Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Do we remember why Ron PauI is a 4-letter word now?

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 22, 2011, 5:20 p.m. EST by looselyhuman (3117)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Free market extremists overrunning our forum again. You are the antithesis of OWS - which is about re-regulation, addressing major inequality, and clamping down on unlimited liberty for corporations. Reclaiming democracy. Deal with it. Go back to co-opting Republicans.

For the several asshole n00bs that have called me a socialist: http://occupywallst.org/forum/liberalism-is-not-socialism/

Sockpuppets are voting every good comment in this thread down right now.



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by AmericanMachinist (24) 12 years ago

free market would be great but there isn't one, its all rigged and you won't see that change in your life time people, WAKE UP 20 companies own everything, so your free market choice is the other company the huge Corp. also owns.

[-] 3 points by jazz (8) 12 years ago

Actually Ron Lawl is more of an Anarchist than anything else, He doesn't say it because its to Radical but he doesn't like gov at all.

What would that meen

That would meen that corporations dont have the protections they have now. because corporations only have the Legal status of a human because government says so. without gov the CEO or owner of a corp could be personally liable for any problems the business causes outside of their contracts.

[-] -1 points by GreedKills (1119) 12 years ago

I would think an Anarchist would allow women to have a choice to do what they want with their own bodies. I could be wrong though.

[-] 3 points by number2 (914) 12 years ago

way to bring up a divisive social issue!

[-] 3 points by jazz (8) 12 years ago

He does think women should have the choice, (the choice to choose a state) hes just saying that the federal government shouldn't have anything to do with it and that it should be a state issue. that way you could move to a state where it's aloud or to one thats not if you dont like it.

[-] 3 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

...and I don't think it's any of the state's business either.

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 12 years ago

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS -- He opposes the right of women to be free to control their own reproductive systems if they happen to live in particular states or other countries, or if they work for the Peace Corps.

Ron Lawl introduces three pro-life bills

H.R.1095: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.

H.R.777: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.

H.R.1548: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.

H.AMDT.1003 (A024): Amendment no. 17 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit the use of funding for abortion, family planning, or population control efforts.

H.AMDT.380 (A022): An amendment no. 9 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit funding for population control or population planning programs; family planning activities; or abortion procedures.

H.AMDT.312 (A011): An amendment, printed as amendment No. 32 in the Congressional Record of July 16, 1997, to prohibit the use of funds appropriated in the bill for Family Planning, birth control or abortion.

H.R.4984: A bill to prohibit the use of funds for the Peace Corps to be used for travel expenses of individuals in order for abortions to be performed on those individuals.

-- He wants to erase the distinction in U.S. law between a zygote and a person

H.R.2597: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

H.R.1094: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

H.R.776: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception

H.R.392: A bill proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing the right to life.

[-] 0 points by jazz (8) 12 years ago

Yeah you proove my point, these are all federal funds and federal bills. He has stated many times that its a state issue and they can do what they like as long as the feds stay out of it.

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 12 years ago

I can''t wait for the return of abortions done in back alleys with clothes hangers.


[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago


What's not 4 letters?

Paulies can't add either?

[-] 2 points by OurTimes2011 (377) from Arlington, VA 12 years ago

Moderator: Block these assholes. They are simply trying to hijack this forum.

They bring nothing to the table.

They are a cult.

[-] 2 points by demcapitalist (977) 12 years ago

You know one law, the return of Glass/Steagall would separate retail banks from investment banks. That would put wall street on their own in the "free market " and off the government welfare system they are now part of. The amazing thing about "free market" advocates is that they have no problem with big oil, corn, and wall street getting big government checks, they have no problem with no bid government contracts for their pals, they would be scared to death really having to deal with unbridled capitalism.

[-] 2 points by OccupyGOP (39) 12 years ago

We need to enforce the most powerful regulation on the books...the constitution. I don't see how adding more laws does any good if we can't even enforce the supreme law of the land.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

You mean take it back to the 18th century.

Play interpretation games, like some do with the Bible.

[-] 3 points by OccupyGOP (39) 12 years ago

No I mean that for example "congress shall have the power to declare war" which clearly means the president cannot unilaterally send armed forces into foreign countries with no congressional approval. No interpretation needed just basic reading comprehension.

[-] 1 points by reddy2 (256) 12 years ago

I believe most people support Paul primarily because he is honest and a constitutionalist.

His supporters do not want more inequality. They are ordinary people with families and businesses, like you and me. They also know something is terribly wrong with government. They aren't evil and they aren't pro corporations.

Instead of throwing hate at Paul and toward anyone with Libertarian views its time to find some type of middle ground.

If Paul won office he would NEVER achieve the deregulation he would like. The congress would NEVER EVER pass it.

So at best he would stop the illegal wars, enforce constitutional views and attempt to have the Fed audited. He would struggle to do much more because his powers as President are limited.

Would you prefer another President owned by Wall St? Because apart from Paul that's what you could reasonably expect.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Quite the dilemma, as I don't want one owned by the Christian Right either.

First let's try and deal with the devil we know.


[-] 1 points by lockedemosthenes (1) 12 years ago

We would not need to be taxed if we have control over our currency. re-regulation is bulshevik bs.
We need to repeal what Wilson let happen and restore what Kennedy did as far as United $tates notes.
it is simple. do not fall for the traps that have been set. this is about unity. understand the play. ((THEY are in the business of destroying empires and transferring wealth and power through the ages)) early US history illustrates the battles we have had with the financial coterie and is why the american revolution meant that much to the rest of the world. the degrees of wealth are beyond what you think of the 1%. its flattering to them. they work for the 0% and can't put a face on their boss.

[-] 1 points by AnonEMouse (10) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Economic equality is socialism Occutard.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

I'm for moderate equality. It's a liberal thing.

"the more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be."

The extreme inequality that we have, and that you're a proponent of (apparently) lines up with fascism. Don't take my word for it:


[-] -1 points by AnonEMouse (10) from New York, NY 12 years ago

No no, I'm for keeping the hands off of people's money. Social classes are not a new concept in government and it is foolish to think so. There will always be the poor, there will always be the rich, we must accept this. We can't just wipe the slate clean and give everyone the same amount of wealth and keep it that way, it will make the point of college degrees non-existent!

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

Moderate equality, like we had in the 40s-70s. This means the stability that a free society needs, that can only be achieved with a prosperous middle class - which is now on the verge of collapse. Please review:





And, for more background:


[-] 1 points by AnonEMouse (10) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Do I agree that the middle class is on the verge of extinction and needs to re-appear pronto? Absolutely. Just re-distributing the wealth won't solve that.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

It's not redistribution in the classical sense to have policies that promote moderate equality. You're using the extreme equality strawman. Balance. We had it, we lost it, we can get it back, but not while everyone's freaking out and screaming "socialism" in response to anything to the left of Reagan.

Check out Brian's link again and tell me you don't think re-instituting truly progressive taxes would be a good idea. The alternative is the continued trend towards revolution (that's a product of the squeeze on the middle class). Marx was denied by FDR and Keynes. We annhilated their legacy beginning in the 80s and set Marx back up to triumph. The collapse of capitalism is prevented by a strategic dose of "socialism."

SeaChange has two posts in this thread that lay it out very well: http://occupywallst.org/article/cuny-attacks-protest/#comment-410866

Scroll down a bit for the second one.

[-] 1 points by leavethecities (318) 12 years ago

I support and oppose OPP for president.

[-] 1 points by ProAntiState (43) 12 years ago

Free market extremists are part of the 99%

[-] 1 points by oreoobama (49) 12 years ago

OWS is a front for A I P A C, OWS will NEVER tolerate Truth.

OWS only has one goal, to re-elect Obama to kill more arabs and start a war in IRAN.

( Note if you mention A I P A C by its real name OWS will ban the comment. The master is NEVER allowed to be mentioned, RP hates funding I S R A E L, and thus OWS hates RP. )

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 12 years ago

If you honestly believe that, what are you doing trolling here?

I can see why you like RP. I think he's fundamentally wrong, but I think he's at least honest and forthright and has good intentions. I would never expect to see him trolling a website and trying to ram his ideology down other people's throats by that means - because from what I can tell, he's coming from a good place.

You're not. You're just a disrespectful and possibly crazy twerp. If you want to build some movement in support of RP, or whatever you want to support, go do it. Start your own if you have to, develop your ideas, put them out there, get together with people of like mind. Nobody here is going to stand in your way, and I for one won't come to your website and behave like you do. If I went there, I'd respect your space, rather than rabidly frothing and spewing nonsense accusations that don't even remotely resemble reality, trying to shut you down and hijacking your attempt at finding solutions.

In short. Grow up.

[-] 0 points by oreoobama (49) 12 years ago

Jeebuz I DON"T like RP, I just hate war, an RP opposes USA imperialism, and opposes billions to ISRAEL, Why do you people never stay on topic, and only attack the messenger? Given that war-mongering is OWS'es sacred cow, I'm very fearful that OWS is a right-wing movement, given their support for LIKUD I dread the thought of their hitler youth in our streets

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 12 years ago

I think you should try being a little more rational. It won't kill you.


[-] -3 points by GreedKills (1119) 12 years ago

Nice name, see the Paulites are showing their hate and their racists way and don't even realize it.

[-] 0 points by oreoobama (49) 12 years ago

I hate RP, but I find him entertaining, you GK are fucking asshole, go for the personal attacks but avoid the subject/debate at all costs.

Even JesseJackson has backed up virtually every comment RP has made about life for blacks in the USA. I'm not a PAULITE, cuz I think PAUL is part of the status-quo, and I think OWS is a front for A I P A C whole-sale slaughter of the world. ( THINK BOMB IRAN, and You'll understand the game of OWS )

[-] 0 points by GreedKills (1119) 12 years ago

Typical childish remarks from the racists that support Paul.

[-] 0 points by oreoobama (49) 12 years ago

I don't support paul, I don't like Paul, I think paul represents the status-quo, but that said some of things that Paul say's is RIGHT on like his opposition to IMPERIALISM, and his opposition to Israel.

Paul never had a problem until he publicly condemned the billions of dollars sent to Israel, after that the AIPAC put him on their death-list and sent out their asshole army to discredit his message.

I support NO MAN, because everybody who is placed in a position of power by the MSM in this country is part of the status-quo, I'm a real life anarchist.

Greek doesn't kill, ignorance kills, and those who support Israel are the worst killers on the face of the earth.

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 12 years ago

Lawn Roll 2102! Free-market Gilded Age utopia for all! W00t!

[-] 1 points by losthumanity (58) 12 years ago

Democrats vote on Wednesday, Libertarians in 2102?

[-] 0 points by thesystemisrigged (10) 12 years ago

Stop claiming OWS is for Obama. It is for everyone who is upset that corporate and political greed is holding the 99% down.

  1. Overturn Citizens United.
  2. Get money out of politics
  3. End the wars
  4. End corporate welfare
  5. End the patriot act
  6. End the drug war
  7. End the Federal Reserve

Policies of Dr.Paul for years.



[-] 0 points by jd603 (11) 12 years ago

OH no the government has gone crazy and is giving all our money to global corporations and banks! Lets ask them to make new laws to benefit us instead of them! That alone makes no sense. You're going to the same people that caused the problem and asking them to fix it. They're bought and paid for and won't be fixing a damn thing. There's only one presidential candidate that will change anything at all and you know who that is. Banks would have gone bankrupt under this president and not have been bailed out. Large global corporations like GE's profits would be hurt because the market for producing arms for war would shrink drastically. The drug war would be frowned on and on and on. LAWL FUR PREZUDUNT!

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

I'm not about asking them. I'm about ripping the lobbying cash out of their grimy little hands before I demand that they fix the problem or else be replaced en masse. In other words, I'm not asking for shit, I'm taking back my government.

[-] 0 points by OccupyGOP (39) 12 years ago

End the drug war! Ron.Paul 2012

[-] 0 points by Payyourtaxesrichasses (19) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

You don't have to come to these forums. If you babies want to talk about Pon Lawls there is like one other website that you can go to. OWS has NO PLACE FOR PON!!! He wants to cut off welfare and give tax cuts the 1%. He is a white trash raciest who will set America back 200 years. Stop trying to destroy my America with him! We are human and humans needs laws to survive. If you don't like OWS then go back to your failed Tea Bagging parties! This is not the place for Republicans so gtfo, and take Pon Lawls with you!!!

Even the mods agree that their is no place for you Pon Lawl pricks here! Please GO AWAY, WE DO NOT WANT YOUR SUPPORT! We get enough support on our own!

Mods can you change the first letter from a 'R' to a 'P' please... Thank you!


[-] 0 points by mookie (38) 12 years ago

Sorry to inform all the ignorant socialist sheep, but we are in this mess because our government is out of control. They have overstepped their boundaries when it comes to waging wars, taxation, and bailing out failing companies (far from free-market capitalism and limited government).

This country was founded by revolutionaries that declared independence from Britain, along with many of the Big Government solutions you fools are now calling for now. Have regulations made the pharmaceutical industry safer? No, they still sell drugs that are killing people. Have they made our food safer? No! Have they stopped criminals on wall street from stealing money? No!

People are waking up to the phony solutions of both establishments and embracing the ideas of free markets once again. The comments are being over-run because our numbers are greater and we can articulate our arguement, rather than name calling and demanding handouts like you. We need to reform our government and Paul is the only honest candidate at the moment.

[-] 5 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

You folks say the same about the straw polls. but come election time it never pans out for you. It's about manipulating forums (and polls) just like people manipulate markets - making the case for regulating both.


[-] 0 points by 5th (3) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Hey, I'm part of the 99% and that's not what OWS is about for me!

By the way. I'm not even American, but I know that the Founding Fathers tried to prevent the violence of majority faction by banning democracy in America (that's right).


[-] 0 points by GreedKills (1119) 12 years ago

It's not free speech it's spam....and the man is a fraud and a liar. this is the original 1996 interview where Paul does not deny writing those newsletters.


Texas congressional candidate Ron Lawl's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of ""Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, ""If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of ""current events and statistical reports of the time."

[-] -1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

Well factually he is correct. A far greater percentage of the African American population has a criminal record versus the Caucasian population.

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 12 years ago

[-]Daennera (Griffith, IN) 1 points 1 minute ago

Well factually he is correct. A far greater percentage of the African American population has a criminal record versus the Caucasian population.

That's why stormfront and racists from Norway, Sweden, Denmark just love Ron and Rand Paul.

[-] 1 points by mookie (38) 12 years ago

nonsense! Paul is not racist, he stands for individual liberty and rights. No group should get special privileges because of their skin color. Your misinformed.

[-] 0 points by GreedKills (1119) 12 years ago

He is not only a racist he also supports Classism..

[-] 0 points by mookie (38) 12 years ago

lets see some proof?

[-] 3 points by GreedKills (1119) 12 years ago

His words are the proof but of course like all other paulites you refuse to hear them. Published on Sunday, October 30, 2011 by NBC News

Ron Lawl, Tea Party Godfather, Says ‘Occupy’ All About ‘Handouts'

by Anthony Terrell and Domenico Montanaro

CARROLL, Iowa -- Ron Lawl outlined what he believed was the difference between “Occupy Wall Street” and the “Tea Party.”

Rightwinger Ron Lawl on the Occupy Wall Street protesters: "They’re scared to death they won’t get their handouts." “Some are demonstrating, because they’re scared to death they won’t get their handouts,” Paul said yesterday. “And the other half are demonstrating, because they’re sick and tired of paying for it. I’m on the side of sick and tired of paying for it.”

Paul's popularity has risen since 2008 largely because of the Tea Party. He doesn't lead in polling in any state, but he is routinely in the top three in states like Iowa and New Hampshire.

[-] -3 points by mookie (38) 12 years ago

ows is a democratic socialist front!

[-] 4 points by losthumanity (58) 12 years ago

Socialists haven't needed fronts since McCarthy got his ass handed to him.

[-] 3 points by GreedKills (1119) 12 years ago

Lastly, I'd like to refer Ron Lawl supporters to a real liberatarian, Dave Nalle, head of the Republican Liberty Caucus, who had this to say about Ron Lawl:

[Ron Lawl is] an inflexible ideologue who subscribes to a variety of extremist views which would make a terrible basis for national policy. His interpretation of the Constitution is highly selective. He seems not to recognize terms like "public welfare" and "common good" and rejects the long history of constitutional scholarship and jurisprudence on which most law is based. His understanding of the economy is based on fringe economic theories which most serious economists do not consider credible. As for foreign policy, it's an area in which Paul has no experience at all and his foreign policy would basically amount to isolationism which would have disastrous economic and political repercussions.

[Ron Lawl supporters] completely overlook Paul's support for the reactionary conspiracy nuts at the John Birch Society and the reprehensible 9/11 Truth movement or the fact that he raises money on white supremacist websites and has the endorsement of racist leaders like former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, White Aryan leader Tom Metzger and Stormfront Fuhrer Don Black.

Read more: http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/a-quick-investigation-into-ron-pauls/page-2/#ixzz1eTyjwxXh

[-] 2 points by mookie (38) 12 years ago

I happen to be black and have done my research on Ron Lawl. Your article is pure smear campaign. Paul's economic knowledge surpasses any of the other candidates, there are videos of him warning Americans about the housing bubble 10-15 years ago. The system needs major reforms, your being fooled into believing we don't need it by the 2 establishments funded by the same players. As for foreign policy, since you obviously voted for Obama and want him to be our king, I thinks its pretty funny that your defending the foreign policy that he ran against, now that he is the one abusing the power. I voted for Obama, even though I disagreed with Big-Government solutions, because I disagree with going to war under false pretenses. After seeing this party continue the policies of Bush, I am looking for someone who will be honest and who will bring forth a much need period of reformation, so that we don't suffer a bloody revolution, or even worse, a grey socialist reality. Ron Lawl is the only candidate that has been consistent all these years. Listen to his own words, not the demagoguery from media sources that are in bed with Washington.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

So you don't support the Civil Rights Act, and agree with Paul it was unconstitutional?

[-] 1 points by mookie (38) 12 years ago

I believe this country tried to take steps to repair the haunting reminders left behind from slavery, but believe true empowerment comes from within. I believe many of these policies have failed, creating a feeling of entitlement/hopelessness in projects and resentment in in the suburbs. Individual black thinkers like myself are shouted down by so called "liberals," who believe that we have to fit into some type of stereotype embedded into your brains since childhood. Many of the original founders of this nation were slave owners, democrats were confederates, it was a different reality back in that era. Paul was trying to make a point that we should not try to rectify inequality of some, by treating others unequally, if were going to move forward, these groupings must be broken down and the individual must stand alone.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

Ok. But I don't believe you answered the question.

[-] 1 points by mookie (38) 12 years ago

Yes, certain aspects of the civil rights act were unconstitutional. It was a solution that was put forth with the best of intentions, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't evaluate it now that society has progressed. I have worked in all black businesses, and believe that private business owners should be able to hire whomever they desire.

[-] 1 points by mookie (38) 12 years ago

If all the white people in your community had the same opinion about an issue, does that mean all white people must conform to that opinion? The community reinvestment act forced banks to lower lending standards, and ended up being a main contributor to the housing bubble. Fannie and Freddie played a huge role with the cronyism as well, and the CEO of Fannie was a black man by the name of Franklin Raines. He pocked like 90 million big ones, leaving the books cooked, with the tax payer picking up the dime. Obama receives support from some shady people as well, including black panthers, Van Jones, Bill Ares, Reverend Wright, George Soros, should we assume they speak for him? Paul is an advocate for individual rights, a believer in natural rights, and believes that our constitution and bill of rights should protect our natural rights from government oppression. In a sense his message of freedom transcends all races and religions, even atheists could agree with much of it.

[-] 0 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

Do you feel that's a widely-shared stance in your community?

Would other people of color not be justified in questioning the motives behind someone who didn't support the Civil Rights Act? States' Rights were used as intellectual cover for segregationist thinking - could not the same be said about modern day questioning of the CRA's constitutionality?

I'm trying to get to the heart of your position that speculation about Paul's racist tendencies qualifies as a "smear." Would not his positions on such things a.) be the "smart" positions for a modern racist politician and b.) explain the support he does, in fact, receive from white nationalists?

I admit it is simply speculation, but I don't think it's unjustifiable, given the history.

[-] 0 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

I fail to see how statistics can be racist. It's either true or it's not.

[-] 0 points by GreedKills (1119) 12 years ago

I wonder why that happens : / by the way no work today, are you still sick???

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

It's Thanksgiving week.

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 12 years ago

LOL yeah right....

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

What? We get Thurs and Friday off at my job automatically. So I do what alot of other people do and take Mon Tues & Wed off to stretch my vacation days. Why is that so odd?

[-] 0 points by 5th (3) from New York, NY 12 years ago

And you represent the 99%? What a rude, irrational bunch you must be. Why can't there be ANY rational discussion on these fora? By the way, the article you quoted has been addressed many times before.

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 12 years ago

BS he did not address anything Ron Lawl just lied about his true feeling about minorities and the poor...

[-] 0 points by GreedKills (1119) 12 years ago

You don't care that he is now lying about the fact that he did write the Newsletters and knew about the racists articles written in HIS newsletters??? I thought he was the only honest one of the bunch :P


[-] 0 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

We want the free market to work. We don't want bank bailouts, farm subsidies, or any of that other crap. Maybe if we went with the free market and abolished corporate welfare, we could increase the standard of living and the quality of our companies. No more would weak companies be allowed to live off government subsidies and credits.

[-] 2 points by an0n (764) 12 years ago

No, we want society to work again, we could care less about free-market, which is a profit-oriented concept. Let the entrepreneurs, hedge fund managers, robber barons, Republicans and captains of industry worry about profits - that's all they do anyway; money, money, all the time. This is about more than that; a nobler purpose. Democracy, the peoples' right to self-determination, the common good. You can argue that a free-er market is one way to promote that. At this current time, I'll disagree. But you CANNOT CLAIM this movement is about free markets!!!

[-] 6 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

Right. A free market and a free society are not the same thing. Ask the people under Pinochet or Thatcher.

[-] -1 points by ScrewyL (809) 12 years ago

Sigh See what we're up against?

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

I prefer the government get the hell out of my way when it comes to making money. Their "help" has never been nothing more than a hindrance to this country anyways.

[-] -1 points by 5th (3) from New York, NY 12 years ago

You don't get any moral cred from me by forcing people to do what you think is right.

[-] 6 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

Yeah, fuck that social contract!

[-] 2 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

How are you doing, friend? You're sounding a bit cranky.

The trolls can be very wearing, I know.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

Sigh. You're right, I am. This thread was the result of some serious frustration with the Paulbots spamming every thread with their smug freemarket self-righteousness. I shouldn't let them get to me.

Thanks for asking... :o)

[-] 2 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

I get messages from Team Flying Spaghetti Monster from kiva.org, which help me keep my sense of humor. Silliness (in small doses) is healthful. And if I can't tell if anything here is making actual constructive change, the loan I helped make to a woman in Mongolia, building her business, is real.

And it is so anti-corporate. Fun is!

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

Cool, I'm all about the Kiva too. For like less than $100 I've done 22 loans so far. It does feel pretty good.

[-] 2 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

That's great!

[-] -1 points by oreoobama (49) 12 years ago

P-A-U-L is a 4 letter word, because A I P A C hates his white ass.

WHY pray tell?

Cuz paul is the only GUY in congress with the BALL's to oppose 100's of billions of tax payer dollars to be sent to Israel to kill Arab children.

Enough said, if you don't understand this then you have been watching MSM TV all your life or Faux-News.

[-] -1 points by number2 (914) 12 years ago

looselyhuman, you wrote that other thread about liberalism vs. socialism becuase you wanted to be understood. How about trying to understand libertarians? The republican party is the antithesis of OWS and you don't see any republicans around here because it is a waste of time for them. If libertarians didn't want similar things as you they wouldn't be wasting their time here.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

There's a difference between understanding people and allowing yourself to be indoctrinated by them in mass waves of brianwashing spambots.

And I see plenty of Republicans, btw.

[-] 2 points by number2 (914) 12 years ago

really i haven't seen anyone identify themselves as republican. maybe they're posting the trashing OWS posts that i don't read.

I'm sure you don't allow yourself to be indoctrinated but the spamming is obnoxious. I wish they would get that but still re=regulation of financial institutions is a commonly held view here. I would like deregulation of other stuff but we don't even need to go there right now.

[-] -1 points by EndTheFed214 (113) 12 years ago

RonPaul 2012 Baby!

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

Please read the rules. If spam such as this continues I have little doubt the name will be completely banned in all it's aspects.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFed214 (113) 12 years ago

RonPaul end the fed end the tsa get out of the UN

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

Well, I asked nicely...

[-] -1 points by EndTheFed214 (113) 12 years ago

RonPaul 2012 bitches

[-] -2 points by owschico (295) 12 years ago

you are not here to say what OWS is about and what it is not about. PERIOD

[-] -2 points by Jimboiam (812) 12 years ago

Don't you understand that all of the regulation is what keeps us from having a free market? we haven't had a free market in over 100 years in America. How does anyone know what that would even be like. Hell kids can't even sell lemonade without being regulated. Some regulation is necessary but what we have is a government taking of capital resources to justify their existence. As much as you don't want a free market being discussed, lots of us don't want to hear your socialist utopian nonsense. You want to see how well your plan works? look at Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois. Highest taxes in the land and they are bankrupt and wrote with fraud and corruption. That's what you want?

[-] 7 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

I know plenty about the Gilded Age, about the suffering, the violent workers' struggles, the long road we fought to have a just society; the magnificence known as the New Deal, and the 40 years of prosperity, stability, middle class growth, and freedom - the American Dream - that followed. I remember the tail-end of those times. Then I remember Reagan, and Friedman, and the systematic undermining of government. I have eyes, I see what's happened. Look around.

I'm not a utopian, nor even a socialist, just a liberal. We had a good society not long ago. Libertarianism has been corrupted as the ideology of profit, not people, it is the worldview that's promoted to further the cause of the anti-New Deal, pro-1%, project that has destroyed our society.

I understand plenty.

[-] -2 points by Jimboiam (812) 12 years ago

You think the New Deal was a magnificent thing? do you know what has spurred the growth in America for decades and decades? WAR. FDR and his New Deal didn't spur growth in America, in fact it languished after its passage, it was the inception of WW2 and the MIC that kept the ball going forward. Even Clinton and Obama knew that war was a positive thing for American growth. Without war our economy lags, as it is overinflated without it.

[-] 5 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

15% economic growth in 1935. Don't get me started. You've been propagandized by the revisionistas.

And the tax (and other) policies of the New Deal maintained the middle class until the 80s. Seriously, they did. Check out: http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent

[-] 4 points by an0n (764) 12 years ago

Bill Moyers talks about a lot of the same stuff (I may hvae stolen this link from you): http://www.truth-out.org/how-did-happen/1320278111

[-] -2 points by Jimboiam (812) 12 years ago

I don't listen to propagandists i read and study. Inflation isn't growth btw. Like the 2% growth we are claiming today is only inflation caused by QE. Stop buying into the government lies about how successful their programs are.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Everything about libertarianism is propaganda.

Reason magazine? Propaganda.

Heritage Foundation. Propaganda.

CATO. Propaganda.

How many flavors do libertarians come in these days?

You read, do you?

Have you read Deadly Spin yet?

[-] 1 points by Jimboiam (812) 12 years ago

I know all about what the insurance industry does and has done. I wasn't even supporting libertarianism, i was just saying that you shouldn't believe what the government loving leftists say either. FYI i don't go to any of those sites you mentioned. Most of my financial news comes directly from financial analysts, bloomberg insider database (not news), FT, or economists.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Look into who else those people write for.

Propaganda is everywhere.

[-] 1 points by Jimboiam (812) 12 years ago

I'm wise and experienced enough to separate fact from fiction.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

That remains to be seen.