Forum Post: Ron Lawl Good or Bad? Please explain.
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 14, 2011, 1:07 p.m. EST by aandr3ww
(5)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I've been following Ron Lawl's agenda through numerous debates and have read many of his ideas on his website. I couldn't agree with him more with many of the issues he presents with the exception of some. Can someone please explain to me the other side of the story. Why someone would be against his ideas?
Please post educated replies. Thank you in advance! :)
EDIT... Why the hell does it censor his name, I am not a troll and I can edit this posting all day.
He wants to end the fed and end wars + corporate media hate him = Good
I want a public audit of the Fed, and if it shows significant dishonesty and irresponsibility I would be open to nationalizing it and handing its functions over to the US Treasury Department. As far as tariffs on imports go, that's the only way I can think of to begin the process of bringing jobs back to America and raising the wage of the average worker. If he's not going to work to address one of the major causes of long-term unemployment and wage losses then I fail to see how it's a good idea to vote for him.
I'd also like to see a great deal more clarification from Mr. Paul on which sets of regulations he considers outside the acceptable jurisdiction of government and which ones he considers vital reforms that need to stay in place. Honestly, given his rhetoric on the matter I don't know what to believe and I don't want to believe he's one thing only to find out the hard way that he's another. I want the Patriot Act gone and the TSA dismantled, and I think he and I can agree on that. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley vote is a good sign but until I can square that with his rhetoric and get an actual platform from the man I'm not going to consider voting for him.
On top of that his talk of flat taxes and imposition of the gold standard makes me profoundly uncomfortable. A flat tax is by its very nature a regressive tax, and in order to bring in the same revenue as the current system it would have to take the difference out of the hides of the people who can afford it the least. He also wants to tax capital gains (essentially money created without any actual work being done to earn it) at a lower rate than regular income, which is just plain incentivization of laziness on the top end. As far as the gold standard is concerned, the first thing you learn in economics 101 is that credit needs to be relaxed rather than tightened to deal with a recession, and moving to a gold standard would pretty much strangle credit at the time when that would hurt us the most. Once again, bad policy.
Besides, the man's apparently a young-earth creationist. That pretty much tears it for me. I don't care what else he is, if he deliberately shuts his eyes to basic science (whether it's to pander to the religious right or, even worse, if that's an accurate reflection of where he stands) there's no way in hell I'm going to trust him with the country. If the man decides that continually verified truth doesn't matter because it conflicts with his beliefs then on some level something has gone very wrong.
So far, I see a man who's gotten one, maybe two things right (his no vote on Gramm-Leach-Bliley and his desire to put the Fed under a microscope). However, those two things are pretty small when you consider the number of things he seems to be promising to get wrong as president.
You have pretty well nailed it on the flaws of RP. A partial audit of the Fed has been carried out, (link below), and it is a bit disturbing. I think it is important to remember that the causes of the collapse are not limited to the Fed. The thing is , the idea of privatizing the Fed was to insulate it from party politics. Whether that was a good decision may be debatable. But the idea that the gold standard would be an improvement tells me, Doc Paul, should have stuck to delivering babies.http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/10.11/gaoaudit.html
For a name like "notaneoliberal", it's a bit strange that you post a link from a strictly austrian-school propaganda website..
That said, I don't think the Fed during the crisis is innocent of any wrongdoing, but the interpretation of the audit that came up with the 16Trillion number is grossly misleading. From what I can tell, it seems to add up the sum of all overnight loans between banks and between any banks and the Federal Reserve.
That would be like describing myself as being worth millions of dollars by adding up every dollar that I've ever earned or borrowed and then adding that amount to every dollar I've spent or paid back.
So not only am I counting money not currently in my possession, but I'm actually counting it twice
I hope you're right,in that the figure is exaggerated. I certainly don't advocate Austrianism.
Holy shit... where did that $16 trillion come from, when can we expect to see any of it back, and why the fuck wasn't anyone informed about this? That's $53K for every man, woman, and child in this country, on par with home mortgage balances for families of four or five, and something like 20 times the value of the stimulus program. That would have been enough to bail out every struggling mortgage in the country and such a bailout would still leave enough forgive a hell of a lot of credit card debt and student loans...
To answer your question as to whether we will see any of it back, probably some of it, but considering the state of the Euro zone, who knows.
Yeah, It's amazing nobody seems to have heard of it. The wealthy have a lot of bucks in foreign banks. I guess that's why they got bailed out too.
You should understand the one of the lessons learned in the depression was that we needed to REMOVE short term political appointees from the governing board of the Fed. Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury and Comptroller of the Currency were both on the board and they advocated Hoover's position of letting banks fail over the objections of the economists. Many other abuses of the Federal Reserve system followed ( see http://www.jstor.org/pss/1807803 ).
The Bank Act of 1935 effectively removed the Federal Reserve from direct control by the politicians so it could be run by economists rather than politicians who have motives other than stability (i.e. to get reelected). Ironically, people now want the same politicians who ran Fannie and Freddie to run the Federal Reserve again.
Some rightfully argue for the reinstatement of the portions of the Glass-Steagall Act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act ) which was another of the lessons learned from the Great Depression. These are the same people who want to reverse the lessons incorporated into the Banking Act of 1935. Go figure.
These are only some of the abuses Once the dust settled, the Secretary of the Treasury and Comptroller of the Currency were removed from the board by the
I'm pretty sure he's against the flat tax and he states when someone asks him about Cain's 999 plan. and your issue with the gold standard, im sure he's got a plan to slowly implement this only after the fed has been audited
Both. He wants to use austerity measures which make massive drastic cuts which caused riots when similar cuts were made in Greece.
However he is the only guy that wants to end the wars and end the fed. Which I 100% support.
"Why someone would be against his ideas?"
Well the fact that he wants to get rid of the EPA and banking regulations kind of bothers me.
I like freedom but at the same time I view global warming as threat to the security of the planet and it bothers me that people are not taking it seriously.
But then again I know that the government has turned into a tool for the wealthy.
I don't know...
It's the rest of the baggage that goes with him.
Getting rid of EPA doesn't mean he's promoting blatant pollution, this is his exact stand:
"Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington"
Polluters still go to court and pay damages, he just wants to get rid of the agency that has not given and fruitful results and still costs the taxpayers a lot.
Post facto litigation, after the damage is done, is unacceptable. It's also very difficult to prove the effects of pollution on a case-by-case basis, and it's unfair to put the burden on the little guy against a corporation with unlimited resources. The court system favors the polluter. The monitoring and regulatory function of the EPA is indispensible. Before the 70s this country was turning into a toxic waste dump.
I'm completely missing your point:
"case-by-case basis": There will still be laws defined on pollution, either you broke them or you didn't.
"court system favors the polluter": not sure how that is justified
"EPA is indispensible": can you point out any fruitful results that came from them? Last time I checked, the global warming was still going up!
"Before the 70s": then there were minimal to no laws on pollution, now there are
Without the EPA and related regulations and all that terrible bureacracy, there would actually not be much in the way of laws on pollution. The clean air act and similar all depend on the EPA to keep standards up to date, enforce regulations, do monitoring, etc.
Once there are laws on pollution, and they're broken, under the Paul system it would be up to the victim to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a.) the pollution occured and b.) that it affected their life (assuming not dead) and property. Polluters usually have nearly unlimited time and budgets and can drag these cases out for years and almost always win. It takes major class action lawsuits to have an impact (think Erin Brockovich). How many people had to die first? Further, ecosystems can be destroyed for hundreds of years by a single polluter. EPA regulations and monitoring are preventative.
EPA accomplishments: http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/epa/25b.html
The laws on pollution beginning in the 70s are directly related to the EPA and its ongoing research studies, monitoring, enforcement (including standing toe-to-toe with big polluters in court and setting precedent that would be otherwise lacking), and regulatory oversight.
Regarding climate change, the EPA just recently won a court case that would allow it to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants, and that's why it's become an even bigger target for Republicans, people like Paul, and their backers like Exxon, Koch, et al.
Semi-related, good recent article on climate change deniers: http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate
Is that not the standard procedure for enforcing every law.... proof, effect, court etc. etc. And EPA or not, the procedure is still the same, even EPA has to prove that you broke the law and you can fight the case in court.
And let me remind you, we are talking about "global warming" which is still a "theory" and not "fact", it has not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. In future if it is, I'm sure more people would support it.
No, it's not the standard procedure. The EPA creates regulation, monitors air, water, industry, health, and it goes after problems proactively, putting the full weight of the US government into court battles with massive polluters. Remember, we do through government what we are too weak to do alone.
You are wrong about science. All science is theory. A theory is valid if it is falsifiable. It is accepted as a viable, working theory when many attempts have been made to falsify it (comparing observations and empirical data against it) and it has held up. The more it holds up, the stronger it becomes, and thus forms the scientific consensus which now exists regarding the nature, the causes, and the critical danger of climate change. We just don't like to hear it. It is a threat to our convenient lifestyles, and even more so, to the massive profits of multinational corporations that have taken ownership of many of our public officials and the "debate" on this subject.
Great.. All decisions will be left to judges and other government branches will be nonexistent and the free market will thrive, right??
Wrong!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kritarchy
It's called a Kritarchy. There's only one country where it's the de facto rule of law.
That country is called....... SOMALIA!!
I hate to beat a dead fish, but this is just another example of why RonPaul and all his followers should either move to Somalia or shut up.
right now the enviroment is our last priority. The epa has put a stranglehold on US buisness and will continue to do so as long as it exists. Global warming was pretty much proven to be a massive hoax or at least purposely overblown.
Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming
A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.
But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/04/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404
Here is my response from my earlier post:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-you-really-want-to-know-how-to-solve-global-fin/
Disclosure: I voted for Obama and I never voted R's in my life. I'm seriously planning to vote for Ran_Paul.
Here is why: -- jump to [9:15 min] and watch to the end (less than 3 minutes) -- April 01, 2011
Ron_Paul & Dennis_Kucinich on presidential war powers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=sSBdRVH3AUI
If you want a long and educational answer, please watch his video:
G. Edward Griffin, "The Collectivist Conspiracy" [1:25 hr] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAdu0N1-tvU
Lawn Roll 2102. New Gilded Age utopia for all. W00t!
During the last time he was being elected, I called him the 'Pander bear'. In other words, he is basically trying to find out what other people want, and pandering to their interests.
Pretty much the same as any politician who says whatever you want to hear, but Ron Lawl is aiming for the growing group of the discontented. Once elected, he starts listening to the banks and the corporations instead.
What did it for me is when he said he was a creationist, AND he is a Doctor. How did you get through medical school thinking that God breathed life into a handful of dirt and woman was created from a rib, Doctor Paul?
Also, why run as a Republican? Why not run as an independent?
while I'm not a die hard Ron PauI supporter, what you've said is completely wrong. Its his 3rd time and his core issue have pretty much remained the same throughout. Can you enlighten us with some real facts where he has flip-flopped on his statements?
No, I can't.
If he is pandering to the interests of voters, why would he run as an anti-war Republican?
He's in the Republican party because he recognizes the way that American politics has essentially become a two party system. Most people couldn't even tell you the name of last election's third party candidates.
"her dur i think its important for the president to be athiest hur dur"
yep , you need your voter card taken away
I didn't say he had to be Atheist. You can still believe in God, and not be a creationist.
Are you saying that there should be a religious qualification before a person should be allowed to vote? "No Atheists or Muslims allowed?"
Separation of church and state, guy.
hey bro you know that seperation of church and state does not appear in the constitution?
And you know the ammendment you are talking about is about prohibiting government to govern over religious institutions or right. not prohibiting religious people for running...
As for believing in creationism , evolution is a fine theory until you reach the big bang , then your little shed of self indulged mental superiority falls apart at the seams and you are in the dark just as much as we were in the dark ages. you cant disprove creationism , period.
believing such a retarded matter is important in an election to fix the economy is so moronic you should be fucking jailed.
also your canadian so your opinion in US politics is not only irrelevant , but is also not wanted at all
"also your canadian so your opinion in US politics is not only irrelevant , but is also not wanted at all"
Could you please tell that to all the kids from Sweden, Norway, UK and other countries who help flood polls and web sites with Ron Lawl BS. Thanks!!!
Not wanted by YOU I suppose.
The Occupy movement is worldwide, and so is the damage caused by Wall street and the US Military industrial complex. So there are people Occupying in Canada too.
You are right, the separation of church and state doesn't appear in the constitution. it was a statement made by Thomas Jefferson. It's as much to protect the church from the government, as it is to protect government from the church.
However, the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
If being retarded is such a crime that someone deserves to be jailed for it, why was George W. Bush allowed to run the country?
I guess I can't disprove creationism any more than I can disprove the existence of the 'firmament', a transparent bowl which separates 'the waters of heaven from the waters of Earth', which sits on top of a flat Earth. This is also mentioned in Genesis. I can't disprove that unless I go into space myself and oh yeah, the moon landing was a hoax.
just by bringing up george bush in your argument proves how inept you are.
seriously get help
Now that was a cogent refutation of professorzed. Reminds me that if you can't make sense, make sarcasm. Canadian 1, theocrat 0.
good or bad - i dont care he wants to force rape victims to give birth nuf said
People take issues with him because he's not going to go along with the game that is being played in Washington DC. He wants to have a real conversation of what the role of government should be. He wants politicians to be accountable and not have the authority to bail out corporations. He would work to FIX what's wrong with the US political system and that goes against the majority of thieves in political positions that want things to stay the way they are until they are dead.
Stop repeating "shiny" libertarian rhetoric.
It fails to impress. It also ignores the thieves of wallstreet.
Ignores the thieves of wall street? What about the thieves of K street?
FACT: RonPaul voted against the Bailouts OWS is against the Bailouts
My thoughts are original, I'm not repeating anything. What are you implying by the word 'shiny'?
The proof is in the teabaggers. Remember them? He started them.
Anti TAX my ass. My taxes will go up 100% because of this shit and RP started it! LIAR!
I will NEVER forgive him..
He did not start the Tea Party. Get your facts straight. The tea party rose from his supporters in grass roots style and was annexed by crazies in the republican party.
I thought you wanted to pay more taxes? RP most certainly will not help you with that.
RP will solve all your problems, he will take down the banks and their influence on government. He is your only solution.
"RP will solve all your problems" You are deluded. He's a career politician.
He's a libertarian foil for the republicans. Nothing more, and libertarianism sucks.
Get your facts straight.
He is a medical doctor, an obstetrician, to be exact. He left politics before and went back to his practice. started in 78 and was in office until 1984. then came back in 1996.
He is only part of the republican party because the party politicians have stacked the cards against independents. He votes base don his conscience not party lines.
The republican party does not want him to represent them. YOU can do the most damage by changing your party affiliation to republican so you can vote for RP in the primaries.
I absolutely, positively, will never vote for another republican. EVER. I guess he picked the wrong side. His policies as stated on his web site are crap.
Al you've done is repeat more rhetoric.
He's a career politician, anyway.
ok, so that proves you are a sheep and you follow the democratic herd. good for you.
And you are sheep that follows the heard that fucked everything up, for 20 out of the last 30 years.
That would make you the REAL sheep, not me.
Republicans can't even keep their lies straight.
Wrong again. I have the ability to form my own opinions. RP just happens to be the only candidate talking about enacting real reforms. If I thought someone else was more serious I would support them regardless of what party affiliation they had. BTW, RP is the most consistent politician in the US. He doesn't have to worry about keeping stories straight because he always is telling the same story. Some call it the truth.
"Consistent politician" I believe that's called "blind faith".
A career politician that's not a career politician. A republican that's not a republican. A libertarian that's not a libertarian. An independent that's not an independent That's consistent all right. 20+ plus years of not getting much accomplished.
At least you didn't call him honest. That would be a lie.
Please don't call me no damn sheep.
Wrong Again! You clearly know nothing about RonPaul. If you don't know about something you should not speak about it. It makes you look stupid. The republicans AND the democrats are the enemy. RP has been advocating the same policies since his earliest days in congress. Look it up if you don't believe me. It's TRUE!
Wrong on what point?
True, he has been whining the same thing for 20+ years. I actually voted for him '88'. It won't happen again.
There's only one thing in his platform I support. The rest of it is crap. Can you guess which one it is?
$Ron bad, son Ayn Rand Paul even worse.
Ugly.
Ron Lawl is a libertarian and not the good kind. He favors eliminating every govt. agency and creating a vaccum so wide that only the bankers, technocrats and the Koch brothers could fill.
I am all for a libertarian movement, but the type of libertarian socialism that Noam Chomsky describes - one founded by the ideals of the enlightment and Thomas Paine. A system that reduces the unjustified anuthority of a central authorative figure (monarch, central govt., oligarch, etc) and replaces it with worker-led industry and community-led govt. A true libertarian movement cannot go through the right. He/they favors private philanthropy to public agencies, privatized social security, hell privatized everything - which doesnt reduce the dependency of the federal govt, it increases the dependency on accumulated and inherited wealth. He favors flat taxes and would do away with the progressive tax system, probably in the form of a sales tax.
The real kicker is that they say free, free, free, liberty, liberty, liberty, but want to seal the borders and expell all illegal immigrants immediately - through the intervention of the federal govt. A little hypocritical if you ask me...
If some of what he says interest you, I suggest you read-up immediately on Noam Chomsky and Libertarian socialism. A system that fosters the means of production bought and sold by private businesses, but not at the exploitation of the labor force or the consumer force...fair trade, fair wages and fair work!
[Removed]
check your facts...you are spreading false information
such as?????
Misinformation#1: He favors eliminating every govt. agency and creating a vaccum so wide that only the bankers, technocrats and the Koch brothers could fill.
Misinformation#2:The real kicker is that they say free, free, free, liberty, liberty, liberty, but want to seal the borders and expell all illegal immigrants immediately - through the intervention of the federal govt.
Check the Libertarian website for their manifesto and you will see exactly what I have posted. 'However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals' How do they suggest enforce this?
Libertarian platforms calls for the reduction or elimination of the dept. of energy, eduction, commerece, work and pension, health, transportation, interior, including social security, IRS, etc.
The best is the fianl statement 'Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval' - but that is why we are all Republicans...
Again - I support some of their ideas, but they are in bed with the right. And the right will never allow liberty explained by RP and other libertarians without the vaccum filled by the corporate and moneyed elite!
The libertarian party positions are not necessarily RP positions. You're not even looking in the right place to find the correct information. I don't claim him to be a anything more than the best candidate for the job right now. The US political system is completely broken and he is the only candidate interested in fixing it.
I disagree. He is a registered and elected memebr of the Republican party and aligns himself with the Libertarian wing. He cannot and will not get anything done without the support of those who helped elect him!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
[Removed]
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ron-pauls-connections-to-gary-north-christian-reco/
Yet the dominionist connection to the Tea Party goes far beyond just the two candidacies of Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry. Ron Lawl, whose extreme anti-government positions helped to fuel the emergence of the Tea Party, has much deeper dominionist connections than either of the two new darlings. During his first term in Congress, one of his aides was Gary North, Rushdoony's son-in-law, and a leading Reconstructionist in his own right, who has written extensively on so-called "Biblical Capitalism", an ideology profoundly at odds with traditional Biblical-based teachings on economic justice.
While libertarians once traced their descent from John Locke, and more recently from the deeply anti-Christian Ayn Rand, Reconstructionism represents an increasingly important foundation for their views. A recently released sociology study, "Cultures of the Tea Party", found that Tea Party supporters are characterised by four dispositions: "authoritarianism, ontological insecurity, libertarianism, and nativism". Since traditional libertarianism was purportedly the opposite of authoritarianism, this highlights how radically libertarianism has changed - a conclusion that's echoed by the 2011 Pew Reaserch Political Typology Poll, which found that religious and economic conservatives had completely merged into one single group since 2006 and all previous polling.
What this means in the long run is far from clear. But it strongly suggests a solidfying outlook with deep Reconstructionist sympathies that actually looks at government failure to deal with major issues, such as restoring the economy, as a positive good. If faith in American institutions collapses entirely, then who wouldn't give Biblical law a shot? The more loudly such people proclaim themselves patriots, the more loudly they cheer for US collapse. It's not just Obama they want to fail. It's the very idea of America.
Nice little write up about Ron Lawl and his BFF Alex Jones written by Nick Spero
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=145928052161123
THE NEXT AMERICAN REVOLUTION [ http://watch.pair.com/revolution.html ]
Let's get into who Ron Lawl is behind the scenes rather than the Wikipedia version. Ron Lawl belongs to a masonic organization just like his father, wife and children. This means he took a blood oath of allegiance to this Order which prevails over his duties as a politician. He is connected to the John Birch Society which was established by Jesuit-trained Robert Welsh and funded by Nelson Rockefeller. I have had the displeasure of debating with several JBS sympathizers in the past/present regarding the formation and history of the JBS. They claim that Eustice Mullins is the only source for this information and criticize his credibility to discredit the information. This is the typical tactic. Here is an excerpt from ABC News:
[ http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/ron-paul-goes-b.html ]
My opinion is there is no one better than a strict Constitutionalist to be President at this given time in history. He will end illegal wars and try to address the monetary system issues which are the root cause of many problems. He is well prepared to do both.
All the issues people are scared about regarding P.aul's stance on deregulation are irrelevant. They will NEVER pass congress. Focus on what he can achieve.
The clear bias and defamation of P.aul's name should be an indicator that this forum is not the place to get a balanced educated viewpoint on P.aul. This forum has had some of the most hateful and misinformed posts I have ever read about him. There are some P.aul forums perhaps you could ask specific question there as well?
P.aul would be the first to say he is an imperfect messenger. Even if you disagree with his opinions, it is evident he is an honest, humble person and he has done his best amongst thieves, liars and criminals.
[Removed]
Career politician with 20+ years of accomplishing very little.
He should run for governor of Texas and let us see how his policies might play out, on a smaller scale.
He has accomplished not becoming corrupt and protecting our liberty. Or would you rather he have voted yes for the Patriot Act and therefore "accomplished something"?
It's not like he stopped it, or even slowed it down..
So the man who stood against the tank in Tienanmen Square and was run over shouldn't be praised for standing up?
I am not quite sure what you're saying - we should only have convictions when we know we will win?
I fail to see any connection with that event what so ever.
You need to be more timely with your response. I'm not going to re-read this entire thread.
Bottom line is he's still a long time republican.
You stated that his standing up for his beliefs is pointless because he didn't stop or slow down the march of tyranny by himself.
Why are you being partisan? Does the party matter more than the ideas? You've got to get over the partisan blinders. You investigate people on their ideas and actions - party registration is meaningless. Its a false dichotimy designed to manipulate you via the Hegelian dialectic
Keep trying to convince yourself of that rhetoric.
Know that belief is not fact.
The fact is, Paul has done done VERY little in 20+ years, other than whine a lot, and calling for a return to the 18th century.
.
I repeat my previous question then.
Is the point to stand up for one's convictions only when one is likely to succeed? (Unlike what the man in Tienanmen Square did)
Or should one stand up for one's convictions regardless? (As the man in Tienanmen Square did)
Does that make the comparison easier?
Stop repeating yourself.
There is no connection what so ever with Tiananmen square.
None.
I've already gone point to point with his policies in other threads and don't care to do it again.
Mr. Paul is quite simple a lie and a foil for the republicans.
I find little that appeals, in the libertarian platform. I have no desire to return to the 18th century.
It's all just snake oil.
Yes there is but you're not seeing it.
You've stated "The fact is, Paul has done done VERY little in 20+ years, other than whine a lot, and calling for a return to the 18th century."
That sentence as its stated means that if had done much in those 20+ years that it would be better from your perspective.
I don't believe this is what you intended to say but it is what you have communicated. It is akin to saying "This tastes horrible and the portions are so small" because if you disagree with him you would be happy that he has not accomplished much.
The point (yet again) of the Tienanmen Square was that you suggested that standing up for what one believes in is only important if one is likely to win.
More information free rhetoric?
No wonder I can no longer stand Paul. All whining and no substance.
The only plus is how hard his minions try and co-opt this movement.
Occupy wallstreet!
Oh I see. Your point here is simply to attack and not engage in a discussion.
You have no interest in critiquing your own argument because you don't care if it is reasonable or logically constructed - so long as it sways the emotions of others.
ME???
Give me a point with information to discuss. That's the problem with Paul. 20+ years of whining and playing the republican foil.
What has this career politician actually legislated in 20+ years? It's obvious he doesn't really care about individual rights for women. He cares even less for the disabled. He is not what he appears to be.
why don't you look at politics like a foot ball game. does it matter if one person voted against the patriot act if that person knew all of his teammates were going to pass if anyways. call his vote the pump fake. no?
Considering Paul has stood up against large odds while becoming a pariah in his own party for decades for doing it - including having his own party attempt to defeat him as a sitting Congressman in a primary.
Are we to believe it is more likely that he - through someone odd conspiracy and future telling - was simply lying through all of these hardships and actions against him because he knew the political scene would play out like this thirty years later than it is to believe he was simply being honest in his convictions?
hay, I have more respect for the republicans who crossed the political divide, than I do for those who kept the faith. I don't know what makes that man keep the faith? but flip floppin' is bad, right? just like sports. but i never looked at political discourse as a sport; the stakes were too big.
I don't look at it like a sport either and neither does he.
He has stood up for peace, civil rights, an end to the drug war, free association.
So being a stalwart defender of those things is bad - it would be better for you if he only sometimes defended peace and civil rights?
no, you are right, I just want a moderate in charge, one who will sit on the fence with other moderates, and negotiate with the Factions. peace, civil rights, an end to the drug war, free association and all the other things that both the republicans want and the democrats want are what I want. that is why I don't vote. who am i to say who is right and who is wrong. I just be.
Well please check Paul out. Hes worked to cross the aisle on ideas of agreement. He really doesn't do that attack or us v them style cliquish politics. Hes worked with people he strongly disagrees with economical (Barney Frank) on issues on which they agree. He is like a polite grandfather . I wish all of his supporters to his mannerisms to heart but youth can get excited.
then hell fit right in.
Why would you support a politician who's name is "Lawl"?
muahahhahhahahaaha
Amiable Mr. Ron P a u l says he wants to cut $1000,000,000,000 out of the budget, that is to eliminate 4 million jobs and let business keep the money to re-create them. They surely will but in Asia for better returns. Make no mistake, in a Ron P a u l libertarian USA, a job itself becomes a rare American dream.
You want to know where Paul got his foreign policy ideas, Chalmers Johnson's Blowback
i believe that he is naive not greedy, he sees disunity, while reading about better days in the past, he does not realize that by reducing the power of the Federal Government in relation to the states, he is maximizing the carte blanche authority corporations have to play states against one another, a race to the bottom in a torrent of disunity.
naive? He's a doctor, served the U.S. Air force and is a congressman...... he's seen more than most of us, so he is not naive for sure!
Who would care more for the school my kid goes to? The school staff and I or the Fed? At present, the Fed is suing the sates and the states are suing back the Fed. Fed has laws that they don't enforce and when state makes a law, they are snubbed down.
Education, housing and bailouts are perfect example of how government interference totally busts a program, and this is without counting the extra dollars that piles up on top of everything that government touches.
but what if he believes that he got to his position because he served god? then his ideas can do no wrong. anyone who begged the differ would be a heretic. learn to love your enemy. no?
I am assuming that was a sarcasm.... if we start talking about "what ifs", then i'll support the candidate who has the best plan to save me when Godzilla attacks!
"My faith is a deeply private issue to me, and I don’t speak on it in great detail during my speeches because I want to avoid any appearance of exploiting it for political gain. Let me be very clear here: I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate. Our rights to life and liberty are inalienable." - Ron PauI
and you are wise to do that. but you still have not answered my "what if"
I made it clear that I'm here to have logical conversation and not hypothetical "what ifs". Who do you recommend? and "what if" he goes nuts after you've elected him/her? "What if" life ends in 2012 as predicted... whats the point having OWS and electing a President?
Ok, i'm sorry. i was just kidding. what if he is not religious but in fact an atheist and greedy, and knows only way he will eat lavishly is to serve his bosses?
why would states play against one another? if you could explain in stupid terms haha
because they would want the economic activity corporations demand. so, say i have something you cant live without and 49 other people are in the same boat as you. i'd have impeccable leverage. no?
So this would lower costs, and prices for consumers in turn, no?
but then you have put fifty democratic states under the auspices of a profit motive entity. good by president; hello your majesty. besides, you are a citizen of a historically mighty union, not a consumer.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
what would you want more: to vote with your dollars: to vote at the ballot box: or both. a weak federal government will have the states only voting with their dollars. and the people only voting at the ballot box. i want both. meaning a strong and independent referee, the federal government. don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
thats a very interesting point, i never thought of that, but dont you think there would be a way to regulate that somehow? i feel as if there are some big points that Ron Lawl makes that i could agree with. obviously this is a huge thing that i didnt even consider.
that is what the federal government is for, silly rabbit.
ahh damn haha ill do my research and get back at you. thanks for your time!
[Removed]
Except the "white supremacy" crap (which by the way he's clarified in a convincing manner), I've never had anybody point one single thing that is wrong with him. All these non-supporters say is he's a "lunatic" or "too extreme", without giving any justification of why they think so.
How can any America know all this and not agree with him. If his points are "too extreme", then wake up people........ we need extreme measures to get out of this "extreme mess" we are in.
If there is something that I don't know about him, please enlighten me..... I'm not a died hard Ron Lawl supporter, its just that I've been following him for the past 1 year and he seem's to be the best of the given bunch. Its obvious that you wouldn't find one candidate who has got everything you want, so like I said, I find him the best of the available options.
He's also an ardent supporter of patriarchy.
there is no other side of the story , he is the solution to americas problems. nobody wants to admit we need to make tough decisions.
the only people against Ron Lawl are the people too dense to understand how the country works
good
Already explored pretty deeply at http://occupywallst.org/forum/r-o-n-p-a-u-l-really-obnoxious-naive-people-and-un/ . Also see http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-is-money/
thanks rico ill look into your 'what money is' post and comment on it i read a part of it and made sense wont get to it til later though.
i didnt really understand the r-on-ppaul obnosxious one. ill get back to you on that after
[Removed]