Ron Paul, Libertarianism and the U.N.

[d-cat]

NOTICE: Posts 193-198 were moved by the moderator from another thread about the candidates in general. So the info on these posts may be repeating what was already here or may seem out of place.

Not sure why post 193 was moved here as it is about all the candidates and relates to a post on that thread, but it does apply here as well.

[OrchardDweller]

Watch this video and become smarter than most members of Congress

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2962369311366680572

[theindependenteye]

>I believe Ron Paul's goal is to bring the Federal govt back to the size and scope as authorized by The Constitution, with more power going back to the state and local level. What that would mean for us depends on what we would want and what we would vote for, I suppose. I imagine medical marijuana would be legal again as how we voted for that was overridden by the Federal Government.<


As would slavery, if I remember correctly. Wonder if any venture capitalists want to finance my new Africa/California vacation package?

The Supreme Court has been interpreting the Constitution for over two hundred years, and in fact the tradition of their interpreting it — established by Marbury vs. Madison, I believe — may be a questionable arrogation of power. But it spoke to a need: how do we interpret this document? We're a nation of 300 million; we're utterly different economically, dominated by multinational corporations; we're trans-continental; we're in a different world; and we have very large bombs. The Founding Fathers were bright guys and superb writers, but they weren't God. Even God's best-known novel is subject to quite a number of interpretations, and those who try to take it "literally" find themselves in a swamp.

I'm no fan of the Federal Government or of countless Supreme Court decisions, but my point is that these have all been responses to specific circumstances from specific, fallible individuals. "Going back to the Constitution" isn't an unbiased zero-sum game; it's a choice to interpret the Constitution in the most extremely restrictive way and thereby create a vacuum of power that the corporations will happily fill. I agree that the Constitution shouldn't stretch easily, but if it didn't stretch at all, if there were no elasticity, it would have snapped by about 1810.

I grant that positive things would flow from denuding the Constitution, assuming I lived in the right state. I could smoke marijuana. I could lynch blacks. I could pay workers $3 an hour and let them get sucked into the machinery. I could sell diseased meat. I could smoke marijuana. I could abolish public schools and go for a "market solution." I could restrict real estate to the right kind of people. I could make children pray to the Lord Jesus Christ. I could bribe a Governor rather than pay the price of a Senator. And I could smoke marijuana.

Anyway, I'm off to vote for a corrupt & power-mad psychotic, otherwise known as a Presidential candidate. Thanks for the debate. It's been fun.

Cheers—
Conrad

[Valley Oak]

Orchy, you are tragically naive. No thanks for the video, again.

I think there are video support groups around to get people off of the nasty addiction of watching and believing propaganda videos. They use the ten step method. The first question is: "Are you hooked on watching and distributing Ron Paul videos through the internet?"

Edward



Watch this video and become smarter than most members of Congress

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2962369311366680572

[OrchardDweller]

Ron Paul on Glenn Beck (CNN) 4-1-08. Talks about the current economic situation and the Federal Reserve:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuTcRg_AKA8

[Valley Oak]

Josepha, this is simply more diatribe that misinforms and misleads people.

Edward


Ron Paul on Glenn Beck (CNN) 4-1-08. Talks about the current economic situation and the Federal Reserve:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuTcRg_AKA8

[handy]

Josepha, this is simply more diatribe that misinforms and misleads people.

Edward

I'm sure(not really) you're correct; but I think he is less misleading and less misinformed than anyone else running. His diatribe makes more sense (sounds more honest) than their diatribe.

It will be interesting (probably effin' hilarious!) to watch the circular firing squad of McCain/Clinton/Obama play out over the next few months. As they mangle their credibility even further, Dr. Paul is going to start looking pretty good. We've still got many months; give it a few...

[Valley Oak]

You've expressed an opinion, not a fact, even if you feel strongly that it is the truth. I have an opinion too, as do millions of other Americans and most don't agree with you or Ron Paul.

I am very confident, along with millions of other U.S. citizens, that either Obama or Clinton are infinitely better qualified than Ron Paul ever could be for the White House.

Dr. Paul is not going to start looking pretty good between now and this November or even years from now if either Obama or Clinton win. Paul might look like he would have been a better alternative if McCain wins, however. But that's just my opinion.

There's an old saying that goes: "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink."

Edward


I'm sure(not really) you're correct; but I think he is less misleading and less misinformed than anyone else running. His diatribe makes more sense (sounds more honest) than their diatribe.

It will be interesting (probably effin' hilarious!) to watch the circular firing squad of McCain/Clinton/Obama play out over the next few months. As they mangle their credibility even further, Dr. Paul is going to start looking pretty good. We've still got many months; give it a few...

[handy]

You've expressed an opinion, not a fact, even if you feel strongly that it is the truth. I have an opinion too, as do millions of other Americans and most don't agree with you or Ron Paul.

Yup. I stated an opinion. Never called it a fact. Your point?
Yes, you do have an opinion, too. Whoopee twang... Millions of other Americans voted for Bush, too.

<snip>


Dr. Paul is not going to start looking pretty good between now and this November or even years from now if either Obama or Clinton win. Paul might look like he would have been a better alternative if McCain wins, however. But that's just my opinion.QUOTE]

You really think there's a dime's worth of difference between McCain/Clinton/Obama, huh? Do you work in government? You sure do seem hostile to anyone who suggests we should have less of it...

[QUOTE=Valley Oak;53946]There's an old saying that goes: "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink."
Edward

True, dat! Try to keep that in mind.

[Lenny]

Josepha, this is simply more diatribe that misinforms and misleads people.Edward

Well, he DID allude to the fact that Congress screws up stuff mostly and we do need to change that body of scalawags. Is that the diatribe? As most of what I heard had a STRONG air of truthiness. We are a discontented lot, and it takes a TON of money to run for office, and we DO need a new voice. And the Fed Reserve Bank is bringing us down...things like that rang true to my ears. :2cents:

[Valley Oak]

I have edited my original post.
------------------------------

I believe that big government is good and FDR's New Deal and Social Security are only two excellent examples. You sure do seem hostile to anyone who thinks we should have more government.

There is a HUGE difference between McCain or Ron Paul on the one side and Obama or Clinton on the other side. I will vote for either Obama or Clinton in November.

No, I do not work in government nor will I ever. Government workers are underpaid and disrespected by people like you.

Edward


Yup. I stated an opinion. Never called it a fact. Your point?
Yes, you do have an opinion, too. Whoopee twang... Millions of other Americans voted for Bush, too.<SNIP>

You really think there's a dime's worth of difference between McCain/Clinton/Obama, huh? Do you work in government? You sure do seem hostile to anyone who suggests we should have less of it...

True, dat! Try to keep that in mind. </SNIP>

[handy]

I have edited my original post.
------------------------------

I believe that big government is good and FDR's New Deal and Social Security are only two excellent examples. You sure do seem hostile to anyone who thinks we should have more government.

There is a HUGE difference between McCain or Ron Paul on the one side and Obama or Clinton on the other side. I will vote for either Obama or Clinton in November.

No, I do not work in government nor will I ever. Government workers are underpaid and disrespected by people like you.

Edward

Okay, so you're essentially a born again Socialist? You really need to read more. Trust me, Ron Paul and John McCain are NOT on the same side. Vote your conscience.

Now your last couple of statements I have to take apart. Given the first statement, "No, I do not work in government nor will I ever.", then the first part of the second statement, "Government workers are underpaid-" is utter propaganda/nonsense/ idiocy. HOW, exactly, would YOU know?

But the last part, "and disrespected by people like you", shows the lack of courtesy, and inability to remain civil through a conversation that marks the true socialist, meanly attempting to belittle what he cannot comprehend.

My wife works for a city government. I have 10 years experience administering subsidized housing. I am also a VietNam veteran, and have seen government get FUBAR. So see if you can pick up your little turd of ignorance regarding what you know about my sense of respect, and put it back where it belongs.

Enjoy life.

[Valley Oak]

Barry, I would like to flag this inappropriate post for being very disrespectful. The poster could have made his point without the blatant insults.

Edward


Okay, so you're essentially a born again Socialist? You really need to read more. Trust me, Ron Paul and John McCain are NOT on the same side. Vote your conscience.

Now your last couple of statements I have to take apart. Given the first statement, "No, I do not work in government nor will I ever.", then the first part of the second statement, "Government workers are underpaid-" is utter propaganda/nonsense/ idiocy. HOW, exactly, would YOU know?

But the last part, "and disrespected by people like you", shows the lack of courtesy, and inability to remain civil through a conversation that marks the true socialist, meanly attempting to belittle what he cannot comprehend.

My wife works for a city government. I have 10 years experience administering subsidized housing. I am also a VietNam veteran, and have seen government get FUBAR. So see if you can pick up your little turd of ignorance regarding what you know about my sense of respect, and put it back where it belongs.

Enjoy life.

[handy]

Barry, I would like to flag this inappropriate post for being very disrespectful. The poster could have made his point without the blatant insults.

Edward

So, in lieu of civil discourse, and without knowing me, you accuse me of disrespecting government workers. That was the initial discourtesy and the first thinly veiled insult.

You're correct; I have no respect for someone making such an unfounded accusation. I merely tossed it back in your face. Somehow this becomes "blatant insults"? And you have to run to Mommy (Barry) to whine?

It's okay little valley acorn. Now that I see how thin skinned and self righteous you seem to be, I won't bother with any further attempts at conversation with you.

Have fun. Be careful. Enjoy life. Goodbye.

[OrchardDweller]

here's another great installment of Dr. Paul putting Fed chairman Bernanke in the hot seat.

Ron Paul Berates Bernanke at Joint Economic Committee 04/02/08
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbi-0Tg1b_g

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

[Valley Oak]

Now that I've put 'handy' on my ignore list, I have this to say:

Ron Paul would be almost everyone's nightmare if he ever became president, including those who helped him get there. In many regards, Paul would be like Bush on steroids and have a deplorably destructive public policy.

Extremists like Ron Paul are reckless and irresponsible and will NEVER become president. They don't stand a chance precisely because they are crazies with crackpot policies in mind that would ruin this nation even further. Only other crackpots follow him.

Either Obama or Clinton will be the next president of the United States with my vote and the votes of millions of Americans who know better.

Edward



I have edited my original post.
------------------------------

I believe that big government is good and FDR's New Deal and Social Security are only two excellent examples. You sure do seem hostile to anyone who thinks we should have more government.

There is a HUGE difference between McCain or Ron Paul on the one side and Obama or Clinton on the other side. I will vote for either Obama or Clinton in November.

No, I do not work in government nor will I ever. Government workers are underpaid and disrespected by people like you.

Edward

[Lenny]

So see if you can pick up your little turd of ignorance regarding what you know about my sense of respect, and put it back where it belongs.
Enjoy life.

Toothpaste/tube: return.

Ouch.

But I do admire the Post Office. I worked for them as a youth for about 2 years, until the draft. The AMOUNT of stuff and speed we get it (generally) is truly remarkable.

[Valley Oak]

Lenny is also on my ignore list. Now I don't have his diatribe vomited all over me anymore either.

Edward


Now that I've put 'handy' on my ignore list, I have this to say:

Ron Paul would be almost everyone's nightmare if he ever became president, including those who helped him get there. In many regards, Paul would be like Bush on steroids and have a deplorably destructive public policy.

Extremists like Ron Paul are reckless and irresponsible and will NEVER become president. They don't stand a chance precisely because they are crazies with crackpot policies in mind that would ruin this nation even further. Only other crackpots follow him.

Either Obama or Clinton will be the next president of the United States with my vote and the votes of millions of Americans who know better.

Edward

[handy]

Ron Paul, Before the Joint Economic Committee, April 2, 2008: Hearing on "The Economic Outlook"

https://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul451.html

[cdegenhardt]

you are right, our economy can not afford to loose the cheap slavery work force!!!
9 trillion dollars went to Mexico???????????????
I like it how you juxtaposed those two together
if RonPaul is as crooked as your thinking, he deserve to loose

would it be possible to elaborate on your facts??

this is like a voluntary tax, right?
.
this is a bunch of hogwash.
the rich pay less taxes than the poor
does Ron know about this??????

what things?
as far as I know, only one person voted against the war!
a black woman!!!
that is very beneficial for rich republicans
not many others will benefit from this candidate!!!!!!


Actually, a total of seven (7) people voted against the war that I know of. Ron Paul was, in fact, one of them. Barack Obama was another, along with the very bright and principled "Black Woman" from Berkely and four others. Ron Paul is actually very bright about financial issues and warned about the potential for our current financial situation some time ago. He's quite the straight arrow, very principled. He also understands commodities and stocks and credit amazingly well - far better than out current Treasury Director it seems. And he really is far more Libertarian in his leanings that Republican - a good thing as far as I'm concerned. All that said, I can't vote for him. He's just no where near "un" Republican enough for me.

[d-cat]

Actually, a total of seven (7) people voted against the war that I know of. Ron Paul was, in fact, one of them. Barack Obama was another...

Are you sure about Obama? Got a link?

Because Obama votes for funding the war (like McCain), according to Fact Check:

https://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_truth_on_troop_support.html


Ron Paul is actually very bright about financial issues and warned about the potential for our current financial situation some time ago. He's quite the straight arrow, very principled. He also understands commodities and stocks and credit amazingly well - far better than out current Treasury Director it seems. And he really is far more Libertarian in his leanings that Republican - a good thing as far as I'm concerned. All that said, I can't vote for him. He's just no where near "un" Republican enough for me.

I prefer content over a label. But Ron Paul is not in the race anymore. He's busy with a Revolution.