CILONE/SK Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Just so you do not forget, you still have not answered the question or backed up that Ron Paul is not an isolationist other then calling it a different word. That is the current topic, stay on it. How many times do I have to remind you that you failed to respond to a question??? Not once have you addressed my point that I keep bringing up. You sir are dumb. Quote: Originally Posted by CILONE/SK (View Original Post) I have looked into it and his whole FP is isolationism and the way he backs it up is to say that he is not a isolationist but a non-interventionist. He has not provided any other support to back himself up or to suggest how we stop terrorism if we are only within our borders. That is why you can not answer the question or back it up, because it is wrong. The end state are both are the same, so it does not matter which word you use. Not one time has he addressed stopping terrorism and his whole FP will actually allow terrorism to grow unimpeded as long as they do not mess with our borders. By that point, we will have no positions away from our borders to address anything and they will be too powerful to stop. Do you have anything??? anything at all??? Keep attacking the word and not arguing the results of his FP make even the smallest bit of sense. You all know they do not, so you do not want to address it. Please show me where you have addressed any of this??? Ok lost brain show where any of this has been answered, or are you full of shit like the rest of them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Nobody is redefining anything, we clearly explain very loose terms you apply to RP. After it is explained in a manner in which you SHOULD understand, you result to denying this explanation, than turn around and start insulting everyone involved. I won't ignore you, because you are entertainment, sort of like watching an episode of The Jersey Shore. Train wreck status. I thought about this. Not one single time can any of you talk specifics about ronnie paulie and his bullshit policies, not once. When asked specific questions that are very valid, you all whine like little bitches about me insulting you, yet you all are on 12oz and want to complain about insults. Little bitches. Also, those valid questions should be very simple to answer if his policies made any sense. Questions such as, how do we stop terrorists from getting too powerful if we do not do anything as long as they do not mess with our borders??? What happens to sick people who are too poor to afford health care??? What is to stop corporations from ruining our environment under a free market when you take the teeth out of the government???? Those are not unreasonable questions for a presidential candidate to answer when his policies seem to be inline with causing these issues. The only ones who think they are unreasonable and try to change the subject are those of you who suck RP balls and are too brainwashed to see reality. Luckily for America, there are reasonable realistic people that see past Ronnie paulies bullshit and ensure he has no chance in hell of winning any election. He can not even win his own district anymore now that he has been redistricted by the GOP. Black people will not vote for him and that is his new district. So start answering reasonable questions and back up your candidate or shut the fuck up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
profsuspecto Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 All of your questions have been discussed previously. Look back through the thread before making such crass dismissals. I'm sure you genuinely mean to promote discussion but you only work to alienate yourself with your low brow responses and your 'black and white' refusal to engage with anything other than these poorly conceived questions. how do we stop terrorists from getting too powerful if we do not do anything as long as they do not mess with our borders??? See previous discussion relating to blowback. What happens to sick people who are too poor to afford health care??? Pick up any micro-economic textbook and you will see that government intervention increases the cost of any service rather than lowers it. What is to stop corporations from ruining our environment under a free market when you take the teeth out of the government???? Property rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 It sure is funny that you actually do not answer the questions. Property rights is not an answer and neither is blowback. If you have something of substance, say it. You just refer to basic libertarian nonsense. Answer the questions with real answers, because I can reply to your answers with "just do some research and all your answers are debunked". Why can none of you actually respond with real realistic answers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 How does a micro-economic text book explain what a poor person does when they are sick and can not afford healthcare??? You might think that I am being an ass, but none of you are actually taking a look at situations that real peole will face if Ronnie paulie is elected. It is easy to revert to some text book bullshit, but when you have to deal with real people, life is not so black and white and writing off people to blowback, property rights, or micro economics does not mean shit. Realistically answer the questions and I will be glad to discuss them with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
profsuspecto Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I could write extensively on all of these issues, however I choose not to because I don't feel it is worth my time to engage with you. Hence, I wrote some bullet points alluding to the answer I would give. Your language and the calibre of your previous posts rules out any serious, thoughtful, engagement. I'm sure most of the others in this thread would agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 BTW, I could care less about alienating myself from a bunch of fringe Ronnie paulie supporters. They alienate themselves on their own with their fringe beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I could write extensively on all of these issues, however I choose not to because I don't feel it is worth my time to engage with you. Hence, I wrote some bullet points alluding to the answer I would give. Your language and the calibre of your previous posts rules out any serious, thoughtful, engagement. I'm sure most of the others in this thread would agree. You fit right in with these knobslobbers. You think you have all the answers, but when it comes down to real world situations, you can not support your viewpoints. So pretend to stay on the high road, but so far, not one single person can even tell me what would Ronnie paulies FP do to prevent the growth of terrorism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 If any of you guys had anything, one of you would have said it by now. None of you haven't yet or are willing to discuss it, so that just shows everyone that none of you can support you candidate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
profsuspecto Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 If any of you guys had anything, one of you would have said it by now. None of you haven't yet or are willing to discuss it, so that just shows everyone that none of you can support you candidate. So you think calling everyone "knobslobbers" has nothing to do with it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Do you think that never clearly answering a question has nothing to do with being a Knobslobber? See, even you refuse to answer valid questions. Pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Do you understand the term blow back? How about stepping out of the Middle East/Afghanistan, radical's can't have a following if the people of the region do not believe that they are correct in their line of thought. The whole isolationist thing is rather annoying, you make it sound like RP's FP is about crawling into a shell or something and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist. This is false. He is simply talking about minding our own business, getting out of the however many countries we currently occupy in some way or another. He would rather handle issue's with diplomacy than with brute force or intimidation, and other tactics (ie: sanctions) that we employ that also result in further blow back and sets us further back with the people of what ever region we are fucking with at the time. We've been following the status quo on this for the past like...60 years and we are here now, perhaps a different approach is worth a try. There are also plenty of African American RP supporter's what kind of racist nonsense are you pulling out of your ass now? It seem's like you already have all of these preconceived notions in your mind about what is or what isn't. RP is a racist, he will shut America from the outside world, he will allow terrorism to spread like the virus it is. How about you explain why there are terrorist's, and why they hate Americans. Then you can explain how your candidate, Obama is doing a better job about any of those issue's and how we are safer as Americans because of those decisions. Then, you should match up those answers with what the man campaigned to do, put 2 and 2 together and realize what is actually happening around you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Also, what gives us the right to do any of this? Because we are America? How fucking ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
profsuspecto Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 The government is not there to make a profit, it is there to take care of their people. This is probably the most naive comment I have read in quite a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 naive is a huge understatement. dude needs to read some books and educate himself about a LOT of things. it's one thing to disagree with people, but he goes a step further and is just plain ignorant and obnoxious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Do you understand the term blow back? How about stepping out of the Middle East/Afghanistan, radical's can't have a following if the people of the region do not believe that they are correct in their line of thought. The whole isolationist thing is rather annoying, you make it sound like RP's FP is about crawling into a shell or something and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist. This is false. He is simply talking about minding our own business, getting out of the however many countries we currently occupy in some way or another. He would rather handle issue's with diplomacy than with brute force or intimidation, and other tactics (ie: sanctions) that we employ that also result in further blow back and sets us further back with the people of what ever region we are fucking with at the time. We've been following the status quo on this for the past like...60 years and we are here now, perhaps a different approach is worth a try. There are also plenty of African American RP supporter's what kind of racist nonsense are you pulling out of your ass now? It seem's like you already have all of these preconceived notions in your mind about what is or what isn't. RP is a racist, he will shut America from the outside world, he will allow terrorism to spread like the virus it is. How about you explain why there are terrorist's, and why they hate Americans. Then you can explain how your candidate, Obama is doing a better job about any of those issue's and how we are safer as Americans because of those decisions. Then, you should match up those answers with what the man campaigned to do, put 2 and 2 together and realize what is actually happening around you. I am just going to quote myself because NOT ONE TIME DID ANY OF YOU ANSWER ANY OF THESE REASONABLE QUESTIONS, NOT ONCE. And you call me naive. I thought about this. Not one single time can any of you talk specifics about ronnie paulie and his bullshit policies, not once. When asked specific questions that are very valid, you all whine like little bitches about me insulting you, yet you all are on 12oz and want to complain about insults. Little bitches. Also, those valid questions should be very simple to answer if his policies made any sense. Questions such as, how do we stop terrorists from getting too powerful if we do not do anything as long as they do not mess with our borders??? What happens to sick people who are too poor to afford health care??? What is to stop corporations from ruining our environment under a free market when you take the teeth out of the government???? Those are not unreasonable questions for a presidential candidate to answer when his policies seem to be inline with causing these issues. The only ones who think they are unreasonable and try to change the subject are those of you who suck RP balls and are too brainwashed to see reality. Luckily for America, there are reasonable realistic people that see past Ronnie paulies bullshit and ensure he has no chance in hell of winning any election. He can not even win his own district anymore now that he has been redistricted by the GOP. Black people will not vote for him and that is his new district. So start answering reasonable questions and back up your candidate or shut the fuck up. Are all three of you that fucking stupid that you can not reply to simple questions??? BTW, I think he is a fucking racist, but there is only very slim proof. But I do know that it is really funny that his new district has alot more minorities and all of a sudden he is not going to run for it anymore. hahahaha, Black Ron Paul supporters??? That is like Black tea Party supporters, sure they have tokens, but can you pull your head out your ass and tell me that even 1% of the supporters are non white? If you say yes, you are blatantly full of shit. Also, for those of you who need to go back to school to learn some more, bringing up blowback does not address issues we currently have. That is like saying we should hide away in our borders and let terrorist have a free for all in third world countries because we made a mistake. Your a fucking idiot who does not understand world politics.But neither does ronnie paulie, so I guess that makes sense. Hiding in our borders is not an answer and will just cause terrorist to wait and grow stronger and stronger out side our borders if they know we will not do anything if they do not touch or borders. Sooner or later, they will be strong enough to really affect our country and we will be too weak to do anything about it. How does your post even remotely have a response to that??? BTW, nice trying to change the subject, now if you are so fucking smart, finally answer some questions with REAL answers and not some bullshit that has nothing to do with real people. It really amazes me how you all get so whiney when you can not answer questions and then bring up bullshit that does not answer them and then you try to change the subject to something you can talk about, but that subject never answers any questions either. Support your candidate, that should not be that hard, but I guess for you retards it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Also, what gives us the right to do any of this? Because we are America? How fucking ridiculous. This is your whole point, but you want to bring up blowback, fucking idiot. As the worlds leading superpower, we have responsibilities to go along with that. Hiding in our borders will cause more problems then it will solve, but I do not expect you to understand that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Yea because you are on such a higher level of intelligence. I don't expect you to understand Freedom. Clearly the thought is over your head. We aren't going to be a Super Power for long on the path we're on, you don't understand this either. Not to mention I have answered all of your questions, you may not agree with the answer's but they are still answer's, learn how to read, pal. I also like how you avoided the questions I've asked you completely. I'm not surprised though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Also your baseless claim that he can't win his new district is pretty funny. THE MAN HAS BEEN IN CONGRESS FOR 20+ YEARS, HE HAS RUN FOR PRESIDENT 3 TIMES, HE IS GOING TO BE 77 YEARS OLD. Can he just retire???? Is it that so outlandish that the man can fall back from public office if he fails at his 3rd attempt at running for President? And how is he racist? Because he disagrees with certain property issue's in the 64 civil rights act? Or is it because the KKK donated money to his campaign in 2008? Neither of these issue's are solid enough to say anything for sure, it's all in your head. I could post youtube video's of a bunch of African American's who support RP, but you would just disregard those as you disregard everything else. Why don't you go into the Obama thread, because there is one here somewhere, and keep stroking your boy, nobody want's your ignorant and baseless accusations in this thread anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Yea because you are on such a higher level of intelligence. I don't expect you to understand Freedom. Clearly the thought is over your head. We aren't going to be a Super Power for long on the path we're on, you don't understand this either. Not to mention I have answered all of your questions, you may not agree with the answer's but they are still answer's, learn how to read, pal.You have not answered one of them. To say "blowback" in response to a question about terrorism in the future is nonsense. Blowbakc is a "cause" of an action. That means it is past tense. No one has answered anything about how RPs FP will do anything to prevent terrorism in the FUTURE. Keep dwelling on the past retard. I also like how you avoided the questions I've asked you completely. I'm not surprised though. You all refuse to answer relevant questions, yet you want me to anser question about another candidate on this thread??? Like that makes fucking sense. Go ask them on that post if you want answers, bitch. You are just trying to divert the subject away from your candidate and his fucked up policies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Also your baseless claim that he can't win his new district is pretty funny. THE MAN HAS BEEN IN CONGRESS FOR 20+ YEARS, HE HAS RUN FOR PRESIDENT 3 TIMES, HE IS GOING TO BE 77 YEARS OLD. Can he just retire???? Is it that so outlandish that the man can fall back from public office if he fails at his 3rd attempt at running for President? And how is he racist? Because he disagrees with certain property issue's in the 64 civil rights act? Or is it because the KKK donated money to his campaign in 2008?Once again you bring up shit that i didn't to change the subject. Try staying on the subject if that is not too hard for you. You also failed to even acknowledge that as soon as his district is getting redistricted with more minorities, he says he will not run again. I say that is because he KNOWS without a doubt that he could not win his new district Neither of these issue's are solid enough to say anything for sure, it's all in your head. I could post youtube video's of a bunch of African American's who support RP, but you would just disregard those as you disregard everything else.sure, one black guy in a crowd of white guys. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Why don't you go into the Obama thread, because there is one here somewhere, and keep stroking your boy, nobody want's your ignorant and baseless accusations in this thread anymore. Why don't you all go away with your nonsense. You fail to back up your candidate with real world issues. All any of you want to talk about is bullshit theories or you gloss over highly relevant factors that a presidential candidate will have to deal with if elected. What you all do not get, is that no one wants YOU around with this bullshit. CILONE = not going anywhere and will call out you knobslobbers for being anywhere close to realistic. BTW, I have not brought up Obama, because I am not on his balls like all of you are on RPs balls. You are just trying to change the subject and push the argument into another direction, because I got you all dead on this subject, because not a single one of you can realistically answer relevant questions that apply to your man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 I'd like to discuss this phenomenon that is "anti-Ron Paul" who constantly associate these ludicrous terms and labels with the policies that Ron Paul advocates. For someone who has been in Congress for over 30 years and probably will go down in history as one of the most consistent advocates for limited government in Washington D.C., it really surprises me how there is a strong opposition to the Ron Paul "movement" that, at least from my perspective, associates wild inaccuracies with the policies that this movement advocates, when his voting record should make it very clear what he does and doesn't support. Ron Paul basically birthed the entire Tea Party movement, and no longer associates himself with it because they also have become a hive-mind that endorses and advocates legislation and politicians that he does not personally agree with. Look at how the Tea Party is regarded in the media and by mainstream America; as majority white, as racist, as gun-toting fanatical Christians... and as much as this may be true in some regard, that is a huge stereo-type because of course the Tea Party was at least originally very diverse and full of many different kinds of American citizens. The same sort of stereo-typing is done for the proposed policies of Ron Paul, and it is often insinuated that him and his son are racists, white bigots, only "for the rich", and do note care about the "poor". The ideas of limited government and liberty in this country have been turned upside down to now be the villain, with the role of government now being the good guys who "take care of the people" in every aspect of our lives through benevolent collectivism. I assume this is the fault of the GOP who have repeatedly used limited government rhetoric over decades of administrations yet produced the opposite result. Democrats in Congress have always been the party of the people, while the Republicans have been the party for the rich. In neighborhoods I've grown up in that has always been the case, and many people in minority neighborhoods grow up democrats supporting candidates who advocate for larger government and more social welfare. In my opinion, the truth of the matter is that the rhetoric used over decades has been just that; rhetoric. The direction of government has always been headed one way, which has usurped more power than is authorized in the Constitution, has centralized power to the head of state from administration to administration, and has abandoned or disregarded the laws which protect the citizen's liberties and privacy. What has resulted is a tyrannical police state that is a shadow of the nation our founding fathers intended for, however they themselves were aware that the laws they created would not be respected over time and that we would eventually lose our freedom to government. Today many of America's citizens are living in a twilight-zone version of America where we are trusting of authority and power, and not only do we give them the power to rule over us but we also expect them to take care of us with compassion and help those of us in need. Anyone who has had to stand in line for food-stamps, or has had to stay at a shelter, or has had to apply for public assistance knows how degrading and in-compassionate our social welfare system actually is. Look at situations where our government has actually been responsible for compassionately helping it's citizens, and most of the time it ends in complete and utter failure. Citizens are treated like cattle instead of human-beings, often times having to process themselves through tedious systems and disrespectful social workers who want to invade your privacy before you can even receive any assistance whatsoever. Yet this is the government today that anti-Ron Paul supporters trust with obtaining more power over an already broken system and want to see it granted even more authority. When Ron Paul advocates for lesser government and more responsibility put into the individual's hands so that he or she may empower themselves rather than rely on non-trustworthy mechanical systems to care for them, it is regarded as villainous. When other candidates advocate for more collectivism that empowers these systems even further, it is regarded as benevolent and pure. Government can not, and should never be expected to take care of it's people. Liberty would be healthier for society rather than government collectivism that simply puts more responsibility and authority into mechanical systems with no emotions, chains of command, produce poor and even at times more damaging results to it's communities, and leave independent citizens susceptible to special interest agendas. This is the philosophy of government currently in Washington that needs to be debated. Ron Paul and his advocates are among the only citizens in America pushing for this debate to revert back to an America that respects the authority of the Constitution and keeps our government from crossing over the bounds of it's limitations. Every other candidates supports the status quo, and does not even challenge or put up an argument concerning these issues. Most democratic candidates, especially Barack Obama, pursue a more Marxist-Leninist big government, social welfare, benevolent collectivism agenda that was popular among American dissenters during the 60's generation. If we lived in a world where power could be trusted, this would be the most appealing route to take but we unfortunately do not and the founding fathers knew this very well. The "anti Ron Paul" movement see Ron Paul's policies as a threat due to the nature of liberty which they misunderstand. They fundamentally do not comprehend what the responsibilities of freedom require. They expect to live in a world with safety nets for every action and decision made in error, and they expect the government to be responsible for those safety nets rather than themselves. They also expect government to be responsible for the mistakes and actions of not only our own citizens, but the citizens of other nations as well. In essence, they expect all of us to be responsible for each other regardless of whether or not we'd prefer not to help someone making bad decisions, because obviously government has nothing unless they take it from someone else. They label those of us who support liberty as greedy and selfish for putting our families and our own well-being before a strangers, and pretend that charitable institutions aren't more helpful to society than government social welfare. They expect us to be involved in every conflict around the world, and expect it to always go well with no repercussions to our safety and the health of our own nation. They fundamentally do not understand the laws of the Constitution and the original intent of the founding fathers for limited, non-interventionist government. It is one thing to say that America today is now dependent upon an interconnected global economy, and militarism around the world, because that is something I do agree with based off the realities of current events. We are now so deeply engaged in globalism that there is no way we would be able to disengage from it without some pain and shock to our system. However, this is also a huge reason why I support Ron Paul for presidency because I believe he has the knowledge and wisdom to guide us through that very difficult process with the least amount of damage done to our society. I have a few questions for anyone that feels like answering: What do you personally think the role of government ought to be? What do you personally think of the founding fathers? Do you personally think Ron Paul doesn't genuinely believe in freedom and liberty for the people? Do you personally believe America as a nation is on a downturn headed towards further crises? Do you feel the global economy will recover and strengthen without major reform to our current system? How do you envision a Ron Paul presidency would play out? How do you envision a second-term Barack Obama presidency would play out? How do you envision any other GOP candidate presidency besides RP would play out? You can answer any of those without answering all of them, or none at all, if you feel like it. If no one does, I don't care. I just personally think it's very interesting to see how these original American morals have now become, at least in the mainstream media, the villainous morals of the modern American. Even in the media Ron Paul is attacked in the same manner as he was here in this thread. The only kind of policies that are praised are those which are collective, grow government, increase social welfare, promote war, or grant more authority. Policies that limit government, promote liberty, and dissent from war propaganda are always questioned, ignored, debated, or demonized. They are no longer the accepted norm. Trusting, obeying, and loving government is the new accepted norm by the mainstream media. I personally don't mind if Ron Paul loses the nomination, because I understand first of all that this is the end of the line for him. He has served 30+ years in congress and is putting his all into this final campaign, choosing to abandon his run for congress and instead focus on becoming the president because he doesn't want to manage two campaigns at once like he did in 2008. If he loses the nomination, we will no longer have his representation in Congress but his ideals will live on through his voting record and his advocates that are involved in Campaign for Liberty, as well as through his son Rand Paul. "Ideas are bulletproof" and regardless of how far we stray from the original American values this nation once held, there will always be candidates like Ron Paul advocating the ideas of freedom and liberty. No matter what anti-Ron Paul trolls want to say on the internet, the Ron Paul grassroots movement is very strong, very legitimate, and have the passion to continue advocating even without Ron Paul in the picture. As Ron Paul has said himself in many speeches, these aren't even his ideals they are the ideals of the founding fathers who were brilliant individuals that knew the dangers of government, understood what tyranny was, and knew what needed to be done to prevent power from taking control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 YES It is copy and past rhetoric time!!!!!@@! BTW zig, I noticed how that whole post is just rhetoric about liberty and never addresses anything of substance. It is basically a campaign email. I love how it does not provide any answers to real issues. It just glosses over talking points from his campaign. BTW, You still have not answered how RP FP will deal with terrorism if he is president Nice try, trying to change the subject to one that you want to talk about. Too bad that you can not deal with issues that everyday people have. People need food, housing, health care, jobs. RP does not address any of that except to say that he wants to take away their safety nets, and he has the nerve to say it is for liberty. What a piece of shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Why don't you all go away with your nonsense. You fail to back up your candidate with real world issues. All any of you want to talk about is bullshit theories or you gloss over highly relevant factors that a presidential candidate will have to deal with if elected. What you all do not get, is that no one wants YOU around with this bullshit. CILONE = not going anywhere and will call out you knobslobbers for being anywhere close to realistic. BTW, I have not brought up Obama, because I am not on his balls like all of you are on RPs balls. You are just trying to change the subject and push the argument into another direction, because I got you all dead on this subject, because not a single one of you can realistically answer relevant questions that apply to your man. I'm not RP and I can't speak for what he would exactly do about anything, I have explained other means to which he would deal with terrorism, and I have brought up the fact that if our FP changed significantly you would see, perhaps not immediately but a change in mindset from most of the world about the role America actually plays in the world. The vision you have created does not hold true for what most people think in other places but here. I asked you to discuss on what you feel causes terrorism, you have not said why. I think this needs to be answered before we can further continue this conversation. I won't spoon feed this stuff anymore. Nice video btw, the Larry David clip is the best. Obama was just brought up for a jab. You've been insulting me for who knows how many pages, chill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 At this point in time, it does not matter what is the cause of terrorism. It is a fact that it is there and that it must be dealt with. What you do not understand is that pulling back to our borders will not help us and will actually harm us. It will allow the terrorist to get stronger and have us do nothing about it. It will allow them to get too strong and then attack us on our own borders when we are at our weakest because we have been staying in our own borders. You want to bring up blowback, but that is caused by using the military the wrong way. A way that they are not trained for. This is not a reason to pull back from our world presence, it is a reason to readjust the way we are applying our military. You are wrong because you refuse to acknowledge that we are dealing with world issues, regardless of why those issues are there, they need to be dealt with, not run away from. And RP is wrong, because he wants to do everything against the people and not for the people. He is more for big business then he is for the people. Both of you will hurt America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 In a recent article in Forbes Magazine, former Presidential candidate Ron Paul expounds on why the government has screwed the entire bailout up and that we are heading into a Great Depression even potentially worse than the one that hit in the 1930s. He's wrong. Lets take a look, step by step, through his argument. His first argument is that although the economy seems to be improving, it is a false recovery similar to the false recovery in 1932 and that "the interventionist policies of Hoover and Roosevelt caused the Depression to worsen, and the Dow Jones industrial average did not recover to 1929 levels until 1954." This is an unfair comparison. Hoover's, and then Roosevelt's, interventions were of a much different flavor than today's stimulus package. In 1930, Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which put tariffs on thousands of imported goods, effectively ending all trade with foreign countries. While Obama has recently put on a small tariff on some Chinese goods, the overall trade situation has not changed much and has had very little intervention that would cause trade to be inhibited. Singlehandedly, Smoot-Hawley made the Depression ten times worse than it could've been, and there is no comparable act now. In 1931, a full two years after the Depression started, Hoover set up the National Credit Consortium which pushed larger banks to lend to smaller banks. It didn't work. Bernanke and Paulson (and now Geithner), to avoid this pitfall, just directly had the government put money in all the banks (the TARP bill), significantly speeding up the process by which, eventually, money will start to flow through the system. In 1932, Hoover raised taxes so that the top tax rate went to 63% on personal income and corporate tax went from 12% to 13.75%. While tax hikes might be in our future, so far none have been put in place. In 1933, Roosevelt signed the National Recovery Act (Hearst referred to the NRA bill as "No Recovery Allowed"), which fixed wages. He did this with good motives: to stop the deflation in people's incomes. But the results of fixing wages produced the opposite effect as employers simply stopped hiring or would hire under the table and wages ultimately fell 21% over the next several years. No such interventionist bill is even being contemplated. These are just a few of the "interventions" that Bernanke, Paulson, Geithner have avoided in their attempts to fix the current issues without repeating the mistakes of the fast. The comparison is unjust at this point. Ron Paul states, "Anytime the central bank intervenes to pump trillions of dollars into the financial system, a bubble is created that must eventually deflate." If a bubble is being created, I'd like to see it. When there's a bubble, everyone will feel flush. Just as they did in 1999 from the internet bubble and in 2006 from the housing bubble. There's no bubble right now. In fact, the M2 money supply is actually decreasing. We are in a deflationary environment that desperately needs to be reflated. Until that happens, there's no worry about bubbles. Ron Paul further says, "Those banks and financial institutions that took on the largest risks and performed worst were rewarded with billions in taxpayer dollars, allowing them to survive and compete with their better-managed peers." Well, over 100 banks now have been shut down by the FDIC. And one of the largest broker-dealers, Lehman Brothers, was allowed to fail (with disastrous consequences). It sounds nice in theory to allow the excesses work through the system and I do believe that to a large extent is possible, Paulson and then Geithner have been allowing this to happen. But you don't want the system to collapse. Some institutions can only fail if we're willing to risk the tens of millions of checking accounts that people have with banks and the millions of credit lines that small businesses have with banks to make basic needs like payroll, etc. While it's fine to speak theory about our excesses, the average man, woman, and business can't change the status quo too much without significant personal pain being felt. Perhaps Ron Paul doesn't mind because a better system would be the result, but I think the consequences in the short-term would be unbelievably painful and would rival the misery of the dustbowl Great Depression. Ron Paul says, "Even with the massive interventions, unemployment is near 10%". Most of the stimulus bill is taking effect in 2010. Even the "shovel ready" projects that were supposed to begin in 2009 are getting a slow start thanks to bureaucracy and won't have an effect until sometime next year. Not only that, companies did exactly what they were supposed to do in the beginning of this recession -- they slashed inventories faster than any other time since 1940, and they fired the people used to make those inventories. Well, the world didn't end, and now they have to rebuild those inventories. And the hiring rate will be the fastest it's been in 50 years, as we need to completely restock the shelves. Paul doesn't take this into account in any of his discussions about the state of the current economy, and yet this is probably the most important statistic out there at the moment. Paul says, "foreigners are cutting back on purchases of Treasury debt" Well, that might be true, but interest rates are still near all-time lows because US citizens have been upping their purchases of Treasury debt as our personal savings rate reaches a ten year high. Paul says, "As the housing market fails to return to any sense of normalcy" Actually, the Case-Shiller Home Price index has been up the past four months in a row. So lets calm down a little bit and wait and see what happens. But its wrong to say its "failing to return to any sense of normalcy". Finally, Paul, in a fit of rage about a declining dollar, says, "The Fed has already overseen a 95% loss in the dollar's purchasing power since 1913." Well, the stock market is up 10,000% since then. And in every way the quality of our lives is better than 1913. I'd much rather live in 2009 than in 1913. At the end of the day, don't succumb to populist panic. Capitalism works and is on its way to a recovery if we just sit back and let it happen. James Altucher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Ron Paul (R-Texas) is going to have a great time making the Federal Reserve miserable once he takes over as chair of the House subcommittee that overseas it. He has a better microphone than most Fed critics, and he'll use it to broadcast his anti-Fed bunk. Without further delay, here are seven of Paul's views about the Fed, courtesy of the The New York Times, and why I think he's wrong: The U.S. should return to the gold standard. Paul believes fervently that the only time we had "sound money" is when paper was backed with gold. I'm not sure what he means by "sound money," but the U.S. economy has been leading the world in the nearly 40 years since the U.S. went off the gold standard under Richard Nixon in 1971. I'd love to hear his explanation of how the U.S. has prospered for many decades with unsound money. Bernanke sets the price of money around the world by printing worthless paper. The price of money is interest rates, and Paul argues that the Fed sets interest rates for the world. If that were true, then why are there such enormous gaps among the interest rates in the leading countries. For example, the rate on two-year government bonds in Greece is 11%, while it sits at a minuscule 0.64% in the U.S. Why does Paul think the Fed is setting Greece's interest rate or the rate for any other country? The Fed is producing unsupervised inflation. Paul insists that the Fed's ability to create money leads to inflation. And he's exactly right that the Fed has created money -- witness the latest $600 billion program of quantative easing. One little problem with Paul's theory is that inflation is nonexistent these days. In fact, at 0.2%, U.S. inflation in October was at the lowest level in 53 years. Besides, the Fed has a 2% inflation target, and if it starts to get close to that level, it'll raise rates and buy back some of that money it created. Paul Volcker has been the best Fed chairman since the late 1970s. Paul thinks Volcker is smarter and more personable than Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke. Having never met any of them I can only say that they all seem pretty smart to me. I have no way of knowing who's more personable or why that really matters to how well the Fed does its job. Low interest rates steal from savers. Paul thinks that "manipulating" interest rates is immoral and economically destructive. He'd rather that the price of money be based on how much gold can be mined and stored in big underground bunkers. I suppose that would make sense if gold was actually used in the real economy. Otherwise, due to the limited supply, setting rates based on gold would likely cause an enormous upward spike in interest rates and slam the brakes on the economic recovery. Why is using gold to manipulate interest rates any more moral than the way the Fed does it now? And if savers don't like the low rates they're getting, they're free to invest elsewhere -- for example, the S&P 500 has risen at a 26.9% average annual rate since January 2009. The Fed is a dictator in control of the economy. Paul believes that the Fed's bailouts of every major industry allow it to exert control over the entire economy. This is wrong in so many ways. First, the Fed has not taken over any industries -- a quick look at its balance sheet reveals that it has grown from around $800 billion to around $2.3 trillion by absorbing Wall Street's toxic waste. This makes the Fed more of a garbage-collector than a manipulator of the economy. Second, if the Fed controlled the economy, then it would force companies to hire the 15 million people who are out of work in order to ease Bernanke's concerns about high unemployment. The U.S. is in an endless depression, thanks to Obama. I'm not sure how Paul defines depression, but the U.S. economy has been growing for the last six quarters. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which officially dates recessions, the one that began in December 2007 officially ended in June 2009. That was a recession but not a depression. How would Paul explain how the U.S. is in an endless depression if it hasn't even had one since the 1930s? Paul is certainly entitled to his opinion about all these things. And I wouldn't mind being proven wrong with facts. In the meantime, it will be interesting to see whether Paul is now persuasive enough -- and powerful enough -- to change the Fed's role in the economy. See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/hKb6MZ Peter Cohen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 “The gold standard is to economics what the flat earth theory is to astronomy: something that may have seemed to make sense back when people didn’t know any better but is ridiculous to suggest today.” - Dr. Russ Anderson “Ron Paul is saying: ‘Let’s make everything simple again. . . If we had a gold standard, we wouldn’t need complex monetary policy. But how do we get from here to there? There might not be a way. It is just nostalgia for a time that never really existed.” - Dr. Vincent Reinhart, American Enterprise Institute “Inflation is low and relatively predictable. No Ron Paul supporter has managed to articulate to me what problem the gold standard solves. . . It’s a terrible idea, which is why there are so few economists willing to raise their voices in support of it.” - Megan McArdle, The Atlantic magazine Many conservatives oppose Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) on foreign policy and national security matters, but admire his economic agenda. The Congressman’s isolationist defense policy is the complete opposite of the Reagan Doctrine, but few people on the right are challenging Paul’s economic arguments. Since 1976, he has been promoting a return to the gold standard and is the author of four books on the topic. His other major economic theme is abolishment of the Federal Reserve which he calls “immoral, unconstitutional, impractical, promotes bad economics, and undermines liberty.” All of Paul’s claims are wrong, but I will address Federal Reserve issues in a separate article. Long ago the gold standard made sense for America, but not today. Its advocates want to turn the clock back to the “Roaring 20’s,” but the economic growth of that decade had little to do with the gold standard and it ended in disaster. America has now been off the gold standard for 40 years and its many flaws have been forgotten. There are excellent reasons it was rejected by right wing icons such as Milton Friedman. No court agrees with Ron Paul’s interpretation of “lawful money,” or that paper money is unconstitutional. Ron Paul’s “sound money” claims are not correct. The gold standard was in effect from about the middle of the 19th century to the last quarter of the 20th century (1971). In the late 19th century the growth of the money supply had nothing to do with population or the size of the economy. The resulting deflation was disastrous and led to the free silver movement (“Don’t crucify me on a cross of gold”.) The present system can tailor the money supply to the demands of the economy, which the gold standard failed to do. Why Did America Leave The Gold Standard? The Bretton Woods system (1945 -1971) came to an end when the United States stopped allowing dollars to be converted into gold. The “gold window” shut and foreign governments could no longer trade dollars for gold at $35/ounce. The U.S. dollar then became a “fiat currency” backed only by the “full faith and credit of the United States.” Since then the dollar has been the world’s only reserve currency. Under Bretton Woods, government regulations mandated that banks hold fixed ratio of gold as currency reserves. There was a greater need for gold as economies expanded. No nation has returned to the gold standard since the end of the Bretton Woods system. Switzerland has plenty of gold, but they have not opted for a gold standard with good reason. If they had been on gold in recent years they would have suffered massive deflation and an extreme recession. The rapid price rise of gold would have tripled the value of their franc against other currencies and their exports would have been completely priced out of world markets. Our present fiat system allows the free market to determine the value of our currency. Why Are So Few Republicans Challenging Ron Paul? Ron Paul’s presidential campaign is a serious threat to the GOP establishment, but few Republicans are challenging his outrageous claims regarding the gold standard , the Federal Reserve and America’s currency reserves. There is nothing wrong with an audit of the U.S. gold reserves or the Federal Reserve. There have already been over 100 GAO audits of the Fed. What is outrageous is when Paul claims “I think it is a possibility” there is no gold at Fort Knox! This is where 4.8% of the world’s gold is held, and it represents 8,000 metric tons. The entire world gold supply is well known and if there was an increase in supply immediate inquiries would be made by currency traders and the World Gold Council. The dollar is the world’s prime reserve currency, and since World War II it has dominated the currency markets. Any sale would have been known right away and it would have to be reported in the budget. It is conspiracy theory nonsense to claim the U.S. currency reserves have been sold, but facts never stop Ron Paul. What Are the Problems With A Gold Standard? Many economists believe adopting a gold standard could decrease the U.S. monetary supply by about half. This would cause massive deflation and could threaten an economic collapse. Do we really want to make the size of the money supply dependent on the success of gold miners? It would also export control of our nation’s money system to foreigners. Over 90% of the world’s gold is produced by foreigners. In 1970’s OPEC cut-off oil, and Russia and South Africa could do the same thing with gold. Why not have our currency controlled by Americans? The gold standard did not work in the past, and no country has ever been able to maintain it. It was abandoned by many nations during major wars and when there was an economic crisis. The government printed too many gold back dollars and then refused to redeem them for gold. There is not enough gold in the world for it to be a medium of exchange. Ron Paul says “Congress should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold.” Gold advocates also claim currency values would be stable if they were based on gold, but they have no evidence. Gold is highly unstable. The real value of goal has more than doubled in recent years. To demonstrate that gold is stable, Congressman Paul says the value of the dollar, pegged to gold, was about the same in 1915 as it was in 1789. What he is not mentioning is that it fluctuated with inflation for 80 years and deflation for 40. Using gold and silver is not going to prevent the government from making bad monetary decisions or creating more debt. The government could still spend too much and it would still have to contend with compounding debt and interest. Despite Ron Paul’s numerous claims, gold and silver are not sound money. They can just as easily be manipulated as fiat currency. The government can easily devalue gold based dollars. They have done that in the past to make our exports cheaper. They claim the government could not deficit spend under a gold standard. This is nonsense. The government would do the same thing they do now. They would borrow by issuing bonds. America did that when it was on the gold standard. One of the best arguments for gold is that it can act as a good hedge against inflation. Gold advocates claim it will prevent governments from inflating the currency. That is not always true because a government can modify its gold standard. From 1980 to 2001, gold lost 70% and silver lost 92% of its value, despite inflation. Inflation went up and gold and silver went down. They were no hedge. The safety the libertarians are seeking in the gold standard does not exist. Once again, the government can debase the value of the currency by printing too many gold backed dollars or devaluing them. Even if America went back to the gold standard the currency would still fluctuate because all nations would not adopt this policy and we would trade with them. Libertarians want the money supply to be privatized. Banks would issue currency backed by euros a basket of several currencies. It would accomplish nothing. The gold standard was a creations of governments, similar to fiat money. The only way to stabilize the real value of gold would be for central banks to hold large gold reserves, but that is exactly what libertarians and some Tea Party groups oppose. They want to “End The Fed.” Without reserves a gold standard is really no standard at all. Gold price fluxuations would be highly detrimental, and as Professor Scott Sumner has noted: “A 10% increase or decrease in the real value of gold seems very small when it is just a commodity. But under a gold standard that sort of shift can be accommodated only by changing the overall price level by 10%. A sudden 10% rise or fall in the price level is very destabilizing to the economy.” Prior to the Civil War, Iowa had a pure gold standard economy and it failed miserably. The first Iowa constitution of 1846 prohibited banks of issue and limited transactions to gold. Gold was hoarded and there was nothing available to circulate. The lack of money stopped economic growth, and an emergency Constitutional Convention was held to get rid of the gold standard. Democrats who had advocated a gold standard became a third party in Iowa. Would a Gold Standard Stop Wars? Despite past history, gold standard advocates continue to claim they are motivated by anti-war sentiments. They claim central banks and fiat money enable war. They say a major reason to go back on the gold standard is because it would make it difficult to finance a future war. The past gold standard did nothing to avoid war. All the nations involved in the start of World War I were on the gold standard. A gold standard would not have stopped Adolf Hitler. During the Napoleonic Wars and World War I, they simply went off the gold standard. America fought both WW I and WW II without having to devalue gold. Gold Would Not Give Us a Stable Monetary Base Gold advocates claim it would give America a fixed monetary base, but gold flows can create huge swings in the broader money supply. Gold would not result in a stable monetary base. There has been a decades long search for price stability, but there are no stable commodities. They claim gold is a good monetary indicator and point to 2008 when gold dropped 30% along with the global recession. All commodities were then a good indicator, but gold has not been a good indicator since then. It is wrong to claim the price of gold always goes up directly to the value of the dollar going down. There is not a direct link. The price is determined by global supply and demand, not directly by the dollar. What Happened During The Bretton Woods Era (1945 – 1971)? This is explained by economist Bruce Bartlett who served on Ron Paul’s staff. He correctly notes Bretton Woods worked while gold constraints were ignored. Gold was highly overvalued after the 1933 devaluation, and then the US grabbed a huge share of the world’s gold in the run-up to WWII. After the war those two factors gave us an unprecedented amount of slack, so the United States could mildly inflate until gold was no longer overvalued. As Bartlett notes, “once we reached that point in the late 1960s, the system immediately fell apart. It would have collapsed even sooner if Americans had been allowed to own gold. And if President Johnson had tried to deflate to stay on gold, Americans (if allowed to) would have hoarded gold. They would have done so in the correct expectation that the next president would devalue the dollar. That hoarding would have had the same effect as the hoarding of the early 1930s–deflation and depression.” The Gold Standard Made The Great Depression Worse The global recession of 2008 could have become another Great Depression if America was on the gold standard. In 1929, the Hoover Administration and the Federal Reserve both made the depression worse because of their concerns about gold. Today the government would react to a recession or depression by purchasing Treasury securities so there would be cash in the hands of investors. That policy did not work in the 1930s because investors used the cash to buy gold and this contributed to a gold drain. The Hoover administration did not react sufficient to the economic crisis because they were worried about the currency. The countries that quit the gold standard, such as Great Britain, suffered the least. There is a strong correlation between how long a country hewed to the gold standard and how much it suffered. This is explained by David Frum of CNN: But why did decision-makers make so many bad decisions? The short answer is that they were trapped. Almost all of the right decisions would have ballooned the U.S. federal budget deficit. As budget deficits expanded, investors would inevitably worry that their dollars might lose value in the future. They would demand to trade their dollars for gold at the fixed price of $20.67 to the ounce. Under the rules of the gold standard, the U.S. government would be obliged to sell.As long as the deficits continued, the U.S. government would lose gold. Threatened with the exhaustion of its gold supply, the government felt it had no choice: It had to close the budget deficit. So, in the throes of a severe downturn, the U.S. government did exactly the opposite of what economists would otherwise advise: It cut spending and raised taxes — capsizing the economy even deeper into depression.It’s very strange to hear gold standard advocates criticize President Hoover for imposing steep tax increases in 1932, the Depression’s worst year. Yet the gold standard they champion was the reason for the tax increases they deplore. Ron Paul is Wrong on the Constitution and the Colonial Period Ron Paul is also wrong in his understanding of Constitutional intent regarding the coining of money and its value. He claims paper money is unconstitutional and always quotes George Washington: “Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice.” What he does not say is that Congress approved paper money in 1791 “to simplify trade,” and it was Washington who signed the bill. This was two years after the Constitution was adopted. Congress also approved an early version of the Federal Reserve which was known as the “Bank of the United States.” It was authorized to issue paper bank notes. Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to coin money “and regulate the value thereof”. The Constitution does not say the money has to be gold or silver, and it was never intended for them to be our only means of trade. The Constitution does not authorize a gold standard. The Government Was Manipulating The Currency Even In The Colonial Period This information comes from Ron Paul’s top economic advisers, the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. As they have demonstrated, the government was debasing the value of their hard money coins, to make their exports cheaper, and it caused inflation. That happened with silver coins, not fiat dollars. It demonstrates once again that gold and silver are not a hedge against inflation. http://mises.org/books/historyofmoney.pdf From “The History of Money” In their own mercantilism, the colonial governments early tried to hoard their own specie by debasing their shilling standards in terms of Spanish dollars. Whereas their natural weights dictated a ratio of 4 shillings 6 pence to the dollar, Massachusetts, in 1642, began a general colonial process of competitive debasement of shillings. Massachusetts arbitrarily decreed that the Spanish dollar be valued at 5 shillings; the idea was to attract an inflow of Spanish silver dollars into that colony, and to **subsidize** Massachusetts exports by making their prices cheaper in terms of dollars. Soon, Connecticut and other colonies followed suit, each persistently upping the ante of debasement. The result was to increase the supply of nominal units of account by debasing the shilling, inflating domestic prices and thereby bringing the temporary export stimulus to a rapid end. Finally, the English government brought a halt to this futile and inflationary practice in 1707. . . In 1744, another losing expedition against the French led Massachusetts to issue an enormous amount of paper money over the next several years. From 1744 to 1748, paper money in circulation expanded from £300,000 to £2.5 million, and the depreciation in Massachusetts was such that silver had risen on the market to 60 shillings an ounce, ten times the price at the beginning of an era of paper money in 1690. The result was that silver went up in price because of inflation of the money supply. There is nothing to stop a government from arbitrarily price fixing the value of any specie, as they have done in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Ron Paul recently confessed that he is OK with the U.S. defaulting on its debt. He stated on Iowa’s WHO radio that bankruptcy is “absolutely” the cure for the United States. I understand his fixation on the gold and silver standard and abolishing the Federal Reserve is guiding his judgment here. I am a firm believer in both those ideas but bankruptcy is irresponsible, as irresponsible as the rest of Congress. We need to take responsibility for our actions. We got ourselves into this fiscal mess by voting these leaders into power. We made promises that couldn’t be kept. We have demanded entitlements for ourselves to be paid for by everyone but ourselves. The time for irresponsibility is behind us. Let us accept the mess we are in and start paying off our debts and massively cutting spending. There is no quick and easy fix. It is going to hurt and it should. Congress and voters are used to the constant spend and borrow procedure the Federal Government engages in. The results of this self-imposed policy needs to be felt. The repercussions of a nation destroying itself through the voting process must be felt before we can begin to learn from our mistakes. It is inevitable that we will repeat these same mistakes but let us hope we can provide a better future for our children and grandchildren and their generations before it happens again. Psalm 37:21 The wicked borrows and does not pay back, but the righteous is gracious and gives. Ecclesiastes 5:5 It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay. Update 11:31 am: As I’m reading the comments, I get the feeling that most people aren’t thinking logically on this. First off, as a side note. Everyone who thinks I’m “putting words into Ron Paul’s mouth” needs to listen to the interview. Secondly, since when does a group of people (Libertarians) who believe in personal responsibility suddenly believe that responsibility goes no further? We collectively got into this mess as a country. I didn’t vote for any of these entitlements. I didn’t even vote for the people in power who voted for them. I wasn’t born or old enough when most of this mess began. My ability to be responsible as an individual extends to all areas of life. Businesses and government must be responsible as well. Our nation has screwed itself on a continual basis. This didn’t happen over the past 4 or 10 years. It has been happening over the past 200 or so years. The reality is that it is not the time to throw our hands up and wipe the slate clean and start over. We aren’t there yet. Gut the Federal Government down to its Constitutional duties and lower taxes. That’s the reality. Paying off the debt is realistic, but it is not going to happen over night. It may not happen within a generation. My responsible self sees this as the moral conclusion. Enormous debt is immoral and it’s destruction is a reality that must be faced. Wiping the slate clean shows there are no real consequences of bad policies. All it does is ingrain into the minds of our nation that there are no consequences to our actions. What example is that for a Government to default on its debt? What if the entire nation defaulted on its personal debt? Lastly, those who are complaining about my criticism of Ron Paul need to stop whining. I generally like Ron Paul’s ideas. I don’t like this one. Should I silence my political criticism of those I believe are doing good because it hurts your feelings? You sound like a bunch of Liberals. You shout for joy when we bash Democrats, Liberalism, and fellow Republicans, but when we touch “your” candidate you can’t handle it. Pentangeli Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Daily Kos is very definitely not the place you'd expect to see a lot of fulminating praise for right-wing conservatives. Yet the diaries are full of people who can't find enough nice things to say about Rep. Ron Paul, whose smiling face is at this moment being beamed to America from the site of the Republican debate in New Hampshire--after which, we may be sure, we will see yet another round of diaries brimming with joy about Paul's sweet words against the Iraq war. You, dear reader, may even be considering writing one or more such diaries yourself. Before you do, fellow Democrat, please understand just one thing: Your affection for Paul is far from mutual. Through his words, his actions, and his votes in Congress, he has made one thing abundantly clear over the decades: Ron Paul hates you. By building him up, by supporting him, by taking him seriously, you are not driving a wedge into the heart of the Republican Party--you are only giving him a helping hand along the road to his goal of destroying just about everything you stand for. THE RON PAUL EXPERIENCE - A Diary Series Ron Paul, In His Own Words Ron Paul: The Radical Right's Man in Washington Ron Paul: Dude is Wack Ron Paul Hates You Let's have a look at some of the many, many issues on which Ron Paul places himself squarely in opposition to me and, presumably, you: Abortion: Ron Paul's "libertarianism" famously does not extend to the right of a woman to control her body. In February he introduced H.R. 1094, "[t]o provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." He voted against overriding Bush's veto of the stem cell bill. The Environment: Ron Paul may be a Republican, but he's certainly not a Republican for Environmental Protection. That fine organization gave Paul a shameful 17 percent rating on its most recent Congressional Scorecard (warning: PDF). He doesn't fare much better in the eyes of the American Wilderness Coalition or the League of Conservation Voters. Paul's abysmal record on the environment is driven in large measure by his love of sweet, sweet oil: in the 109th Congress alone, he voted to voted allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to shield oil companies from MTBE contamination lawsuits, against increasing gas mileage standards, to allow new offshore drilling, and to stop making oil companies pay royalties to the government for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Par for the course for a man who called the Kyoto accords "bad science, bad economics and bad domestic policy" and "anti-Americanism masquerading as environmentalism." Immigration: Paul marches in lock-step with the xenophobic right wing on immigration, calling last month's compromise immigration bill "a compromise of our laws, a compromise of our sovereignty, and a compromise of the Second Amendment." Yet even the hardcore nativists in the immigration debate have been hesitant to support repealing birthright citizenship as enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment, as Paul has done. His proposed Constitutional amendment, introduced as H. J. Res 46 on April 28, 2005, reads: "Any person born after the date of the ratification of this article to a mother and father, neither of whom is a citizen of the United States nor a person who owes permanent allegiance to the United States, shall not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of birth in the United States." Only four other Representatives, all Republicans, were willing to cosponsor this proposed amendment. Civil Rights: Paul doesn't much care for ensuring your right to vote. Like when he voted with just 32 other members of Congress against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Or when he voted for the bogus "Federal Election Integrity Act" voter suppression bill. But at least Ron Paul knows who's responsible for racism in America: you are. "By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality," he writes, "the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups." So now you know. (Apparently, saying that "f you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be" is not racist, as long as it's said with a proper appreciation for free-market economics.) Gay Rights: Paul's rigid, uncompromising libertarianism leads him to take a number of positions that liberals find objectionable or even reprehensible but which should not in themselves be taken as ipso facto evidence of bigotry. His reflexive opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, is consistent with libertarian positions on federalism and the right of the individual to be free from government "coercion," even if that means limiting the ability of minorities to seek employment and housing free from discrimination. Still, libertarian orthodoxy can't fully explain Paul's hostility to gay rights, and indeed to gay people in general. The Libertarian Party, which nominated Paul as its presidential candidate in 1988, has strongly opposed the so-called Defense of Marriage Act from the beginning; Paul supports it. While he opposed the "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have outlawed gay marriage everywhere, he actually cosponsored the odious "Marriage Protection Act," which would nonsensically bar federal courts from considering challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which is a federal law. "The definition of marriage--a union between a man and a woman--can be found in any dictionary," he writes condescendingly. Despite Paul's disingenuous claims that he is a "strict constitutionalist," most legal scholars agree that the so-called Marriage Protection Act would be unconstitutional. You also will not find Paul listed among the 124 co-sponsors of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2007, which would repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays and lesbians from serving in the military. Maybe he's worried that they'll take their "gay agenda" to far-flung corners of the world. He also doesn't want gay people adopting children while they're not serving in the military, either. On a personal level, we have this 1993 quote wherein Paul equates homosexuality with "sexual deviance." And let's not forget his wink-wink characterization of Hillary Clinton as "a far leftist with very close female friends". Church-State Separation: From keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to co-sponsoring the school prayer amendment to keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn, this "strict constitutionalist" isn't a big fan of the Constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state. "Religious morality will always inform the voting choices of Americans of all faiths," he writes. "...The collectivist left" --that's you!-- "is threatened by strong religious institutions, because it wants an ever-growing federal government to serve as the unchallenged authority in our society.... So the real motivation behind the insistence on a separation of church and state is not based on respect for the First amendment, but rather on a desire to diminish the influence of religious conservatives at the ballot box." And just in case the dirty liberals in the federal court system might take it into their heads to enforce the Establishment Clause, Mr. Strict Constitutionalist introduced a bill to bar the federal courts from hearing any such cases. No wonder James Dobson's Family Research Council gave Paul a 75 percent rating on their 2005 scorecard. International Relations: Like crackpot paleoconservatives everywhere, Paul wants us out of the United Nations, which is just a bunch of un-American non-Americans out to destroy America. Darfur is also filled with non-Americans, so you certainly won't find Ron Paul lifting a finger to stop the genocide, or even acknowledge that genocide is taking place. I guess that's why he's one of only four members of Congress to receive an "F" rating on Darfur from the Genocide Intervention Network. Peace and Military Issues: With all the hooting and hollering about Paul's opposition to the Iraq war, it sure seems like he should have been able to get better than 58 percent from PeacePAC, doesn't it? Even Joe Lieberman managed to get 63 percent. (Still, it beats the 45 percent Paul got from them in the previous Congress.) He did a little better from Peace Action, managing 67 percent--easily the top score for a Republican, but a below-average score for Democrats. (Still, it beats the 40 percent he got from them in 2004.) And while Paul may oppose the Iraq war, he doesn't seem to have much use for the men and women who have to fight it. Paul received an "F" rating from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. It's not easy to get an F from the IAVA; Paul shares this distinction with only six other members of the House. Taxes: Do we even need to go into this one? If you audaciously believe that we need a progressive system of taxation in this country, here's what Ron Paul thinks of you: "[W]e have exactly the kind of steeply progressive tax system championed by Karl Marx. One might expect the left to be happy with such an arrangement. At its core, however, the collectivist left in this country simply doesn’t believe in tax cuts. Deep down, they believe all wealth belongs to the state, which should redistribute it via tax and welfare policies to achieve some mythical 'social justice.'... The class war tactic highlights what the left does best: divide Americans into groups. Collectivists see all issues of wealth and taxation as a zero-sum game played between competing groups. If one group gets a tax break, other groups must be rallied against it- even if such a cut would ultimately benefit them.... Upward mobility is possible only in a free-market capitalist system, whereas collectivism dooms the poor to remain exactly where they are." "Collectivist politicians forget that the American dream of becoming wealthy is alive and well. They seek to encourage resentment of the wealthy, when in truth most Americans admire successful people. They forget that upward mobility, the chance to start from humble beginnings and achieve wealth and position, is virtually impossible in high-tax socialist societies. Most of all, however, the pro-tax politicians forget that your money belongs to you. As a society, we should not forget their dishonesty when we go to the polls." Screw this; this diary's way too long already. Worker rights: Voted to defund OSHA's ergonomics rules. Voted against increasing mine safety standards. Hates unions. Campaign finance reform: Opposes. Social Security and Medicare: Repeats the Republicans' lies about the programs' solvency. Consumer protection: Voted for the bankruptcy bill. Voted to make it harder to file class-action lawsuits. Universal health care: don't make me laugh. Privatizing everything: the Internets are not large enough to hold all the citations. "But he's against the war!" Yes, he is. So is Pat Buchanan. So is David Duke. If either of them were on the stage in New Hampshire today, full of sweet words about the war, would you be as quick to praise their "independence," to gush about how well of course I wouldn't vote for him myself but he sure is awesome anyway? Do you truly require nothing from a political candidate other than that he oppose the war? Think about it. Phenry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.