Forget Obama ye slackers, here is Ron Paul

Overheal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92OV3RbU3ek

Ron Paul, 1988 wrote:

If you want a welfare state and you want to police the world and pay for the defense of japan and germany ... you not only need the income tax you also need the federal reserve to print up the money when the deficit is accumulated.

Ron Pual, 2002 wrote:

During the next decade the American people will become poorer and less free.

Ron Paul, 2007 wrote:

This country IS in the middle of a recession, for a lot of people. Michigan knows about it; poor people know about it; the middle class knows about it; Wall Street doesn't know about it; Washington DC doesn't know about it; but it's because of the monetary policy and excessive spending.

Ron Paul, September 6th, 2001 wrote:

This [real estate] bubble will burst too, as all other bubbles do.

In response to people who think Obama was the second coming of Christ or someone that belongs on Rushmore. Ron Paul is as close to a prophet as we have got, based on his track record for nailing it on the head years ahead of anyone else.

eth0

Overheal wrote: »

Ron Paul is as close to a prophet as we have got.

Ron Paul is the new John Paul

Cianos

Stop calling the least worst option a prophet!

Indubitable

Best part is, he doesnt flip-flip on any of his policies. Unlike most politicians including our own Enda Kenny.

The lack of media attention Ron Paul receives is both bizarre and disgraceful. I know the quality of newspapers here are poor at best but even Huntsman gets more of a mention.

Overheal

Cianos wrote: »

Stop calling the least worst option a prophet!

Tongue in cheek.

Underdraft

I'd vote for him if I could. Fortunately I'm not a US citizen.

TeddyTedson

What's all this We business. I'm not a yank!

UsernameInUse

Forget about it - the majority of people in this country are definitively incapable of understanding Ron Paul or his economic policies that would turn the global crisis around in a few short months.

Instead, they line up with tears in their eyes for hours just to catch a glimpse of a puppet, Goldman Sachs Corporatist, war-mongering elite on Dame Street being the sheep they truly are. No wonder this place has gone down the ****ter.

strobe

I honestly think he's the only one that could take down an incumbent Obama (despite the less than sterling record in office). But the conservatives/republicans seem terrified of the guy. I think they'd dig up Reagan's corpse and run it before they'd throw the full support of the GOP behind Ron.

UsernameInUse

strobe wrote: »

I honestly think he's the only one that could take down an incumbent Obama (despite the less than sterling record in office). But the conservatives/republicans seem terrified of the guy. I think they'd dig up Reagan's corpse and run it before they'd throw the full support of the GOP behind Ron.

Not a hope in hell they'd get behind Ron Paul.

That would mean an end to the multi-billionaires being given taxpayers money to build weapons of mass destruction and bomb innocent women and children in the name of oil, defense contracts, construction projects (nation building) etc. Too many powerful people would have far too much to lose with Ron Paul as President. Oh, he's second in South Carolina? Time to bring on the mainstream media propaganda...again.

Indubitable

Even if he did become president, he would have a hard time with the house of representatives.

K-9

The man speaks some common sense on many issues, but seriously scarey on others!

kincsem

But he's old.

krudler

I dont agree with some of his views, but a lot of what he says makes so much sense its hard not to like him. hell he's a Republican and even Bill Maher loves him

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYDt7kC3Z0

one thing I'll give him is that his views are consistent, why are American politics so much more interesting to watch than our own, I guess its more of a media circus and show over there.

maddog

Have you noticed the media black out... watch cnn earlier and not a mention of him... all about rommney or what ever you call that wall street whore.... it just isn't going to happen as much as I'd like to see him go up against osama:p:p

It's so plain to see from the outside looking in that the U.S. is in a bad way...democracy...don't make me laugh:mad::mad:

Sindri

strobe wrote: »

I honestly think he's the only one that could take down an incumbent Obama (despite the less than sterling record in office). But the conservatives/republicans seem terrified of the guy. I think they'd dig up Reagan's corpse and run it before they'd throw the full support of the GOP behind Ron.

Ron Paul couldn't take down Obama. The guy is a bit out there. He wants to legalize prostitution (Conservative no no, Libertarian yes yes) and his positions on many other things are too out there. He doesn't appeal to a lot of independents so he won't win the nomination or the presidency and the social conservatives wouldn't vote for him. And the media think he's a wacko.

He has some good ideas, and if we saw any bi-partisan political syncretism they could work well. But it won't happen.

Chuck Stone

I swear I think the man would be assassinated if he (Ron Paul) got anywhere near the White House.

Overheal

TeddyTedson wrote: »

What's all this We business. I'm not a yank!

I'm glad you raise that point: international interest also drives US domestic politics. Obama's chances were definitely helped in the last election because of positive reaction's abroad. Nobody likes to vote for a guy that they think the rest of the world hates, or will bomb America if they become the president or all that crap. Recall the 2004 elections were foreshadowed by a video tape released by Bin Laden which did it's part to keep Bush in office for another term, among other things.

So I choose to spread the word about Ron Paul. He's being deliberately ignored in the media - and that's not a conspiracy theory, thats verifiable and evident (you can jump to short of the 2 minute mark). Going abroad with his support gives them far less ability to simply ignore him, just as Occupy Wall Street gathered international attention, to the extent that the domestic media could no longer simply pretend the protest didn't exist. The thought of a Libertarian president scares the sh*t out of career politicians, and it scares the sh*t out of megacorps that profit from our aggressive militaristic international policies.

krudler

He's a Repulican yet the Republican parties worst nightmare given a lot of his views, bringing the tropps home, no more world policing, getting rid of the IRS and income tax etc etc , its kinda baffling, gonna be really interesting to see if he gets anywhere in the race for the white house.

Resi12

Oh yes let's vote for Ron Paul when he has such great views as:

"The rate of AIDS infection is on the increase again. From the gay point of view, the reasons seem quite sensible. First, these men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on finding new sexual partners... because sex is the center of their lives, they want it to be as pleasurable as possible, which means unprotected sex. Third, they enjoy the attention & pity that comes with being sick."

"Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came "out of the closet," & started hyper-promiscuous sodomy?"

"AIDS patients must boil all their laundry for 15 minutes, and should not be allowed in public restaurants."

"Do your very best to keep your family away from inner cities. I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the Black animals are coming."

More 'gems' here: http://www.prosebeforehos.com/article-of-the-day/12/28/the-skeletons-in-ron-pauls-closet/

TeddyTedson

Overheal wrote: »

I'm glad you raise that point: international interest also drives US domestic politics. Obama's chances were definitely helped in the last election because of positive reaction's abroad. Nobody likes to vote for a guy that they think the rest of the world hates, or will bomb America if they become the president or all that crap. Recall the 2004 elections were foreshadowed by a video tape released by Bin Laden which did it's part to keep Bush in office for another term, among other things.

So I choose to spread the word about Ron Paul. He's being deliberately ignored in the media - and that's not a conspiracy theory, thats verifiable and evident (you can jump to short of the 2 minute mark). Going abroad with his support gives them far less ability to simply ignore him, just as Occupy Wall Street gathered international attention, to the extent that the domestic media could no longer simply pretend the protest didn't exist. The thought of a Libertarian president scares the sh*t out of career politicians, and it scares the sh*t out of megacorps that profit from our aggressive militaristic international policies.

I see where you're coming from.
It's just there's enough political ****e on this forum about Ireland. We'll start getting all sorts in here now.

AnonoBoy

Which one of these lads is running for Taoiseach?

Sindri

Resi12 wrote: »

Oh yes let's vote for Ron Paul when he has such great views as:

"The rate of AIDS infection is on the increase again. From the gay point of view, the reasons seem quite sensible. First, these men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on finding new sexual partners... because sex is the center of their lives, they want it to be as pleasurable as possible, which means unprotected sex. Third, they enjoy the attention & pity that comes with being sick."

"Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came "out of the closet," & started hyper-promiscuous sodomy?"

"AIDS patients must boil all their laundry for 15 minutes, and should not be allowed in public restaurants."

"Do your very best to keep your family away from inner cities. I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the Black animals are coming."

More 'gems' here: http://www.prosebeforehos.com/article-of-the-day/12/28/the-skeletons-in-ron-pauls-closet/

Well he's got my vote.:D

maddog

Recall the 2004 elections were foreshadowed by a video tape released by Bin Laden which did it's part to keep Bush in office for another term, among other things.

Convenient for bush... keep them in a state of fear!

Sindri

Overheal wrote: »

and that's not a conspiracy theory, thats verifiable and evident

CNN were trying to sell him as the opponent of Romney during their debate.

They kept showing reactionary shots of him during the debate.

K-9

krudler wrote: »

He's a Repulican yet the Republican parties worst nightmare given a lot of his views, bringing the tropps home, no more world policing, getting rid of the IRS and income tax etc etc , its kinda baffling, gonna be really interesting to see if he gets anywhere in the race for the white house.

In many ways he's more appealing to Democrats than Republicans. He's socially extremely Liberal but, extremely economically Liberal.

The Republicanism I refer to would the the modern bastardisation of Republicanism, not the traditional version.

When you consider he has toned down a few of his views, he's like an AH troll.

Overheal

Resi12 wrote: »

Oh yes let's vote for Ron Paul when he has such great views as:

"The rate of AIDS infection is on the increase again. From the gay point of view, the reasons seem quite sensible. First, these men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on finding new sexual partners... because sex is the center of their lives, they want it to be as pleasurable as possible, which means unprotected sex. Third, they enjoy the attention & pity that comes with being sick."

"Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came "out of the closet," & started hyper-promiscuous sodomy?"

"AIDS patients must boil all their laundry for 15 minutes, and should not be allowed in public restaurants."

"Do your very best to keep your family away from inner cities. I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the Black animals are coming."

More 'gems' here: http://www.prosebeforehos.com/article-of-the-day/12/28/the-skeletons-in-ron-pauls-closet/

Can I play?



3. “It is human nature that like attracts likes. But whites are not allowed to express this same human impulse. Except in a de facto sense, there can be no white schools, white clubs, or white neighborhoods. The political system demands white integration, while allowing black segregation.” -‘The Disappearing White Majority,’ January 1993

Jimoslimos

He has some good ideas (although I would have made most of those predictions at the time) and makes sense on a lot off topics.

His libertarian economic policies are the breaker however. Suprising many believe the powerful wealthy elite would suffer with him as president. In fact they'd be in prime position to reap the rewards.

In many ways I see his policies as those which shirk as much responsibility as possible whilst trying to gain credit for same.

amacachi

K-9 wrote: »

The man speaks some common sense on many issues, but seriously scarey on others!

Jimoslimos wrote: »

He has some good ideas (although I would have made most of those predictions at the time) and makes sense on a lot off topics.

His libertarian economic policies are the breaker however. Suprising many believe the powerful wealthy elite would suffer with him as president. In fact they'd be in prime position to reap the rewards.

In many ways I see his policies as those which shirk as much responsibility as possible whilst trying to gain credit for same.

The powerful wealthy elite are the ones who don't want his policies. Would the US be printing hundreds of billions a year to hand over to private defence companies if it were up to Paul? Would the banks have been bailed out?

No. They wouldn't. That money that's printed ends up owed by everyone but goes into the pockets of the wealthy.

maddog

By the simple fact that he wants rid of the FED... he won't get anywhere...sad but true!

UsernameInUse

Jimoslimos wrote: »

He has some good ideas (although I would have made most of those predictions at the time) and makes sense on a lot off topics.

His libertarian economic policies are the breaker however. Suprising many believe the powerful wealthy elite would suffer with him as president. In fact they'd be in prime position to reap the rewards.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

How would the wealthy elites be in a better position? In fact, the wealthy elites are in the prime position today and have been for many decades. They're given the opportunity to lobby for contracts and monopolies. With Ron Paul as President, they would be forced to compete in the market. This is called Capitalism. Shame you've never heard of it.

K-9

amacachi wrote: »

The powerful wealthy elite are the ones who don't want his policies. Would the US be printing hundreds of billions a year to hand over to private defence companies if it were up to Paul? Would the banks have been bailed out?

No. They wouldn't. That money that's printed ends up owed by everyone but goes into the pockets of the wealthy.

Under his system it goes into the wealthy more directly and he hopes it trickles down. Fantastic ideal, Communism was too.

I've read too many Libertarian threads on Boards to be convinced!

dlofnep

While I respect some of Ron Paul's views, the reality is - anyone who intends to vote for Ron Paul either aren't familiar with his views and are jumping on the bandwagon based on a few soundbytes on some populist issues, or are morally inept. It's one or the other.

He would allow private businesses to be able to screen their customers, including by their race. He has a horrific past towards the gay community. He's a staunch Libertarian, that doesn't believe in any sort of protection for the most vulnerable in society.

He opposes war, fair play.. But it simply doesn't give him a free pass on any of the above issues.

mikemac1

Ron Paul is the new Howard Dean

Lots of fans on the internet, promising start to the election and it'll all end in failure

But reading internet forums you'd think he was popular. He is not

UsernameInUse

dlofnep wrote: »

While I respect some of Ron Paul's views, the reality is - anyone who intends to vote for Ron Paul either aren't familiar with his views and are jumping on the bandwagon based on a few soundbytes on some populist issues, or are morally inept. It's one or the other.

He would allow private businesses to be able to screen their customers, including by their race. He has a horrific past towards the gay community. He's a staunch Libertarian, that doesn't believe in any sort of protection for the most vulnerable in society.

He opposes war, fair play.. But it simply doesn't give him a free pass on any of the above issues.

You're insinuating that being a Libertarian is some kind of bad thing....

amacachi

K-9 wrote: »

Under his system it goes into the wealthy more directly and he hopes it trickles down. Fantastic ideal, Communism was too.

I've read too many Libertarian threads on Boards to be convinced!

Didn't actually mean to quote you but to address your point, where does tax money generally end up in America? Defence spending is overwhelmingly to private megacompanies. Even looking at welfare, most money comes from the working and lower middle classes. That money goes to people and is their sole source of income and pays rent (to large companies) and food, clothes etc. in Walmart and Kmart and the like. Government taxation right now only makes the upward flow of money from poor-ish to the rich go even more quiclkly.

dlofnep

UsernameInUse wrote: »

You're insinuating that being a Libertarian is some kind of bad thing....

Correct.

Sindri

maddog wrote: »

By the simple fact that he wants rid of the FED... he won't get anywhere...sad but true!

maddog for such a demented oul canine you speak some sense.

Overheal

dlofnep wrote: »

While I respect some of Ron Paul's views, the reality is - anyone who intends to vote for Ron Paul either aren't familiar with his views and are jumping on the bandwagon based on a few soundbytes on some populist issues, or are morally inept. It's one or the other.

He would allow private businesses to be able to screen their customers, including by their race. He has a horrific past towards the gay community. He's a staunch Libertarian, that doesn't believe in any sort of protection for the most vulnerable in society.

He opposes war, fair play.. But it simply doesn't give him a free pass on any of the above issues.

I find it highly ironic that you claim your underlined yet use the exact same tired 'populist' counter-argument against Paul that I've seen for the last 5 years or so.

You're basically concerned that Ron Paul would allow 7 and 4 to multiply to give us 28; In reality, it's just Ron Paul explaining his views about the freedom of Multiplication. He doesn't believe the government has a place in interfering with the choice of a business to make that call, but on the other hand he also acknowledges that such a business wouldn't find themselves in business for quite that long.

UsernameInUse

dlofnep wrote: »

Correct.

Okay then, perhaps you can describe (using recent charts, polls, statistical research) on a given topic that you may choose from which leads you to believe there is something that needs to be "forgiven" about it.

Jimoslimos

UsernameInUse wrote: »

This makes no sense whatsoever.

How would the wealthy elites be in a better position? In fact, the wealthy elites are in the prime position today and have been for many decades. They're given the opportunity to lobby for contracts and monopolies. With Ron Paul as President, they would be forced to compete in the market. This is called Capitalism. Shame you've never heard of it.

By reducing the most basic checks and balances on big business. Goodness knows what shennanigans they could get get up to with even less regualtion.

Pure unrestricted capitalism doesn't quite work that way. Without proper regulation it's basically a survival of the fittest/biggest scenario, until you have one left or a cosy cartel.

amacachi

Overheal wrote: »

I find it highly ironic that you claim your underlined yet use the exact same tired 'populist' counter-argument against Paul that I've seen for the last 5 years or so.

You're basically concerned that Ron Paul would allow 7 and 4 to multiply to give us 28; In reality, it's just Ron Paul explaining his views about the freedom of Multiplication. He doesn't believe the government has a place in interfering with the choice of a business to make that call, but on the other hand he also acknowledges that such a business wouldn't find themselves in business for quite that long.

Never mind the fact that companies do it anyway. Read a study a while back where they sent fake CVs in and the whiter sounding names had a much higher success rate.

K-9

amacachi wrote: »

Didn't actually mean to quote you but to address your point, where does tax money generally end up in America? Defence spending is overwhelmingly to private megacompanies. Even looking at welfare, most money comes from the working and lower middle classes. That money goes to people and is their sole source of income and pays rent (to large companies) and food, clothes etc. in Walmart and Kmart and the like. Government taxation right now only makes the upward flow of money from poor-ish to the rich go even more quiclkly.

You have links for that, the taxation part? I know it's AH but genuinely interested?

Totally accept the defence spending point, love to see Paul working that view in a Presidential election! I think Obama would prefer not to do it but he came under immense pressure from Republicans to be tough on foreign policy. The amount of flag waving in an election is ridiculous but the norm.

UsernameInUse

Jimoslimos wrote: »

By reducing the most basic checks and balances on big business. Goodness knows what shennanigans they could get get up to with even less regualtion.

Pure unrestricted capitalism doesn't quite work that way. Without proper regulation it's basically a survival of the fittest/biggest scenario, until you have one left or a cosy cartel.

Two things.

1. Ron Paul is not against regulation. He thinks the States should have the ability to regulate but believes the Federal Government should not be involved ala the U.S Constitution.

2. If Capitalism is indeed the survival of the fittest, then how then would we end up with one cartel? Cartels and monopolies are a precise consequence of government regulation, not Capitalism.

dlofnep

Overheal wrote: »

I find it highly ironic that you claim your underlined yet use the exact same tired 'populist' counter-argument against Paul that I've seen for the last 5 years or so.

It's hardly populist, and is a critically important criticism of Ron Paul's world view.

Overheal wrote: »

You're basically concerned that Ron Paul would allow 7 and 4 to multiply to give us 28; In reality, it's just Ron Paul explaining his views about the freedom of Multiplication. He doesn't believe the government has a place in interfering with the choice of a business to make that call, but on the other hand he also acknowledges that such a business wouldn't find themselves in business for quite that long.

I'm concerned that Ron Paul would favour a business being able to determine it's own customers, where prejudice can come into play legally. I do not believe that a shop should be able to reject a person because they are black, or because they are gay.

Now it's clear that Ron Paul isn't a racist, that's not the implication here. But it's very clear that such a policy would allow for open discrimination in certain areas of the US, where segregation is still a hot topic.

Supporters of Ron Paul are simply incapable of accepting valid criticism of him.

amacachi

K-9 wrote: »

You have links for that, the taxation part? I know it's AH but genuinely interested?

Totally accept the defence spending point, love to see Paul working that view in a Presidential election! I think Obama would prefer not to do it but he came under immense pressure from Republicans to be tough on foreign policy. The amount of flag waving in an election is ridiculous but the norm.

No links but where tax comes from has been debated around the place before. As for where welfare money goes, I don't know what else they'd be spending much of it on. :pac:

dlofnep wrote: »

It's hardly populist, and is a critically important criticism of Ron Paul's world view.



I'm concerned that Ron Paul would favour a business being able to determine it's own customers, where prejudice can come into play legally. I do not believe that a shop should be able to reject a person because they are black, or because they are gay.

Now it's clear that Ron Paul isn't a racist, that's not the implication here. But it's very clear that such a policy would allow for open discrimination in certain areas of the US, where segregation is still a hot topic.

Supporters of Ron Paul are simply incapable of accepting valid criticism of him.

In a country where in a half a century or so most of the country won't be white it wouldn't be the finest business model.

dlofnep

UsernameInUse wrote: »

Okay then, perhaps you can describe (using recent charts, polls, statistical research) on a given topic that you may choose from which leads you to believe there is something that needs to be "forgiven" about it.

I don't agree with the Libertarian world view. Why would I need to produce charts, polls and statistical research to substantiate my opinion?

I'd be more than happy to outline a number of policies by Ron Paul which I fundamentally disagree with if you would like. I have already highlighted some.

Sindri

UsernameInUse wrote: »

Two things.

1. Ron Paul is not against regulation. He thinks the States should have the ability to regulate but believes the Federal Government should not be involved ala the U.S Constitution.

2. If Capitalism is indeed the survival of the fittest, then how then would we end up with one cartel? Cartels and monopolies are a precise consequence of government regulation, not Capitalism.

There is also the argument that eventually, in unregulated Capitalism, we would end up with monopolies. And then be back with a feudal system.

dlofnep

amacachi wrote: »

In a country where in a half a century or so most of the country won't be white it wouldn't be the finest business model.

It's not relevant whether it's financially viable for the company to act upon prejudice from a legal standpoint. I'm more concerned that they would have the legal ability to do so.

Nobody is making the claim that if enacted, every second business would implement racial segregation, or other forms of prejudicial filtering. But there certainly will be businesses that will take advantage of it, and the customer will have no legal basis for complaint if they are rejected for their racial, sexual preference, religious views, etc..

UglyBolloxFace

As much as I admire the guy for some of his very valid points, it all becomes null and void to me due to the fact that he doesn't believe in Evolution.

Coupled with the fact that he's very, very religious, I have a deep sense of distrust of him.

amacachi

dlofnep wrote: »

It's not relevant whether it's financially viable for the company to act upon prejudice from a legal standpoint. I'm more concerned that they would have the legal ability to do so.

Nobody is making the claim that if enacted, every second business would implement racial segregation, or other forms of prejudicial filtering. But there certainly will be businesses that will take advantage of it, and the customer will have no legal basis for complaint if they are rejected for their racial, sexual preference, religious views, etc..

But it happens no matter what. Making federal laws against it doesn't stop it, just keeps a few people in Washington in jobs. Rhetoric and ideas in principle are great but if the result is the same either way I'd rather do it the simple way.
States could still make such laws if they wished anyway so the point is fairly moot.