to the proposed policies that are projected by a minimal amount of votes? I think you're assuming that either party really listens to the populace.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: bamacre

Paul has his faults. He's not a leader, and he's not a great speaker either.

Please don't take this as a flame, because it's not intended that way. Why would you vote for a person as leader of this country that you freely admit is "not a leader"?

So that the two parties can, hopefully, better see how far away they are from, well, sanity really. It's not like he ever had a real shot, we've all seen the numbers. It's the ideas, its the messages of fiscal responsibility, a more sane foreign policy, and more respect for our Bill of Rights, that need to be supported, and merged back into the two parties we have.

While I can understand that, why would either of the two main parties listen to the proposed policies that are projected by a minimal amount of votes? I think you're assuming that either party really listens to the populace.

Well, I had hoped his numbers would have been a little higher.

I dunno, what other choice did I have?

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: bamacre

Paul has his faults. He's not a leader, and he's not a great speaker either.

Please don't take this as a flame, beacuse it's not intended that way. Why would you vote for a person as leader of this country that you freely admit is "not a leader"?

And that's part of the problem. They are NOT leaders. Congress folk and the President are representatives. They are elected to serve the interest of those they represent. Not lead them.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: bamacre

Paul has his faults. He's not a leader, and he's not a great speaker either.

Please don't take this as a flame, because it's not intended that way. Why would you vote for a person as leader of this country that you freely admit is "not a leader"?

So that the two parties can, hopefully, better see how far away they are from, well, sanity really. It's not like he ever had a real shot, we've all seen the numbers. It's the ideas, its the messages of fiscal responsibility, a more sane foreign policy, and more respect for our Bill of Rights, that need to be supported, and merged back into the two parties we have.

While I can understand that, why would either of the two main parties listen to the proposed policies that are projected by a minimal amount of votes? I think you're assuming that either party really listens to the populace.

Well, I had hoped his numbers would have been a little higher.

I dunno, what other choice did I have?

Good question. Wish I knew the answer.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: bamacre

Paul has his faults. He's not a leader, and he's not a great speaker either.

Please don't take this as a flame, beacuse it's not intended that way. Why would you vote for a person as leader of this country that you freely admit is "not a leader"?

And that's part of the problem. They are NOT leaders. Congress folk and the President are representatives. They are elected to serve the interest of those they represent. Not lead them.

If we were a true democracy, that would be the case. We aren't, though, and we elect our representatives to make some decisions, and in the process, lead. If we hade nation-wide our district-wide votes on every single topic that they're making decisions on, we would have leaders, but we don't.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Its as realistic as believing it should be abolished. Allowing it to continue means you are ok with Congress spending us into oblivion. If you want Congress to spend less money, stop giving it money to spend.

Governments throughout history have, more or less, proven to be inherently poor at managing money and time. They aren't private institutions that thrive on competition. Hopefully that changes someday. In the meantime, it is utterly absurd to think the IRS or income tax will be abolished when vital healthcare programs (Medicare/caid), national security programs (DoD), and economic institutions (Fed) depend on its revenues. I'd like for gov't programs to be cut too, but economically it's impossible for a growing economy to sustain such a massive, immediate cut; local and municipal governments would be the first to suffer and suffer badly. A recession of epic proportions, perhaps even a significant multi-year bear market, would without a doubt rear its head. Purely from a financial point of view it would be suicide. A large, almost revolutionary sort of cut in taxes and gov't programs like that must be down very slowly and carefully for it to be successful, and even then you're talking about an event that just seems almost pie in the sky-ish from a practability perspective. Even Paul acknowledged that if he were president he wouldn't immediately cut these programs off.

We have both organizations and yet we still had 9/11 and yet we still somehow managed to go to war with Iraq. These organizations have consistently been infiltrated and corrupt Ron Paul wants to abolish these beaucratic organizations in favor of leaving intelligence gathering to the military where it'd assumably be more efficient and less prone to political corruption.

So the FBI and CIA have had episodes of corrupt agents and moles, yet the DoD hasn't? Seriously, pick up a book or something. The FBI and CIA have nothing on DoD corruption or infiltration. Both are extremely rare and minor to begin with, btw, in case you were confused. To use the logic that because 9/11 happened that we should abolish the CIA and FBI is also, btw, elementary logic of the worst kind. I suppose we should also abolish police since they sometimes are corrupt and sometimes completely fail at their jobs. I'm sure crime would go way down after that. This is sarcasm, in case you didn't get it.

When members of the Fed themselves admit possibilities of a severe economic recession will you agree that there is some validity to that statement, or are they liars too?

For one, a prolonged and severe downturn has many levels of definition, and it's nowhere near the way Paul has characterized the economy, which he has spoken of as wholly misguided, headed toward massive inflation and devaluation of the dollar, and just in utter chaos period. That has been nowhere near the case since about 2003, when it still wasn't anywhere near the case. Only in the last few months has the credit crunch really affected the rest of the economy poorly, and the fact that we're likely in a recession certainly is nowhere near the doomsday garbage Paul has spouted far too often for my taste. He obviously means well, he's just dead wrong here. And secondly, I mentioned inflation too, and Bernanke isn't worried about that, merely cautious as the Fed always should be about prices and the money supply. Inflation is still at all-time historical lows going on a quarter century straight, uninterrupted save for a slight hike near 5% in 88. All on paper currency with no commodity backing it. Who woulda thunk!

Either Ron Paul is completely impractical or you can't accept the possibility of a different perspective.

He is completely impractical on some major issues, there's no denying it.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Paul stated during a Republican debate even that we would need to change our ideas about what government aught to be in order to get rid of the IRS. The idea is not as unrealistic as many make it out to be. Only about 35% of our federal government's revenue comes from personal income taxes, which really brings into account how much money it spends. And while we MAY not face an immediate financial crisis, the head of the GAO is traveling the country telling people of a coming "fiscal cancer" that Congress and the administration refuse to listen to, while piling more fuel on the fire. I was unaware that Paul did any interviews with Alex Jones, I don't follow him.

What the former GOA head says is well known in every corner of Congress. They're under no illusion that the spending can't continue. There is no reason to believe Congress will bankrupt the country, 200 years of history suggest it's not likely. And pretending that taking away 35% of government isn't absolutely monstrous is, well, just naive. That is a massive sum of money.

Paul has his faults. He's not a leader, and he's not a great speaker either. A few of his ideas are unrealistic and/or plain over-the-line. But people supported him because both parties are moving in the wrong direction, individual rights are being threatened, the country has become more isolated from the rest of the world due to a failed foreign policy. Iraq is a mess, in more ways than I care to go into. Our deficit is climbing, and future entitlements are about to make it even worse.

The deficit is not an incurable problem, they're merely the policies of a terribly inept administration, who will be gone within months. As will Iraq if a Dem is nominated. I honestly wouldn't worry too much about either, especially if Clinton doesn't win.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Wearing libertarian garb but a Federalist at heart.

Towing party lines is for those with no independent thought.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
What the former GOA head says is well known in every corner of Congress. They're under no illusion that the spending can't continue. There is no reason to believe Congress will bankrupt the country, 200 years of history suggest it's not likely.

Why the fuck do you think he quit the job? Where will he work now?

Congress hasn't blinked. They have continued to spend money like its growing on trees. Look at the promises from the three remaining candidates, continuation of a war we can't afford. "Free" health care for the masses.

The deficit is not an incurable problem, they're merely the policies of a terribly inept administration, who will be gone within months. As will Iraq if a Dem is nominated. I honestly wouldn't worry too much about either, especially if Clinton doesn't win.

You're right. It is not an incurable problem. But they aren't trying to resolve it. They keep piling more on top of it. And don't try to blame it all on Bush either, that's a load of shit. The Democrats in Congress have supported Bush in all his spending sprees. Doubling the size of the Dept of Education, $3 trillion war in Iraq, and the Medicare Prescription Drug plan, too. The Dem's were all there with their "yes" votes. So don't come in here and act like the Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility, and will save us from this fiscal nightmare that is heading our way. What a fucking joke.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Wearing libertarian garb but a Federalist at heart.

Towing party lines is for those with no independent thought.

Independent thought? LOL

How ironic.

Let me know when you have YOUR OWN ideas instead of some regurgitated lessons you were taught in class.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Wearing libertarian garb but a Federalist at heart.

Towing party lines is for those with no independent thought.

Independent thought? LOL

How ironic.

Let me know when you have YOUR OWN ideas instead of some regurgitated lessons you were taught in class.

Ye-ah. Dem dere book learnin' of yers ain't no good 'round these parts. You needs to hear the true gospel, son! Head yer butt over to YouTube so you can really lern a dang thing or two!

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Wearing libertarian garb but a Federalist at heart.

Towing party lines is for those with no independent thought.

Independent thought? LOL

How ironic.

Let me know when you have YOUR OWN ideas instead of some regurgitated lessons you were taught in class.

Ye-ah. Dem dere book learnin' of yers ain't no good 'round these parts. You needs to hear the true gospel, son! Head yer butt over to YouTube so you can really lern a dang thing or two!

Trolling again I see. Anything to add or just the usual?