Ron Paul - Will Americans Support Him? [Archive] - Page 2

BillyTheMountain

2012-01-04, 03:38 AM

Since Ron Paul put his imprimatur on racist writings, is he attracting all the racist tea party people?

Wow! You're right! Look at this!

New Focus on Incendiary Words in Paul’s Newsletters
By JIM RUTENBERG and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
Published: December 19, 2011

Emerging as a real Republican contender in Iowa, Representative Ron Paul of Texas is receiving new focus for decades-old unbylined columns in his political newsletters that included racist, anti-gay and anti-Israel passages.

The latest issue of The Weekly Standard, a leading conservative publication, reprised reports of incendiary language in Mr. Paul’s newsletters that were published about 20 years ago.

A 1992 passage from the Ron Paul Political Report about the Los Angeles riots read, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” A passage in another newsletter asserted that people with AIDS should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva”; in 1990 one of his publications criticized Ronald Reagan for having gone along with the creation of the federal holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which it called “Hate Whitey Day.”

wobbling bear

2012-01-04, 07:58 AM

Freedom is so foreign to you, you clearly do not have a clue how a free society works.
ah! the magic of incantations :p the magic of words and exorcisms :p!
the magic of quotes :D : "Oh, Freedom! How many crimes have been committed in your name!" (Marie-Jeanne Roland)

wobbling bear

2012-01-04, 09:41 AM

Freedom is so foreign to you, you clearly do not have a clue how a free society works.
Oops I forgot: this year I accepted a big pay squeeze by resigning from a free private company and to start working for two government agencies (one in France and one in the US!). According to some theories this is ample proof that I have "fascist" tendencies :rolleyes:

Gilby

2012-01-04, 03:05 PM

Oops I forgot: this year I accepted a big pay squeeze by resigning from a free private company and to start working for two government agencies (one in France and one in the US!). According to some theories this is ample proof that I have "fascist" tendencies :rolleyes:

Why did you take a pay squeeze? Public sector employees in the US make 44% than private sector employees. As Washington takes over everything like a blackhole, public sector jobs are all that's going to be left, so getting a public sector job may be required for survival.

I'll let you speak for your own fascist tendencies. Government employees tend to support Ron Paul. FEC data shows that Ron Paul received more donations from federal workers and contractors than any other gop candidate. Compare that to Romney, who's donations are dominated by bankers.

Gilby

2012-01-04, 03:06 PM

"Oh, Freedom! How many crimes have been committed in your name!" (Marie-Jeanne Roland)

Those crimes being committed by the lawlessness that is government.

wobbling bear

2012-01-04, 04:10 PM

Why did you take a pay squeeze? Public sector employees in the US make 44% than private sector employees.
just for my information : is that 44% more or less?
I accepted a pay squeeze because I thought the job interesting and because in our culture civil/civic service is in high regard; Contrary to popular belief I have absolutely no job guarantee and I must provide good service if I want to continue to work. So I am proud to work for both governments and I consider I am not even getting fat with your taxes.

Gilby

2012-01-04, 06:18 PM

just for my information : is that 44% more or less?

more

BillyTheMountain

2012-01-05, 12:29 AM

Why did you take a pay squeeze? Public sector employees in the US make 44% than private sector employees. As Washington takes over everything like a blackhole, public sector jobs are all that's going to be left, so getting a public sector job may be required for survival.

I'll let you speak for your own fascist tendencies. Government employees tend to support Ron Paul. FEC data shows that Ron Paul received more donations from federal workers and contractors than any other gop candidate. Compare that to Romney, who's donations are dominated by bankers.

If our soldiers earn 44% more than military contractors, and our government doctors get 44% more than doctors in private practice, and Ron Paul might dump their government jobs, why do they support him?

wobbling bear

2012-01-05, 08:38 AM

more
I am impressed!
Based on what my (part time) job costs to a US government agency it means that a (full time)senior software engineer in charge of design and implementation of a critical application costs 2800$ per month to a private company. I understand now why the US software industry is so competitive!

FEC data shows that Ron Paul received more donations from federal workers and contractors ....

admirable: it means that they are willing to get a big pay squeeze or get fired. Who said that civil servants had no notion of public good?!!!

BillyTheMountain

2012-01-05, 10:19 PM

Public sector employees in the US make 44% more than private sector employees.

No one really believes this. Check what computer analysts or code writers get paid by Citigroup or other private banking corporation, it's many times what the government pays them.

harper

2012-01-06, 12:48 AM

No one really believes this. Check what computer analysts or code writers get paid by Citigroup or other private banking corporation, it's many times what the government pays them.

After two administrations have ponied up $700 billion bailouts each I find it a stretch to call them a "private" banking corporation.

johnfoss

2012-01-06, 05:32 AM

After two administrations have ponied up $700 billion bailouts each I find it a stretch to call them a "private" banking corporation.No kidding. And the top programmers (or 'smart people') are going to command premium salaries no matter where they are.

Will Americans support Ron Paul? Probably not enough. I like many of his ideas, but others are major deal-breakers. Even the ones I like, unfortunately, would seem almost unbelievably hard to get past Congress in any case. I like that when I hear him speak, it seems very straight. Not weasely, not cautiously, not couched in key phrases, just his strong ideas, clear to see.

BillyTheMountain

2012-01-06, 06:15 AM

No kidding. And the top programmers (or 'smart people') are going to command premium salaries no matter where they are.

Will Americans support Ron Paul? Probably not enough. I like many of his ideas, but others are major deal-breakers. Even the ones I like, unfortunately, would seem almost unbelievably hard to get past Congress in any case. I like that when I hear him speak, it seems very straight. Not weasely, not cautiously, not couched in key phrases, just his strong ideas, clear to see.

Check the salaries of CEOs in the private sector vs those in government. Compare any mayor, governor, or president, prison warden, school principle, etc, to CEOs of private corporations of equal size (Is there any corporation the size of the USA?)

BillyTheMountain

2012-01-06, 06:15 AM

after two administrations have ponied up $700 billion bailouts each i find it a stretch to call them a "private" banking corporation.

;):d

harper

2012-01-06, 06:21 AM

Check the salaries of CEOs in the private sector vs those in government.

I thought OWS was supposed to "check" the salaries of CEOs in the private sector. That's what all these demonstrations are going to do, isn't it? Level the playing field?

BillyTheMountain

2012-01-06, 12:54 PM

I thought OWS was supposed to "check" the salaries of CEOs in the private sector. That's what all these demonstrations are going to do, isn't it? Level the playing field?

Defibnitely! One of their goals is that the CEO of WalMart, Citigroup, etc, make no more than Salary $400,000 annually, which is what the USA President gets.

CEO's 2011 salary (all were also given approx 3 - 5 times their salary in company stocks:
1 Stephen J Hemsley
UnitedHealth Group 101.965 million
-
2 Edward A Mueller
Qwest Communications 65.80 million

3 Robert A Iger
Walt Disney 53.32 million

4 George Paz
Express Scripts 51.52 million

5 Lew Frankfort
Coach 49.45 million

6 Ralph Lauren
Polo Ralph Lauren 43.00 million

7 John C Martin
Gilead Sciences 42.72 million

8 James T Hackett
Anadarko Petroleum 38.94 million

9 John T Chambers
Cisco Systems 37.90 million

10 Ivan G Seidenberg
Verizon Commun 36.75 million

feel the light

2012-01-06, 05:55 PM

We have progressed past straws a bit. Iowa, not historically a bell weather.

I say Mitt wins NH with Paul in a solid second.

Newly arisen butt wipe Sanatorum will find his time as "tied for front of the GOP by 8 votes", very brief, as gay legal marriage state NH thinks he's not a possible winner in Nov. Is it not obvious that voters love butt wipe S because he is not Mitt ? The plastic rich Mormon .... The "any butt wipe but Mitt the rich Mormon vote", will not just vanish.

I have Cartman on the phone. Waiit ! ....... Cartman says "the destucto machine the Mitt machine makes can kick Gingrich ass. Seriously.:) Cartman says to tell you all he loves you and everything he says is true because you are all really Kwele.

Oh, and Paul has a real chance now. Cartman's logic is that the heart of the republican party hates non Christians, (so maybe Mormons), getting power. Mmm Kay. And Mitt's unlimited PAC spending will gut Newt.

Paul will stand as the last man best able to stand against Obama. If this R primary season has shown us anything, it is that Mitt is a money bags Mormon man who plans to buy this thing. Resistance to this is strong, it is like they have shot down every non Mitt, and will be left with Paul. They have shot down every viable non Mitt.

To any Mormons reading this, I want to say we (the forum in general) love you all and this is not a "hating on Mormons " comment. In a political discussion in the USA , political prejudice based on religion is a given. Gonna happen. Mitt's rich but he's a Mormon. I predict this will work against his election, rightly or wrongly.

I look forward to hearing Paul debate Mitt on the costs of war. It will come down to the 2 of them.

I'm going to make pop corn for this one.

johnfoss

2012-01-07, 05:43 AM

Cartman says "the destucto machine the Mitt machine makes can kick Gingrich ass.While this may be true, you should look for a better source of political advice. I figure he would just look at the field and say "Screw you guys!"
In a political discussion in the USA , political prejudice based on religion is a given. Gonna happen.Yup. Doesn't mean we have to like it. Small-minded people fear what they don't understand. Different religions (even if they're mostly the same), different skin colors, people from different places. I've always believed that the things that make Americans different is also what makes us great.

BillyTheMountain

2012-01-07, 05:58 PM

Newly arisen butt wipe Sanatorum

2003 interview and Google bomb
In protest of the remarks, Dan Savage launched a contest among his readers in May 2003 to coin a new word "santorum" with an unflattering sexual definition, and followed this with a Google bombing campaign to spread the new term. Since 2004, the website Savage set up for the campaign has regularly been the top search result for Santorum's surname, leading to what commentators have dubbed "Santorum's Google problem".[74][75] Santorum has characterized the campaign as a "type of vulgarity" common on the Internet.[75] In September 2011, Santorum unsuccessfully requested that Google remove the content from its search engine index.[76]

It's still the first two Google search results for the name Santorum: Santorum
spreadingsantorum.com/
Santorum 1. The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. 2. Senator Rick Santorum.
676 people in New York, NY, USA +1'd this
Campaign for "santorum" neologism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism
In 2003, in response to comments by then-U.S. Senator Rick Santorum that were criticized as anti-gay by gay rights groups and some politicians, sex columnist ...

Gilby

2012-01-07, 08:59 PM

coin a new word "santorum" with an unflattering sexual definition

Why distract with stupid things like this... why not look at Santorum's record: Ron Paul Ad - Betrayal - YouTube

kamikaze

2012-01-08, 12:22 AM

28c3: A Brief History of Plutocracy - YouTubeKinda thought this fits in here.

BillyTheMountain

2012-01-08, 11:16 PM

Why distract with stupid things like this... why not look at Santorum's record: [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?

The fast talker ad man says Santorum sided with union bosses against workers :D and opposed the right to work act, an anti-labor act that allows the exploitation of workers and undermines unions. Siding with the Union is siding with workers. Small point.

johnfoss

2012-01-09, 03:01 AM

Siding with the Union is siding with workers. Small point.Around here, siding with the unions is siding with the unions. Unions fight vigorously for the interests of the unions, which are not necessarily the same as the interests of the workers the union represents.

Gilby

2012-01-09, 04:02 AM

Siding with the Union is siding with workers. Small point.

Forcing workers to be part of a union is hardly siding with the worker.

kamikaze

2012-01-09, 10:09 AM

Forcing workers to be part of a union is hardly siding with the worker.It might be the only way for them to enter a union without repressions from their employer.

johnfoss

2012-01-09, 02:43 PM

It might be the only way for them to enter a union without repressions from their employer.That's not the same thing either. Workers need to be protected from reprisals from joining a union, but if all workers are mandatory members, the union has less reason to follow the will of the workers rather than its own political course.

Nurse Ben

2012-01-09, 03:06 PM

I was bored, so I went and read some of RP's "stuff", and this one relaly got be thinking:

In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector.

Really? So I should see folks for free because they need medical care. Right, and gas stations are going to let you pump gas for free because you can't afford to pay.

Here's the thing about affordable health care:

As society has advanced, we have put our science to good use, developing medicine and medical procedures that improve and prolong life. But all those advances are expensive because the medicine and procedures were expensive to develop.

You wanna live longer, you gotta pay the price for these advances. No one is going to develop and provide advanced health care for free.

You want free health care, inexpensive health care, that's easy: don't buy insurance and don't go to the doctor. Will you die younger, sure, but that's how it goes when you don't get advanced health care.

What gets me most about guys like Ron Paul is that they get away with telling people what they want to hear, regardless of the truth behind the fiction. For instance, it's all great and fine to say that I think I shouldn't have to pay for my out of work neighbors health care since he's out of work and that's his problem. So then my mom calls and tells me she just lost her job and can I help her pay for her unisured medical bills. Then I lose my job...

Everyone wants to think that it's soooo easy to manage an economy, all you do it X. Hmmm, so easy that it should be fixed already, right?

The most amazing part is that people actually think we'd be better off without govt, as if the govt is the problem. Me thinks that "people" should travel and see what no govt has done for other countries, esp when it comes to the distribution of wealth.

Gilby

2012-01-09, 03:56 PM

Really? So I should see folks for free because they need medical care.

Are you saying that the historical example is factually wrong? Can you prove that is incorrect?

The most amazing part is that people actually think we'd be better off without govt, as if the govt is the problem. Me thinks that "people" should travel and see what no govt has done for other countries, esp when it comes to the distribution of wealth.

Which countries have no government that I should travel to?

Zzagg

2012-01-09, 04:02 PM

Which countries have no government that I should travel to?You should have travelled to Belgium last year, they've been government less for more than a year.
You missed the spot, "evil government" got his hands back on this country.
...
People were even asking for it, can you believe that?

wobbling bear

2012-01-09, 06:35 PM

Which countries have no government that I should travel to?
somalia! (well they have a "nominal" government but it won't bother you ....)
variants include Somaliland and Puntland (but curiously Somaliland seems well governed). Now various groups want also to create "government free" islands: but apparently they have not read Jules Verne who explained why such a dystopia may fall apart in "Propeller island" (1895)

JJuggle

2012-01-09, 06:39 PM

In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector.
Gilby, I do not own a copy of The Revolution: A Manifesto but I'm guessing you do. If you do, can you check whether or not Mr Paul provides any references or footnotes to supporting documentation that provides evidence for the claim that the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate before the government programs cited were enacted as now and that physicians provided free care with the understanding that it was their responsibility? Also, if so, what these references are? This would help us evaluate the truth of the claim.

Of course, you are free - as I'm sure you know - to tell us to go do our own research.

BillyTheMountain

2012-01-10, 12:41 AM

when hospitals reduce the number of nurses working a floor, the number of deaths on that floor increase.

DeadGuy

2012-01-10, 02:20 AM

when hospitals reduce the number of nurses working a floor, the number of deaths on that floor increase.
Tell me about it!

Gilby

2012-01-10, 04:36 AM

Ron Paul - War Propaganda - YouTube

Nurse Ben

2012-01-10, 05:58 PM

Are you saying that the historical example is factually wrong? Can you prove that is incorrect?

Do I also need to prove that the earth is round?

Use your head...it makes no sense, even the church has limits as to what they will do "for free".

Whether "lay people" want to admit it, medical institutions do not operate on a large margin, which is why many are public and not for profit. Though the commonly held belief that because medicine and medical care are expensive, therefore "someone is getting rich", this quite far from the truth.

Pharma ceutical compaines are laying off staff as profits thin and new medications are delayed and/or fail, things are worsened by lawsuits that result from medication side effects...

I work in outpatient psychiatry, we are part of a larger not for profit comprehensive medical group. At present our "division" is posting a five million dollar loss for 2011; this is ~20% of our net income. Fortunately the medical side of the group is profitable and so our losses are offset.

In terms of cutting costs, the only way to provide more care at the same cost is to provide less care. In order to provide less care, patients will see a delay in service, generic medications, script limits, and triage.

Even in socialized medicine, there will come a time when society will no longer be willing or able to support the costs, at which point coverage for those without supplemental health insurance will begin to decline.

It's simple math.

I suggest folks save their money for the end game, don't count on state sponsored welfare, don't plan on retiring.

johnfoss

2012-01-10, 06:02 PM

Well, that one was right on topic...

But I gotta agree with that video 100%. I would like to think we learned a lesson from Iraq, but then again I am reminded of how dumb the political process (and the voters) can be. It's times like these where I have to remind myself that the American people voted for W., twice.

Nurse Ben

2012-01-10, 06:04 PM

Which countries have no government that I should travel to?

How about less effective gvernments, since it's kinda tough to call a place a country if it has no government :rolleyes:

So Gilby, I gotta ask, what do you do for a living, other than the web thing?

Hey John, I still can't believe that he was sent to the big house twice, I mean what is that all about?

BillyTheMountain

2012-01-11, 01:41 AM

At present our "division" is posting a five million dollar loss for 2011; this is ~20% of our net income.

It's simple math.

Republican & Ron Paul math is to cut everyone's salary 20% to drop the loss and break even, or 25% to make a profit for shareholders (which you do not have).

BillyTheMountain

2012-01-11, 01:47 AM

Ron Paul - War Propaganda - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KiRAMvAlpQ)

3:40 Ron Paul campaign ad. True, and cool!

Can you make it go viral? Will enough people listen? If the world's streets are filled with anti-war protesters, will it be as useless as last time?

Nurse Ben

2012-01-11, 02:07 AM

Republican & Ron Paul math is to cut everyone's salary 20% to drop the loss and break even, or 25% to make a profit for shareholders (which you do not have).

So then I make less, spend less, and the economy takes a hit.

What a great plan!

The reason our organization is five million in the hole: The bulk of our patients (~85%) are on state insurance, federal insurance, or uninsured.

And to keep things on the up and up: I already took a 25% salary cut to work in community health. If the wages dropped any further I'd go into private practice.

Funny thing, I am in the process of starting a part-time private practice where I expect to earn 25-50% more per day while seeing half as many clients. This practice will be 100% private pay cash and private insurance.

Yeah, cut costs and let's see where that gets Mr Ron Paul when he needs his bypass :rolleyes:

What really sucks is that the only ones who end up paying are those who can't afford to pay. He's building a case for greater disparities between the rich and poor. Who would vote for this guy but those who are rich?

johnfoss

2012-01-11, 03:10 AM

So Gilby, I gotta ask, what do you do for a living, other than the web thing?Jacquie and I have our theory... ;)
I still can't believe that he was sent to the big house twice, I mean what is that all about?That is about how the campaign process (for starters) is a fountain of misinformation, wishful promises, bad math and quotes taken out of context. Anyone who actually uses political ads to determine their candidate is basing it on the same sales techniques used in infomercials. That explains getting elected in the first place. I still can't figure how he got re-elected, but take some comfort in the fact that he only had about 50.001% of the vote.
The reason our organization is five million in the hole: The bulk of our patients (~85%) are on state insurance, federal insurance, or uninsured.I don't understand. Are the insurance companies not paying?
Who would vote for this guy but those who are rich?Gilby (well, maybe he's rich too). People who vote based on political infomercials. People who want radical change (not that they're likely to get it even if he wins, due to congress). People who don't do the math. People who believe a free market will be totally self-policing.

feel the light

2012-01-11, 01:41 PM

2nd place consistently, in a field of right wing nut jobs (as perceived by the broad field of all voters), is not so bad, not so bad at all.

I predict he won't beat the rich Mormon in most contests. SC will show us something. Southern Baptists. Do they consider Mitt a Christian ?, and seriously, anyone who has followed Mitt knows he is a R Inc. flack. If Paul is seen as more "real Christian" , that should matter in SC. I am curious what attack adds the PACS will come up with. And then the super PACS.

OK, actually I never watch tv and just get the gems from the net, makes me wonder who watches all those adds.

I relish it. People who discount the entertainment value of politics haven't watched it enough and played "make a prediction".

My prediction. Paul gets second pretty solid all through the states. Mitt wins the R nom. Then Polls are conducted. Polls say Mitt loses to Obama, and Obama might lose to Paul. So Paul will run as 3rd party on a platform Obama dreads. Legal Pot, cut the military, chop spending. A left-right blend Obama cannot counter. Paul becomes prez.

johnfoss

2012-01-12, 07:31 AM

...makes me wonder who watches all those adds. People who don't have DVR. :p
My prediction ..... Legal Pot, cut the military, chop spending. A left-right blend Obama cannot counter. Paul becomes prez.It all sounds pretty reasonable except the part about a 3rd party candidate winning. :(

wobbling bear

2012-01-12, 08:29 AM

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/WU4GwcZSdSwhQKfY0QTlMQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zNjc7cT04NTt3PTU1MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/fr_FR/News/Chappatte/1002207.jpeg
translation: "I want less government! I want it to give me a job!"

feel the light

2012-01-12, 04:33 PM

People who don't have DVR. :p
It all sounds pretty reasonable except the part about a 3rd party candidate winning. :(

Hmmm. Well, let's say most republicans don't like Mitt. Really. And all Dems don't consider him. Just saying it's possible. Then let's say most leftist anti war people not seeing Obam$ as change they can see. Or will see.

A 3rd party run on an anti bail out wall street, anti drug war , anti war Inc., let's balance the budget by cutting overseas military costs, platform, as is Paul's position, has strong appeal to both left and right.

I think Paul will lose to Mitt. Not by much. A 3rd party bid doesn't seem out of character to me. It's not like Paul has made a career as a party line toad. And he aint't getting any younger. He has this shot and I bet he will take it.

wobbling bear

2012-01-12, 05:02 PM

Hmmm. Well, let's say most republicans don't like Mitt. Really..
any candidate who speaks french fluently is doomed :D
for US image I just wish that the election could be a contest between candidates that are not "jack in the box" (any candidate has some weak spot but at least they need to be credible not a gimmick sprouting out of a throng of people who think that "past is the future" -we had that in France and we projected a catastrophic image-). So I'd prefer to see Romney instead of , let's say, Bachman (Ok she is out).

feel the light

2012-01-12, 05:29 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/12/stephen-colbert-running-for-president-south-carolina-_n_1201705.html

Gilby

2012-01-13, 05:48 AM

Ron Paul, 2nd in the NH Republican Primary.
Ron Paul, 2nd in the NH Democrat Primary.
Ron Paul, 1st in the NH Primary among Independents.

What do Ron Paul, and all of the past 3 presidents have in common? They all placed 2nd in the NH primary.

Republican's voted for Romney in the Iowa caucus and the NH primary mostly because of his electability. What will happen when they find out that Ron Paul is the most electable against Obama (as polls show is the case)?

Here is Ron Paul's NH speech:
Watch Ron Paul's Speech After New Hampshire Primary - YouTube

BillyTheMountain

2012-01-13, 12:45 PM

fracking fluids are harmful and fracking is dangerous in the long term. I know this first hand because before i made biomedical devices for a living, i manufactured hydro-fracking components for companies so big and powerful that i won't mention them even here, on the lowly unicycle website for fear of retaliation.

Fracking is a bad solution to a bad problem. The real problem is that we as a nation are not conserving the energy sources we already posses. We already have, right now, the energy producing capabilities to power this nation without the use of fracking or mountain top removal if we just use what we have wisely.

For note, i am not a bunny-hugging liberal nor a corporatist republican asshole. I am libertarian, and it is worth mentioning.

Also, there is too much snow in wisconsin to ride my uni right now. It'll have to wait till spring.

.................................................... ........ ..........

BillyTheMountain

2012-01-13, 12:47 PM

What do Ron Paul, and all of the past 3 presidents have in common? They all placed 2nd in the NH primary.

He beat Stephen Colbert:eek:????

Past Republican candidates had to win South Carolina to become president.

johnfoss

2012-01-14, 06:01 AM

So I guess it all actually does come down to South Carolina!

Gilby

2012-01-17, 02:28 PM

CNN Poll: Obama tied with Romney & Paul in November showdowns
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/cnn-poll-obama-tied-with-romney-paul-in-november-showdowns/

Last night's excellent debate performance:
Ron Paul Highlights in 1/16/2012 Debate - YouTube

Republicans are so stupid to boo the golden rule.

maestro8

2012-01-18, 12:49 AM

Republicans are so stupid to boo the golden rule.

When it comes down to it, it's the "stupid vote" that determines who'll lead our country. And we've lots of stupid both on the right and the left.

Personally, I'm voting for this guy. A candidate who actually tells it like it is. And a candidate who knows a pony-based economy is the fastest way to attaining energy independence while creating sustainable jobs!

Vermin Supreme: When I'm President Everyone Gets A Free Pony - YouTube

BillyTheMountain

2012-01-19, 01:26 AM

Personally, I'm voting for this guy.

Let's have a serious discussion here.

Gilby

2012-01-19, 02:32 AM

Let's have a serious discussion here.

Billy has left the building.

feel the light

2012-01-22, 06:36 PM

Well SC sure was fun. Proved I wasn't lying when Cartman told me they won't want a Mormon.

Sorry to bash Mormon forum members, we know you are great and you all love us. Cartmen says he doesn't care. Mormons are not kwewl. It isn't just about being a top raider with a half billion $ behind him. We want to see his tax returns. Proving he is more corrupt and morally empty than Newt would seem impossible, but Cartman wonders why Mitt won't even try. Cartman says if he wants to elect an empty vassal to greed , "may I see your tax returns ?"

Mitt says no. Are we to just accept as fact the "word of mouth" that he has made hundreds of millions $ fucking with ? Doing what ? No need to tell you. Sorry, just vote for Mitt. Got $, gonna happen. Getting thin politically though. Not everyone accepted he was the shiftiest slimeball the GOP needs to beat Obam$. It's one thing to claim you made 300 M$ as a raider, why won't he prove it? People who love raiders want to know. Cartmen is in awe of great raiders. How much did he get ? Inquiring minds want to know. It's like being told there was this great game that I didn't get to see, and I don't get to see the score or even stats. Great. Rah ! Rah ! Mitt. Our champion. Understandably, enthusiasm in the stands for Mitt has been limited to bet holders.

There is a reason that Mitt keeps his tax records secret. I don't know the reason, but it is costing him big politically. That is my proof. Politicians shoot themselves in the foot, and act like it just happened. But here, Mitt has been shot in the foot pretty bad. This "act" , is proof to many, or most hopefully, that Mitt has something to hide. You know, because he's obviously hiding something. Otherwise, he would not hide it at such cost politically.

Oh yes, Ron Paul. 4th in this contest may not be as bad as it looks. SC loves gay bashing Christ on the sleeve types. 3rd place Santorum lacks Paul's money or general support in up coming rounds. It will soon become a 3 man contest. I am pretty sure Paul, Mitt and Newt will hang in for months.

johnfoss

2012-01-23, 06:09 AM

This "act" , is proof to many, or most hopefully, that Mitt has something to hide. You know, because he's obviously hiding something. Otherwise, he would not hide it at such cost politically. As Donald Trump proved with the Obama birth certificate? :rolleyes:

So the question is whether it's "none of our damn business" what Mitt's tax returns look like. No, that's not the question either, since way too many people don't care if it's any of their damn business anyway. So then the question goes back around to, what's he got to hide? :P

wobbling bear

2012-01-23, 08:42 AM

Well SC sure was fun.
I was baffled: a TV crew interogated a voter who answered he voted for Gingrich.
Tv anchorman: "why?"
voter: "because he defends family values!" :D

the Grinch as parangon of family values!:D I could'nt believe it! there may be reasons to vote for him but not this one!
yet again a proof of this age-old wisdom : sweet talk softens brain :eek:

feel the light

2012-01-24, 12:50 AM

I was baffled: a TV crew interogated a voter who answered he voted for Gingrich.
Tv anchorman: "why?"
voter: "because he defends family values!" :D

the Grinch as parangon of family values!:D I could'nt believe it! there may be reasons to vote for him but not this one!
yet again a proof of this age-old wisdom : sweet talk softens brain :eek:

Newt beats Mitt and Paul on this one. He valued families so much he actually started a bunch. In comparison, Mitt seems to just care about money. At least Paul can plead he's getting old etc. What's Mitt's excuse ? He's a Mormon for crying out loud. One wife ! seriously ? That man has no family ambition, he is at best a mediocre family man.

BillyTheMountain

2012-01-24, 01:55 AM

an interesting editorial suggested 2 other political dimensions besides left-right.

They said support for the Bill of Rights (Paul on top, Santorum on the bottom) and international policy: interventionist vs isolationist
with interventionist (Gingrich) ready to invade Iran today, Paul being isolationist.

johnfoss

2012-01-24, 03:18 AM

yet again a proof of this age-old wisdom : sweet talk softens brain :eek:Yes! and a brain that's already soft is easy to stir, and point in any direction you want.

There are plenty of soft-brains in any election. That's an inherent part of the democratic process; the voters don't have to actually know anything.

Gilby

2012-01-24, 04:19 AM

and international policy: interventionist vs isolationist
with interventionist (Gingrich) ready to invade Iran today, Paul being isolationist.

North Korea is isolationist, Switzerland is non-interventionist. See the difference? Ron Paul is non-interventionist. As Ron Paul correctly pointed out in tonight's debate, some of the other candidates positions are isolationist. At the 6 minute mark of this vid:
Ron Paul Highlights in 1/23/2012 Presidential Debate - YouTube

wobbling bear

2012-01-24, 08:21 AM

There are plenty of soft-brains in any election. That's an inherent part of the democratic process; the voters don't have to actually know anything.
agreed: the right to have a soft-brain should be enshrined in the constitution!
(frankly I am not kidding I agree with the democratic idea: I may be someone else's "stupid person")

Zzagg

2012-01-24, 08:40 AM

I may be someone else's "stupid person"No you aren't.

BillyTheMountain

2012-01-26, 03:52 AM

Gingrich.
Tv anchorman: "why?"
voter: "because he defends family values!" :D

the Grinch as parangon of family values!:D

His "devoutly Catholic" wife carried on an affair with him for 6 years of his marriage. Gingrich is a cheating piece of shit, as is his "devoutly Catholic" wife. They are against same-sex marriage and the families that result, they pick on and bully a tiny minority.

Gingrich should mean what Santorum means when you google the word, maybe it soon will.:D

harper

2012-01-26, 10:52 PM

His "devoutly Catholic" wife carried on an affair with him for 6 years of his marriage. Gingrich is a cheating piece of shit, as is his "devoutly Catholic" wife.

How Clintonesque of them...or Johnsonesque...or Kennedyesque...or Hardingesque. Let's just say how presidential of them.

BillyTheMountain

2012-01-27, 12:17 AM

How Clintonesque of them...or Johnsonesque...or Kennedyesque...or Hardingesque. Let's just say how presidential of them.

The big difference is the others did not run on a platform of unconstitutionally bullying a small minority they claimed to be morally superior to, as Gingrich does.

harper

2012-01-27, 01:16 AM

The big difference is the others did not run on a platform of unconstitutionally bullying a small minority they claimed to be morally superior to, as Gingrich does.

Prove it.

BillyTheMountain

2012-01-27, 02:15 AM

Prove it.

How Harperesque of you:rolleyes:

Ducttape

2012-01-28, 06:46 PM

Ron's got my vote.

BillyTheMountain

2012-01-28, 08:12 PM

waste it then

feel the light

2012-01-29, 02:14 AM

waste it then

Paul likely will motor on, he has a message to sell, as much as a campaign. He also still has money, and a solid base. He will likely go on. He enjoys the pulpit the debates shall provide. Santorum will drop out next. As a winner of the Nom goes, I am now sure it will not be Paul.

To prod Ron into running as an independent, he needs solid seconds, that he appears unlikely to get now. Ron will stay in the game, because of his love of his fans, love of being in the debate, and his impressive campaign cash pile.

I see Paul taking it all the way to the GOP convention, just because he wants to and he can. Then he will bow out.

Gilby

2012-01-29, 04:50 AM

Paul likely will motor on, he has a message to sell, as much as a campaign. He also still has money, and a solid base. He will likely go on. He enjoys the pulpit the debates shall provide. Santorum will drop out next. As a winner of the Nom goes, I am now sure it will not be Paul.

To prod Ron into running as an independent, he needs solid seconds, that he appears unlikely to get now. Ron will stay in the game, because of his love of his fans, love of being in the debate, and his impressive campaign cash pile.

I see Paul taking it all the way to the GOP convention, just because he wants to and he can. Then he will bow out.

I don't think you understand how caucus states work. Four years ago, here in MN, Ron Paul had all the delegates from my congressional district, and almost half of the delegates statewide. He only got 15% in the straw pole on caucus night. This year, his following is much greater. He will take my state. The delegate count is all that matters. And so far, Newt Gringrich, who has the most delegates if you base the delegate count on the straw poll in Iowa, has less than 3% of the delegates needed to win. The only thing we can really predict now, is that the most likely outcome will be a brokered convention.

feel the light

2012-01-29, 09:00 PM

My prediction is more boring. Mitt beats Newt in my sunny state, all polls say , with Santorum and Paul getting single digit sun burns. I won't vote because I'm a Dem. Who on the Dem side is running against Obam$ ? I can't think of a name.

It would appear that the "basic christian on your sleeve" vote, split between Bachman and Perry, has gone to Santorum, rather than Paul. This best explains Santorum's rise IMHO.

It would be more interesting if Gilby's prediction that Paul will do well in Caucus states comes to pass. I doubt he will do well enough to cause a brokered convention.

My prediction is that Mitt will win Florida, and sorta move on. Newt is a slimeball. Mitt is a much wealthier slimeball. It's the GOP. The slimeball with the best $ pile will win.

I predict that Mitt, by being the wealthiest , will prevail and become the R nom.

What is kinda fun, is that Paul get's a place in the final debates. He has earned it, and he has the money to go.

Anyway, my prediction is Santorum drops out next, followed by.........either Mitt or Newt. I hate them both, so my bet on Mitt staying is not biased. Paul has more $ than Newt or Santorum, who's fund raising ability will tank once they look like losers, and they will bow out.

Then Obam$ will win easily in Nov. Obama hasn't even warmed up yet. Paul,
IMHO, is the only one of the 4 in the race now who could beat Obama. He has a lot of appeal on the left.

He has a very leftist military and drug control policy. This would help get leftist votes, but in general , republicans hate both policies.

I wonder, if at the end, when only Ron and Mitt are left, will Mitt debate him?
My guess, is he will lock it up before the convention, and act like Paul doesn't exist in the later state contests.

MrBoogiejuice

2012-02-06, 08:30 PM

leo

2012-02-06, 08:37 PM

revelations. (http://www.vice.com/read/yeah-ron-paul-is-racist-after-all-sorry)

how easy is debugging:

"[People] close to Paul’s operations said

He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway

A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity

So who would be a more reliable source about Ron Paul than Ron Paul himself?

MrBoogiejuice

2012-02-06, 09:38 PM

Very true... But which of the various explanations Ron Paul has offered (on the newsletters) do you take as the definitive source? There are also plenty of attributable quotes on the matter from people like his secretary and the publishers of the newsletters in question that corroborate the anonymous sources.

His current defence which basically boils down to: "I didn't 'do' the racism, just made money from it" is hardly inspiring by any objective measure.

The newer information apparently leaked by Anonymous will take more time to verify or debunk but given the pretty indisputable evidence that he has pandered to the extreme right in order to increase sales of his literature, it would hardly be surprising if there's truth to the claim that white supremacist groups are supporting him beknownst to him or otherwise.

You just have to compare the ideologies of Paul and the prevalent currents of anti-semitic/fascistic "thought" to see there are areas of obvious common cause. All the "end the Fed" rhetoric ties in nicely with the "Jewish Cabal" theories of economics that are so popular with racists. And the Mistrust of "big government" tied with property rights uber-alles chimes nicely with fascists' hatred of anything giving off even the slightest whiff of socialism.

Then of course there's Paul's image as the definitive anti-immigration ticket. Fascists have it pretty easy when it comes to deciding who to vote for - they just have to weigh up which candidate will place this issue the highest on their agenda and pull the handle or mark the box.

When an ideology like Libertarianism which all but denies the existence of class and privilege leading to the formulation of ideas that would produce a fairly heartless society gets the support of far-right loons you shouldn't be able to say without smirking that you did nazi that coming.

leo

2012-02-07, 02:40 AM

But which of the various explanations Ron Paul has offered (on the newsletters) do you take as the definitive source?
None; I can send you a letter "from the whitehouse" on real authentic stationary including all secret markers. Will you believe whatever is written on it?

I live without TV for 13 years now. And guess at which point I detected the difference between

Ron Paul Calls CNN Reporter Stupid and Walks Off - YouTube

and

Proof Ron Paul Did Not Walk Away From Interview On CNN - YouTube

...?
Exactly; right at the cut in clip A before seeing clip B.

the definitive source?

I listened to his own defense about other false racist accusations (many weeks ago) where Ron Paul took total control of the broadcast, and unprepared nailed the host and all moderators in his ear. His power there didn't look at all like all other puppets, and his statement about rasism couldn't be any clearer.

@Gilby; it's the audio-file I once send you trough an IM. Meanwhile I have a new laptop. Do you still have it?

Gilby

2012-02-07, 11:05 PM

To answer the original topic question I reckon his support will be dropping off amongst non-white Americans and those opposed to racism after the last week or so of revelations. (http://www.vice.com/read/yeah-ron-paul-is-racist-after-all-sorry)

Members of XYZ group support ABC, therefore ABC supports the views of the members of XYZ. Do you not see the flaw in your logic? When you get actual quotes verified to be from Ron Paul himself, maybe you'd have a point.

As to you trying to equate fascism and libertarianism as being pretty much the same. You really don't understand what liberty is. By definition, they are pretty much opposites.

MrBoogiejuice

2012-02-07, 11:16 PM

Members of XYZ group support ABC, therefore ABC supports the views of the members of XYZ. Do you not see the flaw in your logic? When you get actual quotes verified to be from Ron Paul himself, maybe you'd have a point.

I didn't state that here was evidence of Paul reciprocating the apparent support of far-right groups; I didn't employ that logic.

As to you trying to equate fascism and libertarianism as being pretty much the same. You really don't understand what liberty is. By definition, they are pretty much opposites.

Again, read what I actually wrote. Where did I equate them as the same? I was trying to point out the aspects of libertarian thought that would appeal to white supremacist types.

Your liberty comment reminds me of a Bertrand Russell quote: “Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate”

wobbling bear

2012-02-08, 05:21 PM

As to you trying to equate fascism and libertarianism as being pretty much the same. You really don't understand what liberty is. By definition, they are pretty much opposites.
All zealots have the same technique about magic words: nation (nationalists of all hues), race (same + racists), people (communists), religion (religious zealots), and ,yes, even liberty (pick up your favourite). The magic world is good and the contrary is bad!
That cuts down immediately any in-depth discussion: if you are against what I know is good you are wrong (and may be even bad!)! I have the right definition for goodness with the magic word... and so on!
In the book "ringolevio" there is a very funny demonstration about that: during the hippy years the author tells a big audience about the incoming revolution and gets a standing ovation : he then says "by the way I have not invented my speech, it was delivered before .... by Adolf Hitler himself! :eek:" (the story may be a myth -Emmett Grogan did invent many things about his life- but the speech content is really convincing: you can use magic words for many purposes)
another book has also a stunning example ! in "litteratronics" (not translated from French alas!) author tells the story of a computer program that analyzes what people say. it is then condensed in a political speech. The speech example is extremely funny because it uses all the needed magic word without any profound meaning ... the politician that uses this program is elected triumphantly!

Gilby

2012-02-11, 02:53 AM

I don't think you understand how caucus states work.

Here's more info on the caucus system and how only delegates matter:
http://www.fox19.com/story/16774836/reality-check-caucus-chaos-and-why-delegates-are-what-really-matters

Ron Paul makes mention of the delegates issue in this "victory" speech here in Minnesota. If you watch closely, you'll be able to spot me at least twice in this video, my CNN debut: Ron Paul 2nd Place speech in Golden Valley, MN - CNN - February 7, 2012 - YouTube

In my precinct caucus, Santorum won the straw poll with over 50% of the vote. If the Santorum people actually knew what they were doing, they would have run for a delegate position. We have 5 delegate spots, and only two people (myself and one other Ron Paul supporter) volunteered to be a delegate. We had to pretty much beg people to fill the other 3 spots, and based on my observations (nobody said who they supported), of the 5 delegates, 2 are Ron Paul, 2 are Gingrich, and 1 is Santorum. Romney lost the delegate race, and only got one vote in the straw poll, so he lost that too. Both Gingrich and Santorum are not on the ballots in enough states to get the 1144 delegates needed to win the nomination. They can only win if it goes into multiple votes at the national convention. Only Ron Paul and Willard Romney can mathematically win the nomination.

feel the light

2012-02-12, 09:13 PM

http://videosift.com/video/Maddow-Ron-Paul-may-be-the-front-runner-in-the-Repub-race

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-02, 03:52 PM

If you watch closely, you'll be able to spot me at least twice in this video, my CNN debut.

It's hard to tell. Do you have a beard now?

maybe you could insert a big red blinking arrow pointing to you when you appear?

paul is just one of the four fiscal phonies:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/opinion/krugman-four-fiscal-phonies.html

the budget proposals of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney would all lead to much higher debt a decade from now than the proposals in the 2013 Obama budget. Ron Paul would do better, roughly matching Mr. Obama. But if you look at the details, it turns out that Mr. Paul is assuming trillions of dollars in unspecified and implausible spending cuts. So, in the end, he’s really a spendthrift, too.

Is there any way to make the G.O.P. proposals seem fiscally responsible? Well, no — not unless you believe in magic. Sure enough, voodoo economics is making a big comeback, with Mr. Romney, in particular, asserting that his tax cuts wouldn’t actually explode the deficit because they would promote faster economic growth and this would raise revenue.

Gilby

2012-03-02, 04:15 PM

Mr. Paul is assuming trillions of dollars in unspecified and implausible spending cuts. So, in the end, he’s really a spendthrift, too.

Unspecified? This looks pretty specified to me: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

Implausible? Only because the rest of the politicians don't want to give up their gravy train.

As for Krugman, the author of this article. He is a Keynesian economist, which basically puts forth the idea that government needs to spend spend spend, to control the economy. How has that been working out for us?

wobbling bear

2012-03-06, 02:10 PM

Gilby

2012-03-06, 02:35 PM

from far far away it's very hard to distinguish what are the real issues and what candidates do really stand for.
I understood that Olympia Snowe was courageous enough to vote against a proposal that will have enabled organisations (such as insurances) to refuse to finance things like contraception (this based on religious grounds).
what is Ron Paul's position on this issue? (and is it the exact issue?)

The issue is whether government can force an organization to provide birth control to its employees, even religious organizations that are opposed to the use of birth control.

Here is Ron Paul talking about it in an interview Sunday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaO94LCP7Ss#t=5m22s

wobbling bear

2012-03-06, 05:16 PM

The issue is whether government can force an organization to provide birth control to its employees, even religious organizations that are opposed to the use of birth control.

Here is Ron Paul talking about it in an interview Sunday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaO94LCP7Ss#t=5m22s
Hmmm... I think that dangerous reasonings can come from unexpected directions. So if you are a Jehovah witness that opposes blood transfusion then you may say "I am not paying for such an abominable act or perform it!".
With this vision of "religious rights" I am surprised that nobody yet created an offshoot of christianity supporting slavery ... after all it is in the bible!. So I can be a pastor of such a "church" and say "yes my company is employing slaves (or, more precisely, indentured persons) so it's not the government role to interfere with our liberty by trying to meddle with our employment policy!"

Gilby

2012-03-06, 06:16 PM

Hmmm... I think that dangerous reasonings can come from unexpected directions. So if you are a Jehovah witness that opposes blood transfusion then you may say "I am not paying for such an abominable act or perform it!".
With this vision of "religious rights" I am surprised that nobody yet created an offshoot of christianity supporting slavery ... after all it is in the bible!. So I can be a pastor of such a "church" and say "yes my company is employing slaves (or, more precisely, indentured persons) so it's not the government role to interfere with our liberty by trying to meddle with our employment policy!"

Are you commenting on Ron Paul's position? I hope not, cause that's a crazy stretch of his position. Heck, it's not even a stretch, it's a completely different unrelated position. His position ultimately comes down to the non-aggression principle. An employer-employee relationship should be a voluntary relation between the two parties. That voluntary relationship may include health insurance, the terms of which would be negotiated as part of the contract between the employee and employer. The government coming in and modifying that contract, dictating that contract, and using the threat of violence to have certain coverage in the health insurance, such as providing contraception, is a non-voluntary relationship. Since you bring up the issue of slavery, it is slavery to force another to pay for someone else's contraception, and that's what is the case when government threatens violence if it's not provided.

feel the light

2012-03-06, 07:35 PM

After watching the RP contraception vid, I sorta think Ron is passing over a bigger question than the one he answered. The important issue is not about who pays for the pills. The real issue is the effect of the availability of contraception on society. Reducing unwanted pregnancy has a serious upside that needs to be considered. Not just for the lives of the effected woman and their families, also to the bottom line of the taxpayer.

It is a fact that in states where "abstinence only" sex ed was introduced, teen pregnancy rates shot up. If you are a tax payer, on the hook for costs (welfare etc), let me ask you a serious question, as your accountant. What do you think will cost more ?

a . A 35 year subscription for birth control pills. , or

b Paying welfare costs for 4 kids.

If you answer a, I wish your campaign for prez all the success Rick Perry has enjoyed. Limiting access to contraception is not even remotely a fiscally conservative idea. Just right wing religious nut job logic. I would hope Paul would have more respect for the future cost of certain policies, but he is running with the elephants. Asking if he could tread a little softer on some social issues is perhaps asking to much.

Abstinence-Only, Teen Pregnancy In TX - YouTube

Gilby

2012-03-06, 07:46 PM

If you are a tax payer, on the hook for costs (welfare etc)

The idea that there are taxpayers on the hook to provide these services using the threat of violence if they don't pay to provide these services is what is objected to. If you agree with abstinence only sex ed, then you are free to support charities and schools that provide that type of service to the community, as would you as a parent be able to choose what type of sex education your children get.

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-07, 01:07 AM

I'm Amish and our buggies got around long before there were paved roads. I resent having to support govt funded highway crews and transportation agencies that also support air travel, trains, and lots of transports that violate my core values!

I also resent having part of my taxes go to the manufacture of clothing for the military made by machines and using zippers that violate my core values! And govt vehicles! vehicles! and government buildings that were built by MACHINES using unnatural materials -- we organize a barn raising and build whatever we need, it's only right. I object any taxes paying for senators and congressman, who dress in machine made suits, and i resent paying taxes to support the upkeep of the government buildings they work in with evil telephones , computers, fax machines, and typewriters, connected to banks and checks which are cleared mechanically!

Ron Paul, will you support the Amish right ?

Gilby

2012-03-07, 01:28 AM

Ron Paul, will you support the Amish right ?

Live and let live!

There are ways to pay for the very limited services that government is constitutionally allowed to provide without stealing a single penny from the Amish or anyone else.

harper

2012-03-07, 02:19 AM

There are ways to pay for the very limited services that government is constitutionally allowed to provide without stealing a single penny from the Amish or anyone else.

I've always found the idea of stealing from the Amish to be very appealing. Or stealing from anybody from Pennsylvania for that matter. But not the Mennonites. Hands off the Mennonites. I draw the line there.

Gilby

2012-03-07, 03:17 AM

I've always found the idea of stealing from the Amish to be very appealing. Or stealing from anybody from Pennsylvania for that matter. But not the Mennonites. Hands off the Mennonites. I draw the line there.

Theft is a wonderful thing! Isn't it? I mean, what would humanity be like if theft did not occur to provide for the endless murder of colored people? Or how about for the endless control of #$%&@&!/you? :rolleyes:

harper

2012-03-07, 05:48 AM

Or how about for the endless control of #$%&@&!/you?

Preach it, brother. You said a mouthful.

wobbling bear

2012-03-07, 08:20 AM

Are you commenting on Ron Paul's position? I hope not, cause that's a crazy stretch of his position. Heck, it's not even a stretch, it's a completely different unrelated position. His position ultimately comes down to the non-aggression principle. An employer-employee relationship should be a voluntary relation between the two parties.
I was not specifically pointing at Ron Paul position which I do not know for sure but for something about the rule of law.
age-old wisdom about contracts (inherited from Roman law and adapted by laws in civilised countries) is that parties in a contract are not necessarily of the same "strength" and are not necessarily "free". For instance if you are in desperate need of a job you may be forced to accept "anything" that will just enable you to survive. What law says is that "leonine" clauses are supposed "unwritten" and it is the role of government to define what are "leonine" clauses (I specifically used the indenture notion because it is an example of something which has been abused on behalf of "free" contracts).
Here is a (alas real!) example: a single mother in desperate need for a job signed a contract with an employer that explicitly specified that she may provide "services" to her boss that verged on sexual, the judges voided that part of the contract: she kept her job and her boss went to jail!
voluntary relations in a contract have limits in the real world! The magic of "free" word is being abused! Now on the contrary red tape could also choke a country: that's were extreme on both sides should be rejected!

wobbling bear

2012-03-07, 08:35 AM

feel the light

2012-03-07, 08:56 AM

The idea that there are taxpayers on the hook to provide these services using the threat of violence if they don't pay to provide these services is what is objected to. If you agree with abstinence only sex ed, then you are free to support charities and schools that provide that type of service to the community, as would you as a parent be able to choose what type of sex education your children get.

But you know what, we are all out of dry ones. I said I was your accountant so you know I'm lying, that doesn't mean my math is wrong. Here, let me do my job.

As your accountant, I have noticed you are still breathing. Ergo, sum, ca ching. Yes, ok, let me double check just to be sure. Carry the 2....add 3 points of extra reality (because it's Gilby). Hmmm. Sorry. I know it's hard to believe me Gilby, for one thing , I am a noted lier. But that doesn't mean I can't be a good lawyer or accountant. You are still breathing and that adds to your future tax liability considerably. I might be corrupt but my numbers are ok. Sorry to say it, I know it sounds like telling you,....you... I am not sure how to phrase this Gilby. I have terrible bed side manner. I said I could fake lawyer or accountant, not doctor. You have wallet cancer Gilby. For the rest of your life you will need to pay taxes to keep yourself out of an intensive care facility. I know denial will be your first response. Why me?, why now ?, it is so unjust. Try to follow with me.

We can get gym teachers to explain contraception in public schools for near zero cost. Provide free pills. Gonna cost 20 $/ per girl

If a 15 year old gets preggs, the costs. Let's see. Prenatal, birth, lost tax income(she didn't finish school, barely works) welfare, food stamps , health care, public education, pell grants, and if this experiment in raising unwanted children should turn out poorly, prison. Let's see, 4 kids, only one in prison , carry the 2, add 4 for Gilby's reality factor ....... let's see.

As I see it, as your accountant Gilby, and I know it will take some time to adjust to the news that you have wallet cancer. Buy the little slut the pills. You will save $2,240.27 for every dollar spent on contraception.

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-07, 12:16 PM

Why do conservatives only attempt to legislate the type of sex education kids get? Why don't they just allow parents to put their kids to work and not even teach them math or reading? It seems hypocritical.

Gilby

2012-03-07, 10:49 PM

I was not specifically pointing at Ron Paul position which I do not know for sure but for something about the rule of law.
age-old wisdom about contracts (inherited from Roman law and adapted by laws in civilised countries) is that parties in a contract are not necessarily of the same "strength" and are not necessarily "free". For instance if you are in desperate need of a job you may be forced to accept "anything" that will just enable you to survive. What law says is that "leonine" clauses are supposed "unwritten" and it is the role of government to define what are "leonine" clauses (I specifically used the indenture notion because it is an example of something which has been abused on behalf of "free" contracts).
Here is a (alas real!) example: a single mother in desperate need for a job signed a contract with an employer that explicitly specified that she may provide "services" to her boss that verged on sexual, the judges voided that part of the contract: she kept her job and her boss went to jail!
voluntary relations in a contract have limits in the real world! The magic of "free" word is being abused! Now on the contrary red tape could also choke a country: that's were extreme on both sides should be rejected!

I don't disagree on this, other than you saying it's the role of government to define what are leonine clauses. It's a question of law, for the legal system to determine. In your example, the law at issue is whether the contract was entered into with full understanding of the consequences, and whether each party was of the right mind to be able to enter into that contract. Even in an anarchist society, the law would have produced the same results.

Surely, requiring contraception to be included as part of a contract has nothing to do with leonine clauses.

As one who believes in the non-agression axiom, I believe in the rule of law, not the rule of men, which is the current system.

Gilby

2012-03-07, 10:50 PM

I object to pay for a police force (I have guns to defend myself)
I object to pay for judges (I do justice myself)
I object to pay for an army ( again I can defend myself)
I object to pay for roads and sanitation (I am self-sufficient)
I object to pay for schools (life teaches you everything you need)
I object to pay for research (they do not find anything worh! truth is in the holy book)
I object to pay (I don't use dollars: i just barter!)
....

I think you are getting it! I may think you are crazy to live your life like this, but what right do I have to force you to live it in any other way, unless you are threatening to infringe on my rights?

wobbling bear

2012-03-08, 09:14 AM

I think you are getting it! I may think you are crazy to live your life like this, but what right do I have to force you to live it in any other way, unless you are threatening to infringe on my rights?
who pays for the judges?
the big question is what is "right infringment"?
I am not specially fond of Romney (remember in the US I will be cataloged "liberal" :D or even "socialist" :eek:) but I think he opted for an earlier version of what is called now "obamacare" for good pragmatic reasons. Hospitals complained of unequal treatments of patients some would pay and some not (because they were unable to pay) so the "charity" theory ends up with patients paying for others in an haphazard and uneconomical way. mandatory insurance was more efficient and just. this is simple justice.
I am extremely critical of the "charity" theory: people buy "virtue" and paradise for money :mad:. This was the prevalent theory in the harshest Victorian epoch.

Gilby

2012-03-09, 11:34 PM

who pays for the judges?

In most courts throughout the world, loser pays.

the big question is what is "right infringment"?

All humans have an unalienable right to their life, liberty, and property.

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-10, 03:29 AM

All humans have an unalienable right to their life, liberty, and property.

Not in Africa http://vimeo.com/37119711

wobbling bear

2012-03-10, 04:43 PM

All humans have an unalienable right to their life, liberty, and property.
life is unambiguous, but , as you may have noted, I do not have the same understanding about the world "liberty".
(as a matter of fact in the Netherlands and in Italy there is a "liberty party"
-In Italy it is Berlusconi's party- I do think you will probably not endorse their program!)
Another example about "liberty" concept ambiguity: here it is forbidden to drive a car if you do not have an insurance. Is it against liberty?
not in my opinion: you drive a car then in an accident you kill someone. if you are uninsured all your belongings will be taken from you ... but if it happens that you do not have enough belongings? who is going to pay ? a charity?
thus insurance is mandatory! Sorry for those who feel that mandatory insurance is denting your liberty!
As a young boy I lived in a country where tuberculosis and polyomielytis was rife: then vaccination was mandatory... some objected on religious grounds but the vaccine was forced into their ***, as a result public health greatly increased ... now this a is a delicate matter since some vaccines could be proved later not to be innocuous.... so again relying just on principles is not so simple: each case should be thoroughly reviewed. I love principles, I may have some myself :rolleyes:, but I am wary of dogmas.

wobbling bear

2012-03-10, 04:51 PM

In most courts throughout the world, loser pays.

Sorry but in most countries I know loser do not pay for the judge and for the tribunal! this is considered Ottoman practice and a terrible menace to independance.

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-10, 06:42 PM

here it is forbidden to drive a car if you do not have an insurance. Is it against liberty?

They want liberty to buy and sell weapons/heroin/cocaine/women without licenses, permits, or any government restrictions. They want to put the "free" back in free enterprise. They are against minimum wages and want employers to be free to treat employees however they like, not give them any vacations, overtime, or health benefits at all.

Gilby

2012-03-10, 09:21 PM

life is unambiguous, but , as you may have noted, I do not have the same understanding about the world "liberty".
(as a matter of fact in the Netherlands and in Italy there is a "liberty party"
-In Italy it is Berlusconi's party- I do think you will probably not endorse their program!)

Politicians take a good word and completely change the meaning. Liberal, conservative, republican, freedom, liberty, etc. In politics they don't have the true original meaning of the word.

Another example about "liberty" concept ambiguity: here it is forbidden to drive a car if you do not have an insurance. Is it against liberty?

Whether you need insurance is a contract issue between you and the owner of the property (road) you are using. So, no, it is not against liberty for the property owner to require that.

They are against minimum wages and want employers to be free to treat employees however they like, not give them any vacations, overtime, or health benefits at all.

Whether these benefits are provided or not has more to do with market forces than with employers being able to dictate what is provided. If there is high demand for the skills you provide, then you are going to have a lot of say in what wages, vacation time, overtime pay, health benefits, etc. that you receive because many employers are going to have to compete to hire you.

When governments come in and force certain wages or benefits, which artificially increase the cost of that employee to the employer, then everybody is harmed. The employer is forced to either not hire this employee because the pay is higher then the benefit received, not hire someone else because the cashflow isn't there to be able to do so, reduce other benefits that are more desirable but not mandated, and/or raise prices, which lowers demand and makes it harder to compete.

feel the light

2012-03-11, 02:50 AM

Gilby

2012-03-11, 04:10 AM

Paul's just partying now. A solid 4 th place behind a Newt. He won't quit because he has a stash of "party in the GOP" cash, and a loyal crowd. Newt will drop out next, no money = good by Newt.

Santorum is only relevant because Dems keep voting for him in open primaries. Not so much to oppose gays and uphold a right wing , wing nut. Dems want Santorum to run against Obama as their first choice. Beating Mitt will be a much harder task for Obama. Obama would beat Santorum , with near certainty, without divine intervention. Facing Mitt , against Obama, Mitt will tack left and go all moderate.I call it for Obama. If there is one thing Dem's, GOP types and independents agree on, it is we are all trying to find someone who is not Mitt.

My autopsy report on RP's dead campaign will state that he failed to show a coherent path to fiscal sanity.

You are correct. Santorum can't win. As for Mitt. How can he win? Recent polls actually give Ron Paul the best chance against Obama. Obama won on an anti-war campaign, but is worse than Bush when it comes to war. Maybe Gingrich won't be too bad as he will be too busy making the moon the 51st state to cause all that much damage. But, if you listen to the 4 remaining GOP candidates, the only thing worse than Obama as far as war goes is the 3 GOP candidates, other than Ron Paul. Apparently, endless war is fiscally conservative, and murdering lots of colored people is pro-life. It's pretty sick... and maybe it's time to jump ship.

feel the light

2012-03-11, 04:48 AM

You are correct. Santorum can't win. As for Mitt. How can he win? Recent polls actually give Ron Paul the best chance against Obama. Obama won on an anti-war campaign, but is worse than Bush when it comes to war. Maybe Gingrich won't be too bad as he will be too busy making the moon the 51st state to cause all that much damage. But, if you listen to the 4 remaining GOP candidates, the only thing worse than Obama as far as war goes is the 3 GOP candidates, other than Ron Paul. Apparently, endless war is fiscally conservative, and murdering lots of colored people is pro-life.

I think if Paul Mitted, (sorry, I meant to say flipped), more on some social issues, he could have run as a Dem and done well. Social costs for unwanted preggers is a major expense. Opposing gov sponsorship of comprehensive sex ed and free contraception is only defensible using right wing religious nut job moralism we can't afford anymore. Babies popping out unexpectedly aren't just a hardship on the poor little sluts, it is way cheaper for the taxpayer to buy the little slut the pills and teach her how and why she should eat them.

That an OBGYN Dr. like Paul should act as if he doesn't grasp this truth, that babies are expensive, makes no sense. He fails as a fiscal realist, his potential best political card. Instead he went with the R field. Aspirin held between the legs. Not fiscally responsible .

Gilby

2012-03-11, 05:12 AM

I think if Paul Mitted, (sorry, I meant to say flipped), more on some social issues, he could have run as a Dem and done well. Social costs for unwanted preggers is a major expense. Opposing gov sponsorship of comprehensive sex ed and free contraception is only defensible using right wing religious nut job moralism we can't afford anymore. Babies popping out unexpectedly aren't just a hardship on the poor little sluts, it is way cheaper for the taxpayer to buy the little slut the pills and teach her how and why she should eat them.

That an OBGYN Dr. like Paul should act as if he doesn't grasp this truth, that babies are expensive, makes no sense. He fails as a fiscal realist, his potential best political card. Instead he went with the R field. Aspirin held between the legs. Not fiscally responsible .

I used to be pro-choice... on everything. I'm still not completely on board with Ron Paul's pro-life position. I would claim to be more along the lines of when does a life begin from a medical or scientific view, but, he is running for federal office and when he has held a public office it has always been a federal office. His view has been that this is a state issue. It has no place in the federal government, which is right on. Like murder, and other violations of the individual, abortion is not a federal issue, it's an important issue that is a state issue.

In any case, you are asking Ron Paul to go against his very consistent position which, as I have said before, all comes down to the non-aggression principle. You may agree with most of what he says, but if you disagree on a particular issue, you should try to see what would be the situation on that particular issue if you followed the non-aggression principle. I think you will find that you agree with Ron Paul more than you are willing to admit at first.

wobbling bear

2012-03-11, 04:47 PM

at.
Whether these benefits are provided or not has more to do with market forces than with employers being able to dictate what is provided. If there is high demand for the skills you provide, then you are going to have a lot of say in what wages, vacation time, overtime pay, health benefits, etc. that you receive because many employers are going to have to compete to hire you.

When governments come in and force certain wages or benefits, which artificially increase the cost of that employee to the employer, then everybody is harmed. The employer is forced to either not hire this employee because the pay is higher then the benefit received, not hire someone else because the cashflow isn't there to be able to do so, reduce other benefits that are more desirable but not mandated, and/or raise prices, which lowers demand and makes it harder to compete.
oh oh class warfare for employees? "good employees" deserve what they get! back to Victorian era!
so it is social benefits to coal miners that forced us to import "easier to dig" coal from overseas?

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-11, 11:23 PM

Whether these benefits are provided or not has more to do with market forces than with employers being able to dictate what is provided. If there is high demand for the skills you provide, then you are going to have a lot of say in what wages, vacation time, overtime pay, health benefits, etc. that you receive because many employers are going to have to compete to hire you.

AHA! So you admit it!

johnfoss

2012-03-11, 11:59 PM

Recent polls actually give Ron Paul the best chance against Obama. That would be interesting to see, but we're not going to see it so what's the point? As a third party it's a major uphill battle to make a dent in the two major candidates.
Obama won on an anti-war campaign, but is worse than Bush when it comes to war.Okay, I'm stuck on that one. Are you saying, for example, that G.W. Bush would have done a better job picking up the existing situation that Obama had to start with? Or that we would have been in the same wars in the first place? Help me make sense of that?

I will agree that Obama has been better at "surgical removal" of some high-profile bad guys. Unfortunately that's just a drop in the bucket of the overall US military picture.

feel the light

2012-03-12, 12:02 AM

I used to be pro-choice... on everything. I'm still not completely on board with Ron Paul's pro-life position. I would claim to be more along the lines of when does a life begin from a medical or scientific view, but, he is running for federal office and when he has held a public office it has always been a federal office. His view has been that this is a state issue. It has no place in the federal government, which is right on. Like murder, and other violations of the individual, abortion is not a federal issue, it's an important issue that is a state issue.

In any case, you are asking Ron Paul to go against his very consistent position which, as I have said before, all comes down to the non-aggression principle. You may agree with most of what he says, but if you disagree on a particular issue, you should try to see what would be the situation on that particular issue if you followed the non-aggression principle. I think you will find that you agree with Ron Paul more than you are willing to admit at first.

Now could you explain how getting more little sluts knocked up will appeal to me as a fiscal conservative ? I am not accusing RP of a conflict of interest, as an OBGYN. He is retired as a Med guy and soon it seems as a politician as well. I mean, to a fiscal conservative like me, who is not religious.... , why did he advocate a policy that would lead to a massive increase in the need for the gov to spend money on unexpected babies ? Telling the little sluts to ignore boys, boy lust is bad, and then being surprised at the results is sorta passable for a Perry or a Bachman. They are supposed to be stupid and advocate for religious based sexual policies from the 1800's. RP was supposed to be the OBGYN guy who will cut spending. But then he sings along with the GOP chorus that birth control is not something the gov should support. I wish a baby just popped out of him in 2008. Like Palin, you know, babies, they just happen. Pop, here is your baby.

Perhaps it's just politics. If I was RP's adviser last year , I'd have bought him a fine set of flip flop sandles and lead him to his beach chair on the Dem side, slightly to the left of Obama's chair. Where he would then advocate policies that would reduce gov spending. Cuts must be made everywhere, reducing both social and military liabilities.

Anyway, it was a fun run. RIP Ron Paul. He won't bow out until the convention. This is his swan song. Sorta like Mc Cain, if you are so old you are that , well, that old, he is politically dead now. He is no more likely to run again in 2016 than Mc Cain is, or Dolly Parton will get a boob job and Justin Bieber will marry Goldie Hahn. Same odds.

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-12, 01:16 AM

Okay, I'm stuck on that one. Are you saying, for example, that G.W. Bush would have done a better job picking up the existing situation that Obama had to start with? Or that we would have been in the same wars in the first place? Help me make sense of that?

I will agree that Obama has been better at "surgical removal" of some high-profile bad guys. Unfortunately that's just a drop in the bucket of the overall US military picture.

Very good points, John!

Bush would have had to keep the wars going strong [escalate!!!] to funnel more taxpayer $$$ to his friends in military contracting. For the Republicans, "smaller government" is code for "let's contract to private industry and give this $$ to our friends."

Gilby

2012-03-12, 09:27 PM

Okay, I'm stuck on that one. Are you saying, for example, that G.W. Bush would have done a better job picking up the existing situation that Obama had to start with? Or that we would have been in the same wars in the first place? Help me make sense of that?

Bush was very bad on the war front (he also ran on somewhat anti-war platform too in 2000). I'm just saying that Obama has created a lot of wars. I can't even keep track of how many countries the US has invaded and/or is trying to overthrow under Obama.

feel the light

2012-03-13, 12:12 AM

[QUOTE=Gilby;1509231]Bush was very bad on the war front (he also ran on somewhat anti-war platform too in 2000). I'm just saying that Obama has created a lot of wars. I can't even keep track of how many countries the US has invaded and/or is trying to overthrow under Obama.[/QUOTE

Bush started 2 major wars-invasions. Obama zero. I also give him credit for winding down our Iraq war .

Bombing Libya in support of an uprising was done with Nato, and was not an invasion or a war.

CIA activities condoned by Obama are not wars (although someone hit in a drone strike might differ). I don't think you have made a good case for Obama starting wars, or managing the CIA more aggressively than Bush - Cheny did .

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-13, 03:35 AM

Public Policy Polling: The PPP poll released Monday showed 67% of Alabama Republicans saying they believe interracial marriage should be legal, though 21% said it still should be against the law. In Mississippi, 54% said it should be allowed, while 29% said it should remain illegal.

The preferred Republican candidate of those opposed to interracial marriage? Newt Gingrich. In Mississippi, Gingrich led Romney among that group 40-27%, and held a 38-27% advantage in Alabama.

Gilby

2012-03-13, 04:38 AM

Bush started 2 major wars-invasions. Obama zero. I also give him credit for winding down our Iraq war .

Bombing Libya in support of an uprising was done with Nato, and was not an invasion or a war.

CIA activities condoned by Obama are not wars (although someone hit in a drone strike might differ). I don't think you have made a good case for Obama starting wars, or managing the CIA more aggressively than Bush - Cheny did .

Obama has bombed Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and probably others. Bombing is an act of war. Blockades are an act of war. Trying to overthrow governments are an act of war. More total average yearly deaths of military and contractors under Obama. More daily costs under Obama. Do the math. Bush was very bad, and set a new extreme. But at least he couldn't count high enough to create any more wars than he did. Obama has Bush beat for war. I wouldn't doubt that if Obama loses this fall, and the President elect is not Ron Paul, that the next President will be even worse than Obama, unless the economic crash comes before that president can do much harm..

maestro8

2012-03-13, 05:16 PM

I wouldn't doubt that if Obama loses this fall, and the President elect is not Ron Paul, that the next President will be even worse than Obama, unless the economic crash comes before that president can do much harm..

All I can give is sad news...

1) Obama couldn't possibly lose to the parade of jokers that has comprised the GOP, unless he punches a baby in all 50 states. Obama's done a good job stirring up anti-corporate sentiment to the point where people hate the oil companies and not the government for gas prices (as it should be). Obama's stimuli have created jobs, albeit temporary, so he has some "track record" by which he can stand... even though it's all a sham, the US population doesn't know any better. There just isn't a point on which the GOP can slam Obama... the guy's even taken out what's-his-turban... Bin Laden.

2) The next president won't be Ron Paul. He just doesn't have the votes. Too bad, I really like the guy.

3) The next president won't be swayed by any "economic disaster" in making war-related decisions. The White House has always held "national security" and "global stability" over all else, money be damned, popular opinion be damned. We're not even told before some actions occur. We'll only continue to dig our hole even deeper.

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-13, 06:32 PM

The White House has always held "national security" and "global stability" over all else

The quotes mean those are joker terms for the financial security/stability of billionaires who own military contracts.

Nurse Ben

2012-03-13, 07:03 PM

Obama has bombed Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and probably others. Bombing is an act of war. Blockades are an act of war. Trying to overthrow governments are an act of war. More total average yearly deaths of military and contractors under Obama. More daily costs under Obama. Do the math. Bush was very bad, and set a new extreme. But at least he couldn't count high enough to create any more wars than he did. Obama has Bush beat for war. I wouldn't doubt that if Obama loses this fall, and the President elect is not Ron Paul, that the next President will be even worse than Obama, unless the economic crash comes before that president can do much harm..

Do you really believe that one man holds that much power? Really??

I think you give the position of President far more weight than it actually holds. Just like a CEO of a very large company, there are soooo many players in politics, at so many levels, and on so many fields that for one guy to have even a remote chance of controlling them all, well that's just a little bit silly.

He may be the most powerful person in politics, "may be", but he's just one guy, he wakes up and drinks coffee just like you and I, he has a slew of people who do the work he can't, and they have a slew of peole under them. It's a big game, world domination, president's come and go, the issues you are complaining about have been going on since before we were born.

Unfortunately, as popular media has evolved, the layperson's understandings of the world have regressed (become simplfied), small issues rule the day.

The United States of Walmart, coming soon to a wide screen in your home.

johnfoss

2012-03-13, 07:15 PM

Do you really believe that one man holds that much power? Really??When it comes to military decisions, he is the Commander-in-Chief. That means he bears the responsibility. But that can only apply to actions done by this country on its own, not necessarily as part of a coalition or NATO or similar. Then it's only partial responsibility for the outcomes.
The United States of Walmart, coming soon to a wide screen in your home.Ever seen the movie Idiocracy? Funny in how prophetic much of it seems to have been...

Nurse Ben

2012-03-13, 07:29 PM

Ever seen the movie Idiocracy? Funny in how prophetic much of it seems to have been...

YEs, sadly prophetic.

I was once a activist, I went to the academy, I stood at the lecturn, then after a while it just got old. Not old as boring, but old as in booring.

I think what happens in life is that as you age and learn more, you realize how much of life is simply a silly pattern that society repeats, all because the ones who are most involved have not realized the simplest fact of life:

Nothing is important except what you make important.

Like a teenager arguing with their parent about a taking out the trash, to a married couple arguing about paying bills, we don't seem to realize that you can't force your ideas on someone else.

The most important thing I have learned in life is how to let things go. The funny thing about poitics is that it's focused on the exact opposite.

When it comes to military decisions, he is the Commander-in-Chief. That means he bears the responsibility.

He bears no more repsonsibility than those who support(ed) him, work under him, formulate the plans and policies, commit the acts, pay the bills, both in the past, present, and future.

It is silliness, that's my point, we want to blame a single individual because it's easier that way. If you really want to blame people, start closer to home, look at your actions, thoughts, feelings as an individual.

What do we do for a living and how does that benefit anyone other than ourselves?
What have we done to advance society, culture, religion?
What will we do to make a difference in this life for the betterment of others?
What kindness have we done TODAY for someone other than ourselves?

Instead of looking to others for our future, we need to look to ourselves. Institutions are not the answer, be them religious, cultural, economic, or political. If they were the answer, then we'd have fewer problems over time versus more...

maestro8

2012-03-13, 07:34 PM

The quotes mean those are joker terms for the financial security/stability of billionaires who own military contracts.

...or interest in oil production

Gilby

2012-03-13, 09:49 PM

3) The next president won't be swayed by any "economic disaster" in making war-related decisions. The White House has always held "national security" and "global stability" over all else, money be damned, popular opinion be damned. We're not even told before some actions occur. We'll only continue to dig our hole even deeper.

The crash I was actually referring to is a crash of the US dollar. When that happens, and it will if the current course is not changed, then not only will the American people be very poor, but the US empire will have nowhere left to extract its buying power from to its wars. Exporting the world's reserve currency will no longer be an option, and you can only extract so much from the productive, if there are any productive people still left in the USA.

maestro8

2012-03-13, 10:42 PM

The crash I was actually referring to is a crash of the US dollar.

Ah, got it, chicken little.

People have been predicting such a crash every year for the past decade.

What signs are you seeing that has you convinced it'll happen before 2012?

Even better, what are you doing to avoid the fallout? Did you turn all your savings into gold yet?

unibabyguy

2012-03-14, 01:29 AM

2) The next president won't be Ron Paul. He just doesn't have the votes. Too bad, I really like the guy.

Suppose that you had no information on the supposed electability of any candidate in the 2012 election -- no poll numbers, no opinions from media pundits, no "sense" of what others are thinking, nothing.

If the primary election were held tomorrow in your state for all political parties, who would you vote for, and why (disregarding any reasons based on electability)?

feel the light

2012-03-14, 03:33 AM

All I can give is sad news...

1) Obama couldn't possibly lose to the parade of jokers that has comprised the GOP, unless he punches a baby in all 50 states. Obama's done a good job stirring up anti-corporate sentiment to the point where people hate the oil companies and not the government for gas prices (as it should be). Obama's stimuli have created jobs, albeit temporary, so he has some "track record" by which he can stand... even though it's all a sham, the US population doesn't know any better. There just isn't a point on which the GOP can slam Obama... the guy's even taken out what's-his-turban... Bin Laden.

2) The next president won't be Ron Paul. He just doesn't have the votes. Too bad, I really like the guy.

3) The next president won't be swayed by any "economic disaster" in making war-related decisions. The White House has always held "national security" and "global stability" over all else, money be damned, popular opinion be damned. We're not even told before some actions occur. We'll only continue to dig our hole even deeper.

For one thing, when I agree with Maestro, I tend to shit my pants. I am getting sick of this guy and maybe more than that, the smell.

Still, as bad as he is, and we all smell, he has a point. It seems the USA may go crazy bankrupt. I am not seeing anyone in the prez race who will do what it takes to balance the budget.

Gilby seems to think that once the debt is so high, almost all taxes must go to interest payments, that will lead to inflation. I am not so sure. The printing press running solution has been tried before, sure it leads to hyper inflation, but that's why I don't think they will go that road.

USA debt bonds pay for all sorts of pensions etc. A default would bring on a real crash.

I differ with Gilby, in that I have doubts the debt crash will result in the crash of the dollar. They won't try to fix the debt by running printing presses , that would be at best a short term thing, like a bandaid on a gun shot wound.

Scary thing is, I don't know what they will do once the debt get's so high we hit crazy. Just that thinking about it makes me need to do more laundry.

Gilby

2012-03-14, 05:51 AM

If the primary election were held tomorrow in your state for all political parties, who would you vote for, and why (disregarding any reasons based on electability)?

"Vote for Ron Paul, that's what you should do" is what Santorum says:
Rick Santorum Says Vote For Ron Paul If You Want Someone Who Voted Conservatively - YouTube

Gilby

2012-03-14, 04:44 PM

Do you really believe that one man holds that much power? Really??

When it comes to war, he is the commander in chief and can withdraw from the warfare, so while I do understand the president is mostly a public relations face face the empire, he does have quite a bit of control if he wanted to use it.

Instead of looking to others for our future, we need to look to ourselves. Institutions are not the answer, be them religious, cultural, economic, or political. If they were the answer, then we'd have fewer problems over time versus more...

I agree that coercive institutions don't solve anything (the voluntary institutions, could misguide many, it doesn't cause nearly as much harm, and many do provide benefits). Unfortunately, history has shown that coercive institutions can wreak so much havoc on the world population that you have to consider challenging them, minimizing their effects, and if at all possible, abolishing them.

How you choose to change the world is up to you, but here is a good revelation: Steve Jobs: Thoughts on Life - YouTube

maestro8

2012-03-14, 06:39 PM

If the primary election were held tomorrow in your state for all political parties, who would you vote for, and why (disregarding any reasons based on electability)?

I'm definitely voting Paul in the primaries. But I have a feeling when the general comes around, it'll be Romney on the ticket. So it shall be. We just can't afford to have Obama in the office. He spends way too much.

Gilby

2012-03-14, 11:11 PM

Ah, got it, chicken little.

I don't think the world is coming to an end, and part of me would welcome the US dollar to crash, as that would topple the current regime. The part that sucks is the it'll cause suffering to a lot of people, but that's going to happen anyways in one form or another, since what is done is done, and there isn't any sign of change occurring any other way.

People have been predicting such a crash every year for the past decade.

When a currency collapses is very hard to predict. It's not entirely based on fundamentals, but has a huge psychological aspect to it. That's why the markets move a lot on the words of helicopter Ben.

What signs are you seeing that has you convinced it'll happen before 2012?

I'm not convinced it'll happen before 2012, mainly because it already is 2012. :)

The value of a fiat currency is largely the result of confidence, in addition to the supply of that currency. The confidence that the issuing authority can continue to extract payment of that currency from its subjects.

The monetary base has gone up quite a bit in recent years, and foreign countries are holding less of it and more of gold, so supply is higher. India and China have increased their gold reserves. Many countries are asking for their gold to be delivered to them (which the NY Fed apparently holds). More supply leads to higher prices.

The economy isn't good, and contrary to the government numbers, it's not getting better... Inflation numbers exclude food and fuel. Retail sales increases don't account for the higher prices. Unemployment numbers exclude those no longer on unemployment due to being unemployed too long, excludes those receiving disability instead of unemployment, ignores the underemployed, and ignores those frustrated and no longer looking for work.

Even better, what are you doing to avoid the fallout? Did you turn all your savings into gold yet?

Sadly, I am not as prepared as I should be. Gold will probably be useless in a crash, as most people don't own gold and they will be demanding the basics of survival (food, shelter, and energy). Cans of sardines would make a much better medium of exchange after a currency crash than silver or gold. Though having silver or gold would be better than not having anything at all, as who knows what people will end up using for money. Junk silver (pre-1965 silver coins) might be a good thing to have.

As for my prep. I have a small bugout bag and enough gas on hand to get to where I want to bugout to, a location that has plenty of firewood, and a place where I can grow my own food with the seeds I have from my garden. I also have a decent amount of canned goods (like sardines, soup, and veggies, which I eat regularly anyways). I didn't last year, but in years past, I planted a garden in my back yard. I have: Food (seeds, canned foods), shelter (got it in the very remote of MN), and energy (firewood to cook and stay warm). I do not have enough mason jars... to keep enough of my garden for a MN winter.

Did you turn all your savings into gold yet?

I do have quite a bit of my net worth in gold, but definitely not that huge of a percentage. That is way too conservative. There is such a huge number of possible assets to invest in worldwide to put it all in gold. When it comes down to it, investments break down into:
Stocks: provide a good return during times of prosperity.
Long term treasury bonds: do well in times of prosperity and during deflation.
Cash: good in times of tight money or recession. (this is actually very short term bonds)
Precious metals: do well in times of inflation.

Yes, right now we are in a time of inflation, so precious metals are best, but predicting the future is hard. What I do know is that the fundamentals show that gold is not in a bubble. Stocks are not all that bad right now, as the newly created money from the fed will ultimately go there as well, but they are not as good in the long term as the devaluation of a currency doesn't help those companies that sell a lot of their goods or services in that currency. Luckily, the financial markets are global, so you can invest in a way to minimize your exposure to a single currency. For Americans though, the pressure from the US empire on foreign banks and financial institutions has made it where no foreign banks or institutions want to have Americans as customers and will refuse to do business with you. That's probably the best case to expatriate from the US, which is only one example of how you as a "US person" are not free, and are in fact a slave.

feel the light

2012-03-15, 12:35 AM

Hunting is easy now. Won't be so good when everyone else is doing it to. For that matter, I have been at camps where there was so little fire wood that we started to trade beer for it. Things got desperate. Not dark beer, just saying, as an experienced hunter and camper that those great empty hunting , camping spots (awesome), would look like an opening scene of a zombie movie after a real economic crash. There is enough deer in this country to feed us for a month, tops. The economic machine must keep rolling.

unibabyguy

2012-03-16, 01:31 AM

There is enough deer in this country to feed us for a month, tops.

Have you heard of Soylent Green? There will be plenty of that to go around when the crash comes. :)

But seriously, I am not sure I could live in a world where survival becomes a serious struggle. I'm not sure I'd have the mental fortitude to survive -- I'm too wedded to civilization to know what I would do without it.

I have no plan, no weapons, no stored food, no survival knowledge, nothing except some camping equipment and my unicycles and a car for transportation. And I'd imagine that would get stolen from me almost right away.

feel the light

2012-03-16, 03:10 AM

Have you heard of Soylent Green? There will be plenty of that to go around when the crash comes. :)

But seriously, I am not sure I could live in a world where survival becomes a serious struggle. I'm not sure I'd have the mental fortitude to survive -- I'm too wedded to civilization to know what I would do without it.

I have no plan, no weapons, no stored food, no survival knowledge, nothing except some camping equipment and my unicycles and a car for transportation. And I'd imagine that would get stolen from me almost right away.

It's made mostly from corn and soy beans, like the other chows, but has a secret flavor ingredient. They synthesized the exact flavor of Jessica Simpson's breast milk. I know what some of you are thinking, ew, to cheesy, but wait untill you try it.

Harvesting people to feed people is great for a movie, as good as zombies, or transformer cars with a crush on Megan Fox.

No, the real life crash off screen will make people pragmatic (I hope). We will grow lots of corn and beans. We grow a lot now. Starvation will never be an issue.

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-16, 09:47 PM

How you choose to change the world is up to you, but here is a good revelation: Steve Jobs: Thoughts on Life - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYfNvmF0Bqw)

He's talking about freeing yourself from mental slavery.

"None but yourself can free your mind." -- bob marley

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-16, 09:49 PM

Starvation will never be an issue.

Why are we exempt from starvation when so many starve to death daily?

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-16, 09:53 PM

Suppose that you had no information on the supposed electability of any candidate in the 2012 election -- no poll numbers, no opinions from media pundits, no "sense" of what others are thinking, nothing.

If the primary election were held tomorrow in your state for all political parties, who would you vote for, and why (disregarding any reasons based on electability)?

Vote Obama!!

Obama rescued the economy from the brink of disaster left by 8 years of Bush!

Gilby

2012-03-16, 10:03 PM

Obama rescued the economy from the brink of disaster left by 8 years of Bush!

Which economy? Certainly not the US economy.

Gilby

2012-03-16, 10:03 PM

He's talking about freeing yourself from mental slavery.

Isn't it all mental? That's the main thing that differentiates humans from other animals.

unibabyguy

2012-03-17, 02:39 AM

Vote Obama!!

Obama rescued the economy from the brink of disaster left by 8 years of Bush!

Bush isn't running for re-election.

But when you think about it, Obama has supported many of the same policies and legislation as Bush:

* Corporate bailouts
* Huge deficits
* Escalated the war in Afghanistan
* Wanted to keep troops in Iraq (but got kicked out by Iraqi refusal to grant US troop immunity)
* Threatening war against Iran
* Patriot Act
* Guantanamo still operating
* Attacking new countries (as Gilby mentioned)
* Killing US citizens without a trial

It's like Bush never left the White House. How do you tell the difference between the two?

johnfoss

2012-03-17, 06:59 AM

It's like Bush never left the White House. How do you tell the difference between the two?By counting the Osama Bin-Ladens. :)

Gilby

2012-03-17, 03:46 PM

By counting the Osama Bin-Ladens. :)

Bush needed Bin Laden at-large to fuel public opinion to keep the war on terror going. Obama needed to kill him (which, unfortunately, is lacking the full evidence to prove it happened) to boost his re-electability. Your response seems to imply that it's working.

Gilby

2012-03-17, 03:47 PM

It's like Bush never left the White House. How do you tell the difference between the two?

You look to see if he is using a teleprompter.

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-17, 05:57 PM

It's like Bush never left the White House. How do you tell the difference between the two?

Bush bailed out to shift $$ to the wealthy under corruption.

Obama bailed out to save the nation from the tidal wave of destruction Bush unleashed.

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-17, 06:00 PM

Obama needed to kill him (which, unfortunately, is lacking the full evidence to prove it happened)

Ha! What kind of odd ball conspiracy theorist are YOU?!

They confirmed it was Bin Laden with DNA testing. All his wives testify to it, and national intelligence was behind it.

You cannot be suggesting the USA executed an innocent man at home with his wives in Pakistan just to get re-elected.

feel the light

2012-03-17, 08:31 PM

Ha! What kind of odd ball conspiracy theorist are YOU?!

They confirmed it was Bin Laden with DNA testing. All his wives testify to it, and national intelligence was behind it.

You cannot be suggesting the USA executed an innocent man at home with his wives in Pakistan just to get re-elected.

If he was going to pop the cork on Bin Laden deliberately to effect the election, he would have waited until at least Oct.

I suppose he could fake Bin Laden's death, but only if he was sure Bin Laden was already dead. Kinda inconvenient if he's not and Bin releases new vids of himself in a madrassa in Kenya. So no, he is dead. Obama may be a slime ball (almost a requirement for the job), but he is not stupid.

johnfoss

2012-03-18, 05:31 AM

Bush needed Bin Laden at-large to fuel public opinion to keep the war on terror going.Hardly. It seems to be cruising along fine without him.

And if he weren't dead, don't you think he would have put out a video or audio tape by now? My opnion is that the Obama administration caught Bin-Laden because they were smarter.

Not that smarter is necessarily a useful attribute in getting elected US President....

Gilby

2012-03-18, 01:22 PM

Ha! What kind of odd ball conspiracy theorist are YOU?!

You are the theorist here. I only asserted the fact that the evidence is lacking, because it is. I put forth no theories on it. It's just disappointing that they assassinate the most wanted man in the world, and they failed to get and keep conclusive evidence. If some foreign government did this mission and did it how the US did it, would the US take them at their word that Osama bin Laden was in fact dead?

Gilby

2012-03-18, 01:24 PM

And if he weren't dead, don't you think he would have put out a video or audio tape by now? My opnion is that the Obama administration caught Bin-Laden because they were smarter.

Osama's job if pretty much done. He accomplished what he wanted, just not to the full conclusion, but he's no longer needed by either side. If he is not dead, this would be a convenient escape.

leo

2012-03-18, 03:49 PM

* Corporate bailouts
* Huge deficits
* Escalated the war in Afghanistan
* Wanted to keep troops in Iraq (but got kicked out by Iraqi refusal to grant US troop immunity)
* Threatening war against Iran
* Patriot Act
* Guantanamo still operating
* Attacking new countries (as Gilby mentioned)
* Killing US citizens without a trial
* Killing non-US citizens without a trial!
* Providing a false birth cert; he was born in a hospital with a name that this hospital got years after his birth, just to name one of the many errors and hints in that document.
* Failed to do the ode in once - could Obama be a twin?
* Failed to do his 2nd one in public.

By counting the Osama Bin-Ladens. :)
You've must be watching Farhenheit-9/11
But, does a killed terrorist count for enough counter balance to above listing of problems?

Bush needed Bin Laden at-large to fuel public opinion to keep the war on terror going.
Hardly. It seems to be cruising along fine without him.
Your argument is more valid as a confirm of Gilby's statement than valid for your denial.

My opnion is that the Obama administration caught Bin-Laden.
My opinion is he died of kidney cancer years ago. I never met him, or Skype'd with him, but throug the years I found that theory the most convincing.

And if he didn't... then still there was NO right nor reason to kill him, other than that the US -no surprise- does not recognize the UN international war court in The Hague, and even made laws that allow to invade NATO partner countries to release US militairs that will be brought to court.
So I'm not a terrorist, just a spectator (like mentioned in Bush' 1st inagruation speech), but if the US wont change foreign policy by itself, then it will happen automaticly anyway, exactly like Ron Paul predicts.

they failed to get and keep conclusive evidence...evidence of a crime. Another.
And maybe not even a war-crime cause there was not really a war, other than in the media term "war on terrorism".

the Obama administration caught Bin-Laden because they were smarter.
I'd say, in such situation there were two options;
- kidnapping, bring him to the international UN war court, not recognized by the US, and with lack of a legal or illegal declairation of war
- kidnapping, bring him to a illegal court, just outside the US, say... Guantanamo!
- kill him by accident; triggerhappy dudes are at each level in special forces
- kill him by purpose, screw any court, including for the killers.
I don't know if "smarter" is exactly the best word, cause it implicates the word "smart".

harper

2012-03-18, 04:37 PM

I support Ron Paul for having Osama bin Laden assassinated.

harper

2012-03-18, 04:42 PM

You say Osama, I say Obama, let's call the whole thing off.

feel the light

2012-03-18, 09:38 PM

I'd say, in such situation there were two options;
- kidnapping, bring him to the international UN war court, not recognized by the US, and with lack of a legal or illegal declairation of war
- kidnapping, bring him to a illegal court, just outside the US, say... Guantanamo!
- kill him by accident; triggerhappy dudes are at each level in special forces
- kill him by purpose, screw any court, including for the killers.
I don't know if "smarter" is exactly the best word, cause it implicates the word "smart".

But if I was giving orders to the seal team that day, it would not be "we want him dead or alive". More like "we wanted him dead 10 years ago, today we are just making up time. Kill that SOB and get out of that place ASP before it goes all Hitler's bunker on your sad ass. "

Gilby

2012-03-19, 03:10 AM

they failed to get and keep conclusive evidence.

I take that back. I found the evidence:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/6133411029_d623eb95242.jpg

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-19, 03:11 AM

bin Laden was also armed and attempted to kill the Seals, they only killed him in self defense.

Gilby

2012-03-19, 03:43 AM

bin Laden was also armed and attempted to kill the Seals, they only killed him in self defense.

I thought I heard it otherwise. Got proof of this?

Gilby

2012-03-19, 06:11 AM

I'm definitely voting Paul in the primaries. But I have a feeling when the general comes around, it'll be Romney on the ticket. So it shall be. We just can't afford to have Obama in the office. He spends way too much.

Bush spent more than his predecesor. Obama spent more than his. What makes you think that Romney, if he is the nominee, will be better than Obama on spending?

maestro8

2012-03-19, 06:52 AM

What makes you think that Romney, if he is the nominee, will be better than Obama on spending?

Remember the "anyone but Bush" sentiment of 2008?

Well now I'm feelin' the "anyone but Obama" sentiment.

As others have pointed out, it's not all that much different. Obama hasn't delivered on many of his big promises... I'm done giving him chances.

johnfoss

2012-03-19, 07:16 AM

I don't know if "smarter" is exactly the best word, cause it implicates the word "smart".I'm sticking with smarter. You say Bin-Laden was already dead. Your evidence of that?

I take that back. I found the evidence:Ha-- Wait a second, does that Obama have a solid neck? That thing totally should be a bobble head!

leo

2012-03-19, 09:28 PM

My opinion is he died of kidney cancer years ago.
You say Bin-Laden was already dead.
I did not.

Your evidence of that?
It was a rumour, so less evident that polonium-210 and sushi isn't a good combination.

feel the light

2012-03-19, 11:00 PM

Remember the "anyone but Bush" sentiment of 2008?

Well now I'm feelin' the "anyone but Obama" sentiment.

As others have pointed out, it's not all that much different. Obama hasn't delivered on many of his big promises... I'm done giving him chances.

I mean, Obama is like Groucho, self centered and corrupt. So who do you choose to oppose evil in the world , Harpo, Insanitorium, Chico the Mormon ? Suddenly the Groucho Obama ticket starts looking pretty good. Sure, he didn't do what he said he would. Dorthy's slippers were also not made of cut gem. I know what the R's are for, and who's against it.

I'm Against It - Groucho and Zeppo Marx - Horse Feathers (1932) - YouTube

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-19, 11:31 PM

I thought I heard it otherwise. Got proof of this?

it was videotaped.

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-19, 11:32 PM

Obama hasn't delivered on many of his big promises... I'm done giving him chances.

It's been tough for him to get past the blocks Republicans have put in his way, but we can just vote THEM out of office so Obama can deliver!

Gilby

2012-03-20, 03:34 AM

it was videotaped.

Link please?

Gilby

2012-03-20, 03:37 AM

It's been tough for him to get past the blocks Republicans have put in his way, but we can just vote THEM out of office so Obama can deliver!

The worst thing ever is having a house, senate, and president of the same party. They tend to throw all their "ideals" out the window and pass anything they can. Typically, any new legislation is not good, so gridlock is preferred. We don't need Obama to deliver more corporatism/mercantilism/fascism/socialism. No thanks, I'd rather be free.

Gilby

2012-03-20, 03:38 AM

Ron Paul Intellectually Pummels Mitt Romney Into Submission - YouTube

maestro8

2012-03-20, 06:14 PM

It's been tough for him to get past the blocks Republicans have put in his way

There's a reason we have a balance of power in Washington.

If there weren't blocks in place, we'd have an even bigger defecit.

No thanks.

harper

2012-03-21, 12:31 AM

It's been tough for him to get past the blocks Republicans have put in his way, but we can just vote THEM out of office so Obama can deliver!

I kind of think the way our government is set up, our irresponsible executive is the one who is supposed to put the blocks on our irresponsible legislature, not entirely the other way around.

leo

2012-03-21, 01:37 AM

I kind of think the way our government is set up, our irresponsible executive is the one who is supposed to put the blocks on our irresponsible legislature, not entirely the other way around.
Exactly:
George Carlin Doesn't vote - YouTube

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-21, 11:02 AM

There's a reason we have a balance of power in Washington.

If there weren't blocks in place, we'd have an even bigger defecit.

No thanks.

REPUBLICANS create the huge deficits, shifting $ into the hands of their friends in military contracting, etc. Bill Clinton brought it way down from his predecessor, as Obama would have done without continued resistance from the wealthy legislators who pay almost no taxes.

harper

2012-03-21, 02:08 PM

REPUBLICANS create the huge deficits,

Billy-

If you're going to shout remember that all caps is so 1990s. Bold that anger and up the font size. Don't be a sissy when it comes to self-expression.

REPUBLICANS!

maestro8

2012-03-21, 07:29 PM

REPUBLICANS create the huge deficits, shifting $ into the hands of their friends in military contracting, etc.

National defense accounts for but 19% of the 2012 budget.

Entitlement programs account for 58%.

So... continue what you were saying about Republicans and huge deficits.

Gilby

2012-03-21, 09:18 PM

National defense accounts for but 19% of the 2012 budget.

Entitlement programs account for 58%.

So... continue what you were saying about Republicans and huge deficits.

If only Obama could find an entitlement program to suck money out of like Clinton did with Social Security to make it appear that the budget was balanced.

I find it hard to believe even 19% is actually spent on National Defense. Is some of that for the warmongering that actually hurts National Defense, or is the warmongering in the remaining 23%?

Gilby

2012-03-21, 10:43 PM

Billy-

If you're going to shout remember that all caps is so 1990s. Bold that anger and up the font size. Don't be a sissy when it comes to self-expression.

REPUBLICANS!

REPUBLICRATS!

That feels good!

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-21, 11:21 PM

National defense accounts for but 19% of the 2012 budget.

HA!!

Don't get fooled again and again!

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-21, 11:24 PM

If only Obama could find an entitlement program to suck money out of like Clinton did with Social Security to make it appear that the budget was balanced.

Clinton had taxpayers paying their own way to balance the budget, instead of pushing their bills onto their grandchildren like they do today. And he had the very wealthy paying some portion of their fair share, so they weren't just sucking off the workers like they do today.

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-21, 11:26 PM

While you and I are having our cake-and-ice-cream party, the others are having a drink-the-blood-of-the-poor party in the back room.

........

Gilby

2012-03-22, 12:19 AM

taxpayers...grandchildren

To the politician, the first word includes the second.

Gilby

2012-03-22, 12:44 AM

wealthy paying ... their fair share

If you do the math, the 1% can't really pay that much even if they are taxed 100%. If they are taxed 100% like you would like, you would still think they are not paying their "fair" share.

My question to you is, if one has to pay their fair share, what % of the product of every human's labor is the fair share to be owned by the United States?

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-22, 01:39 AM

If you do the math, the 1% can't really pay that much even if they are taxed 100%. If they are taxed 100% like you would like, you would still think they are not paying their "fair" share.

My question to you is, if one has to pay their fair share, what % of the product of every human's labor is the fair share to be owned by the United States?

what % of the product of every human's labor is the fair share to be owed to their nation?

Your question makes no sense.

What national resources did you use, or rely on, to make your wealth? For example, if you didn't pay your workers enough for them to afford health insurance or health care, your workers probably got their health care from the taxes of the middle class (e.g., WalMart workers get no health benefits). The wealthy who profit from these people depend on the middle class to keep them alive and healthy.

If middle class taxpayers didn't pay for the infrastructure, you would not have a store with utilities, nor a road to bring in supplies or to bring in shoppers, nor police to protect your store and transport vehicles and supply routes. It goes on and on.

Gilby

2012-03-22, 02:30 AM

what % of the product of every human's labor is the fair share to be owed to their nation?

Your question makes no sense.

So, 0%?

maestro8

2012-03-22, 04:04 PM

Don't get fooled again and again

You're the one getting his numbers from some anonymous blog that's loaded with anti-war rhetoric. They're motivated to make military spending look as huge as possible.

I got my numbers from the OMB. Straight from the source.

So, BillyTheFool, tell me again how Republicans are running up a huge deficit, when in fact we're giving roughly 50c of every tax dollar away to the poor?

maestro8

2012-03-22, 04:10 PM

if you didn't pay your workers enough for them to afford health insurance or health care, your workers probably got their health care from the taxes of the middle class (e.g., WalMart workers get no health benefits).

Last I checked, Billy, no one was being forced to work at WalMart.

You don't like the fact that they don't give benefits? Don't work for them!

Imagine that, a man makes a choice for himself instead of looking to the government to force that choice upon the employer HE FREELY CHOSE.

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-22, 05:30 PM

I got my numbers from the OMB. Straight from the source.

:D So you mean: Always trust the government?:D:D:D

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-22, 05:32 PM

Last I checked, Billy, no one was being forced to work at WalMart.

You don't like the fact that they don't give benefits? Don't work for them!

Imagine that, a man makes a choice for himself instead of looking to the government to force that choice upon the employer HE FREELY CHOSE.

10% of Americans cannot find work. It must be easy to be smug when you have a job of your choosing, and can turn down work.

maestro8

2012-03-22, 06:29 PM

10% of Americans cannot find work.
There is a natural resources boom going on in the north. Many towns only see 1% unemployment.

There is a tech boom going on in the west, and parts of the northwest and midwest.

The auto industry is on an upswing. Adding tens of thousands of jobs as we speak.

I think those that can't find work aren't looking hard enough.

[QUOTE]It must be easy to be smug when you have a job of your choosing, and can turn down work.

Telling you that you're getting your numbers from a biased source isn't "being smug", it's "being smart".

Did you double-check those numbers against any other source, or are you blindly trusting an anonymous blogger? How is that any different from me trusting the government?

harper

2012-03-22, 06:47 PM

Did you double-check those numbers against any other source, or are you blindly trusting an anonymous blogger? How is that any different from me trusting the government?

One is accountable and the other is not.

maestro8

2012-03-22, 07:53 PM

One is accountable and the other is not.

(Psst, Billy... Greg means the government is held accountable for reporting their numbers accurately, not the anonymous blogger that's hiding in his mom's basement)

harper

2012-03-22, 08:14 PM

(Psst, Billy... Greg means the government is held accountable for reporting their numbers accurately, not the anonymous blogger that's hiding in his mom's basement)

You were not supposed to give any hints to Billy. I had intended for him to figure that out on his own.

maestro8

2012-03-22, 09:40 PM

I had intended for him to figure that out on his own.

Billy's too busy figuring out how to coerce a private business into giving him what he wants without having to work any harder for it.

...and I bet he makes fun of lobbyists in Washington! Hah!

BillyTheMountain

2012-03-24, 11:08 PM

I think those that can't find work aren't looking hard enough.

:D:D:D

very funny.

unibabyguy

2012-03-25, 02:07 AM

(e.g., WalMart workers get no health benefits).

In 2009, Walmart said 52 percent of its employees obtained health coverage through it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/business/wal-mart-cuts-some-health-care-benefits.html?pagewanted=all

If middle class taxpayers didn't pay for the infrastructure, you would not have a store with utilities, nor a road to bring in supplies or to bring in shoppers, nor police to protect your store and transport vehicles and supply routes. It goes on and on.

In 2009, the top 10% of wage earners paid 70% of all personal Federal Income tax collected. The top 1% paid 36% of all personal income tax. It sounds to me like the wealthy are already shouldering their fair share of income taxes.

Gilby

2012-04-01, 08:26 PM

Ron Paul is winning Minnesota!

Yesterday we had our state Senate District GOP convention, where delegates to the Congressional and State GOP conventions were elected. With 44 delegate slots open, Ron Paul supporters took 22, with the other half being split among Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney. This is happening all across the state (and country). With a majority of delegates at the Congressional District convention, where we vote for delegates to go to the National convention, we are sure to have them all be Ron Paul supporters.

Gilby

2012-04-05, 09:31 PM

You wont see the media covering this:
http://i42.tinypic.com/5z1hcp.jpg

feel the light

2012-04-05, 10:24 PM

Paul has a great message, and will likely stay in all the way to the convention.

I am seeing Sanibut and lame amphibian bowing out soon. Even if Mitt can't lock it (unlikely), Paul has .003 % odds of coming out as the nom.

It will be the Kenyan Muslim liar against the stealing corporate raider Mormon.

This much is certain, gentleman, prepare your mud. Mitt and Obama have this one.

maestro8

2012-04-05, 11:00 PM

You wont see the media covering this

Ok, so what's the point?

Is there an automatic break point at which the media is needed to validate the existence of an event?

Gilby

2012-04-06, 12:46 PM

Ok, so what's the point?

Is there an automatic break point at which the media is needed to validate the existence of an event?

The point being that he's getting huge turnouts wherever he goes.

As for the comment on the media not covering. It's just a general statement going off the fact that the media ignores Ron Paul, will mention all the other candidates, and purposely exclude Ron Paul. If they do mention him, it's usually to minimize him. The day after a rally with thousands of people, one article asks "Where's Ron Paul?" They must be having a hard time finding him in such large crowds.

leo

2012-04-06, 02:02 PM

Is there an automatic break point at which the media is needed to validate the existence of an event?
Yes, I think the (advertisement) sales departments can very accurate point out where.

BillyTheMountain

2012-04-07, 02:30 PM

Is anyone looking forward to the Republican National Convention in Florida this year? Thousands of armed protesters "stand their ground" against Republicans?

BillyTheMountain

2012-04-07, 02:31 PM

The point being that he's getting huge turnouts wherever he goes.

As for the comment on the media not covering. It's just a general statement going off the fact that the media ignores Ron Paul, will mention all the other candidates, and purposely exclude Ron Paul. If they do mention him, it's usually to minimize him. The day after a rally with thousands of people, one article asks "Where's Ron Paul?" They must be having a hard time finding him in such large crowds.

They'd do the same thing for the Second Coming of the Messiah, what can you expect?

The Media’s Blackout of Ron Paul Has Gone Openly Hostile Ignoring Chico St., UC Berkeley and UCLA Rallies
By S. Jacob Stern | RMSMC
Updated: 04/06/12 4:46am

The question for me is: How does ALL the media form a coalition against Ron Paul?

feel the light

2012-04-07, 08:38 PM

I think he will hang around and schmooze until the convention. Mitt likely won't need his delegates to get the Nom, but Mitt certainly craves Ron's supporters in Nov.

A bit of a wild card question, but going rogue nuts is apparently established GOP policy. What do you guys think are the chances of a Mitt- Rand Paul ticket?
Or a Mitt-Ron Paul ticket ? My vote is for Mitt- Rand as more likely. Tea party types and RP nostalgics are maybe 10-20 % of the vote.

Mitt has got a Nom lock IMHO. Who could be a better VP to move him to the center, with a big vote boost, than a Paul ?

If Mitt pick's another rich white religious male flack like himself, or a hot model from Alaska, it has been done before. Mitt needs a VP who can turn the debate to the deficit and financial sanity.

unibabyguy

2012-04-09, 12:22 AM

You wont see the media covering this:

You mean to say 10,000 people showed up to watch Ron Paul play tennis? He must be a god! :)

MuniAddict

2012-04-09, 12:26 AM

You mean to say 10,000 people showed up to watch Ron Paul play tennis? He must be a god! :)Too bad he lost game, set, match. :p

johnfoss

2012-04-09, 02:25 AM

Too bad he lost game, set, match. :pThat's what he gets for going up against Billy Jean King. Should have picked somebody closer to his own age. :)

BillyTheMountain

2012-04-09, 02:41 AM

My vote is for Mitt- Rand as more likely.

Rand doesn't even have the ideology down, his father even said so a while back.

maestro8

2012-04-09, 06:26 PM

Thousands of armed protesters "stand their ground" against Republicans?

The irony here is so thick it disgusts me. It seems you're only allowed to carry openly if you support the radical right wing. Carry so much as a water gun while supporting anything further left, and you get beaten and arrested...

johnfoss

2012-04-10, 04:26 AM

Carry so much as a water gun while supporting anything further left, and you get beaten and arrested...It's a good thing people toward the left don't seem to be as afraid all the time.

BillyTheMountain

2012-04-10, 04:26 PM

The irony here is so thick it disgusts me. It seems you're only allowed to carry openly if you support the radical right wing. Carry so much as a water gun while supporting anything further left, and you get beaten and arrested...

It's not a left or right issue. Even your personal pepper spray or knife will be banned.

It's a GUN issue. Here's a quote:
Water and air pistols will be banned from the Republican National Convention in Tampa in August, but curiously real guns will be allowed.

The Tampa Tribune reports that guns originally appeared on the list of banned potential weapons, but then the City Attorney remembered a Florida law that prohibits local governments from restricting the carrying of guns in public places.

"If we'd tried to regulate guns, it wouldn't have worked," said City Attorney Jim Shimberg. "Any local ordinance that regulates guns is void"

Guns will still be banned from the security zone the Secret Service will set up around the convention center, but guns will be allowed outside of that in an area Mayor Bob Buckhorn dubbed the "clean zone.

State law bans open carry of guns, but people with permits can carry concealed weapons.

maestro8

2012-04-10, 05:25 PM

The question for me is: How does ALL the media form a coalition against Ron Paul?

Good question.

Gilby?

Gilby

2012-04-11, 03:35 PM

http://i.imgur.com/UvJTT.jpg

Gilby

2012-04-14, 09:41 PM

With a majority of delegates at the Congressional District convention, where we vote for delegates to go to the National convention, we are sure to have them all be Ron Paul supporters.

The Minnesota 6th Congressional District GOP Convention was today, and all delegates and alternates elected to go to the RNC in Florida are for Ron Paul. He's winning the delegates.

BillyTheMountain

2012-04-14, 10:25 PM

Gilby

2012-04-15, 01:34 PM

are you willing to bet on him becoming the Republican Presidential Candidate?

I've seen first hand how corrupt the GOP is here in MN, and while there is a chance that Ron Paul can win the nomination, with the political system being owned by corporate america, the deck is stacked against him.

So, in a way, I am betting on him winning by participating in the caucus, donating to his campaign, and doing other things to help him (and other candidates). I am also hedging that bet by preparing my personal affairs to limit the effects of the increasing oppression of the United States criminal protection racket.

Gilby

2012-04-15, 04:18 PM

The Minnesota 6th Congressional District GOP Convention was today, and all delegates and alternates elected to go to the RNC in Florida are for Ron Paul. He's winning the delegates.

It wasn't just in my district that Ron Paul won yesterday. He took all of the delegates in the two other districts that had conventions yesterday: http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-wilmington/ron-paul-wins-minnesota-colorado-delegates-to-republican-national-convention

Gilby

2012-04-23, 03:37 AM

Ron Paul wins Minnesota!

All the congressional districts have now had their conventions, where each elected 3 delegates to the RNC. The delegate count breaks down to: Paul 20, Santorum 2, Romney 1, Gingrich 1.

We elect 13 more at the state convention, and with Ron Paul supporters obviously dominating the delegation, we'll likely take all those as well. We'll also nominate Kurt Bills, a Ron Paul endorsed candidate, to be the GOP's US Senate candidate.

BillyTheMountain

2012-04-24, 01:00 AM

Gilby

2012-04-24, 04:49 AM

so are you saying: Ladies and Gentleman, the next President of the United States ..... ?

It could happen. The news is now reporting that Ron Paul won Iowa: "I Think Ron Paul Just Won Iowa!" Rachel Maddow April 23, 2012 - YouTube

BillyTheMountain

2012-04-24, 10:34 AM

It could happen. The news is now reporting that Ron Paul won Iowa: "I Think Ron Paul Just Won Iowa!" Rachel Maddow April 23, 2012 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfS1x5RnZZQ)

But Iowa has a population of 10 unless you include the cows:D

Gilby

2012-04-25, 04:50 AM

10 years ago today:
Ron Paul - Predictions in Due Time (Original) - YouTube

Gilby

2012-04-26, 03:38 AM

It's now down to the only anti-romney, Ron Paul, or the flip flop romney himself. http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/333323/20120425/ron-paul-2012-news-delegates-mitt-romney.htm

Gilby

2012-05-02, 03:44 AM

The question for me is: How does ALL the media form a coalition against Ron Paul?

Good question.

Gilby?

Yes, this is a good question. Sorry it took so long for me to answer. All I can say is look at the incentives in the media and the limits that government imposes on the media. That explains most of it without getting into any conspiracy theories.

For a few examples, consider:

The wireless spectrum is very limited to use by the free market. In fact, there is no free market in the radio spectrum. The US government claims to own all of the spectrum, and even though they "license" some of it to the media and other large corporations, they keep a very large majority of it to themselves. Since government licenses the spectrum and controls how it can be used, just think of how limited it is today, and imagine the technology we could have today that could take advantage of all three dimensions (mimo, diversity, compression, etc). If we had directional wireless usage of the spectrum, there really is little limit to it, compared to how it is used today. See more below on how the FCC/government restricts what is available on the mainstream media.
This restriction in spectrum use and the media results in less media companies, which means it becomes easy for the elite to control them all. They end up being huge corporations, which are fueled by the banking system, which has a monopoly on the creation of money. Since they can create money at little cost, at all of our expense, they can have ownership over these media companies and have control over them. Going further into the monetary cartel (created in 1913) is a whole other topic.
How are individual journalists successful? Other than doing reporting consistent with the above, how do they really be successful? Since the major news items are created, or can be gained, from government officials, to be successful, as a journalist, you need to be close to these government officials. Reporting favorably as a result of the information you get from them will allow you to get even more from these government officials, and therefore you will have future success. This means that those journalists favorable to government are the ones that excel and are promoted to the higher positions in journalism.

Though this is from a while ago, Rothbard's, For a New Liberty (http://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/For%20a%20New%20Liberty%20The%20Libertarian%20Manifesto.pdf) (available for free, which is a good read), has the following regarding the media:
There is one important area of American life where no effective freedom of speech or the press does or can exist under the present system. That is the entire field of radio and television. In this area, the federal government, in the crucially important Radio Act of 1927, nationalized the airwaves. In effect, the federal government took title to ownership of all radio and television channels. It then presumed to grant licenses, at its will or pleasure, for use of the channels to various privately owned stations.

On the one hand, the stations, since they receive the licenses gratis, do not have to pay for the use of the scarce airwaves, as they would on the free market. And so these stations receive a huge subsidy, which they are eager to maintain. But on the other hand, the federal government, as the licensor of the airwaves, asserts the right and the power to regulate the stations minutely and continuously. Thus, over the head of each station is the club of the threat of nonrenewal, or even suspension, of its license. In consequence, the idea of freedom of speech in radio and television is no more than a mockery. Every station is grievously restricted, and forced to fashion its programming to the dictates of the Federal Communications Commission.

...

Because every station and every broadcaster must always look over its shoulder at the FCC, free expression in broadcasting is a sham. Is it any wonder that television opinion, when it is expressed at all on controversial issues, tends to be blandly in favor of the 'Establishment?'

...

A recent act of the FCC was to threaten nonrenewal of license of radio station KTRG in Honolulu, a major radio station in Hawaii. KTRG had been broadcasting libertarian programs for several hours a day for approximately two years. Finally, in late 1970, the FCC decided to open lengthy hearings moving toward nonrenewal of license, the threatened cost of which forced the owners to shut down the station permanently.

Gilby

2012-05-12, 11:58 PM

It may be too late to stop Ron Paul’s strategy (http://bangordailynews.com/2012/05/10/politics/it-may-be-too-late-to-stop-ron-pauls-strategy/)

Most of the news is ignoring Ron Paul, but now that is probably a good thing. Ron Paul has won 11 states so far, when you look at the delegates, which is really all that matters, and most states still have to elect their delegates to the Republican National Convention, so it's still wide open to those still seeking the nomination (now only Ron Paul and Willard Romney). Romney is definitely concerned about Ron Paul's chances. I've been getting emails from the Romney campaign encouraging me to go to the Minnesota state GOP convention, and even postcards as well. They are sending these to all delegates hoping that the majority is on their side and will show up. They did this in Nevada and Maine, yet Ron Paul won both of these states. If Ron Paul is mentioned in the mainstream media, they usually say something about how he can't win, but these media pundits are clueless about how the primary/caucus works. Using the delegate strategy that Ron Paul is using has in the past been successful. Obama won against Hillary using it, and even Reagan won on it.

For those of you in California, if you support Ron Paul, you need to register republican (yikes!) by May 21, 2012 to vote in your primary.

MuniAddict

2012-05-13, 12:12 AM

"Ron Paul knows he can't win..."
http://moneymorning.com/tag/republican-delegate-count/

Gilby

2012-05-13, 01:20 AM

"Ron Paul knows he can't win..."
http://moneymorning.com/tag/republican-delegate-count/

Got a quote from him that proves that?

That article states:
"The sticking point is that convention delegates are bound by party rules to vote according to primary or caucus results on the first ballot. That means many of Paul's hard-won delegates will have to cast their first vote for former governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney."

However, that really is not the case:
Reality Check: All Republican Delegates Are "Free Agents" and Unbound? - YouTube

MuniAddict

2012-05-13, 02:36 AM

Romney moves within 200 delegates of nomination (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hMsjxJH4QnEzG2V8QssIrkLEcR8w?docId=0deb12c755b64e7ca880f2f9d20deba c)

Gilby

2012-05-13, 03:59 AM

Romney moves within 200 delegates of nomination (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hMsjxJH4QnEzG2V8QssIrkLEcR8w?docId=0deb12c755b64e7ca880f2f9d20deba c)

Good case on how the mainstream media reports the delegate counts. They are using the straw poll to determine what the delegates for each candidate are, but that's simply not an accurate way to do it.

Gilby

2012-05-13, 04:24 AM

"Ron Paul knows he can't win..."
http://moneymorning.com/tag/republican-delegate-count/

He sure doesn't sound like he believes he can't win in this message: Ron Paul Update - YouTube

johnfoss

2012-05-14, 05:53 AM

Yes, this is a good question. Sorry it took so long for me to answer. All I can say is look at the incentives in the media and the limits that government imposes on the media.This has nothing to do with the FCC. There is one incentive in today's news media that trumps all others, $$$. In the past this wasn't the case for news coverage, but apparently that went away (in the TV industry) around the same time that cable TV went mainstream. Now it's all about ratings and ad revenue.

Which doesn't explain, to me, why Ron Paul gets so much less coverage. I think he's interesting, but apparently the media outlets don't. They could be wrong, but they probably aren't.

MuniAddict

2012-05-14, 10:51 PM

Ron Paul effectively ending presidential campaign

www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-ron-paul-effectively-ending-presidential-campaign-20120514,0,5865484.story

Gilby

2012-05-15, 01:39 AM

Ron Paul effectively ending presidential campaign

www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-ron-paul-effectively-ending-presidential-campaign-20120514,0,5865484.story

It's interesting on how the press misinterprets the email that was sent out. He did not end his campaign, but is simply focusing his resources to where he'll get the most bang for his buck: getting delegates.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/05/14/ron-paul-has-not-suspended-his-campaign/

Gilby

2012-05-20, 03:32 AM

Ron Paul got huge wins in MN the last couple days at our State GOP convention. Yesterday, we endorsed Kurt Bills for US Senate, who was endorsed by Ron Paul. Then today, we elected 12 out of 13 delegates to the RNC. The 13th delegate would have been elected on a second round of voting since only 12 got 50% or more of the vote the first round. This second round would have been against a Ron Paul supporter, and Rep. Michele Bachman herself. The Ron Paul supporter conceded that spot to the congresswoman. All 13 alternates elected are Ron Paul supporters.

MuniAddict

2012-05-20, 08:16 PM

ron paul got huge wins in mn the last couple days at our state gop convention......
53851

Gilby

2012-05-20, 08:47 PM

Are you trying to say that a Ron Paul endorsed candidate did not get nominated for US Senate, and that Ron Paul delegates did not get elected?

I was there. There is no way to deny the facts. Even the local paper reported it:
http://www.twincities.com/ci_20663278/ron-paul-backers-complete-weekend-sweep-minnesota

You do know that the Ron Paul Revolution is not just about getting Ron Paul elected. It's about taking over the GOP and electing candidates that support Ron Paul's platform: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/05/19/ron-pauls-endgame/

After all, it is a revolution.

Gilby

2012-05-21, 03:42 AM

I should say, four years ago, the MN GOP showed how corrupt they were, and I don't doubt that many other states will show us this year how corrupt they are... however, this year, the MN GOP followed their rules quite well, in my opinion. They have gone under a huge transformation as a result of a lot of scandals (https://www.google.com/search?&q=mn+gop+scandals) in the party.

As for the Ron Paul movement, you probably need a reality check:
Reality Check: Liberty Movement Taking Over GOP Part 1 - YouTube
Reality Check: Liberty Movement Taking Over GOP Part 2 - YouTube
Reality Check: Liberty Movement Taking Over GOP Part 3 - YouTube

MuniAddict

2012-05-21, 11:31 PM

Bottom line question: Who will be GOP nominee. Paul or Romney?

From the Associated Press (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gF4k8Py_fzoMU8TOiYCSJ-UpPYXQ?docId=f693d271d6604ccdbc42923a799615af), 5 days ago.

Nurse Ben

2012-05-22, 04:31 PM

You do know that the Ron Paul Revolution is not just about getting Ron Paul elected.

So, denial finally caught up with ya?

I'm pretty sure RP knew he was out of the race from the start, so it never was about winning the R nomination, which is kinda funny considering all of your comments to the contrary :rolleyes:

No worries though, you are not the only one that prefers an underdog and would like to see the system flipped on it's head.

I would love to see a true multi-party system and a consortium styled govt, splitting things two ways is not working so well for us or the government.

UniBrier

2012-05-23, 01:58 PM

From the real Warshington http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2018262937_bruce23.html

Because Ron Paul backers show up, expect a battle at the GOP convention in Tacoma

Seattle Times editorial columnist Bruce Ramsey outlines the strategy of the Ron Paul forces and predicts a floor fight at the state convention of the Washington State Republican Party.

By Bruce Ramsey
Seattle Times editorial columnist

Ron Paul placed a distant second in the Republican Party's caucuses here March 3. Mitt Romney scored 38 percent and Paul 25 percent. News stories said Romney had "won" Washington, but really he had not. The game is winning delegates, and in a caucus state a candidate needs supporters who will do more than vote.

Washington sends 43 delegates to the national convention in Tampa. Forty of them will be elected at the state Republican convention in Tacoma June 1-2: 10 at large and three for each congressional district. Who wins, says state party Chairman Kirby Wilbur, "depends on who shows up."

Paul supporters are good at showing up. Look at other caucus states:

• Maine — In Paul's best state, he ran a close second to Romney in the vote count. At Maine's convention May 6, the Paul forces swept 21 of the 24 delegates, leaving only three party officials to support Romney.

• Minnesota — In the caucus vote, Paul came in a distant second to Rick Santorum. After the state convention last weekend, Paul had 32 of the 37 delegates.

• Iowa — In the first caucus of 2012, Romney was the reported winner, though the final count went to Santorum. Paul ran a close third. No matter; of the state's 28 delegates, Paul owns 10 already and will have more at the state convention June 16. The Paul forces have taken over the Iowa party leadership.

• Alaska — Paul came in third in the caucus vote — and his supporters have taken over the Alaska party leadership.

Paul has made other post-caucus gains in Michigan, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Colorado and Nevada.

When Paul ran for president four years ago, he didn't do this. He wasn't a party man; he did not endorse the Republican nominee, John McCain, and was not invited to the convention. Paul had his own convention. But this year he wants to speak to Republican delegates and influence their platform.

Why? He is ending a long career in Congress. At 76, he is too old to run for president in 2016.

"Ron knows he'll never be president," says Wilbur. "His son may be." Rand Paul, 49, was elected in 2010 as senator from Kentucky. Rand needs his father's supporters — and they need someone to carry their flag.

Ron Paul is a candidate of ideas. Some of them are not ripe and may never be, but on one question he speaks immediately to the national troubles. He would recast the Republican Party as conservative but opposing foreign war, debt finance and encroachments on civil liberty.

And that would be a change.

Exit polls show Paul running strongest among the young. He has peeled off supporters from the left, bringing in new blood to his cause and maybe to the Republican Party. His following is fervent and not all of them well-mannered. They do stand up for him.

At a Kitsap County Republican meeting, state Chairman Wilbur was taped telling a uncooperative Paulite to "sit down and shut up." Afterward, Wilbur said, "three Ron Paul people came up to me and apologized and said they were not all that way."

After Romney's son Josh was booed in Arizona and Sen. Lisa Murkowski was booed in Alaska, the Paul campaign ordered supporters to behave themselves. Wilbur is happy about that.

He still expects a battle in Tacoma. By congressional district, he says, "Paul is strong in the 3rd, the 6th and the 7th, and Romney is strong in the 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th."

The rest, he adds, "we really don't know."

Bruce Ramsey's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times.

Gilby

2012-05-23, 10:43 PM

So, denial finally caught up with ya?

What am I supposed to be in denial about?

I'm pretty sure RP knew he was out of the race from the start, so it never was about winning the R nomination, which is kinda funny considering all of your comments to the contrary :rolleyes:

No, I'm pretty sure he knew it was an uphill battle, but that he wasn't out of the race from the beginning.

Even now, he is still not out of the race. Yeah, he may not have a majority, but he is geting a lot of delegates, plus they just might not be bound to Romney on the first vote. So, it's really open as to how many delegates any candidate really has. Ron Paul might not have a majority of them now, but Romney's success until now and being called the presumptive nominee is based on his "electability". That means that if Romney's poll numbers go down between now and the RNC, then a lot of the delegates may just not want to nominate him. So if Mitt Romney can't get the nomination, who is next in line? By focusing on collecting delegates, Ron Paul has a good chance.

I would love to see a true multi-party system and a consortium styled govt, splitting things two ways is not working so well for us or the government.

The error in this is that you think that democracy works, but, democracy is simply mob rule, where the majority take whatever they can from the minority. I do agree that a consortium would make for a better democracy. If I were to accept democracy, I would prefer that I actually had a representative in congress. Meaning that, for example, let's say Minnesota has 8 representatives in congress, I could vote statewide for a candidate that will represent my views, and then the top 8 win, instead of the current majority wins in my smaller territorial area that the congressperson represents.

A republic is better than a democracy, as a republic is supposed to adhere to certain principles, for example, in a republic, a government cannot violate the inalienable rights of each individual, those rights being life, liberty, and property. The United States constitution guarantees a republic, but the United States government does not follow the constitution anymore, and therefore that's why all the politicians, and most peopl call this a democracy. The idea of following the constitution only gets lip service now.

It is for that reason that I believe that a minarchist government, like what the United States was set up to be, one that is limited to the protection of each individual's life, liberty and property, does not work, and that only an anarchist society will actually achieve maximum freedom and prosperity.

Reforming a broken idea (democracy, republic, minarchy) will not achieve what you think it will.