Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: With ZERO Media Coverage, The Doctor is EXPLODING !!!

Posted 7 years ago on April 20, 2012, 11:24 a.m. EST by FreedomReigns (72)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

RonPaul is EXPLODING!! with Zero media coverage




Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 7 years ago

Ron Paul's libertarianism: A society where everyone fends for themselves so that the strong can dominate the weak until society is eventually ruled entirely by a small group of rich people.

If you want society to be completely ruled and dominated by the 1%, vote Ron Paul.

If you want a society where freedom only exists for the few at the top who have most of the money, vote Ron Paul.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago

If we vote for Obama or Romney won't we still get a "society that is "ruled entirely by a small group of rich people."?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33788) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

See that is another thing that most people do not understand and that those in power would like to keep that way.

It does not matter who is in office if you can not make them support the constitution.

So putting someone in office is one thing but if you do not stay involved and own the process those elected will do their own thing.

Wisconsin decided to say fuck that noise.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 7 years ago

We would still get that kind of society since they all want to allocate income the same way - they all want to allocate it based on bargaining power within the market which enables a very few people with bargaining power to command inordinate incomes.

And they all want to allow people to take unearned income, such as investment income, which allows you to use your income to earn even more income. This enables the few people with the bargaining power that have the very large incomes to take an even greater share of the available income.

Both of this results in greater and greater concentrations of income in fewer and fewer hands over time.

However, taxes and government programs, like free school, student loans, social security, medicaid, medicare, mortgage guarantee, labor laws, etc., redistribute income. When you eliminate them, inequality would be significantly worse.

The flip side is that I believe it would be so bad in a libertarian society that people would have revolted long ago and put an end to capitalism. The only reason why capitalism exists is because it is constantly getting bailed out by government.

So, paradoxically, I think libertarianism would put an end to capitalism.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 7 years ago

"bargaining power" well said.. the wealthy have the upper hand when it comes to bargaining.. they try to tell us if we dont want to pay the price than don't buy it.. there has to be another side to that coin ..?

[-] 4 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 7 years ago

Since income is allocated based on bargaining power, the only way to combat that is through collective bargaining. If the bottom 97% of workers who have no bargaining power joined forces in a single union, they would have more bargaining power than the 3% at the top who rule the economy.

The wealthy know that. That is why they will do everything in their power to stop workers from organizing.

If the workers organized, it is game over for the "1%".

If workers formed a single union and demanded an income closer to the $65 per hour the average worker produces, or they stop working, inequality would come to an end.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 7 years ago

It's a pretty big if ? It might be easier to try to encourage our representatives in congress to do the right thing ..with the power of democracy on our side ..

But you give us all hope with the possibilities you offer.. it's like a ray of light ..though far off in the distance , we can see it.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

To one degree or another, we still would, since they both have bought into the Libertardian free market crap on the rise since Reagan.

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

Reagan was a corportist you dumbass.

Man you're dumb!!

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

He was a right wing libertarian. You old are you, 14?

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

Libertarian? Then why did gov grow under him? And why did regulations grow under him? Why did the tax code grow under him?

They really did a good job brainwashing you into the whole D/R thing...

PS- he was a fuckin actor.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

Because, moron, he wasn't a king. He worked with the real world (as in Congress), even though his philosophy was overtly libertarian.

He put Milton Freidman in charge, Ayn Rand's best friend, remember? (Oh, yeah, you weren't born then.) His strategy of "Starve the Beast" ratcheted up the deficit to such enormous size that all social safety net programs would have to end. It didn't work. But he WAS successful in beginning the drive to deregulate, create a laissez faire free market, and busted unions. He ushered in trickle down economics, a purely libertarian screed if there ever was one. And he shifted the dialogue and mindset of the country to "Government is not the solution to any problem, it IS the problem" straight out of the Ayn Rand talking point handbook. He cut taxes for the top 1% by almost a third, while adding new taxes on the backs of the middle class and especially the poor. He began taxing unemployment benefits and disability benefits and social security benefits to pay for his tax breaks for the rich. He opposed school lunches for the poor to the extent that he declared Ketchup to be a vegetable, so school would no longer have to feed the poor healthy food. He cut slashed food stamps and claimed it was made up by giving the poor free surplus army cheese. His famous "I remember freedom" speech was a tirade against the "communism" of medicaid, that helping the poor was an assault against individual freedom because everyone was "forced" to pay into the system.

He was an evil libertarian (a redundancy, I know).

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 7 years ago

Even the group at Mises.org, know that Raygunz was a myth that didn't live up to any of the rhetoric he spoke of. It's a good read.

"Reaganites and Reaganomists, for obvious reasons, are trying desperately to maintain that Reagan has indeed fulfilled his glorious promises; while his opponents, intent on attacking the bogey of Reaganomics, are also, and for opposite reasons, anxious to claim that Reagan has really put his free-market program into operation. So we have the curious, and surely not healthy, situation where a mass of politically interested people are totally misinterpreting and even misrepresenting the Reagan record; focusing, like Reagan himself, on his rhetoric instead of on the reality."

The Myths of Reaganomics http://mises.org/daily/1544

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

His rhetoric was not the only issue. He kicked off an entire mindset. He moved the Republitards, and in turn the Democrats hard right. The rush to deregulate and the economic crash that has resulted, were things he planted the SEEDS of.

No president can accomplish what he alone wants during his presidency. Structurally divided government doesn't allow it. BUt that doesn't mean that his libertarian destructiveness wasn't begun by him, or that it didn't continue to grow after him.

He was the Johnny Appleseed of the libertardian destruction of this country. He didn't live to see the fruits of that destruction, nor did he grow its poison crops, but he tilled the soil and he started the whole thing going.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 7 years ago

How did he turn Democrats hard right?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

A number of ways. First, he successfully turned the word "liberal" into a slur. Democrats were forced to run from that characterization if they were to have any chance of winning election.

(Make no mistake: rhetoric is a very powerful tool in the hands of a modestly good actor.. Reagan is still polled as the most popular president in American history. He duped a lot of people. It is very hard to run against that.)

Second, by turning the Rebublicans so sharply to the right, any compromise reached with them in Congress automatically started off with a different center point. That point was not longer moderate, but right. The entire dialogue changed as a result.

Third, his endorsement of the Chicago School of economics via his appointments and policies gave them a louder voice. It was no longer only Keynesians talking about economic sanity, but neo-liberals and Libertarians were given equal access, if not MORE access, to the Media. The businesses those policies helped were the advertisers and owners of that media, and the new found, if false, legitimacy of their claims could now be aired with no backlash. Their previously discredited, fringe economics became mainstream, and no one in politics had a choice but to engage it on some level.

Nor were Democratic leaders immune to its seductive charms. They began to believe, themselves, that becoming more business friendly would help everyone. The Big Lie strategy the republicans started engaging in full throttle under Reagan began to have an effect. (Not that the Big Lie wasn't practiced by them, and to a lesser extent by the Democrats, for years before, but the geometrical ratcheting up of it was unprecedented.)

What's more, the Democrats were never as monolithic as the republicans. The republicans until Reagan were comprised of people who were moderate to extreme right. After Reagan the moderates were essentially shed from their roles. But the Democrats never shed their own Blue Dogs, (and given their dwindling numbers in the polls, could not afford to) and were forced to work with them in putting up a united front against the now completely right wing and UNIFIED opposition. Within their own party they were forced to move rightward.

Reagan's followers also started up the right-wing think tanks we see today. They, too effected the overall dialogue, particularly in terms of where the center of that dialogue became. In that context, democrats who were unwilling to come off as shrill moderated their positions by moving rightward.

Reagan (and then Bush Senior) also changed the makeup of the Supreme court to a right wing majority. It is pure conjecture on my part, but I believe that Democrats in Congress, on some subtle level, began curtailing legislative initiatives they felt had a good chance of being struck down by that new court.

There is much, much more. And it is pretty well chronicled, I believe. My explanation is a poor start, but hopefully enough to start you researching more on your own. At any rate, i hope this helps a little.

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

And yet all those programs grew under him.

Saying he raised taxes isnt helping the libertarian theory. If he was a libertarian things under him would look radically different.

It would be like calling him a Democrat because he did the the amnesty thing.

He's a corportist, just like the two parties that helped him.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

The entire country has been increasingly under the sway of Libertarianism since he kicked off that trend. The entire Repellican party has moved increasingly libertardian. That's exactly why the whole country is as fucked up as it is.

The move has not been absolute (something you won't understand, because you only see absolutes), but it has been the extremely strong trend.

It is clear that you haven't got the first clue about what Reagan stood for, what he promoted. It is equally clear that you don't understand enough to fit into a thimble how the system of government works to compromise initiatives, that the congress and Administration were DESIGNED to be divided government, and consensus and compromise and trade-offs must be reached for virtually all legislation, since that the president is not King. That is not to say that the presidency isn't the most powerful SINGLE office, but only that it is not the only one.

These programs increased DESPITE Reagan's wishes. Taxes were increased on the poor BECAUSE of them. Taxes were lowered on the rich because of them. Unions were busted because of them, and he didn't need Congress's approval for that. He was a laissez faire libertarian, who put into effect as much deregulation as possible given the congress he was working with. The push to privatize the social safety net began under his watch. The push to end unions was, too. The push to end regulation on the "free market" (which always means corporations) was, too. The push to eliminate capital gains taxes was, too. The push to give tax breaks for the rich was, too. The push to let the markets, and the markets alone, self regulate and determine wages and incomes was a centerpiece of his initiatives. HIs abandonment of the poor is classic libertardian, shifting the responsibility for them increasingly onto private charities.

Things DO look radically different because of his policies and the various libertardian balls he got rolling. This used to be a country concerned about equality and equity, about reducing the gap between the rich and the poor, at least domestically. It worked for decades to reduce poverty by as much as 50%. It created, practically out of thin air, a thriving middle class. Economic mobility became, for the first time prior to him, a birthright. It's ideals were egalitarianism and participatory democracy. Reagan turned those into ideals of greed, selfishness, and plutocracy. His policies, borne out for a mere 2 decades, destroyed most of the middle class that was created before him. Poverty has exploded. More than 1 in 4 children have no food security.

That is the precisely predictable outcome of libertarian doctrine. It doesn't have to be put into practice absolutely to have this effect. it needs only to be a trend, and Reagan knew that very well.

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 7 years ago

Too bad if Ron Paul did become president he'd end up in the same boat as Garfield, Kennedy, Lincoln, and McKinley. Paul wouldn't play by the puppeteers' rules.

Why do you think he gets absolutely no media coverage? Because nobody likes him? I'll concede that most people on this site do not like Paul.

But I've recently come to the conclusion that most people on this site are mentally deficient...speaking of which, here comes a barrage of anti-RP in 3..2..1...

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

Mr. P is as big a liar as the rest of them.

So I guess that makes his followers idiots too.

Welcome to the club..........................:)

" We're all Bozos on this bus"

---The Firesign Theater---

[-] 0 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 7 years ago

Okay, and the rest of them are liars as well. So regardless we're going to be stuck with voting in someone with an agenda that is not in the interest of the majority of Americans. No one really seems to care about this.

I have more faith in a man that the corporate/state-run mainstream media actively tries to suppress than one in which they boldly hold in high regard.

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

Ron Paul's major finacial backer builds spy equipment fir the CIA. You guys just have to face it, you've been duped.

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 7 years ago


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

Please see my post, "A Bittersweet Victory." It was not pleasant for me to dig up this information because I sympathize with the Liberatarian ideal of freedom, but Ron Paul has always been a pretender, always. He's been around long enough for me to know, and I just had to dig awhile for the proof.

You guys need to join Ocuppy, sans Ron Paul; and just forget the Tea Party. They are the problem.

[-] 1 points by FreedomReigns (72) 7 years ago

I don't see that post. Is it recent? Could you link me up to that post here? I'd be willing to take a look at that.

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

Yes, I will do so sometime today. Can't right now.

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 7 years ago

Obama contributors: Banks, universities, extremely large corporations.


Who are the most responsible for our most recent and current problems? Unethical intelligence agencies? or Economy crippling bank 'procedures', Skyrocketing education costs, and outsourcing corporations?

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

Could anyone who stands on a platform of personal liberty accept money from an espianage contractor and retain any credibility at all?

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 7 years ago

Well, I guess they wouldn't accept money from anybody, would they?

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

I'm sorry, but Liberatarians need to find a new leader. RP is totally discredited.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

You remember “George-yellowcake uranium”.
You remember “ Dick-Iam not a crook”.
You remember “Ronnie-I don’t remember my treasonous acts”.

Now we have “Ron-I don’t remember my disgusting newletters”.

@--> A 1992 passage from the Ron Paul Political Report about the Los Angeles riots read, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” Another Paul newsletter asserted that people with AIDS should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva”;

@--> In 1990 one of Ron Paul’s publications criticized Ronald Reagan for having gone along with the creation of the federal holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which it called “Hate Whitey Day.”

@--> Ron Paul’s newsletter called Barbara Jordan, the African-American Texas congresswoman, a “half-educated victimologist” and said of crime in Washington, D.C., “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

@--> ”If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

@--> Ron Paul’s newsletter was listed by a neo-Nazi group called Heritage Front, as recommended reading. { you gotta believe the doctor }

@--> The September 1994 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report states that “those who don’t commit sodomy, who don’t get blood a transfusion, and who don’t swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay.”

@--> In the April 1993 Ron Paul Survival Report, the author states, “Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.”

@--> Ron Paul SIGNED 1993 appeal for funds letter: "Israeli lobby plays Congress like a cheap harmonica," warned of a "race war" and said there was a gay-led cover up of AIDS. The letter suggests, that new $100 bills distributed by the Treasury and ostensibly aimed at tracking drug money were instead aimed at keeping track of all citizens. "I held the ugly new bills in my hands," the letter says. "I can tell you -- they made my skin crawl!"
Then "my training as a physician helps me see through" what he calls the "federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS." The letter warns of a "coming race war in our big cities"

@--> Ron Paul December 2, 2011 Ron Paul Believes that Corporate Lobbying = Liberty: “I Take The Position That You Should Never Restrict Lobbying…”
About Citizens United - "It's corporations' money, they can do whatever they want with it."

You can claim – b.b.b.b.b.but Ron did not write these awful things! HE PRINTED THEM!

And I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that deregulating-Ron would not want

a regulating Food and Drug Administration to ensure the safety of your food or meds
[ if you are poisoned, your estate can sue ],
a regulating Environmental Protection Agency
[ if your land is poisoned by a fracker – move ],
a regulating Federal Aviation Administration
[ if you are a scardy cat, take the train ],
a regulating Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[ you don’t want your nuclears regulated, do you? ],
a regulating National Transportation and Safety Board
[ you know how to safety and crash test your car, don’t you? ],
a regulating Securities and Exchange Commission
[ you always elect honest corporate leaders, right ? ]
a nuclear bomb free Iran [ don’t all maniacs need one ? ]
a democratic ally in the middle east - like Israel
[ "Israeli lobby plays Congress like a cheap harmonica" – RP ]

Four years ago, Ron Paul generated controversy by not repudiating the endorsement of the neo-Nazi group Stormfront, This time, they seem proud about getting the support of a Nebraska Pastor who has made some revealing comments:
Ron Paul’s Iowa chairman, Drew Ivers, recently touted the endorsement
of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser
praising “the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.” Kayser’s views on homosexuality go way beyond the bounds of typical anti-gay evangelical politics and into the violent fringe - Kayser recently authored a paper arguing for
criminalizing homosexuality and advocated imposing the death penalty
against offenders based on his reading of Biblical law: “As we have seen, while many homosexuals would be executed, the threat of capital punishment can be restorative.”
Has Ron Paul repudiated this endorsement?

My guess is that just like
Ron Paul tried to shove the
Ron Paul Newsletters under the carpet,
Ron Paul will try to shove his
Ron Paul endorser there too

It is fascinating how, despite the fact that fox hates Ron Paul,
he uses the same tactics of deceit and obfuscation.

Please note – I’m not saying Ron is 100% nuts – just 99.4% pure

just a tiny fun fact - do you know who Ron named his senator son after?

google the libertarian queen’s name together with the name “William Hickman”

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

Thanks for presenting the facts where everyone can see them, if they are so inclined. I'm not so good with the technical side of things.

[-] -1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

"people on this site are mentally deficient"

That especially includes libertardian trolls.

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 7 years ago

Ron Paul has all the makings of a Romney lap dog.