Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: R-O-N-P-A-U-L: Really Obnoxious Naive People Advocating Unregulated Libertarianism

Posted 7 years ago on Nov. 10, 2011, 6:57 p.m. EST by Rico (3027)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I'm pretty sure John D Rockefeller, Jon Pierpont Morgon, Cornelius Vanderbilt , Ayn Rand, et al, would be BIG supporters.

Ron Lawl was the featured speaker at the John Birch Society's 50th Anniversary. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S9Ogyu5DDY

Wikepedia does a pretty good job of summarizing the positions of RonPaul and the John Brich Society at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society

You can see examples of John Birch Society beleifs at http://www.jbs.org/issues-pages/agenda-21 and http://www.jbs.org/issues-pages/environment . They contest the fact that mankind contributes to global warming, and they want unconstrained development of coal and other fossil fuels. Not a mention of solar.

Why on earth people think we should "double-down" on "free" markets baffles me.

411 Comments

411 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 10 points by newearthorder (295) 7 years ago

With a show of hands, who thinks further deregulation would benefit the 99%?

Who thinks it would mostly benefit the 1%?

That's what I thought.

[-] 4 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

I think I saw one! Oh wait, he's just scratching his head.

[-] 0 points by Frieda (3) 7 years ago

You children are so naive. WHO do you think calls the shots when it comes to new regulations? Corporate lobbyists, union lobbyists. The "regulations" always conveniently protect X-industry, or X-union, from the forces of the free market (ie voluntary, non-coercive trade). You think crony-capitalists are FEARFUL of regulations?! Regulations are the crony-capitalists favorite tool-- just ask Warren Buffet.

[-] 4 points by newearthorder (295) 7 years ago

We need to start an Occupy party. All congress and senate should be replaced. All we have to do is point out the lies all represntatives have told and have good PR. It will take a grass roots effort,...lots of Door to door campaigning and educating.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

No one wants to do it. Ive been banging that drum since September. Its a no show.

[-] 2 points by newearthorder (295) 7 years ago

I'm very familiar with this problem. All of these regulations should be sorted out by non-partisan, non-governmental agencies.

BTW, I'm not a child. When I was born Nixon was Vice President.

[-] 2 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

What Frieda said!

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 7 years ago

The same Warren Buffet that wants higher taxes?

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 7 years ago

you are a smart person.

[-] -1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

It would if the 99% weren't so blinded by their own greed and realized owning shares in publicly owned corporations, especially if one doesn't have a working hand involved in such an entity, is nothing more than gambling with the hopes of extracting wealth from the work and production of the 99%er's while adding NO VALUE to their works.

Same for the stock market, who would sympathize with the masses if they lost all their wealth betting on the ponies or cage fights? Well, the stock market is worse and anyone who gambles in it, should have to go to their corner and lick their wounds when the paper magicians extract all their wealth, leaving their financial rectums gaping.

Yet, instead of being invested in durable goods, tangibles which hold their value or appreciate, or even T-bills, everyone wants their retirements invested in such corrupt and unethical wealth extraction machines, despite knowing it's indeed playing with fire. Nobody wants to manage their own, or know from whence their returns really originate.

They came from working people making barely 30K per year, mostly without any reasonable benefits or even able to eat wisely, much less pay rent and raise children.

No different that what Goldman Sachs, MF Global, The Koch's and many others do to others. Wealth extraction is morally wrong. If you want to be rewarded, produce something or serve others. Investing money is not working, it's gambling and should not be regulated or require intimate involvement with the people's government.

Once this becomes the norm, people will figure it out.

I can put my hands on my retirement and you cannot touch it, nor can anyone else. I pulled all mine out of the stock market in the early 90's.

for sucks fake, the people's Social Security fund has been brilliantly invested in United States DEBT and also that of foreign nations!

If anyone thinks that is a good idea, let me tell you about an investment opportunity I have for you! I'm sure I can acquire some debt in which for you to invest and when you want your money, I'll argue with you and tell you how you're not entitled to it until I say so!

Roll with it, take your lump sum opt out settlement from SS and do something wise with it for your future. If your soon to be empowered state completely exists outside your level of tolerance, then move to a state of like minded persons where they will regulate and involve themselves to your heart's content.

[-] 4 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

Unfortunately, our families have been under attack. And I have a few ideas about why that has occurred and what we might do about it. But the value of the family was something that was early described in the Bible. And there’s one reference to the family that I thought was very important. That was in Samuel, 1 Samuel, chapter eight. And this is when the people, not the elders, came to Samuel when he was very old and they knew he would be passing on, so the people came and said to Samuel, what we need is a king. We need a king to take care of us. We want to be safe and secure.

And Samuel, although he knew he wasn’t going to be around long, he advised the people of Israel not to accept the king, because the king, he warned, would not be generous. He would undermine their liberties. There would be more wars. There would be more taxes. And besides, accepting the notion of a king would reject the notion that, up until that time, since they had left Egypt, their true king was their God and the guidance from their God.

[-] 4 points by GypsyKing (8719) 7 years ago

Man am I glad to hear someone reflect my thoughts on this issue completely! Thank you!

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Are there REAL OWS supporters who ALSO support this guy or are ALL the RONPAUL people simply disruptive trolls ?

[-] 4 points by GypsyKing (8719) 7 years ago

No, but the agressive way that they have plagued this movement says everything about the essentially bullying and anti-democratic outlook of the majority of their movement. They have not found an audience on the merits of their ideas, and so feel that they must coopt this movement to spread those ideas.

[-] 4 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Yes, in my experience, many appear to belong to the Church of AynRand/RonPaul. They go to church, hear what the pastor tells them, then go out and spread the word as though it's truth without ever questioning or understanding what they are saying. Ironically, AynRand would be disappointed in them for becoming willing slaves to another man's thought without exercising their own minds.

[-] 5 points by GypsyKing (8719) 7 years ago

AynRand is NOT the symbol of this movement. Her ideas were the exact antithisis to this movement.

[-] 4 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Agreed. THE RONPAUL folks are actually subscribing to AynRand's tenents, but they like to hide behind talk of this or that. That's why I often call them the AynRand/RONPAUL people... just to make sure folks understand the full range of their beliefs. I don't appreciate these wolves who wrap themselves in sheepskin coming here and spreading deception.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (8719) 7 years ago

Thanks.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 7 years ago

Most Americans Oppose Current Wars – Most Presidential Candidates Don’t

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-antiwar-20120102,0,6340945.story


Six Reasons Ron Paul Has Appeal Beyond the GOP

TIME's List: http://swampland.time.com/2011/12/30/why-ron-paul-has-appeal-beyond-the-gop/#ixzz1iKLM6nIL

"A Hands-Off Approach to Personal Matters, Noninterventionism, The Golden Rule, Drug Legalization, He Doesn’t Blame Obama, Notes of Occupy Wall Street"


Im no troll

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

I'm trying to support OWS and Paul. But you all sure don't make it easy with all the misinformation and gate-keeping. The Libertarian party hasn't really liked Paul since forever. He's not an atheist, and he considers abortion to be violence. The Republicans don't approve of him because he stands for civil liberties, is against the war on drugs, and is for a non-interventionist foreign policy. He has no home, or big guns behind the scenes pulling for him because he has proven himself to be incorruptible. He gets attacked from all sides, and yet his popularity keeps growing.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Are you old enough to remember Ross Perot ? We Americans have a real weakness for plain talkin' Texans who offer simply answers to complex problems. I like and respect Ron Lawl. I also like and respect Pres Obama. I disagree 100% with their views regarding the role of government, but I find RonPauls views downright dangerous.

The only thing RonPaul has ever said that resonates with most OWS supporters is that he was against the bail-outs and thinks the Fed is somehow responsible. Everything else he has advocated over his long career is the polar opposite of what most OWS supporters endorse. Heck, he wants to double-down on free-markets !

Personally, I am 100% convinced that RonPaul doesn't understand the economy or the Federal Reserve, and what he proposes to do is downright dangerous.

[-] 0 points by lifetimesavings (11) 7 years ago

where the hell do you people come from??? I dont know how to support OWs anymore.... All i hear is the sound of a mainstream media trying to stifle out the one shot we have of actually bringing power back to the states and individual freedom to you and me.... I truly hope that comments like this dont represent OWS... HOW CAN YOU EVEN BEGIN TO COMPARE RP TO OBAMa?? Your blowin it man..

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

I didn't compare Ron Paul to Obama, but based on the general responses to Ron Paul in these forums, I would say he does not generally enjoy OWS support. The really weird thing about Ron Paul is that he's so far right, people actually think he's left.

[-] 1 points by mikeydubbs (40) 7 years ago

Ron Paul Is the only presidential canidate who is against croney capitalism and against the wars in the middle east. As president he only realy has power over the military anyway. If he wins it will discredit the mainstream media who have been trying to squash him since day one, and occupy can only gain from him winning the nomination. I consider myself a social democrat, but before we give the government our money we have to be able to trust it to do the right things with it. I for one prefer ron pauls message over that of the rest of the establishment candidates

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

RonPaul receives much more coverage than Pawlenty and Huntsman, and he has been treated no more unfairly than Cain or Gingrich. This myth that "the media hates Paul" is part of the "us vs them" flavor so essential to the Paul campaign, but it's simply unfounded. He does have a lot to answer for. I for one, used to say I liked Paul as a person but just disagreed on some policy matters until I read those newsletters with his name all over them. Whether he authored them or not, they went out with his name on them and there is ample evidence he knew what was in them. When I read them, I lost respect for him as an individual, and I still disagree with many of his policies. Paul is a non-starter for me.

[-] 1 points by mikeydubbs (40) 7 years ago

He's the only candidate who seems to think that there is something wrong with the NDAA, and the patriot act, and that alone gets him my endorsement

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

He's done. He won't do well in New Hampshire (sure didn't in 2008), and the racist/anti-semitic tone in those newsletters mean he won't get the African American vote in South Carolina or the Jewish vote in Florida. We're saved.

[-] 1 points by mikeydubbs (40) 7 years ago

He's polling in second place in New Hampshire, and he won second place in Iowa if you don't count Santorum, who really has no lasting power. Ron Paul is also the only canidate who wants to end the war on drugs, which will help minorities far more than anything Obama has done.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

You conveniently fail to mention that Romney is polling at 41% while Paul is only at 19%. That's a lot of ground to make up. Also not Santorum's numbers are on a steady climb... to be expected after his Iowa finish, he's gone from an unknown to someone folks will at least pay some attention to. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/new-hampshire-polls-romney-lead_n_1186859.html

[-] 0 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

So you are against civil liberties? Like corporatism and regulatory capture? You think the Fed secretly giving 7.7Trillion to the banks was alright, a third of which was to foreign banks? You like torture? You think indefinite detention and assassination of citizens is peachy? Love those groin gropes at the airport and the endless federal war on drugs? Very curious, Rico!

[-] 3 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Nice. Being against your candidate means I'm for all the evil in the world !

[-] 0 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

I guess pretty much! Unless you'd like to expand your list of what you might agree with silly people like me about. I guess that's your call.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

See my posts just above the placeholder comments at http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4359#p4359 and http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4360#p4360 (you have to scroll up... it's a quirk in themultitudes.org forum).

All change springs from restoration of our political power and responsible use of our economic power. I think these are two objectives all Americans can embrace regardless of their political persuasion. What the people do with their power once fully deployed is up to them. I for one, am willing to abide by the conclusions we jointly arrive at using uncorrupted Democracy. That, in fact, is the social contract we all agree too in the country, and those who can't accept the results of uncorrupted Democracy are free to live elsewhere ;o)

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

I'll check it out, but I won't submit to the rule of any democracy that does not recognize individual rights as spelled out in our Bill of Rights. Am I going to be disappointed?

. . .

I'm all for the spirit behind both of these. And Step #2 I've been talking about and practicing a long time. I had to smile a little, because I have always REFUSED to use the automated checkout lines. And for the very sorts of reasons you cite.

As for Step #1, the first half is super, this part: "demand a ban of all moneys, favors, and other compensation to any elected or appointed official beyond that established by the Constitution of these United States, acceptance or offering of said outside compensation to be prosecuted as a bribe. Further, we demand the establishment of a Federal Election Fund which shall finance the elections of the top five candidates for Federal Office according to the number of supporting and unique signatures they collect from registered voters of these United States, said fund being the sole source of campaign funds lest the poor Citizens of our Nation be disenfranchised."

I have some comments:

Trying to get money out of politics is like trying to suck blood out of a tick. We already have stacks of regulations and reporting requirements and the like. What did that yield? Citizens United and K Street swank. We need some better ideas than just demanding of our beloved masters better policing oversight of the criminals. It SHOULD be the domain of the Press and the People to police and hold accountable their representatives. In fact, I would like service as a representative to NOT ONLY entail an Oath to Office, but a signature on a contract. We shouldn't have to wait 5 years to maybe vote somebody out of office. Instead, they should forfeit that office immediately, or suffer some sort of sanction if they do not keep them. It would make them very careful about what they promised, and turn campaigns into negotiating periods, and we would be voting not only for an individual, but for the contract they are willing to adhere to. Just an idea I heard recently. I see near zero chance, but I've been liking the idea, anyway.

I don't mind your idea about the Fund, but I'm even more leery of petition fraud than I am of voting fraud. Talk about machines being agents of our destruction. . .

We should have been voting on the Internet a decade ago, and demanded that transparency was to be measured by how accessible information about government operations were available directly to the people. We should have been crowd-sourcing By the People oversight as a tippy-top priority forever. Rather than paying control-freak busy-bodies into cushy careers of corruption, and then trying to figure out how to hold them accountable, if Everyone had that oversight duty, I doubt much evil would go unnoticed or unpunished.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

You might find my post at http://occupywallst.org/forum/get-our-government-back-no-ammendment-or-article-v/ interesting. It discusses the mechanics of getting the money out.

[-] 3 points by MonkeyWIthThumbs (4) 7 years ago

The OWS responses are WAY more obnoxious than the Ron.Paul supporter responses from the 400 responses I've read. If the whole idea is to exchange ideas and information the censorship and disinformation is hypocritical.

[-] 3 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 7 years ago

what crime has the poor man paul committed. this thread makes it sound like our problems come from him. like him or not, he's one of the honest guys out there, save some condemnation for those who have actually earned it. look around. congressional and senate society is brimming with blatant open corruption.

'unregulated' libertarianism.

shame... try a dose of 'regulation' on your own political points of views yourselves first! shows how much respect you have for eachothers freedoms and personal liberties.

lets 'regulate' the 1st amendment. and every one there after

(and by the way, his plan is to provide an OPT OUT, sheesh. whats wrong with CHOICE, unless of course you enjoy being TOLD what to do. I mean personally, I'd rather use that money to buy silver, gold or whatEver for my retirement... should I CHOOSE to do so)

[-] 3 points by AltavozDeVerdad (9) 7 years ago

Great post! I would also add that these people's beliefs don't even line up with classical libertarianism. The biggest part that they are purposely ignoring is [in a nutshell]: if you have small, minimal government and regulation, then you have to have equally small agents/syndicates/corporations/whatever that operate within that nation. Otherwise some gigantic multinational corporation will usurp all power from the people and their small minimal government. Look at any small third world country that has a weak central government with multinationals operating there.

True libertarianism isn't right wing or left wing at all...it's all small. Small everything. Basically what's going down at #OWS is in a way libertarian. It is made up of individuals. Individual citizens coming together to exercise direct democracy and to call out when something (anything) gets too big and begins to infringe on the rights of the citizen.

The right wing elites and their media have basically hijacked Libertarianism and have completely distorted its meaning. Just like they did with Liberalism and turned "Liberal" into a dirty word.

I am confident from reading people's comments here and seeing the Occupy movement that these false narratives and false histories are done for. The tide is turning!! :)

STAY STRONG!

[-] 3 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

I happen to be a SOCIAL libertarian (their party is one of the few that says, for example, government should have no voice in whether gay people want to marry), and I don't appreciate RONPAUL hijacking the term. They'd be better called AynRand'ers.

I agree, by the way, that RONPAUL is losing it's voice here, and hat's a GOOD thing!

[-] 2 points by AltavozDeVerdad (9) 7 years ago

Right on!

[-] 1 points by lifetimesavings (11) 7 years ago

why is it everyone always wants to draw lines in the sand between the American people..... REp. DEm. LIbertarianism.... how about some damn common since? Ron Paul- look into it... freedom and civil liberties are an american thiing.....You guys are blowin it...

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

How many people have to point out Ron's obvious flaws before you start admitting it is you...who are blowing it?

[-] 1 points by lifetimesavings (11) 7 years ago

i still have not seen why congressman Paul is not loved by the OWS... Its a shame because since day one of OWS i have been supporting the movement and personally getting involved but now i just dont understand the disconnect.. How do you feel about the mainstream medias attitude towards RON PAUL?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

He gets all the coverage he needs at prisonplanet.

More than any other candidate.

It's the 'right" place for him.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

Last night on TV, I saw Ron Paul come out against the civil rights act, saying it violated personal liberties and property rights. You need to be dumber than a doornail to support this disgusting person. How many more clues do you need before you get what he stands for? Own a business and don't like serving blacks, no problem, under a Ron Paul rule, you can slap a 'no coloreds allowed' sign in your shop window. Disgusting!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22971) 7 years ago

Look, libertarianism sounds good on the surface, right? But, when you really think about it, it is evil. I personally do not trust corporations to do the right thing. Corporations would rule our country if we had a libertarian government (which is an oxymoron by the way - Ron Paul isn't really a libertarian because he is a Congressman - they're supposed to be against the government so how can he be a government employee?).

We would have the privatization of everything - our healthcare, our education system, our transportation, our food supply - everything. There would be no regulation whatsoever! Would you get on an airplane if it was being regulated by the greedy bastards who own the airline, or eat food not regulated? Geez. I wouldn't want to. I don't want random people running everything in my life. In the end, I do want the people I elected to make decisions about how my country should be structured and legislated.

What I do want, however, is to get money out of politics so that our government is returned to us, the people, and taken out of the hands of the rich and wealthy corporations. Good grief, libertarian ideology throws the government solely to the hands of corporations.

[-] 1 points by lifetimesavings (11) 7 years ago

i dont even know where to start with this.... "Ron Paul isnt really a libertarian because he is a congressman- they're supposed to be against the government so how can he be a government employee"... So basically your saying that if someone is a libertarian they cannot be elected into a gov. office? If you want more regulations and you want the F.D.A and the T.S.A and the I.R.S and all the other alphabet groups then Ron Paul is not your ticket.... You should probably vote for Obama and or Mitt Romney... then youll feel safe...

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22971) 7 years ago

Yes. That's what I'm saying. RP is a freaking politician. He's not really a libertarian. Can't be.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

I will correct here.

Mr. P is not a libertarian, because he's actually an (R).

It says so on all his stuff.

[-] 1 points by lifetimesavings (11) 7 years ago

If hes a republican then your whole previous rant was misdirected..

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

What do you think is he then?

I get what was said about why do libertarians, who hate government, run for government office?

It is senseless to vote for them, as they will work towards making it not work.

[-] 3 points by sunshower (80) 7 years ago

Libertarians who say they hate "liberals , have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neoliberalism.

The Republican "Contract" on America is pure neo-liberalism.

"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer, and the middle-class is being destroyed, which is substantiated by statistical reports published in Harvard Magazine, Cover Article, Nov, 2011, http://harvardmagazine.com/2010/07/after-our-bubble - shown on CNBC http://www.cnbc.com/id/38913627 , and examined by Lew Rockwell at http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep/elite-getting-richer.html .

The capitalist crisis over the last 25 years, with its shrinking profit rates, inspired the corporate elite to revive economic liberalism. That's what makes it "neo" or new. Now, with the rapid globalization of the capitalist economy, we are seeing neo-liberalism on a global scale. ...... The main points of neo-liberalism include:

  1. THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

  2. CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

  3. DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environment and safety on the job.

  4. PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

  5. ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

The very design of neoliberal principles is a direct attack on democracy.” - Noam Chomsky, Hopes and Prospects

Around the world, neo-liberalism has been imposed by powerful financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. It is raging all over Latin America. And, in the United States, neo-liberalism is attacking the rights of labor and cutting back funds for education and social programs, as well as science and medical research programs .
Read more at http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376 http://www.globalissues.org/article/39/a-primer-on-neoliberalism http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html

FEATURED ARTICLES http://neoliberalism.org.nz/ http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp#axzz1dB4I9sbZ

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

A well informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will." Thomas Jefferson

An informed citizenry is the strength of democracy. ...a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives." James Madison

[-] 1 points by hoot (313) 7 years ago

you should look at gary johnson hes a candidate for the gop, he is pro choice, anti war, anti war on drugs.. and he isn't funded by any corporation.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Yes, I saw him featured on the news one night. Unfortunately, and for some inexplicable reason, the media is ignoring him, and that makes his candidacy moot.

[-] 1 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 7 years ago

Great post. This is one of the reasons I like RonPaul so much. He opposes the World Bank, IMF and NAFTA.

His Budget Proposal makes sure to cut spending from War and Corporate Welfare in order to protect Social Security and Medicare.

In addition, he doesn't promote this, 'Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."' philosophy. I think Penn says it best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WvaZwPPd7m0#!

He opposes the War on Drugs, and the Death Penalty, which overwhelming target minorities and destroy communities.

He wants to regulate fraud and exploitation, but free businesses from the bureaucratic regulations that do nothing to make business more ethical. He opposed SB 510 which put addition stains on urban gardening and sustainable farming.

I don't agree with his Pro-Life policy though, but at least he simply wants it out of the hands of the Federal Government, in that case the majority of states will stay pro-choice: http://freeindependentsun.com/republic/the-youth-war-and-why-women-should-support-ron-paul-despite-his-views-on-abortion/

He calls for the elimination of the Department of Education. This is great, it hasn't been around that long, and really has nothing to do with making education better. I studied to be a teacher and the DOE was a huge reason I decided to stay away from Public School. I donate money to my local school district and promote concepts like: http://khanacademy.org and Gardening (you can learn a lot caring for the land). The are tutors for Music (lots of people in my community play and teach), Martial Arts and community sports, and more and more breakthroughs in education that the DOE is unable to keep up with.

"An informed citizenry is the strength of democracy. ...a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives." James Madison

[-] 3 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Are you fully aware of what he stands for and his relationship to the John Birch Society ? Reread my post, which I have edited to provide links to his statements and beliefs.

[-] 1 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 7 years ago

In the video you link Paul talks about how the Bail-Outs were wrong, the Wars were wrong, and the Federal Reserve is wrong. He talked about Health-Care briefly. I support the Public Option, which Paul doesn't, but I'm not voting for him as King.

As far as the links to the John Birch Society, I may disagree slightly on Global Warming with them, but I agree that Agenda 21 is a power grab by World Elites (The .00001%). From their website: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

"Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment."

Um...no thanks.

I practice Permaculture and work with people constantly (it's what I'm doing right now as I travel across the country) to advance the way people live in order to protect the environment and reverse human contribution. Ron Lawl even said he believes people have an impact on climate change but that it is hyped up to gain more power...I agree.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Do you really believe that we should unlease corporations, excuse me, "free enterprise" on the American public? How do you reconcile that with the stated aims of OWS?

As for Agenda 21, at your own link we find, "Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992." Are you ALSO against the Kyoto Agreements ? Are you saying you don't think we NEED global cooperation to sustain and preserve global forests? How do you reconcile that with the stated objectives of OWS ?

How can you be both an AynRand/RonPaul supporter AND be in OWS ?????

What are you DOING in the OWS Forum ?

[-] 1 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 7 years ago

I thought OWS was a decentralized movement against Imperial Wars and Corporate Corruption.

How can you, you and your friends, or the people who built this website, dictate what everyone in OWS works towards?

Explain to me what a global forest is? I work with the Amazon Herb Company that does Rainforest Presevation by empowering local tribes and helping them start sustainable farms.

I believe in global cooperation, I cooperate with people all over the world. I don't trust bureaucrats to tell me how to take care of the land. They might mean well, I just don't agree. I don't think they are as educated as people who are on the ground actually doing it.

I am on the OWS Forum to talk to people interested in changing the world for the better. Pointing fingers never seems to make the world better. Working with people does.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Oh, I'm all for everyone participating, but most RONPAUL supporters only talk about a few of his policies and don't explore EVERYTHING he stands for. All I'M trying to do is make sure folks understand the ENTIRETY of RONPAUL'S positions.

[-] 2 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 7 years ago

"Really Obnoxious Naive People"? That doesn't sound very inclusive.

[-] 3 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

Libertarians want the liberty to prey on everyone else without any constraint of government regulation.

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

LOL, "silence these idiots".

Your joking or delusional. Nothing silences libertarians. The crazier they get the louder they are. Reasoned discussion with a libertarian is pushing on a string. Pissing up hill. (;^>)~~

[-] 4 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

I'm pretty sure John D Rockefeller, Jon Pierpont Morgon, Cornelius Vanderbilt , Ayn Rand, et al, would be BIG supporters.

Maybe RonPaul should start the American Robber Baron Party !

[-] 4 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

They are the Robber Barron Party. Its a secret society. Like all of their conspiracy theories.

[-] 3 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Hmmm... so they've added an extra "N" to "Baron" ... THAT'S how they conceal their evil conspiracy !

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

Funny. I don't feel like an idiot. Do you think I'm an idiot? Did you just call me an idiot? What am I supposed to do with that. . . .hmmm. . . .

OK. You win. I'm a Paultard. A Paulican. A Paulinator. A Paulifist. A Paulbot. A Paulverizer.

In short, an idiot. Read my posts! It's so obvious! They are so idiotic I should be ashamed of them, and totally reform my belief that . . .what, exactly?

In

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Good point. I'm deleting that post. It wasn't respectful.

[-] -1 points by darrenlobo (204) 7 years ago

If regulation really protects the people how is it that the 1% has gotten over on us? There are about 10,000 regulatory bodies in the US, when will regulation start doing what it's supposed to?

I say regulation doesn't work, get rid of it.

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

The 1% got over by buying the legislatures of America and then pushing them to undermine and subvert the regulatory agencies.

That you deny or don't recognize this is on;y a sign of your libertarian dishonesty.

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 7 years ago

Easy there, aahpat. I'm on record around here saying just that. The difference between us may be that I realize that the 1% will always be able to buy the regulators & I suspect you don't. There is no such thing as good regulation. If you're intellectually honest you'll agree.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

I disagree.

You are simply too lazy to work for getting us good regulators and politicians.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

I'll work for getting us good regulators and politicians. How can I do that? Maybe we should fire some of them?

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

We do have that power if we seize the initiative that OWS represents.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

initiative to what? I haven't heard many ideas about how to solve this problem, and I'm definitely open to them.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

If you have seen solutions on these forums and at the OWS web site then you do not know how to read for comprehension. If you insist on reading only through the cracked prism of right-wing ideology libertarian dogma you are doomed to seeing only failure.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

If you do not think this is the proper forum for me to learn the details and ask the questions about these solutions, where should that be?

I don't understand or choose not to reply to whatever your model is that created the last sentence.

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 7 years ago

You don't even know me & you're going to say I'm lazy? Insults instead of arguments, eh? I hope you enjoy being played by the 1%. They just love people like you that advocate more govt for them to control!

[-] -2 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 7 years ago

while the banks ignored their regulation and big pharma and insurance companies wrote their own under obamacare keep telling yourself that. the corporations control the government and you guys all call for more government. genius.

[-] 2 points by reckoning (53) 7 years ago

Vote Obama, he signed the NDAA because he loves you :)

[-] 2 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

What you fail to realize is, that if our Republic was restored and operating as it should, it wouldn't matter so much what our president or other elected servants want or think, as reasonable people would have the final say via accountable and un-bribable (at least not without serious consequences) servants.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Sure. I think we're all in favor of removing the corrupting influence of money in politics per my post at http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&p=4381#p4381 (note you have to select page one of the comments then scroll up).

Once we have the money out, we are left with whether we should follow the federalist (advocated by Madison?) or republican philosophy (Jefferson?). At present we're clearly operating per the federalist doctrine. RonPaul would like to move us back to the republic that more closely resembles the Articles of the Confederation.

Before you assume that the naked Constitution as originally drafted is the 'Bible,' please remember that the original document allowed for change via Congressional amendment and interpretation via the Supreme Court. This is part of the genius of our Forefathers; they recognized America would change in ways beyond their comprehension and made the constitution a living, breathing, and evolving document as a result. All those amendments and Supreme Court opinions are just as much a part of the Constitution as the original document, and that's precisely what the Founders intended.

Don't be so quick to throw away a couple of hundred years of adaptation and evolution. Civilization is a living breathing creature that evolves over time, and our institutions encode it's DNA. Messing with the DNA of civilization is just as dangerous as messing with the human genome; we may think we know what every single gene does, but they are there because they were needed to cope with some circumstance in our past, so we should be very careful. We do need some careful and well considered tuning of our DNA, but whole scale change is hazardous.

[-] 2 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

My stalkers on this forum know that I certainly advocate tidying up a few details as required to make all reasonable persons comfortable to proceed from a reasonable baseline.

Getting money out of politics (treason) and then making sure attorneys and other lofty experts no longer can hold pubic office, or serve the people's government directly, would also be a huge plus.

Our laws and extent of our central government should never extend beyond the limits of reasonable persons, nor should any laws or legislation be written of which it cannot be expected a "mere reasonable person" to comprehend. Plain English by regular reasonable persons.

Consult with lawyers an economist indeed, do not elect them or allow them to be on the people's defacto payroll holding any official positions.

And conversely, I don't even want a city worker, picking up my garbage, that cannot be established as reasonable.

Have you ever thought how many police officers wouldn't have a job if they had to prove complete knowledge and understanding of the Constitution? Very few do have this understanding and many I know of are damned near illiterate. Not to just pick on cops, apply this to many who serve, at some level of government.

Hell, where I live, they've elected many representatives who truly cannot read or write!

[-] 2 points by TruthWarrior44 (2) 7 years ago

Freedom Hell yeah Turn it up Sounds good Right on

Liberty Hell yeah Turn it up Sounds good Right on

Ron Lawl 2012 Freedom Liberty

For all: Forever and Ever Amen

[-] 0 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

LOL ! Are you supporting for a rock star or a leader ?

[-] 1 points by lifetimesavings (11) 7 years ago

oh its both.

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

And of course we have his son Rand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/10/air-pollution-rule-rand-paul-bill-republicans-rebel_n_1085113.html?ref=politics

On Thursday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is set to bring up a new piece of legislation that needs just a simple majority to pass -- and it probably would if it weren't for a number of Republicans who approve of air pollution limits under an enhanced version of a Bush-era clean air rule.

Paul's measure is an attempt to halt the EPA's cross-state air pollution rule, a court-ordered refinement of a similar rule first written in 2005. His bill invokes the Congressional Review Act, which allows the Senate to reject new federal rules with a simple majority vote, instead of the usual 60-vote threshold that is now virtually required in the Senate.

[-] 3 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

Rand Paul continued

New Hampshire is a downwind state ... and I think it's very important that we're not the tailpipe for out-of-state power plants," said Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), another Tea Party favorite, after the GOP policy caucus on Tuesday. "It's essentially pollution coming into New Hampshire."

She was not alone in her objections. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) took to the Senate floor to complain about Paul's move.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Good. I'm glad there are even some Republicans standing up on this !

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

Ron Lawl Value Voters Summit

But, you know, biblically there’s a lot of admonitions about what the family should be in charge of. Certainly the 10th commandment tells us something about honoring our parents and caring for them. It didn’t say work out a system where the government will take care of us from cradle to grave. No, it was an admonition for us to honor our parents and be responsible for them, not put them into a nursing home and say the federal government can take care of them. Besides, sometimes that leads to bankruptcies and the government can’t do it anyway. So that responsibility really falls on us.

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

But it was also - about the time we had Roe versus Wade, we also had the breakdown of our monetary system, the rejection of the biblical admonition that we have honest weights and measures and honest money. And not to have honest weights and measures meant we were counterfeiting the money and destroying the value of the money, which implies, even in biblical times, they weren’t looking for a central bank that was going to counterfeit our currency. (Cheers, applause.)

But the culture certainly changed. The work ethics changed. The welfare state grew. And it wasn’t only for the poor who were looking to be taken care of, but we finally ended up with a system where the lobbyists were from the rich corporations and the banks that would come to Washington and expect to get their benefits. And the whole idea of a moral society changed.

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

Ron Lawl Value Voters Summit

You know, morality of the people or the lack of morality of the people can be reflected in the law. But the law never can change the morality of the people. And that is very important. (Cheers, applause.)

In the 1960s and the 1970s, there were dramatic changes in our country. During the Vietnam War there was a lot of antiwar sentiment. There were a lot of drugs. This was the decade that abortion was done flagrantly against the law. And, lo and behold, the laws got changed after the morality changed.

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

But the governing body was the family. And they did not have kings, but they had judges. And that’s what Samuel was. But this was the time there was a shift away from the judges and the family into a king. And I think a lot of that has happened to us in this country. We have too often relied on our king in Washington, and we have to change that. (Cheers, applause.)

Samuel warned that the king would want to make servants of the people. And he even talked about taxes going up and he talked about the use of young men being drafted and he talked about the women and young women being used by the king. And the warning was not heeded, as Samuel didn’t expect it to be heeded. But he also said that if you depend on the king, the morality of the people will be rejected, the emphasis on the people themselves; the morality should come from the people and not from the king. And generally it doesn’t work that way.

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 7 years ago

nuff said indeed.

but it remains a highly accurate, and inciteful

; D

analysis and acronym.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

It won't. The choir you are preaching to might soak it up, but you know your job, and that is to quash all temptations even to take a cursory look at the Doc, and to demonstrate how those who may stray from this anti-Paul orthodoxy will be ridiculed.

[-] 1 points by philosophersstoned (233) from Gypsum, CO 7 years ago

If any real Occupiers (as opposed to Ronpaul's mole army) are confused about whether or not Ronpaul supports the interests of the 99% please direct your attention to this video interview where Ronpaul comments on the Citizens United ruling: "It's corporations money, they can do whatever they want with it"

http://exiledonline.com/ron-paul-believes-corporate-lobbying-liberty-i-take-the-position-that-you-should-never-restrict-lobbying/

[-] 1 points by TheEvilFuckaire (208) 7 years ago

We already live in Libertarian Paradise. The whole government is privatized. https://delecorp.delaware.gov/tin/GINameSearch.jsp search for UNITED STATES it is a corporation registered in Delaware. And this US Code clearly defines UNITED STATES as a federal corporation see rule 15 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_28_00003002----000-.html I don't know what the Libertarians are bitching about the government is not "too big" the government does not exist it has been replaced by private companies. That is what they wanted.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 7 years ago

The difference between a corporation in a free market is that I am not forced to buy the products of a specific corporation. I am forced to buy the products of the federal government.

[-] 1 points by lifetimesavings (11) 7 years ago

Things like this remind me of rebellious teenagers whos main goal in life is to be the new differentt crowd... How about a little respect for the one man whos taking endless shit and who knowingly put his life on the line for the sake of whats right and true??? THis post is lame...

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

I am not a teenager. I was born when there were only 48 states, am a 5%'er in terms of income, was a Vietnam Era veteran, and I have a daughter on active duty.

Ron Paul hasn't put his life on the life for anything. He did 2 years active duty as a freakin' flight surgeon before serving 3 more years in the same non-combat role for the National Guard. There is also nothing but your assertion that what he fights for is 'right and true.' Many would say what he fights for is simply a return to the days of his youth back in 1776 under the Articles of Confederation. In any case, your whole line about putting his life on the line for truth, justice, and the American way is just hot air.

I have been a lifelong Republican, and even voted for Reagan, but they started to lose me when the Christian Right began it's assent. They totally lost when they started merging Conservative Christianity with support for unregulated free-market capitalism. I'm now an Independent looking for a candidate to support.

[-] 1 points by lifetimesavings (11) 7 years ago

In an age where the world is "merging" into a universal rule far far from the independence that our constitution provides i see America as the last true hope in the world to break away from the direction in which the Federal reserve system supplies endless debt and endless war. Now its pretty obvious to see which direction the people who control the power of money are wanting to take this country... It is also obvious that these same powers are doing what theyve done since time began which is try and direct peoples thoughts through media, debt and alot of fear.... Regan was just another war monger.. NOt to say he did nothing good or right but history is clear.. UNDECLaRED WARs are a tale tale sign that special interest are being served. MY point is that is is clear that Congressman Paul has been a lone voice and the establishment is freaking out... these are the same people who have assassinated key figures in history who have threatened there power and control. For this i think Ron Paul is truly putting not only his life on the line but his families as well by threatening to transfer the power of money and war back into the hands of the people.... doesnt that sound wonderful? LOok what we have done to the innocent people of the world.. OUr news doesnt show us the families and civilians we kill... 1953 Iran elects a leader for themselves who in turn becomes furious with the fact that the countries natural resources (oil) have been leaving the country via Great Britian.. So what does the empire do? THey strike a deal with the U.S and we send our CIA to spread propaganda and demonize there leader inevitably replace him with a dictator who will undermine the peoples will and can be controlled easily.. For 20 years there people struggle for freedom... the demands of the "terrorist" in Tehran in 1980 when they held our diplomats in the same embassy that our CIA established the coup in 1953 were simple... 1. Return the Shah to Iran for trial

[-] 1 points by lifetimesavings (11) 7 years ago
  1. return Shah's blood money to people of Iran
  2. Promise of no more U.S. interference in Iran
  3. Apology from U.S.
    These demands are not unreasonable but yet we continued through regan in the bloodiest war Iran. THese powers who control money and war control our economy. Any man who stands to fight against these powers is a hero to me.. We have a responsibility to ende these wars...
    Thats all im saying... you know what i mean?
[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

I find it interesting all your points revolve around Iran. Are you familiar with Iranian/Persian history ? If you are, you know that they will be out apologizing with us when the world demands everyone apologize for historical misdeeds.

FOr a glimpse at more current American actions in the region, note we did not 'steal' the Iraqi's oil, even though we were there in full force, and we didn't even get the big oil service contracts they just awarded. There goes the oil story.

"Look at what we have done to the innocent people of the world." OK. Let's look at how we treated Japan and Germany after WW II. How about the number of people we freed when we helped bring the Iron Curtain down. Consider the wars in Serbia where we were fighting with Arab states to stop genocide of Muslims by Christians. Look at the unfettered access to our markets we grant the Chinese even though it hurts our own economy significantly. Consider the transistor, computer, polio virus, medical advanced in general. Who was first on-site in Haiti ? What contry provides the most charity world-wide ? I'll echo your language and say America is far from perfect, but it's extraordinarily distant from all global super-powers that have come before.

I don't think the 'establishment' is freaking out over Ron Paul. From what I can tell, nobody thinks he can win. Note he is being covered by the 'establishment' media, and the 'establishment' polls seem pretty accurate in reporting his rise in Iowa.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

RonPaul Abstained From Voting Against Repeal of Glass-Steagall http://occupywallst.org/forum/ronpaul-abstained-from-voting-against-repeal-of-gl/#comment-559850

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

RonPaul Abstained From Voting Against Repeal of Glass-Steagall http://occupywallst.org/forum/ronpaul-abstained-from-voting-against-repeal-of-gl/#comment-559850

[-] 1 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 7 years ago

the other option is North Korea...which would you prefer freedom of individuals or being a cog in the machine of a state controlled bureaucracy.

[-] 1 points by OWSorgModerators4RonPaul (3) 7 years ago

The links in the original post are actually very informative regarding John Birch and Ron Paul...whether you like the Champion of Liberty or you don't.

Send the One Percent a clear message! Donate $1.00 to R0nPaul2O12 D0T C0M

The Establishment and the One Percent hate R0NPaul`. Simply donating $1 will send a powerful message to the 1%.

R0nPaul2O12 D0T C0M`

[-] 1 points by OWSorgModerators4RonPaul (3) 7 years ago

The links in the original post are actually very informative regarding John Birch and Ron Paul...whether you like the Champion of Liberty or you don't.

Send the One Percent a clear message! Donate $1.00 to R0nPaul2O12 D0T C0M

The Establishment and the One Percent hate R0NPaul`. Simply donating $1 will send a powerful message to the 1%.

R0nPaul2O12 D0T C0M`

[-] 1 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

We've not only arrived at Orwell's 1984 moment crossed with A Brave New World (consider also the new Defense Bill passed overwhelmingly by the A country that gets its energy from a patriarchal fundamentalist kingdom and its financing and products from a communist slave labor nation can hardly laugh much concerning its own growing exponential aggregate debt, even if the select few have accomplished their personal corrupted american dream of whoring their position for kickbacks and other forms of personal wealth aggregation and assorted forms of crookedness.

In an interview with Ann Barnhardt regarding the MF Global cluster phck one can really see how messy things are. Along with the rot and corruption in government and law enforcement it is amazing as we really are on the brink. She (ann B.) doesn't hold back; and there's this 30 minute interview with Jim Puplava, which is worth consideration. I just couldn't believe or perhaps didn't want to believe that our financial system is literally a house of cards hiding behind a veil of integrity and a corrupt system of crony capitalism. Makes you wonder how Harry Reid went from a six figure income to over eight in a short period of time. END game. 700 trillion debt bubble derivative collapse after euro crashes. US banks fail. Total world instability. Liquidity dries up

Senate this week, which allows for the indefinite detainment and imprisonment of American Citizens plucked from U.S. soil, without any charges ever having to be filed let alone due process of a trivial trial [sarcasm]] having to occur), Orwell, if he were to rise from the grave and visit his nation today, would utter W-T-F, before voluntarily crawling back into his grave.

We are living in a unregulated financial libertarian world. And it's no working. No rules, no regulations, just tips the world into the hands of the .001 percent billionaires (and we are in it) and it's not working... period... This is feudalism in the form of debt serfdom. But, the gold standard bitchez...Libertarian policies historically have failed miserably.

[-] 1 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

Economics Teacher: "In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone Anyone... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone Anyone The tariff bill The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act Which, anyone Raised or lowered... raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work Anyone Anyone know the effects It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression. Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is Class Anyone Anyone Anyone seen this before The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what this says It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point. This is very controversial. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980 Anyone Something-d-o-o economics. Voodoo economics." Ferris Bueller's Day Off...

Yeah trickle DOWN economics isn't working...

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Why not post the satements of RonPaul rather than that of the John Birch society?

I could post some nasty vidoes of some OWS protesters doing bad tihngs and say "Rico" is a member of OWS look what they do.

[-] 0 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

So if I am the featured speaker of the Klu Klux Klan, I get to say "ignore the fact that I support the KKK by my presence here and judge me by the statements I want you to use." Why would RonPaul appear as the featured speaker at the Bircher anniversary if he did NOT support what they believe ?

The RonPaulers are trying to pull the same crap the Obama campaign did... don't judge me by my associations, judge me by what I want you to judge me by. The conservatives were very upset about this in Obama's case, and they don't get to use the same tactics to promote THEIR candidate either.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

That is a good point.

I looked at the John Birch links you provided. I did not read every page but I did not find anything they state on their site that was inherently evil. I do not have a problem with them.They seem to be for freedom, liberty, and individual choice.

[-] 0 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Yes, the John Birch Society has created a much less offensive face for public consumption over the decades. Much of what they say today would appeal to conservatives, but LITTLE of what they say is well aligned with the majority of OWS supporters. All I'm trying to do is to get the OWS folks to look at the full spectrum of idea Ron Lawl has supported over the years rather than the small subset selected and posted in these forums by his supporters.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

I did not se anything specifically anti OWS. Not that I am sure what the OWS alignment is. I know that folks are dissatisfied with the bailouts (we got sold out) It appears JB is aligned with that one. They sat that businesses are "never too big to fail"

I don't imagine any group that would be perfectly aligned with any person or other group. People have different opinions on what we need.

I also know JBS is not socialists or communist but I don't think OWS is aligned with socialism or communism either. At least I know the 99% is not.

[-] 0 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

All I want is for people to look at the full set of beliefs Ron Lawl has expressed over the years. If they still like him, so be it. As it stands, he has historically aligned with pro-family, anti-abortion, global warming skeptic communities. I don't think that's consistent with the views of most OWS folks, but if they still like him after reviewing the totality of his positions, them they should vote for him.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

He is pro family that is true. Is OWS anti family?

He is anti-abortion that is true. Is OWS pro-abortion? I thought we were not political were concentrating on corporatism, the bailouts, and the shadow banking system.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

LOL !

NOBODY is "pro-abortion" they are "pro woman's rights." ;o) NOBODY is "anti-family" they oppose discrimination against gay couples.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

RonPaul is not anti gay.

He is personally against abortion because the delivered over 4,000 babies, many for free by the way. It is not a cut an dry issue. Does a woman's right supercede the rights of an unborn human? Yes. Should her rights come first? That is what is difficult to decide for me.

If a woman is 5 months pregnant and get mad at her and I punch her in the abdomin repetedly until the baby dies, did I commit murder. I did not. But it feels like I did.

[-] 0 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 7 years ago

Ron Lawl may not be anti gay but he is all for letting people be anti gay.

Abortion, Doesn't that mean Ron Lawl is a hypocrite ? You can come up with any excuse you want but the constitution does not allow for the Federal government or states to abolish Abortion. I thought Ron Lawl and Libertarians were all for the constitution ? Or are they just for the constitution when it benefits them self ?

I love the Loony Libertarian hypocrisy. So amusing. =)

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

And here he talks about abortion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHm4UF0EJWo

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

OK, let's forget about what you and I ehink he said and listen to his own words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1gzs27HswQ

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 7 years ago

You took my comment out of context again. I never said Ron Lawl was against gay marriage. I said he was against abortion and the constitution says nothing about abortion.

Nice try though... Not really.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Actually I took it in context. "Ron Lawl may not be anti gay but he is all for letting people be anti gay." That is not true if you watch that clip.

Also, Did you watch the link above where he resonds to the abortion question. Just because he is anti-abortion does not mean he thinks the government should decide.

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 7 years ago

Doesn't Ron Lawl want to repeal the Civil Rights act of 64 ? Isn't it unconstitutional for Niggers and homos to be allowed in private businesses ? Shouldn't it be the states right to discriminate against them damn Niggers and Homos ? Ron Lawl thinks so and I'm sure you do to !

Again, Nice try ... I'm lying about the nice try thing. You are really bad at this !

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Don't forget, he wants to keep the gimps out too.

He and his son, want to repeal the ADA.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Propaganda from his opponents.
He does not want niggas and homos restricted. Stop twsting and perverting his message to suit your agenda.

[-] 1 points by lifetimesavings (11) 7 years ago

I also have not found what is so evil about The John Birch society.. Its so silly really.. THe mainstream media hasnt even meddled on this "issue" apparently they dont even see this as a bad thing and thats saying something because they are foaming at the mouth to find dirt on the guy..

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

That's because the JBS has cleaning up it's public face. Oldsters like me remember the naked JBS when it was an unabashed fringe group based on conspiracies. It's all still there, it's just been packaged for public consumption.

The media is no more "foaming at the mouth" to dig up dirt on Paul than they were with Cain and are with Gingrich, and RonPaul gets a lot more coverage than Huntsman or Pawlenty. This myth that "the media hates Paul" is part of what fuels the "us vs them" spirit so essential to the Paul campaign.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

They get more obnoxious with every attempt to recruit from and or co-opt this movement.

Keep in mind, one of the founders of the libertarian party was Dave Koch.

One of the countries biggest polluters.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Yep. They like to hide behind a couple of the big issues they think will sway us, and they're very careful not to mention the full spectrum of Ron Lawl's politics.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

What part of Ron.Paul's politics have I missed? You swing that JBS thing around like that's going to make some difference. What is so bad about the JBS again?

You missed Stormfront, too. You ever wonder how he gets such wide support? Because he does not support the use of government for social engineering purposes, period. This garners support from all the fringes, but how can such a supposedly 99%'r have problems with extremely broad support? Is that hypocritical?

You would not seek to have the JBS on your side, nor the Paulinators, nor the Libertarians, nor the Anarchists, nor the Racists, nor the __?

Is there some list I can consult where it is laid out who is specifically excluded, shunned, and marginalized around here. There has to be some sort of list you could cook up.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

First, read the forum posting rules. People are not even supposed to be discussing specific candidates for office here. I created this thread to counter all the RonPaul spam that was saturating the forum. If it weren't for the RonPaulers advocating so vocally here, I would never have even thought of discussing him. Note, by the way, I only bump this post up when I see yet another RonPaul post. I do exactly the same thing to the folks violating the rules by talking about 9/11 conspiracies; every time I see a post of theirs show up, I 'bump' my post that debunks all their claims.

If the RonPaulers and conspiracy folks would stop violating the rules, these posts would just fade away.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

OK. I am not really all that interested in pushing a candidate. But, I think it works both ways. What would be a straightforward way of countering misinformation about him, because this seems to be tolerated. Posts with his name are not easy to filter, because of the Lawl thing, and the creative ways used to counter it.

If you are to be true to this, why was this post even appropriate?

[-] 1 points by reckoning (53) 7 years ago

U people are a Joke, the regulations would be put AT THE STATE LEVEL.

Do u morons even read the constitution??

Ron Lawls ideas is not to put an anarchy in the nation.

I guess the MSM is right..u people LOVE OBAMA and want socialism to keep going...

SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!!

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Yes, not only does RonPaul want us to return to the "good old days" when coporations ran free and we had the robber barons, he also wants to take us back to gold under which we had more financial panics than we have had with the birth of the modern Federal Reserve under the Banking Act of 1935, he ALSO want's us to move back toward the Articles of Confederation !

Right, unregulated capitalism, gold, and the Articles of Confederation. That's the way to go ! We don't need to go forward, we need to go backward to the "good old days" of RonPaul's youth. The only problem is that the "good old days" weren't all that good !

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

No he doesn't. You misrepresent his views totally. I'm not saying the propaganda won't work, but it is exactly the viscousness of your attacks that will dismantle your efforts. To support the 99%, you're going to have to try a little love.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

such a fascination

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Ron.Paul speaking on Drugs, Gay Marriage, and Prostitution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6a9549ZeqQ

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

b.u.m.p

[-] 1 points by aandr3ww (5) 7 years ago

Can someone explain to me why they would be against Ron Lawl? Call me stupid I don't care, honestly I just want to know the other side. Thanks!

and who would you rather vote for.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Because returning to gold won't work.

Because we can't trust private enterprise to look out for our interests.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

He simply wants to legalize gold as currency.

We can't trust government to look out for our interests. Otherwise they WOULD BE.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Please go review the economic history of this country in the years before and after the creation of the modern Federal Reserve created by the Banking Act of 1935.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

What, where they stole all the gold? Yeah, that was our original bankruptcy. The monetary and financial systems of today are nothing like 1935, 1975, or even 1995. I don't think we need a gold standard, although some viable way to control our money supply would be nice.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 7 years ago

well, with the democrats and the republicans firmly in corporate pockets and being nothing but puppets on strings, we're gonna need a third party to have any kind of responsible candidate. Green party better step it up!

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

I'm decidedly undecided. That's what happens to me when I'm forced to decide between two equally unsatisfactory choices.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

That's what all the Paul-bashers say. But one way or another we WILL end up with a president, and this all-too-common tactic of bashing candidates, but not supporting one is, if nothing else, cowardly. Smart, for the sake of forum trolling, but cowardly nonetheless.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

You're suggesting I would have been a 'coward' back in the 1930's if I said I strongly opposed Adolf Hitler unless I also declared which of the alternate choices I supported ?

Nice sounding rhetoric, but it's simply absurd.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

Not really what I was saying. The spotty ban on candidate discussion renders all this moot, I guess. No leaders. No candidates. No plan. Just not much.

It's alright by me, I guess. I hate censorship and strong-arm troll/anti-troll tactics. If you all think that it is all for the best to leave candidates out of the discussion, I'm afraid you'll render this movement more and more irrelevant. Perhaps some candidates other than Paul and Warren and such will take up the cause, but then you've cut yourselves out of relevancy with the blanket ban. Not even supposed to talk about it, soo. . .

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

Dr. Paul has said he is a great admirer of Ayn Rand. So has Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), whose attempt to destroy Medicare might cost Republicans 30 House seats. So has former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, whose monetary policies, not unrelated to his admiration for Ayn Rand, did as much as anyone to cause the financial crash.

Ayn Rand, like Karl Marx, was a strong disbeliever in the values of organized religion, and Jesus Christ in particular. Ayn Rand, a fierce and aggressive critic of President Kennedy, was a strong disbeliever in the concept of patriotism that involves sacrifice for others.

At some point there will be a fierce debate on the right between the proud atheism of Ayn Rand and the proud faith of the religious right, and all of the policy differences these views create.

Ayn Rand believed in a Darwinian view of the world, in a supremely selfish notion of citizenship in which we are not our brother's keeper, in which her greatest good involves the most selfish ends.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-a-budget/160169-ron-pauls-godless-goddess-of-greed-ayn-rand

[-] 2 points by 666isMONEY (348) 7 years ago

Thx for the info on Ayn, Ron & Rand, here's a link to Rand explaining his name -- his birth name is Randy -- his wife shortened it to Rand not because she's a fan of Ayn but Rand admits he "cut his teeth" with Ayn and his dad likes her too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD-R_OeP6tU&feature=related

[-] 4 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

Aqua Budda has spoken!!! Like I trust anything out of that Koch puppet's mouth. He will out on his butt as soon as his term is over.

[-] 0 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

And of course there is Jeeves Ron Lawl's former butler.

TWF: So when exactly did you notice the sex doll?

Jeeves: It happened on a cold September morning two weeks ago. Ron left his home office in quite the rush; I believe he was to attend a United Nations meeting that day, and well, you know Ron, he always likes to ride through the streets like Paul Revere on those mornings. Yes, if you ever heard a high pitched, noticeably-frail-from-aging voice yell ‘The taxes are coming! The taxes are coming!’ on a cold September morning – well, that was Ron.”

TWF: Yes, but when exactly did you see the doll?

Jeeves: Oh yes, terribly sorry. I saw master Ron stream out of the house as if the devil were chasing him, which of course, I never rule out; he is very old you know.

TWF: Ayn Rand sex doll. Where was it?

http://thewashingtonfancy.com/2011/09/21/ex-butler-of-ron-paul-finds-ayn-rand-sex-doll/6394

[-] -1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

But, Social Security is indeed bankrupt years ago and any money in it, is actually invested in DEBT and only exists as an IOU sitting in the Federal Reserve.

You obviously never lived in a time when people took care of their own and a working person could actually afford to seek medical attention from real doctors who cared about curing you as opposed to being complicit with the big money pharmaceutical companies and the FDA.

From Dr Paul's Site;

"ENTITLEMENTS:

Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out. Block grants Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States the flexibility and ingenuity they need to solve their own unique problems without harming those currently relying on the programs."

Sorry if you didn't opt out of the Social Security Armed Robbery Scheme with the United Kingdom, you should have if you were born before 1992. It's a losing proposition and it's very easy to do far better for yourself and many would learn how if they had to do so.

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

You believe the lies of your republican masters. Please go collect your check from Jesse Benton and leave OWS.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

Keep your nose in my rectal area, you'll upgrade your quality of life and may even learn something that will help you evolve beyond keyboard capable protoplasm.

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

Is John Tate the Union buster who worked Pat Robertson's 1988 campaign cutting your checks since he is Ron's campaign manager this year??

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

Wouldn't you like to know. It must suck to be you; homeless, broke and useless.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

They should be more like you?

Warm and comfy in Momma's basement?

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

Funny, not really. I'm sure you wished that on many people of whom you're envious and less capable than.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Less capable, how?

You offer little in the way of truthfulness.

So, where do you live and what do you do for a living?

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

Really, where I live and what I do is none of your business. However, you can sleep well at night knowing I outright own real properties and worked very hard to pay for them and keep them, not extracting a thin dime of wealth produced by anyone other than myself in the process. Nobody has given me anything, nor have I accepted anything from your corrupt government.

How you are less capable? Cognitive reasoning ability and critical free thinking for certain, just for starters.

Did you know that Texas is the only state in the Union of which obtaining a lawful Alloidal Title to real property is as easy as getting tags on a car?

Why do you think that is?

BTW... the reason I don't care to "stay on topic" with you is that you are too vastly different than myself for us to be able to relate to each other and therefore, I have no interest in being bothered by your trifling and unproductive antics which remind me much of an ankle nipping and incessantly yipping Chihuahua.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Big whoop. I've owned property for many years.

Still not offering anything but truthyness.

Yipping chihuahua? Sounds like Mr.P!!!

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

shooz = persona no gratis

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

More love from the rEVOLution!!! Thanks Fraud With Wings. By the way how much money did you make posting here last week??? Does Ron Lawl sign your checks or is David Lane??? Does Ron offer health care now or if you get sick will Ron just watch you die like he did with his 2008 campaign manager???

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

You wouldn't believe how much I get paid, I probably earn more in a day than you'll earn in ten years.

[-] 0 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

Wow bragging you make more than a cripple I'm so proud of you. What puzzles me is why you spend all your time here?

Did you know Jack Hunter AKA southern avenger Christian Reconstructionist and neo confederate is working for the same folks as you? He's Ron's Blogger for the campaign ;)

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

I certainly have no idea what you are talking about and neither do you. I'm proud to make more than a cripple and it's got to be tough to be likely mentally and physically crippled. That's why you spend ALL YOUR time on this forum.

[-] -1 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

[-]FrogWithWings0 points 1 day ago

You wouldn't believe how much I get paid, I probably earn more in a day than you'll earn in ten years.

You are here because you are being paid by the Ron Lawl Campaign...

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

Oh sure, yeah man, that's the ticket no matter how mentally ill and retarded you actually are. Right, I get paid to post on this bulletin board, big money too. Whatevah punk.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

More love from the rEVOLution. You are a poor example of a human being. Is this a new screen name for FraudWithWings??? You must have 10 IDs on here. Must add it to my list...

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

Yeah. Ain't it sweet.

[-] 0 points by CurveOfBindingEnergy (165) 7 years ago

Enjoy it while it lasts.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

Enjoy what?

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

Ron Lawl Speech Value Voters Summit 10/8/11

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE Ron Lawl (R-TX): Thank you. Thank you. So early in the morning, too. I appreciate that. Thank you very much for coming.

And I appreciate very much this opportunity to visit with you to talk about families. Obviously family values are very, very important. And, as was mentioned in the introduction, I have delivered a few babies. And that does contribute to family, let me tell you. (Laughs.)

But also I’m from a rather large family. I have four brothers. But we have five children and 18 grandchildren and five great-grandchildren as well. (Cheers, applause.)

But, you know, the one thing that is fascinating to me when we bring new life into the world or a new baby comes into the family has always been the reaction of the siblings – maybe one, two, or three, four years old. I’m always fascinated with the intrigue of the siblings looking at a small baby. And I thought, well, that was natural and good and really symbolizes what the family is all about.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

What the heck does this have to do with anything?

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

He is also a member of the religious right which he hides pretty well. Read the whole speech, I got tired of cut and pasting.

[-] 1 points by Frieda (3) 7 years ago

It should be remembered -- especially by young people-- that when you're considering a politician, you're not voting for who would make for the coolest friend or drinking buddy.

I'm an atheist, but Ron Lawl's religious beliefs don't matter a whit to me. Why? Because Ron Lawl's a principled thinker who recognizes that religion has ZERO place in matters of the US federal government. That said, if Ron Lawl's a protestant or pagan, it's COMPLETELY beside the point. I don't HAVE to condone his religious beliefs, and by he doesn't have to condone mine. That's the beauty of the first amendment, and a politician who's a strict adherent to the constitution.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Where did you get the idea that he's a "principled thinker"?

His campaign site?

What exactly is a "principled thinker", anyway?

Talk about abusing syntax.

[-] 0 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Ah, OK. Now I get it.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 7 years ago

http://bit.ly/tCeKqx

Capitalism vs. the Climate - Naomi Klein

A great article that address these RonPaul people and explains why they hold these unrealistic views.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

I'll go read it (assuming I can find it). Thanks !

[-] 1 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 7 years ago

jaktober:

"Are you familiar with the New American Century?

Do you consider yourself a Neo-Conservative?"

Rico

"I wasn't until you mentioned it, but I googled it and like what I see ;o)

I don't put myself or others into "boxes." I am me."

http://occupywallst.org/forum/r-o-n-p-a-u-l-really-obnoxious-naive-people-and-un/#comment-331647

Since I can't reply to that post, I felt the need to reply up here.

Isn't this entire thread about putting people in boxes? Aren't you trying to label all Ron Lawl supporters as naive and obnoxious? Aren't you trying to say since he spoke at a JBS conference that he agrees 100% with them?

You just, multiple times, said you both support all the wars overseas and the New American Century, which is a neo-conservative think tank, with members such as Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Is this why you don't like Ron Lawl? Because he views these wars as imperialistic (10 years in Afghanistan) and wants to oppose the military industrial complex?

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

OK, you got me on that one. I would put Hitler in a box, and I would put Stalin in a box, so I suppose I DO put some extremists (oops, did it again) into boxes.

The New American Century is defunct. I don't now nor have I ever belonged to ANY organizations. I simply said that I glanced at their site using the link you provided and agreed with their fundamental premise that America is a force for good. I didn't dig any deeper (because I saw they were defunct) and never claimed to be an adherent to anything but that core premise that America is a force for good in the world.

I very specifically said I support JUST wars, not ALL wars. All these really means is that I believe there are some thing worth dying for. Don't you agree ?

I don't like RONPAUL because he's yet another of the folksy plain-talkin' Texans who seem to think America's greatness can be restored if only we return to the policies of the "good old days." RONPAUL want's gold, for example. How quaint. He questions global warming. Despite the fact that we face many problems that can ONLY be solved via global cooperation, he fears any sign of such cooperation foretells the Anti-Christ. He thinks we should unleash "free enterprise," aka corporations, and that they will solve all our problems. He says we should "mind our own business" on the stage of world affairs, even if the war we're fighting is just. As best I can tell, he would have left Europe to Hitler, and the East to the Emperor.

I disagree with the RONPAUL philosophy, and his folksy way of saying "it's simple, we need only turn back the clock to when we had gold and our corporations range free" scares me. People tend to fall for this kind of comforting talk of easy answers from a folksy guy. They did it with Ross Perot. They do it now with RONPAUL.

The answers are NOT simple, and we can't roll back the clock to the days of RonPaul's youth.

[-] 1 points by JohnsonJaimes (260) from Sanibel, FL 7 years ago

Has anyone thought of how hard it would be to do business here in the US on a national scale if all 50 states were allowed to do their own thing like the "Libby's" want? It would be chaos and prohibitively expensive. Foreign investment (Pro or con, we need it) would dry up. It would create jobs perhaps because of the armies of accountants and state lobbyists that would be needed to keep track of 50 separate entities rules and regulations. What we need is fairness, a living wage for regular folks, and real representation from our elected officials.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

While I don't support RONPAUL, I DO support States Rights. We have 50 little incubators in our country. People who lean this way or that can associate with one another in one state or another and enact their policies. The rest of the states can pick and choose what seems to be working. A certain amount of thought-diversity is a good thing, especially when compared to one man on high dictating a solution.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

Do you have a supervisor or something that is monitoring your posts to ensure that even when your views might be interpreted as being in agreement with Paul's, that you have to qualify your agreement with the preface that you don't support him?

Worried somebody might get the wrong idea about you if you don't specifically disavow him, I suspect. That seems the safest way to play around here.

But I'd be more likely to believe you if you stuck to the issues, rather than contributing to building the Paul-Liberty-Anarchy-Freedom-Constitution Frankenstein, as if only to pin every ugly name badge you can on it. You'd have thought that Dr. No was responsible for our woes, when he has many times demonstrated that he is in the tiniest minority in his votes and is simultaneously ridiculed for not having accomplished anything.

Can you have it both ways? I don't think so. So Is he ineffective, or is he to blame?

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

I can worry you even more... I support much of what Obama says, but won't be voting for him either. It's simply a matter of weighted priorities; some candidates support things I agree with and attract me, but their other positions repel me more. RonPaul's other positions scare me. I won't vote for him.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

No problem. Your voice is invaluable around here, and you'll inadvertently support ideas that cut across political lines. And that is probably most important of all.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Ineffective, unless he's putting earmarks in bills he knows his fellow republicans are going to pass, and yet he votes against them.

Just another slimeball.

More dangerous, because his minions think he's honest, principled, even though, he's not.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

Who are you supporting, shooz? Ron.Paul is not against earmarks. He's against letting the whims of the Executive branch decide how to redistribute the money his constituents paid in. Granted, it's a token effort, but I can't fault him for not wanting that money to leave in the first place, and I can't fault him for trying to get some of it back.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

If he's as principled as you say, he would refuse to do that too.

He's just a foil for the republican party.

A career politician.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

Well, it's at least his third career, but at least he has a voting record (a source of endless evidence of his principles), and we know he's electable to some degree.

Now he's leading in Iowa and running a close second in NH, in spite of catching your sort of naysaying, especially from his own party.

But he gives back as well as he gets, and has never let party loyalty get in the way of his principles.

But you'd probably prefer party loyalty, no? But since when was OWS loyalty so heavily predicated on ones ability to denigrate the good doctor?

Foil for the republican party. Hmm. Maybe. Is that bad?

Who are you supporting, shooz?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

I will NEVER again support any republican for anything.

I was fully awake during the Bush administration.

I will see what shakes out during the election process.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

Never support a Republican. At this point that leaves supporting Obama or supporting a third party candidate, no? So it's not so much "Anyone but Paul" as an "Anyone but the Republican" Got it.

But that doesn't track all that well with singling out Paul, does it, though. Is he the worst R, you think? That going to put you in with some strange bedfellows. But such is life when your answer is to try to force the government to force people to do what a you (or some supposed consensus) think is right.

"As for me, give me Liberty . . ."

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Liberty to do what?

It's not my fault Mr. P is a republican, that was his "choice".

Unfortunately, it was a poor one.

[-] 1 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 7 years ago

Who are you guys planning on voting for as President?

Obama?

or

The Green Party Nominee (Stein or Mesplay)?

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

I'm decidedly undecided.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

Come on Rico. It doesn't work that way. You lose credibility when you hide behind that wall of undecided. I say you should suggest an alternative, or shut up about Ron.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

I think I gain credibility by not having decided this early in the process.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

lol. That was a full-on pirouette!

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Not a pirouette ... you have never seen me endorse a candidate yet. I likely never will because all of them are less than ideal in my opinion. Whoever I select will be the lesser evil in my view, albeit by a small margin.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 7 years ago

Ron Lawl IS the nuclear option

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Yes, and we all KNOW just how attractive the Nuclear Option is !

[-] 1 points by Neruda9 (54) 7 years ago

Good on ya!

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

I think it's a pretty easily remembered and accurate summary, don't you ?

[-] 1 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 7 years ago

False Front politics

Lots of money flows in there behind Paul. Way more than that District of his warrants.

Try this on for size: False Front politics.

Paul talks lefty themes -- anti-Fed, anti-banker, anti-military -- but he always delivers the votes to Republicans.

He makes abortion the single-issue center of everything he does.

Abortion-hating for economic lefties. A fantasy.

I think that Paul knows he's a fraud. None of his leftie-sounding themes are going anywhere while there's a powerful Republican Party.

Piping out Pro-Life dogma is his game, wrapped in leftie-sounding bull. He pulls in votes for Republicans that they couldn't hope to get otherwise. He's worth as many as 3- or 4-percent of their turnout in all of the battleground states.

Helluva scheme. Works, too.

[-] 5 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Oh, I think RonPaul believes what he says, but I think he should be tested for Alzheimer's. He seems to want to return us to the 18th century, the "good old days" of his youth.

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

There is a reason why Ronnie was a guest speaker at the 50 year anniversary of John Birch Society ;)

[-] 3 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

The guy is downright dangerous. How can anyone but an absolute simpleton support him?

[-] 3 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

Yes he is. I don't understand the support he receives from young adults. It must be this Ayn Rand Alex Jones crap.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33516_Ron_Paul_and_the_John_Birch_Society

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Man, now I'm even MORE worried about the guy !

After your post, I found a supporting statement from JBS at http://www.jbs.org/the-john-birch-society/the-real-reasons-republicans-dislike-ron-paul

This guy is demented, and he's going to destroy us !

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

I tell no lies my friend.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 7 years ago

Lollll dangerous you say?

Man did this crowd not get how we got here today?

The following are 14 new ways that the government is watching you....

1 In many areas of the United States today, you will be arrested if you do not produce proper identification for the police. In the old days, "your papers please" was a phrase that we used to use to mock the tyranny of Nazi Germany. But now all of us are being required to be able to produce "our papers" for law enforcement authorities at any time. For example, a 21-year-old college student named Samantha Zucker was recently arrested and put in a New York City jail for 36 hours just because she could not produce any identification for police.

2 The federal government has decided that what you and I share with one another on Facebook and on Twitter could be a threat to national security. According to a recent Associated Press article, the Department of Homeland Security will soon be "gleaning information from sites such as Twitter and Facebook for law enforcement purposes".

Other law enforcement agencies are getting into the act as well. For example, the NYPD recently created a special "social media" unit dedicated to looking for criminals on social media networks such as Facebook and Twitter.

3 New high-tech street lights that are being funded by the federal government and that are being installed all over the nation can also be used as surveillance cameras, can be used by the DHS to make "security announcements" and can even be used to record personal conversations. The following is from a recent article by Paul Joseph Watson for Infowars.com....

Federally-funded high-tech street lights now being installed in American cities are not only set to aid the DHS in making “security announcements” and acting as talking surveillance cameras, they are also capable of “recording conversations,” bringing the potential privacy threat posed by ‘Intellistreets’ to a whole new level.

4 More than a million hotel television sets all over America are now broadcasting propaganda messages from the Department of Homeland Security promoting the "See Something, Say Something" campaign. In essence, the federal government wants all of us to become "informants" and to start spying on one another constantly. The following comes from an article posted by USA Today....

Starting today, the welcome screens on 1.2 million hotel television sets in Marriott, Hilton, Sheraton, Holiday Inn and other hotels in the USA will show a short public service announcement from DHS. The 15-second spot encourages viewers to be vigilant and call law enforcement if they witness something suspicious during their travels.

5 The FBI is now admittedly recording Internet talk radio programs all over the United States. The following comes from a recent article by Mark Weaver of WMAL.com....

If you call a radio talk show and get on the air, you might be recorded by the FBI.

The FBI has awarded a $524,927 contract to a Virginia company to record as much radio news and talk programming as it can find on the Internet.

The FBI says it is not playing big brother by policing the airwaves, but rather seeking access to what airs as potential evidence.

Potential evidence of what?

This is very creepy. Why is the FBI so interested in what is being said during Internet talk radio programs?

6 TSA VIPR teams are now conducting random inspections at bus stations and on interstate highways all over the United States. For example, the following comes from a local news report down in Tennessee....

You're probably used to seeing TSA's signature blue uniforms at the airport, but now agents are hitting the interstates to fight terrorism with Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR).

"Where is a terrorist more apt to be found? Not these days on an airplane more likely on the interstate," said Tennessee Department of Safety & Homeland Security Commissioner Bill Gibbons.

Tuesday Tennessee was first to deploy VIPR simultaneously at five weigh stations and two bus stations across the state.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 7 years ago

7 Thermal imaging face scanners are becoming much more sophisticated. Law enforcement authorities in the western world are getting very excited about "pre-crime" tools such as this that will enable them to "prevent crimes" before they happen. The following is from a recent BBC News article....

A sophisticated new camera system can detect lies just by watching our faces as we talk, experts say.

The computerised system uses a simple video camera, a high-resolution thermal imaging sensor and a suite of algorithms.

Researchers say the system could be a powerful aid to security services.

But face scanners are not just a tool that will be used in the future. The truth is that face scanners are being used all over the United States right now. The following comes from an article posted on Singularity Hub....

Law enforcement continues to adopt new technologies in an effort to make their jobs easier and keep us safer. The latest gizmo attaches to officers’ iPhones and turns them into biometric face scanners. The scanners have already been street tested in Massachusetts. Pretty soon cops all across the US will be using them to ID suspects.

Before long, technology like this will be all over America. In fact, the FBI has announced that it will be activating a "nationwide facial recognition service" in January.

8 Another "pre-crime" technology currently being tested by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is The Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) program. The following description of this new program comes from an article in the London Telegraph....

Using cameras and sensors the "pre-crime" system measures and tracks changes in a person's body movements, the pitch of their voice and the rhythm of their speech.

It also monitors breathing patterns, eye movements, blink rate and alterations in body heat, which are used to assess an individual's likelihood to commit a crime.

The Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) programme is already being tested on a group of government employees who volunteered to act as guinea pigs.

Do you want government officials to pull you aside and interrogate you just because you are feeling a little bit nervous one particular day?

9 Sadly, "pre-crime" technology is even being used on our children. The Florida State Department of Juvenile Justice has announced that it will begin using analysis software to predict crime by young delinquents and will place "potential offenders" in specific prevention and education programs.

How soon will it be before this type of things is applied to adults?

10 Our children are being programmed to accept the fact that they will be watched and monitored constantly. For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is spending large amounts of money to install surveillance cameras in the cafeterias of public schools all across the nation so that government control freaks can closely monitor what our children are eating.

[-] -1 points by Dutchess (499) 7 years ago

11 The U.S. government is also increasingly using "polls" and "surveys" as tools to gather information about all of us. In previous articles, I have noted how government authorities seems particularly interested in our children. According to Mike Adams of Natural News, the CDC is starting to call parents all over the U.S. to question them about the vaccination status of their children....

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control, which has been comprehensively exposed as a vaccine propaganda organization promoting the interests of drug companies, is now engaged in a household surveillance program that involves calling U.S. households and intimidating parents into producing child immunization records. As part of what it deems a National Immunization Survey(NIS), the CDC is sending letters to U.S. households, alerting them that they will be called by "NORC at the University of Chicago" and that households should "have your child's immunization records handy when answering our questions."

You can see a copy of the letter that the CDC has been sending out to selected parents right here.

12 As I have written about previously, a very disturbing document that Oath Keepers has obtained shows that the FBI is now instructing store owners to report many new forms of "suspicious activity" to them. According to the document, "suspicious activity" now includes the following....

paying with cash missing a hand or fingers
"strange odors" making "extreme religious statements" "radical theology" purchasing weatherproofed ammunition or match containers purchasing meals ready to eat purchasing night vision devices, night flashlights or gas masks Do any of those "signs of suspicious activity" apply to you?

According to a report on WorldNetDaily, this document is part of a "series of brochures" that will be distributed "to farm supply stores, gun shops, military surplus stores and even hotels and motels."

13 In some areas of the country, law enforcement authorities are pulling data out of cell phones for no reason whatsoever. According to the ACLU, state police in Michigan are now using "extraction devices" to download data from the cell phones of motorists that they pull over. This is taking happening even if the motorists that are pulled over are not accused of doing anything wrong.

The following is how a recent article on CNET News described the capabilities of these "extraction devices"....

The devices, sold by a company called Cellebrite, can download text messages, photos, video, and even GPS data from most brands of cell phones. The handheld machines have various interfaces to work with different models and can even bypass security passwords and access some information.

14 The government can spy on us and record our conversations seemingly without any limitation, but in many areas of the country it has become illegal to watch them or record them in public. For example, one 21-year-old man down in Florida was recently arrested for trying to document a confrontation that he was having with police on his iPhone. But if we can't record them, how can we prove our side of the story in court?

America is becoming a much different place.

Our privacy is being eroded in thousands of different ways.

National governments and big corporations know far more about you than you probably ever would imagine.

Yes, there will always be "security threats", but we should not have to throw away any of our rights in order to be "safe".

America is supposed to be about liberty and freedom.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Wait a minute. Are you serious?

[-] -1 points by GeorgeMichaelBluth (402) from Arlington, VA 7 years ago

What a fuckwith thou art

[-] -1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 7 years ago

always deliver the votes to the republicans? your saviour obama has continued the same foreign policy of bush, it could even be called more neoconservative.

yeah, let's waste time blabbing on a wedge issue like abortion - give me a break. it's hardly the "single issue center of everything he does." wtf? he has no "leftie" themes, his themes are pretty clearly for maximizing freedom and an original interpretation of the constitution, wherever you like to label where his positions get labeled.

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 7 years ago

This movement is nothing more than Obama supporters engaging in groupthink to stifle decent

[-] 3 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 7 years ago

Mortgage bankers and Wall Street perps stole $7-trillion.

$2-TT on the bogus mortgages.

$7-TT on pension frauds using bribery-driven "AAA" shit paper.

From WaPo today:

One group has been especially vocal about shaping a new narrative of the credit crisis and economic collapse: those whose bad judgment and failed philosophy helped cause the crisis.

Rather than admit the error of their ways — Repent! — these people are engaged in an active campaign to rewrite history. They are not, of course, exonerated in doing so. And beyond that, they damage the process of repairing what was broken. They muddy the waters when it comes to holding guilty parties responsible. They prevent measures from being put into place to prevent another crisis.

Here is the surprising takeaway: They are winning. Thanks to the endless repetition of the Big Lie... A Big Lie is so colossal that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

** That's your Big Lie, kiddo.

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

Agreeing with Rico, again. Wow.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

LOL! I just made it even better... replaced "and" with "Advocating"

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

I think perhaps the pigs are flying through ice in hell ;o)

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

:-D

[-] 3 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

This is a meaningless response posted only to bump my post to the top of the list.

'come on, at least I'm honest. ;o)

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

Fine. Bump.

[-] 3 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

I'm giving you an extra point in exchange for another gratuitous response ;o)

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

I'll take it! Backatcha.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

LOL! Seriously, I'm laughing !

Thanks !

[-] 2 points by JoeSteel (58) 7 years ago

Bravo, sir!

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Thanks ! My only objective in this post is provide an easily remembered yet accurate decription of the RonPaul nutjobs. I hope it catches on !

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 7 years ago

I'm glad you mentioned Rockefeller. What makes you so sure that all the corporate bigwigs would support Paul? The moder-day Rockefellers sure don't. Jeffrey Immelt, Warren Buffet, The corporate media-they all hate Paul. Explain that to me please. Paul has not gotten a dollar in corporate donations or PAC funds, and he is much more popular among the poor than the rich. Please elaborate.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

First, there is absolutely nothing to substantiate the claim "the corporate media hates Ron Paul." He's getting the same level of coverage as anyone else. He's certainly gotten more coverage than Rick Santorum or Jon Huntsman, wouldn't you say? What annoys the Paulists is that they persist in asking questions about his positions he doesn't want to answer. The same thing happened to Cain, and none of the Paulists complained then. This myth that the media hates Ron Paul is just another aspect of the "us vs them" attitude that fuels much of the Paulist movement.

Per http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/donordemCID.php?id=N00005906 , 84% of RonPaul supporters are men, and 16% women. http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/19/why-is-ron-paul-so-appealing-to-younger-voters/ , the overwhelming majority of Paulites are young republicans. Per http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/11/10/forget_the_wealth_gap_its_the_ageincome_gap_99360.html , the younger demographic is suffering disproportionately in the current economy.

In the final analysis, the vast majority of Paulists are young Republican males who have suffered disproportionately in the current economy, so I suppose one could say the majority of his supporters are "poor." In my opinion, these young Republicans are driven by the same forces that drive many to the Occupy movement, and that's why they are so common here. Unlike most, however, these are frustrated young males of a Republican persuasion so rather than support the extreme government based solutions of the larger and more liberal Occupy movement, they support the extreme opposite: Libertarianism.

As for why Ron Paul does not get a lot of financial support from Corporate America, all I can say is "that wouldn't be very smart now would it?" The corporate folks would be alienating the stronger candidates of the 'establishment' and RonPaul would lose his moral high ground; he can't very well advocate we double-down on free markets while simultaneously collecting a lot of money from corporations. Americans are stupid, but we're not that stupid.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 7 years ago

He doesn't need to take money from corporations in order to receive their support. Ever heard of PACs and 527s? If Paul's positions would benefit corporations as much as some people say, the corporations would have no choice but to support him. Of course his supporters are poorer, didn't you see the demographic chart in the link you posted? He's received -nine- contributions over $5,000. that's nothing. He just doesn't have the support of the modern day Rockefellers as you claim. The efficiency with which he has been able to turn extremely meager contributions into support is historic. Establishment media outlets like the Washington Post have said Paul "Has no chance of winning the nomination". That's a bald faced lie, even if his chances are slim.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=ron+paul%2C+mitt+romney%2C+rick+santorum&ctab=0&geo=all&date=mtd&sort=0

Paul has received consistently lower media attention compared to his google search volume. Seriously, the efficiency of Paul's campaign is on par with Obama's. Is the media treating him the same way they treated Obama? Please tell me you know the answer to this.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Well, as a life-long republican (now independent thanks to the final merger of Christian Right with the Libertarians), I will say that the mainstream media does tend to favor liberals. Ron Paul has received a lot of coverage on Fox.

Note, by the way, that Obama, not Paul, set the record for individual contributions. Also note that Obama, unlike Paul, had no long track record of public statements and newsletters that cast doubt onto his policies. Like Obama, however, Paul does have a fervent cadre of followers whose faith borders on religion.

I will say it hear and now. Ron Paul has no chance of winning the nomination. Per the link I provided, his support is 86% young republican males, and a candidate cannot win with only 16% of the women supporting him. In addition, those newsletters deny him the Jewish and Black vote which means he will not take Florida or much if any of the south.

Iowa and new Hampshire are oddities in American politics. In 2008, Mike Huckabee took Iowa but was then out of the race two months later. In 2008, New Hampshire was one by McCain with Romney close behind. Iowa tends to go to the religious right, and New Hampshire to the moderate right with some preference for a local candidate like Romney (he only lost New Hampshire to McCain by 13,000 votes but both received over four times the votes as Ron Paul.

The more and more serious Ron Paul looks, the more attention he will receive (just like Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich), and he's carrying a lot of baggage. Romney, on the other hand, is already well vetted. You have noticed, by the way, how little coverage Romney gets, right ? That's not because "the media hates him," but because he's well known and there isn't much new to discover or expose.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 7 years ago

What? The media mentions Romney every chance they get. I don't know what your main news sources are, but I hear the name Romney more than any other candidate. Second of all, Obama did have a questionable track record comparable to Paul's. Jeremiah Wright was Obama's newsletter, and his books are full of a variety of odd and cringe worthy statements. These don't make him a bad person, but they are at least comparable to the things in Paul's past that have been brought to light. Also, in the GOP field, Paul is doing the best among minorities. As a whole (non-GOP included), the outlook is not as positive, but GOP minorities don't seem to mind the newsletters. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/12/20/rel20c.pdf

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

See http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ron-paul-greeted-overflow-crowd-first-day-back-202342300.html . I quote, "Monday's speech was packed with media celebrities, including MSNBC's Joe Scarborough; Bret Baier of Fox News; Joe Klein of Time; Dana Bash and Soledad O'Brien of CNN; Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times, the New York Times' David Brooks and CSPAN's Steve Scully. Some 150 chairs and all of the press risers were filled a half-hour before the event was scheduled to begin, prompting organizers to remove the room's sliding wall."

Reverend Wright's speeches didn't have Obama's signature on them.

We'll just have to wait and see which way this goes, but my bets are on Romney with either Gingrich (adds the South, Right, and Congressional experience) or Pawlenty (adds some government executive experience and satisfies the Religious Right). I'm guessing it will be Pawlenty because he carries less baggage of note to the Independents that Gingrich.

Paul won't even be considered for the Vice President on Rommey's ticket. He's too polarizing, and his views are nothing like the others. Paul could exit the party and run as an Independent, but I doubt it... that would hurt his son Rand as well as the Republican party in general (probably no better way to ensure Obama wins than for Paul to split the Republican vote like Ross Perot did).

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

They like Romney, because he looks the best on TV.

Media is still the message.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by OWSorgModeratorsLoveRonPaul (5) 7 years ago

Send the One Percent a clear message! Donate $1.00 to R0nPaul2O12 D0T C0M

The Establishment and the One Percent hate R0NPaul`. Simply donating $1 will send a powerful message to the 1%.

R0nPaul2O12 D0T C0M

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 7 years ago

objectivism is for people who can only count to 10

[-] 0 points by KVNLGN (154) 7 years ago

Rockefeller was a major supporter of the federal reserve system and r-o-n-p-a-u-l vehemently opposes the fed. get your facts straight and stop trying to mislead people.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

You need to go back and read the words more slowly. I understand some folks find it easier if they move their lips while reading.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

I find it easier to form more inclusive and comprehensive views if one expands one's reading list to include even those with which one is reflexively opposed.

[-] 0 points by KVNLGN (154) 7 years ago

don't...don't....don't belive the hype ! Uncle Rico, take your head out of your ass...look at your contradicting and confused image in the mirror, and then do us all a favor and put your head back in your ass !

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Thank you for your well reasoned and respectful contribution to the civil discourse on which our Democracy depends.

[-] 1 points by KVNLGN (154) 7 years ago

Yeah, and you think it is appropriate to call someone a troll because they are voting for R-O-N-P-A-U-L...? And you shouldn't have your pictures plastered all over the web, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4VtmrboNUY&feature=related

Its not 1982 anymore, time to wake up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmh5e-9bn8w&feature=related

[-] 0 points by BlueRose (1437) 7 years ago

Ron Lawl always gets it wrong.

"Speaking of People Whose Models Have Failed" http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/speaking-of-people-whose-models-have-failed/

[-] 0 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

Surprise! Fed-lover Krugman doesn't believe the Austrians who predicted the bursting of the housing bubble, and were against the bailouts, ZIRP, corporate welfare (aka stimulus), and overbearing militarism.

[-] 0 points by OWSModerators4RonPaul (0) 7 years ago

Send the One Percent a clear message! Donate $1.00 to R0nPaul2O12 D0T C0M

The Establishment and the One Percent hate R0NPaul`. Simply donating $1 will send a powerful message to the 1%.

R0nPaul2O12 D0T C0M

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 7 years ago

[-]Rico1 points 1 hour ago

You guys are so suspicious ! I have no idea how to make it so people can't replay to a post.

↥like↧dislikepermalink

Permalink!

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 7 years ago

Ayn Rand and Ron P a u l have distinct differences. If you can't name the obvious, you are just blurting out balony.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Here's a video of Ron Lawl talking about Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged: http://youtu.be/MjwuGHPilwI . Skip ahead to the 51 second mark and listen to Ron Lawl saying "she was telling the truth, and people were anxious to hear it." in regards Atlas Shrugged.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 7 years ago

I saw that one...but did you listen carefully? Ayn Rand does not believe in altruism and Ron Lawl does ;) And he talks about the differences....but I understand this is a noisy clip

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 7 years ago

Uhhhmmmm....

Maybe time to read Friedrich Hayek, Nobel Peace Prize winner in economics?

true free market requires 1) sound money 2) solid justice system.

We have neither.

And it is not Capitalism that is failing. It is Corporatism that is. The merger of Big corp and banks.......with corrupt government!

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Hayek shared the 1974 prize with Gunnar Myrdal, a Swedish socialist ( see http://books.google.com/books?id=bClhD2RAvZgC&lpg=PA85&ots=XwnErrTY7E&dq=Gunnar%20Myrdal%20socialism&pg=PA84#v=onepage&q=Gunnar%20Myrdal%20socialism&f=false ).

If you know Hayek, you know that giving the award to he and a socialist is a bit of a contradiction, and it was done specifically to avoid suggesting either were "right." The award was for "lifetime achievement," not for being correct, so it's hardly worth mentioning as a reference in debate.

If you know Hayek, then you have also probably read "Denationalization of Money" in which he suggests currency should be created by free markets rather than government.

Why you think RONPAUL supports Hayek or even understands him is beyond me. RONPAUL simply wants to convert to gold/silver again, and "Denationalization of Money" specifically argues that money can take any one of a number of forms.

The problem is that we let the corporations and banks run unregulated. THis alone is sufficient to prove that it's madness to dismember the regulatory structure and assume the free markets will take care of us. Sheesh !

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 7 years ago

Actually if you read Hayek, he has many very well thought out answers for the questions socialists have with regards to free markets and the protection of the little guy.

Ron P a u l is an Austrian school of economics guy and that includes Hayek. It is true that American libertarians do a lousy job communicating and having been a Kucinich liberal, I find Hayeks explanations in Road to Serfdom superb!

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Interesting, you've gone from being a Kucinich Liberal to being a Paul Libertarian ? For a humorous slant watch http://youtu.be/WDM_96X40BU , it's hilarious !

Having actually defended a bit of Ayn Rand's Objectivism (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/ ) in spite of my disagreement with much of what is said in her novels, I will be the first to say we can pick-and-choose from an author's body of work without condemning it in it's entirety. In this same spirit, I like some of what I read from Hayek, but find some of his ideas alarming, his proposal to denationalize money ( see http://mises.org/books/denationalisation.pdf ) among them.

Again, I think you overreach when you say RONPAUL is from the Austrian School. This would presuppose he actually understands it, and I doubt he does. What he has done is lifted bits and pieces of it to create a kind of populist form that lacks the thoughtfulness of the original. Most (not all) of his supporters are even worse insofar as they repeat his missives without understanding them.

You seem pretty well informed, and that's all I ask of my fellow citizens (see part 2 of my 3 part resonse to an NYU journalism student at http://occupywallst.org/forum/one-percenter-ready-to-join-if/#comment-295977 ). It is perfectly reasonable that discussion between informed citizens might occasionally end with a respectful "We must agree to disagree." We will not settle the differences between the Keynesian and Austrian views here.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 7 years ago

Dennis Kucinich asked about Ron P aul on Free Minds TV

Who would you choose for your running mate?

Dennis Kucinich " RON P A U L'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18

As for Ayn Rand..I do not share her rejection of altruism. I do believe in altruism and caring for those in need who cannot care for themselves. Personally I think it is a matter of finding the best way to do so.

As for RP, unfortunately...his predicitions of the past 30 years are spot on and I do think he understands Austrian school of economics. He also rejects parts of Ayn Rands philosphy and he has a superb understanding of constitutional matters..

Ideally I would like to see a coalition of Kucinich/Nader/ and Paul supporters. Watch this clip. There could be agreements on FOUR major areas.It could be a jumpstart for this country to get back to what it is supposed to be. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J3-YoVPckk

For now. Ron P aul is the only candidate I could vote for. I donated to both Kucinich and Paul the last time around. Watch last nights blatant censorship of Ron P aul on U.S Foreign policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tZDdWf3fIg&feature=channel_video_title

As for Hayeks denationalizing money, he advocates on behalf of a 'basket of currencies' which in all essence would have to keep the balance and accountability going instead of centralized planning like having the dollar dominate the worlds economy. I am not sure how you would reject such a thing.......it divides power across the globe instead of giving it all to one financial institution..

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

"Kucinich/Paul" would certainly be interesting, if only to watch them try and align their two ! bases.

Unfortunately, our two party system virtually defines the winner to be either Obama/Biden or Romney/Gingrich (yes, that's my prediction). Some choice eh? I made a proposal to get the money out of politics AND break the two party strangle-hold at http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-the-people-in-order-to-a-proposal/ . Until something like that happens, the third party candidate will remain nothing but a 'spoiler' for whatever party he draws his base from. We REALLY need to fix this.

I did watch the debates, and Huntsman was correct when he mentioned "those of us out here in Siberia don't get asked much." The media is already "picking the winners" based on polls, and that's not right.

Since you're watching the GOP debates, I assume you saw the CNBC debate. In that debate, they did let Paul speak, and I for one was not very impressed. Maybe that's just me.

Read Hayek's paper. He is not talking about the same thing as the IMF's SDRs. These are essentially the same as the 'Bancor' Keynes advocated at Bretton Woods. We reject his input and decided to declare ourselves the reserve currency of the world and now suffer from the 'Triffin Dilemma.' Hayek is arguing for privately issued currencies and suggesting we let the free markets pick the one they prefer. Spooky.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 7 years ago

Not impressed?? With WHOM??

CBS for censorship or Ron P aul speaking the truth on Iran and torture in the mere 89 seconds he was allowed to speak?

As an immigrant from Western Europe who lived half her life outside this country...I am appalled at the ignorance existing today.

Ron P aul Gets 89 Seconds In Tv Portion Of CBS Debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tZDdWf3fIg&feature=channel_video_title

This country is not a Republic with democratically elected r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s. It is an empire run dictatorship style by Big Corp/Banks and corrupt Govt.... which have nothing to do with Capitalism.

Public education in this country is coming home to roost.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Not impressed with Pauls responses in the CNBC (not the CBS) debate.

I already agreed with you regarding the unfairness of CBS allotting so little time to Huntsman, Bachmann, Paul, and Santorum.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 7 years ago

[-]Rico1 points 0 minutes ago

I have no idea what you're talking about in regards permalinks.

It was never a 'poll' in the first place. It was a "now many times did people click on their favorite candidate's box on our website." That is NOT a "POLL". A real poll employs carefully selected demographics to ensure the results are representative, selects questions that allow them to discard erroneous answers, employs qualified questioners, and includes both a sample size and a margin of error.

↥like↧dislikepermalink


Of course you DON'T! I copy and pasted your entire post. NOwhere does it say...reply.

Thank you for your time. You are dismissed!

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

That's weird. I see a "reply" on my screen.

Hmmm, so you're dismissive as well. ;o)

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 7 years ago

on this one I can reply. Yes, I know when I am played ;) or lied to by whomever.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

You guys are so suspicious ! I have no idea how to make it so people can't replay to a post.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 7 years ago

like↧dislikereplyeditdeletepermalink

[-]Rico1 points 1 hour ago

That's weird. I see a "reply" on my screen.

Hmmm, so you're dismissive as well. ;o)

↥like↧dislikereplypermalink

[-]Dutchess1 points 1 hour ago

on this one I can reply. Yes, I know when I am played ;) or lied to by whomever.

↥like↧dislikereplyeditdeletepermalink

[-]Rico1 points 1 hour ago

You guys are so suspicious ! I have no idea how to make it so people can't replay to a post.

↥like↧dislikepermalink

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 7 years ago

You need to put up referrences. People too often have opinions without any references.

Media fail: CNBC pulls poll with Ron P aul winning

Continue reading on Examiner.com Media fail: CNBC pulls poll with Ron P aul winning - National Democrat | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/democrat-in-national/media-fail-cnbc-pulls-poll-with-ron-paul-winning#ixzz1dcbDxtCq

Everything this man says is blatantly true ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc5E-MnDBVk

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

What? All I did was say I was personally not impressed by his responses on CNBC. How do I make a reference for an opinion ? If you want, you can go watch the CNBC debate. I'm sure you'll agree all his answers were like manna from heaven, but neither I nor the financial news anchors asking the questions we're to happy with Paul's answers.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 7 years ago

Read the CNBC response...It is hillarious ;)

Fact is...I lived 24 years ( half my life) outside this country....

this nation has become the laughing stock of the world with its diluted and narcissitic self evaluation.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

I think you're confusing CBS and CNBC.

By the way, RonPaul DOES get a LOT of coverage on Fox News.

See http://tinyurl.com/7ao452c

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 7 years ago

Rico1 points 0 minutes ago

Right, and I agree with their decision for the precise reason they gave. In my opinion, they never should have even STARTED such a poll since they did nothing to make it meaningful. They had even fewer controls than American Idol regarding who can vote 100 times, and they did nothing to ensure it was demographically meaningful. They should fire the genius that came up with the idea.


I CANNOT permalink my posts but you permalink yours so I do not get the chance to reply and prove you wrong.

CORRECTION on your part... I was pointing out CNBC!

Pulling polls because you don't like the outcome is destroying the purpose of a poll.

Again...THIS SITE including our MAINSTREAM media which is the Corporata Mouthpiece for the Military Industrial complex are both into censorship. Now this PRIVATE site can do what it pleases and continue to distort.

Our media is dispicable..Thats why I disconnected our tv. I am smarter than that having lived through my grandmothers WWII stories and her heroic actions by hiding two Jews in occupy Holland during WWII.

From William O.Douglas's prescient dissent in the Branzburg v Hayes case...

"The press has a preferred position in our Constitutional scheme, not to enable it to make money, not to set newsmen apart as a favored class, but to bring fulfillment to the public's right to know"

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

I have no idea what you're talking about in regards permalinks.

It was never a 'poll' in the first place. It was a "now many times did people click on their favorite candidate's box on our website." That is NOT a "POLL". A real poll employs carefully selected demographics to ensure the results are representative, selects questions that allow them to discard erroneous answers, employs qualified questioners, and includes both a sample size and a margin of error.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 7 years ago

Rico1 points 0 minutes ago

I think you're confusing CBS and CNBC.

By the way, RonPaul DOES get a LOT of coverage on Fox News.

See http://tinyurl.com/7ao452c


No I am not..I posted a link referring to CNBC ;)

And for the moment RP gets a lot of attention by Fox but he has been censored across the board

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmagWxsznO8

Its also funny to see how I cannot permalink my posts ;) Admin maybe?

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Right, and I agree with their decision for the precise reason they gave. In my opinion, they never should have even STARTED such a poll since they did nothing to make it meaningful. They had even fewer controls than American Idol regarding who can vote 100 times, and they did nothing to ensure it was demographically meaningful. They should fire the genius that came up with the idea.

[-] -1 points by Dutchess (499) 7 years ago

Rico1 points 0 minutes ago

Right, and I agree with their decision for the precise reason they gave. In my opinion, they never should have even STARTED such a poll since they did nothing to make it meaningful. They had even fewer controls than American Idol regarding who can vote 100 times, and they did nothing to ensure it was demographically meaningful. They should fire the genius that came up with the idea.


I CANNOT permalink my posts but you permalink yours so I do not get the chance to reply and prove you wrong.

CORRECTION on your part... I was pointing out CNBC!

Pulling polls because you don't like the outcome is destroying the purpose of a poll.

Again...THIS SITE including our MAINSTREAM media which is the Corporata Mouthpiece for the Military Industrial complex are both into censorship. Now this PRIVATE site can do what it pleases and continue to distort.

Our media is dispicable..Thats why I disconnected our tv. I am smarter than that having lived through my grandmothers WWII stories and her heroic actions by hiding two Jews in occupy Holland during WWII.

From William O.Douglas's prescient dissent in the Branzburg v Hayes case...

"The press has a preferred position in our Constitutional scheme, not to enable it to make money, not to set newsmen apart as a favored class, but to bring fulfillment to the public's right to know"

http://www.huntingtonnews.net/13043

[-] -1 points by Dutchess (499) 7 years ago

CNBC Repeat, They Remove Ron P aul Leading Online Poll AGAIN

http://www.huntingtonnews.net/13043

[-] 0 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

Ron Lawl Value Voters Summit

In the Bible, in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, Christ was recognized to be the prince of peace. He was never to be recognized as the promoter of war. And he even said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be the children of God.” He never said blessed are the war makers. It was the peacemakers that we must honor and protect. (Cheers, applause.)

Christ was very, very clear on how we should treat our enemies. And some days I think we quite frequently forget about that. Early in the history of Christianity, they struggled with the issue of war and peace, because Christ taught about peace. Did that mean Christ was advocating pacifism? The early church struggled with this and came to the conclusion, at least in those early years, that Christ was not a pacifist, but he was not a war promoter.

http://www.goinsreport.com/2011/10/ron-paul-values-voters-summit-speech.html

Ron Lawl a member of the religious far right.

[-] 0 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

He was talking to a room full of Christians. He can speak their language, and can and has brought war-mongering neo-cons to his non-interventionist foreign policy this way.

He's one of the only people with the nuts to have stood up for religious freedom when there was that huge hubbub about the Mosque going in close to ground zero.

[-] 0 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

So Paul changes his speeches to fit the audience in front of him? Very interesting!!! Sort of like when at first he said OWS was people who were scared to lose their handouts, then weeks later he reverses that stance to pander for votes. Yet you Paulettes call him honest LMFAO whatever you say!!!!

[-] 0 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

That was what I was taught to do in speech class and composition. Consider my audience. When you have sound principles, it makes little difference from which direction you may approach the issue, and I would think it most effective to consider your audience.

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

So Ron is is not as honest as he appears to be which I already knew many years ago. Sound principles like letting people die in the streets, racists newsletters and wishing to remake the US into a Christian nation basing all laws on the Old Testament.... Sound indeed!!!

[-] 0 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

We can all understand what you are TRYING to do here. The question is whether your tactics will do anything but aid the powers that be in the GOP, the MSM, and the DNC. All of which are of the 1%, in my estimation.

Go for it, Greed! I'm sure the chuckles about your naked hype are in all the proper tummies. Come on Greed, let's hear some more of your cheerleading for the 1%. It's actually starting to get a bit cute. But I'd say you should ramp it up a bit more, so we can REALLY understand why being ruled by the status quo is so important in these times.

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

Yup now I'm the 1%. Ron supports de-regulations so do the corporations and Koch Brothers yet I'm for the 1%. Ron Lawl wants to end the EPA so does the corporate 1% yet I'm for the 1%. Ron wants to privatize schools like the Koch Brothers yet I'm for the 1%. Ron wants to end SS, Medicare and Medicaid so does the other republicans and the 1% yet I'm supporting the 1%. Ron Lawl wants to end minimum wage just like the 1% would love. I suggest to you and other blind followers start using more than 1% of your brain.

[-] 0 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

No, that's more of the same. I want to hear about those you support.

Deregulation? Yes he is for that, at the federal level. The EPA, same deal.

Privitize schools? Not necessarily. But forcing kids into crappy public schools? Yuck. Forced indoctrination is worse than indoctrination by choice, IMO.

Koch brothers? Try individual small donors. That's the Paul campaign MO. He even gets more support from government workers than the others. Where can I find your candidate's list of contributers?

Medicare, Medicaid, SS? Only candidate that has put forth a plan to save those. What's your candidate's plan?

Lumping Paul in with other Republicans? How come Levin, Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, and all those other GOP dumbass neocons openly despise him? Personally I sorta hope they never come around.

End minimum wage? Sure, as a federal mandate. Your state can do what it likes. What are your candidate's views on that?

More than 1% of my brain might make it a bit unfair against you supposedly undecided Paul bashers. As such, I'm sticking with my apologist for the status quo 1% charge against you, Greed. I want you to give me something NEW to think about. I see more blind hatred of Paul than I see blind support. Don't marginalize yourself with troll tactics. Bring something a little less canned, and a bit more honest.

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

http://www.barefootandprogressive.com/2010/05/why-does-rand-pauls-new-campaign-manager-work-with-a-white-supremacist.html

Jesse Benton is now Ron Paul's Main Campaign manager. He is the one who you always see behind Ron making sure Ron says the right things. ;)

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

Uh huh. Yeah. That's how it works. Already responded twice to this. See other replies.

Get along little dogies!

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

I don't hate him.

I just accept the truth about him.

The simple fact, that he is not what his PR claims.

[-] 0 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

What is he, shooz? Are you comfortable joining the neocons in your disparagement? Enemy of my enemy sort of thing?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

He is less honest then the other candidates.

Is that what you're asking?

[-] 0 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

Less honest than all of the others? Are you supporting all the other candidates over him? You joining Limbaugh's "Anyone but Ron.Paul" campaign. Interesting.

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

Why does paul have this guy working for him....honest....really???

Fritz Wenzel

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2010/wenzel.html

Indeed, company chief Fritz Wenzel plays that part: Regarding the birther poll, WND quotes Wenzel as saying, "Our polling shows that the questions surrounding Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president clearly strike a nerve across America, probably because it is a problem that everybody understands. Every American citizen has a birth certificate, and once in a while we all have to produce them to get a drivers license or gain entrance to school .... And while Obama did get in to the White House, nearly half the country's adults -- 49 percent -- are troubled by this issue and still want him to produce his official long-form birth certificate

[-] 0 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

Why not? Fighting fire with fire? Who are YOU working for? Similar tactics, wouldn't you think? Lots of pot-kettle-black, Greed. But this article gives me some insight into your tactics. You should run a polling company, man!

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

If so, I'm jealous!

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

Been here all day long posting away........ is it a silver dime per sentence?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Multi-pronged marketing/PR, is something I'm aware of.

Yes, Mr. P is dishonest, if only by virtue of running as a republican.

He is not a republican.

[-] 0 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 7 years ago

If the title of your post is about Ron PauI then why is the body of your post about the John Birch Society?

If you can't even stay on topic how do you expect to be taken seriously?

[-] 4 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

Because Ron Lawl has been a member of The John Birch Society since the 70s. His does not advertise such things, which includes being a member of the Masons.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 7 years ago

Ron Lawl isn't a member of the Masons. He has categorically denied that in writing. Where do you get this stuff from?

[-] 4 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

Ron Lawl's Masonic Background And Connections

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 4:55:06 AM

The Pyramid Society, Sovereignty, Dudes

Ron Lawl identified by a blogger as a Freemason with Photo of Ron Lawl and related of the photo where he was speaking at Georgetown Jesuit University, alma mater of Carroll Quigley and Bill Clinton:

"Note the Freemasonic symbols on the wall behind him.

I know this is a taboo subject among Ron Lawl supporters, of which I was one myself in the very beginning of his presidential campaign. And even if it is proven beyond any doubt that he is a freemason, many will just put it aside and pretend it doesn’t matter “because he is such a decent and honest man” etc. But many others are very curious to know what RP’s status is regarding Freemasonry because it does matter, and I fully intend to find out myself. Therefore, it is high time we started talking openly about it and try to ascertain the truth, one way or another.

I just happened to stumble across this comment over at the Daily Paul yesterday, and thought that I should share it with whoever is interested in knowing whether or not Ron Lawl is a Freemason.

This does not prove anything in that regard, however it makes the probability that he is a Freemason very much higher since Eastern Star members are generally married to Freemason husbands, Rainbow girls are generally children of masons and because Ron Lawl’s father was also a mason. And in addition, according to the comment, he “respects the organization”, which is wholly uncharacteristic of anyone who is supposedly fighting against the masonically-inspired New World Order. Ron Lawl is also an unofficial member of the John Birch Society, which was founded by masons, funded by Nelson Rockefeller and run by Jesuit-trained Knights of Malta. In other words, the JBS is a gatekeeper organization, designed to control the opposition and make sure nothing substantial is ever done to impede the New World Order system which just keeps on rolling over humanity. How about the Jahbulon Bullshit Society for a more appropriate name?

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 7 years ago

So there is a photograph of Ron PauI near some symbols which are also used in freemasonry which happened to be put up by an organization whose only relation to Paul was that he was invited to speak.

Wow that is really convincing. Oh wait no its not.

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

Ron's father and Ron's own wife and kids are members. If you prefer to be gullible and believe he is not a Freemason that is your choice. Most people can see he is hiding his connections, just like he tried to hide his connections to his very own Newsletters. The snake you should fear is not the one you can clearly see....

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 7 years ago

Yes it is my choice to have a burden of proof that is higher than mere conjecture.

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

And that is why Ronnie blurs the lines. Typical seedy life long Republican tactic. If you are unable to add two and two it's not my problem. One good thing there are only 5% nationwide that takes Ron for his word.

[-] 3 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

The video is of RonPaul speaking at the John Birch Society and it serves to show he supports their views. If Rick Perry were the featured speaker at a KKK rally, don't you think that would be something that people should know? Ditto for RonPaul serving as the featured speaker at the John Birch Society's 50th anniversary celebration.

[-] 0 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 7 years ago

I think you should talk about the issues. If Paul agrees with JBS on certain issues then it shouldn't be surprising they he speaks there. Speaking there isn't the issue however its the agreement that is. So if you disagree with his position on those issues we should be discussing those issues you disagree with it not him hanging out with people who agree with him on issues you disagree.

I am sure there are issues you and Paul agree on but of course when discussing those issues you don't point out that Paul and you support it in order to gain an emotional appeal (as you try to gain an emotional attack in this thread).

In short: Discuss issues don't attack people.

[-] 3 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

So if the KKK were to advocate shutting down the Federal Reserve, it would be OK for RonPaul to speak at their jubilees, and we shouldn't judge him for that decision ?

I have tried time and time again to engage folks on the substantive issues, but I find most simply don't know enough about the topic at hand to engaged in reasoned dialog. Their typical response is to declare anyone who disagrees with them to be an idiot. See the discussion of money and the Federal Reserve at http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-is-money/ .

[-] 1 points by LiveAndLetLive (79) from Fort Lauderdale, FL 7 years ago

really Rico? These are your words "Maybe this will catch on and help silence these idiots"..... fuck* hypocrite, you've got no credibility and you should keep shut!

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 7 years ago

Yes it would be. He would be speaking about an issue yet you would try to paint him with the beliefs of one group because he spoke about one topic of common agreement. Guilt by association is not rational or logical.

I understand your frustration but when we start caving into the irrationality of others any hope of coming to any agreement or future understanding is absolutely lost.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Interesting. You apparently don't see lack of judgment, or understanding that appearance of a noted person with a group only furthers that group's cause, as being anything worth considering.

I agree with the need for rational and civil discourse. See my 3 part response to an NYU journalism student's questions at at http://occupywallst.org/forum/one-percenter-ready-to-join-if/#comment-295977 . Unfortunately, my experience with RONPAUL has been very negative in this regard.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 7 years ago

Your experience with Paul or your experience with a few of his supporters?

So speaking at a group to you establishes some intent to support that group? I don't see such a relationship. I see speaking about a shared topic of interest which was explicitly stated in the example given.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Celebrities and people of note understand that their mere presence as a featured speaker supporting even one plank of an extremist groups beliefs lends credibility to that group. I will not vote for ANY man who stands as a featured speaker at a KKK rally even if he is only there in support of tax reform.

I understand we disagree, but I believe I am in the majority in my views. I also understand why people would badly like to erase many of RonPaul's associations now that he's running for office.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 7 years ago

I really cannot understand that sentiment sorry. If a person wants to spread their message it makes sense to spread it to as many diverse groups as possible.

I also don't find Paul being associated (such as if he was a member) with the JBS to be a bad thing.

[-] 0 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

One perfectly reasonable conclusion to any discussion is "we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree." I think we're there. You can believe what you want, and you have the right to post here to convince people you are right. I retain the same privilege.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 7 years ago

Fair enough. Have a good weekend.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Et Tu Brutus ! (just kidding ;o)

[-] 0 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 7 years ago

I do hope the Mods delete this thread...interesting that pro-RonPaul statements are NOT ok. Anti-RonPaul statements are OK.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

True to form, RONPAUL says there is a conspiracy to silence them, but I have seen no evidence of that other than the annoying Ron Laul thing (which still baffles me).

[-] 0 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 7 years ago

Have you read the Rules of Posting on this site? Here in case you are confused:

We do not support an election campaign for 2012. At all. We have removed election material for Obama, Paul, Warren, Paul, Cain, Paul, Perry, Paul, the green party, Paul, Nader, Paul, and did I mention Paul? The spamming by the Ron Lawl 2012 fan club was getting out of hand. We will continue to remove such material and any call for the Paul 2012 campaign will, at this point, be considered spamming. End of. We're tired of hearing about it. Main street debates are also largely off topic.

[-] 0 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Right. They do not want people discussing campaigns and RONPAUL were doing so. I am not discussing a campaign. My post specifically talks about people who come here to blindly advocating the views of a man, and I would post just as many disagreeing opinions if that man were a professor at a university. RONPAUL were NOT discussing the views of a man, they were advocating the ELECTION of one.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 7 years ago

I always thought Ron PauI was a moron, but since the OWS guys are so pissed about him I have started to like him.

[-] 0 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

LOL Vlad ! As for me, I'm just trying to make sure folks understand what's advocating. I simply don't believe his views are consistent with OWS. Do you ?

[-] -1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 7 years ago

Hell no. PauI is a nutjob fascist. But it's great to see so many people running over to suck his dick. I would have thought OWS people would have rallied around Nader, who cost the Dems the Presidency in 2000. Otherwise the country wouldn't be in the shit that it is right now. That's what you get for splintering the left vote. The OWS guys will soon understand that as they get Obama out, Romney in, and a Republican controlled Congress and Supreme Court, which will promptly start to put a gigantic one up the collective ass of the working class. But at least the kids in OWS have a voice now you know? At least they are anti-establishment.

[-] 0 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 7 years ago
[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Oh, don't mistake me, I have a few libertarian beliefs myself. RONPAUL people, however, want to dismantle government, unleash "free enterprise" (aka corporations), and dismantle the Federal Reserve. This is not "libertarianism," it's INSANITY !

[-] 0 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 7 years ago

yes, it's so much better when we have corporations writing the regulations and controlling the government. Ron Lawl's answer of taking powers away so they'd have nothing to control and help themselves unfairly to is crazy! the answer to a government controlled by corporations is definitely more government power.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Yes, and getting the freakin' money out of politics ! See http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-the-people-in-order-to-a-proposal/

[-] 0 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 7 years ago

if there were no favors to buy, no money would be trying to buy them.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

I see your point, but I don't think it captures the full problem. Having all that money flying around makes it very difficult for people to trust their representatives, and a Democracy can't operate without trust in representation. Even if no or only a few representatives actually ACT on the money, ALL are suspect because of it.

[-] 2 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 7 years ago

the people have failed to this point to date to keep the politicians from handing out favors or grabbing more power and handing out favors. this is what happens in a representative republic - you don't automatically get what is good or what you'd like, you get what you deserve! if people are apathetic and ignorant on topics of politics, economics, foreign policy, etc. then their representatives are going to be the same, and create bad policy and bend to the will of those that try to influence as well.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Indeed. I agree that we really don't NEED to pass laws; we need people to BECOME good citizens. See my post at http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-power-of-the-people/

[-] -1 points by Karl99 (63) 7 years ago

I think that OWS and conservatives share their dislike for two people now. Ron Lawl and Michael Moore

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Yep. But I think they both agree to at least two things.

1) Getting the money out of our government ! See http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-the-people-in-order-to-a-proposal/

2) Use consumer power to reshape the face of Corporate America. See http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-power-of-the-people/ and visit the shopping guidelines I compiled from this forum and hosted at http://bit.ly/vof9WH so they would be both broadly accessible and sharable via social media (spread the link far and wide please).

I have many liberal and conservative friends, and I have yet to find one that disagrees with these two items. Furthermore, I believe these two items are all we really NEED to return full power to the people. Once we have that power, we can use it to change everything ELSE that bothers us by voting at the pols (politics and law) and the check-out register (corporate citizenship)

[-] -1 points by darrenlobo (204) 7 years ago

Actually, the naive are those advocating dictatorial regulation that the 1% use to their advantage. For over 100 years, since the beginning of the progressive era, the 99% have been trying to make regulation work. It has failed, that's why we're in this mess. That's why the occupy movement exists. Let's try something proven to work like free markets.

[-] 3 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Yes, "free" markets served us well. They created the robber barons, and we were only able to fix the problems they created via laws and regulations constraining their activities.

Note gold served us just about as well as "free" markets. Take a look at the period between major financial calamities prior to the founding of the modern federal reserve per the Banking Act of 1935.

Not only can't we go back to the "good old days" of RonPaul's youth, the "good old days" weren't actually that good for anyone but the rich. It's very appealing to us when a folksy guy stands up and declares we need only return to our "roots" to fix all our problems. The religious right does the same thing (and RonPaul supports them). Our problems, however, are complex, and there ARE no easy answers.

The worst thing we can do is undo all the lessons learned we have gained in the past 100 years. We need to go forward, not backward. We DO need to reexamine just how heavily we're regulating business, in my opinion, but it's insane to suggest we revert to unregulated capitalism and gold.

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 7 years ago

The robber barons were created by government subsidies & favors. Take another look at who they were especially the railroad robber barons. Take a look at the difference between political (robber barons) & market entrepreneurs:

"Most historians also uncritically repeat the claim that government subsidies were necessary to building America's transcontinental railroad industry, steamship industry, steel industry, and other industries. But while clinging to this "market failure" argument, they ignore (or at least are unaware of) the fact that market entrepreneurs performed quite well without government subsidies. They also ignore the fact that the subsidies themselves were a great source of inefficiency and business failure, even though they enriched the direct recipients of the subsidies and advanced the political careers of those who dished them out.

Political entrepreneurs and their governmental patrons are the real villains of American business history and should be portrayed as such. They are the real robber barons." http://mises.org/daily/2317#5

As to gold let me remind you that the worst calamity, the Great Depression, happened after the founding of the Fed. The worst inflation happened in the '70s after completely going off the gold standard.

Speaking of the Fed, did you know that the first draft of the Federal Reserve Act was written at JP Morgan's beach house on Jekyll Island, GA? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jekyll_Island#Planning_of_the_Federal_Reserve_System

Yep, good thing the elites don't create & control their regulators. :-P

[-] 0 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

The Great Depression happened after the founding of the Fed, in fact, the Fed CAUSED the Great Depression because the politicians overrode the economosts and decided to banks fail. The banks were later found to be sound, but they closed for liquidity that the Fed could have provided.

The MODERN Fed we have today emerged from the reforms of the Banking Act of 1935 which diminished the ability of the politicians to meddle in the day to day operations of the Fed (this is when the 14 year term, nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate language emerged).

The frequency of financial panics AFTER the founding of the MODERN Fed is much lower than the frequency seen BEFORE the 19th century when we were on gold.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

"The Great Depression happened after the founding of the Fed, in fact, the Fed CAUSED the Great Depression because the politicians overrode the economosts and decided to banks fail. The banks were later found to be sound, but they closed for liquidity that the Fed could have provided."

Sorta true. The Fed caused the Great Depression by first inflating credit, then collapsing it. Same thing happening now. What has been called deleveraging is mostly a matter of default and lack of credit where it could actually help. Instead it is extended to same institutions that now know the Fed will NOT let them fail. They are using this to fuel a commodity and equity bubble.

I'd have rather seen an employment bubble, myself. But systemic instability is always going to shrink the credit extended to the small businesses that employ so many.

"The frequency of financial panics AFTER the founding of the MODERN Fed is much lower than the frequency seen BEFORE the 19th century when we were on gold."

The primary difference is that the 19th century boom-bust cycles resolved themselves quickly and weren't global in nature. Now we are looking at funding a European bailout to the tune of trillions more. Good old Fed, backstopping all the evil in the world.

The gold thing is a red herring. Localized competing currencies would be closer to the truth.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

The current panics are global in nature because our communications, trading, and monetary systems are now global. We can move money around the world in milliseconds now. That wasn't true back in the 30's.

The 'good old Fed' is doing exactly what they're supposed to according to their charter. They are not limited to domestic operations are are authorized to intervene wherever is needed to protect the US monetary system. Furthermore, injecting liquidity against assets isn't a "bail-out" in the same sense as TARP or the caar companies.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

Globalism is a good excuse, but it opens us to global failure with all the inbred debt loads the global financial system contains. Look at Europe, where all the EU countries basically borrowed from each other. If I didn't believe that this mess is going exactly as planned to actually move us towards a furtherance of the global hegemonic financial system, the globalist 1%, I might try to look there for solutions.

But even then, fragility is the problem. The 99% is subject to this fragility, and NOT responsible for it, other than letting it go this far.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

I think I'll start a new thread called 'Globalism: Pros and Cons' when I get back from vacation. I'd be interested in hearing what folks have to say. Personally, I think globalism has a few more pro's than con's.

On the 'pro' side of the Globalist ledger:

Globalism and the intertwined economic rule-sets and rights (private property, right to redress in courts, right to 'vote' with currency, etc ) has probably done more than any military action in reducing oppression. China and Russia, for example, stopped being 'communist' the moment they accepted the rule-sets that accompanied all that direct foreign investment, and the people got their first taste of 'rights' at the same time. Democracy isn't typically far behind Capitalism. It appears our strategy has been to contain great powers militarily then 'infect' them with Capitalism which seems to give rise to Democracy and increased freedoms. Once they're infected, the need for military power is replaced by global economic pressures.

Globalism with it's person to person technologies (twitter, face-book, etc), seems to better connect people as 'citizens of the world' such that there is a strong public voice in the realm of world affairs that were once the domain of the elite alone.

Combining the social and economic aspects of globalism, we see fewer people willing to act like nationalistic tribes, following their leaders into war, and exercise of global economic pressure to help tame oppression as in Syria.

On the 'con' side of the Globalist ledger:

Enhanced power of the banks and business. Clearly, all this globalism is driven by the desire for profit. Not all of the profit seeking was by large institutions, however; the huge influx of foreign investment in China, for example, was substantially driven by Baby Boomer investment dollars seeking returns. Nevertheless, business benefits greatly, and the large multi-nationals are very good at hopping across borders to avoid regulation by nation-states. We will soon need broader cooperation between nations to contain the beasts we have allowed to grow in our midsts.

Destruction of local culture. Our cultures are fading as we all become citizens of the world, and much of the beauty of each is being lost. This is the flip-side of eliminating human tribalism that tends to lead to war.

On balance:

Globalism appears to lead to a more stable system with less war and more freedom at the expense of enhanced power by the economic masters. What is the replacement of physical war by economic war worth to us ? I think it's priceless, and I don't mind if a few get rich as a result. I do think the nations of the world need to collaborate better to tame the multi-national beasts we have created, but I'd say we're better off on balance than we were before globalism emerged.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

I'm largely in agreement with you, especially the pro's side, which could have been pulled straight from a certain candidate's talking points. :)

I don't believe that we must suffer the cons you've accurately described as a sort of trade-off for physical wars. I think we are well able to go after solving the cons without giving up the pros.

Perhaps one of the worst cons that globalism spawned was global wage arbitrage, which has single-handedly destroyed our manufacturing.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

I didn't take my view from any candidate but from the Pentagon's New Map, an old Washington brief by an officer at the US Navy War College that pretty much defined our current policies (in my opinion). Search "Pentagon's New Map Power Point" and you'll find a link on cspan. Very interesting brief whether you agree or not.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 7 years ago

I'll check it out, Rico. Thanks.

[-] 0 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 7 years ago

Hierarchical regulating leads to endemic corruption. Distributive regulation is the only way forward and that means doing away with the power structures of existing regulating.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Yes, now you've completed the RonPaul perfecta... Return to unregulated capitalism, gold, and the Articles of Confederation ! Our future is our past !

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 7 years ago

Yes I love how all you have to offer is mockery but don't even state a disagreement to the premise of the inherent dangers of hierarchical regulation.

I do find the blend of protest of tradition, dismissal, and tangential insult an amusing novelty though. Do you mind if I use your quote as an example next time I teach logic?

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

Since YOU are the one advocating massive change to the current system, it's incumbent on YOU to be able to explain in great detail what you want to change, why you want to change it, and how you change it accompanied with sound assessment of risk so folks can evaluate the reward/benefit of your proposal.

I'll argue logic with you any day. I'm an Engineer by trade, and logic is one of my strengths. You, however, have not provided and logic to discuss, only your opinion.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 7 years ago

You also wish to change the existing system don't you? I assume you are not happy with the status quo which is why you are here.

I've presented the premise from which an argument derives. You've yet to offer an actual objection to what I had to say about hierarchical structures. So shall I take this to mean you agree with me on their nature and we have agreed on a premise?

You can't "argue" logic btw - you can discuss and examine using logic but it would akin to trying to "argue" math and as an Engineer I assume you understand how crazy that would be. There isn't an argument to be had when differing on math; there are three possibilities (one person is wrong, the other person is wrong, both are wrong).

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

I don't see any need to change the current structure, I see a need to change some of what's in it; regulation (more in some areas, less in others), tax reform, get the money out of government etc. I have posted on these topics regularly, and I don't have time to do it all again every time someone asks.

True, you can't argue logic in the mathematical or boolean sense, but the debate in front of us is real-word and it's far from certain. Everyone's ideas are based to some extent on interpretation of facts, prior trends, and future trends. We can't ague proper "math/logic" behind someones positions, but we DO need to debate the underlying assumptions.

By the way, I compiled the shopping guidelines from a forum post and hosted them at http://bit.ly/vof9WH so they'd be widely accessible and sharable via social networks. Check them out and, if you agree, spread the http://bit.ly/vof9WH link as far and wide as possible; we need a LOT of folks on-board if we're to have an impact !

[-] 2 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 7 years ago

Thanks for the links. I prefer high quality to high quantity and find that ethos is still best expressed in American brands compared to less expensive alternatives (though I don't assume it).

If you want change within the current structure then we both want change. We both see the corruption that exists between business money and politician's power to benefit both and screw the average citizen. I don't know if you remember but we've crossed path 2 or 3 times in the last month or so on these forums.

Anyway would you agree or disagree with my premise regarding hierarchical regulating systems? If you disagree why so?

[-] 0 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

LOL ! I don't believe , for example, that we can safely regulate banks at the state level. They are so interconnected, a failure on one will cross borders very quickly. We need consistent nation-wide regulations.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 7 years ago

The Federal Government has a Constitutional role in negotiating trade between the states when the states in question disagree. So no problem there. I don't think anyone is going to complain against rules standardizations. I am just stating it doesn't require the Federal Government in many areas and their involvement usually causes negative consequences.

[-] -1 points by GeorgeMichaelBluth (402) from Arlington, VA 7 years ago

I'm pretty sure this is a stupid post. I want the 30 seconds of my life back that I spent reading it.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

I take it you disagree and don't like spending any time reading disagreeing opinions.

[-] -1 points by TheKing (93) 7 years ago

Funny how these OWSers want their lives regulated. So much for freedom.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

I don't think they want their lives regulated, they want the corporations and banks regulated. Unfortunately, RONPAUL would dismantle as much of government as he can and count on the "free markets," aka corporations, to take care of us. Given how well the "free markets" served us recently, it's no wonder he has no support here.

[-] -1 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 7 years ago

Peter, Paul and Mary

Ru Paul

Pope John Paul II

Ron Lawl

Clever Girl...

RonPaul

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

What the heck does this MEAN ?

[-] 1 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 7 years ago

I was testing/showing that the term "Ron Lawl" was being censored on the site. Then showed that all you have to do is merge the words. It has been "fixed" since.