Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

B5KyWxU-bkg

fox news player hating as usual

lwo0Iyrh1Zk&feature=player_embedded#at=13

He's gonna lose.

Originally posted by red g jacks
lwo0Iyrh1Zk&feature=player_embedded#at=13

HOLY SH*T!

I canNOT believe what I'm seeing. That's such horrible dishonesty. Surely the makers of that video are lying? There's no way that something like that could be true...



Could not Ron Paul sue for slander or something illegal like that?

It's so naive. He professes to be Jeffersonian, espouses Washingtonian foreign policy values, decries Carter and Obama realities that are the end result of every Republican president since Nixon (and Clinton, I might add), evokes Eisenhower (91% tax rates) and his distrust of the MIC, bables about the end of the gold standard, while never once addressing the reality that to do everything he proposes is to instantly decrease the standard of living for every single teenager in that crowd that treats him the same way they themselves shitcan anyone who supported Obama in'08; as unrealistic hopeydreamy idealists. He craps, constantly, on democrats and republicans, while never once seriously entertaining the idea of forming his own party; consuming the very same kind of unrealistic idealism his supporters poopoo when others support any and everyone else. He speaks of the founding fathers as though their words flow directly from him, while ignoring that Presidents like Adams (1) and Jefferson wrote constantly to one another about how their intentions would be corrupted, through misinterpretation OR stagnation via rhetoric for political gain, the same way Jesus' teaching were perverted by those who sought to increase their own influence and wealth at His expense. He speaks constantly of giving up taxes to support a government -flat or otherwise- and then, like every republican, decries any responsability for that government to give back to those from whom they collected those taxes. Every pedal pusher in the audience clapped and hoped and drooled over 10% taxes, free and clear, but then also salivated when they heard pavlov's bell of "not depending on the government for anything" mentioned.

What drivel, to assume that the economics of the founding father's is at all realistic in this day and age of global trade agreements, peak oil production having passed and interconnected standards of living.

His supporters should be on their knees in front of Jimmy Carter, not calling him Obama v1.0

Originally posted by dadudemon
HOLY SH*T!

I canNOT believe what I'm seeing. That's such horrible dishonesty. Surely the makers of that video are lying? There's no way that something like that could be true...



Could not Ron Paul sue for slander or something illegal like that?
Fox does that kind of thing all the time... this isn't even near the worst case.

Originally posted by skekUng
It's so naive. He professes to be Jeffersonian, espouses Washingtonian foreign policy values, decries Carter and Obama realities that are the end result of every Republican president since Nixon (and Clinton, I might add), evokes Eisenhower (91% tax rates) and his distrust of the MIC, bables about the end of the gold standard, while never once addressing the reality that to do everything he proposes is to instantly decrease the standard of living for every single teenager in that crowd that treats him the same way they themselves shitcan anyone who supported Obama in'08; as unrealistic hopeydreamy idealists. He craps, constantly, on democrats and republicans, while never once seriously entertaining the idea of forming his own party; consuming the very same kind of unrealistic idealism his supporters poopoo when others support any and everyone else. He speaks of the founding fathers as though their words flow directly from him, while ignoring that Presidents like Adams (1) and Jefferson wrote constantly to one another about how their intentions would be corrupted, through misinterpretation OR stagnation via rhetoric for political gain, the same way Jesus' teaching were perverted by those who sought to increase their own influence and wealth at His expense. He speaks constantly of giving up taxes to support a government -flat or otherwise- and then, like every republican, decries any responsability for that government to give back to those from whom they collected those taxes. Every pedal pusher in the audience clapped and hoped and drooled over 10% taxes, free and clear, but then also salivated when they heard pavlov's bell of "not depending on the government for anything" mentioned.

What drivel, to assume that the economics of the founding father's is at all realistic in this day and age of global trade agreements, peak oil production having passed and interconnected standards of living.

His supporters should be on their knees in front of Jimmy Carter, not calling him Obama v1.0 killjoy

RON PAUL WILL SAVE AMERICA.

Now get him in office and see how he does nothing spetacular, I for one don't think Presidential hopefuls should resort to catchy gimmicks, "Revolution", about as useful as the "Hope and Change" we got with Obama.

I am for giving him four years though, even if he is an old, old fart.

Sorry, Rob, but that makes zero sense.

I didn't intend to be a killjoy, but nothing I said isn't 100% true. The huge difference between Mr. Paul's position and then-candidate Obama is that Mr. Paul ignores the reality that sacrifice is going to be necessary in order to sustain even a semblence of our current lifestyle. When President Carter pointed that out to the nation, members of the party Mr. Paul refuses to leave decided to spend the next three decades promoting the idea that 'Muricans don't have to give up anything, and then replaced him with a Campbell's Soup spokesman that gutted the regulations that protected the very people Paul now wants to jump to their feet and revolt. The vague similarity is that President Obama is actually making budget cuts (not all of them the most intelligent, but cuts none-the-less) and Mr. Paul would rather just scrap the entire federal government. Supporters of Paul and the Republicans ignore how much that government does for them, and the blinding reality that the existence of any government since the industrial revolution hasn't just been about getting together and agreeing to make murder illegal and pave a few roads; it's been about promoting the progress of technology and luxury. That's why the government has been sold to private business. The dialing back of political -and, by extension social- progress that would accompany his style of governing is so fundamentally impossible at this point, that not one person who supports his ideology -not just his rhetoric- is willing to understand that means a total shift in the way they enjoy their own standard of living. It's always nice to scream "**** the Government!" so loudly that you can't hear that little voice in the back of your own head whispering "...but, We The People ARE the ****ing government.", but it's naive.

Originally posted by skekUng
Sorry, Rob, but that makes zero sense.


I'm not a dump-on-Obama at every chance type, but let's face it, "hope and change" is falling short, sure he took office over a country that was/is waged in a costly and nigh-endless war, massive deficit and other nonsense, still, he's not delivering all that much and his recent breaking of a major campaign promise (tax cuts) is just pure fail and a dick-slap across the face to those who voted for him.

I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is that it makes no sense to compare empty promises and then begrudgingly cast your support for the even more profoundly unrealistic of the two.

Originally posted by skekUng
I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is that it makes no sense to compare empty promises and then begrudgingly cast your support for the even more profoundly unrealistic of the two.

Oh, the "give him a shot". I'll tell you why, even though I don't think Paul would be able to implement a small portion of his ideas (said this long before the 2008 election) because as you noted, they're not applicable in real world practice and that some of his stances would be outright lunacy (eg turning our back on 60+ years of foreign policy), I'm still willing to give people a shot, the man's obviously popular, let him get in office and do basically nothing of what's he's promised; turn out to be a lame duck and a stale four years. That will shut the Paulitions up and we can move on to the next "revolutionary" would-be hero/savior.

Best case scenario, he proves to be some political messiah and America is better for it. I wouldn't bet a $1.00 on this, but you never know.

Fair enough.

I simply don't see any point in wasting four years of our country, especially in this very critical time, on someone you already know isn't just selling bullshit, but unrealistic bullshit.

right i'm not a libertarian i just liked his speech.. there's plenty of shit i disagree with him about, but i think he seems more honest and principled than these other assholes we've got to deal with, granted that's not saying much.

i'm pretty confident that if he did take office all of his 'revolutionary' ideas would translate to a more gradual breaking down of what he considers the more excessive functions of a wasteful government. partially for the very reason you listed, the massive effect it would have on the american lifestyle. we see how slowly obama's 'change' is taking to have the desired effect, i dont see why we would expect anything different under ron paul. he's been on congress for a while now, to assume he doesn't understand that idealistic rhetoric will get him in office but once he gets there must be 'sacrificed' for a more pragmatic approach seems unfounded. i would think as a career politician he knows this all too well.

but more than i'd support ron paul or any one candidate i support the idea that the two party system we have in place is going nowhere and that it's about time to shake things up a bit. and yes i'm well aware that he's not going to win, and seemingly refuses to run as an independent. ralph nader's not going to win either but i like some of his speeches too.

Correct, they all spew shit to get into office, some more than others. But wouldn't it be nice just once to have a presidential hopeful say "*this* is what I'd like to do; *this* is what I'll likely be able to do, which won't be a whole lot of what I like. But vote for me if you agree." Instead of the song-n-dance show with the catchy key phrase.

what a strange statement about democracy it is when you can say you would rather vote for the person who admits that the democratic process wont lead you to the change or type of nation you want...

Not necessarily so, it's about honesty and small changes at a time. Shit won't flip overnight.

well, yes, but what does it mean for democracy if an honest candidate is the one who admits their policy choices are moot?

Not so much moot; realistic practices.

edit: and yes, the US political system is broken and corrupt. My vote doesn't compare to the $$$ the corporations can dish out.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, yes, but what does it mean for democracy if an honest candidate is the one who admits their policy choices are moot?

That we need honest candidates that aren't also insane?

Originally posted by inimalist
well, yes, but what does it mean for democracy if an honest candidate is the one who admits their policy choices are moot? i see it more as they'd have to be up front about the fact that these policies would have to be severely watered down by the time they were able to pass any actual legislation. which of course would be a terrible campaign platform... so yea i see your point

i cant believe that shite. Fox News seriously skipped journalism class and being impartial and whatnot pursuing the truth.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not so much moot; realistic practices.

edit: and yes, the US political system is broken and corrupt. My vote doesn't compare to the $$$ the corporations can dish out.

but if realistic is "we do what the overlords say so as we don't rock the boat and lose cheap chinese labor"....

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That we need honest candidates that aren't also insane?

but "insanity" here is defined by what it is possible to do in a geo-politico-economic environment, rather than by good policy choices.

If someone legitimately wanted to change things for the better, they would be up against an entrenched system in Washington, and would essentially have no power to change that the system itself wasn't in favor of

Originally posted by red g jacks
i see it more as they'd have to be up front about the fact that these policies would have to be severely watered down by the time they were able to pass any actual legislation. which of course would be a terrible campaign platform... so yea i see your point

I'm not even really talking about the ability of such a candidate to win, but rather questioning the relevancy of any candidate in such a system. If there is a very specific range of policies that the power brokers in a society will allow for, and the political system is arranged in such a way to provide it for them, the policy preferences of any person elected into office are essentially pointless. Its almost like, why not just vote for whoever is hotter? A head of lettuce would produce roughly similar results

Originally posted by King Castle
i cant believe that shite. Fox News seriously skipped journalism class and being impartial and whatnot pursuing the truth.

"Fair and honest", bro.

"i think i prefer it my way."

Lord of War

Originally posted by King Castle
i cant believe that shite. Fox News seriously skipped journalism class and being impartial and whatnot pursuing the truth. not that its some sort of revelation that fox news is bullshit... but i find it interesting how keen they are on suppressing ron paul. here's a guy that doesn't stand a chance, right? so why are fox so focused on mocking him during each election cycle yet seemingly value his opinion whenever he's ranting about obama's fiscal policy in the off season. it's sort of like the definitive proof that they're interested in the future of the republican party specifically. if they were just about hating liberals then paul would be their wet dream. anti spending anti obama.. espouses all the original views of the 'tea party,' so why they hatin 4?
Originally posted by inimalist

I'm not even really talking about the ability of such a candidate to win, but rather questioning the relevancy of any candidate in such a system. If there is a very specific range of policies that the power brokers in a society will allow for, and the political system is arranged in such a way to provide it for them, the policy preferences of any person elected into office are essentially pointless. Its almost like, why not just vote for whoever is hotter? A head of lettuce would produce roughly similar results if you mean the relevancy of strict honesty, i guess the only actual benefit would be that you get what you pay for. of course this is true with normal politicians but only once you manage to get used to the pattern and know what to expect despite their lies.

but i do see why they have to resort to marketing to boost themselves into power. that's how the game is played. i guess the relevance of the honest factor is if they were always honest they wouldn't get away with most the shit they do. of course an honest politician wont ever get far so this is all conjecture.

this is why i rather get my news from the newspaper to me it seems more credible and impartial.

but doing so i miss more broader issues.

I'd personally like to see Ron Paul in a cabinet position

Originally posted by Robtard
Not necessarily so, it's about honesty and small changes at a time. Shit won't flip overnight.

Then when the President said he couldn't accomplish a complete economic recovery over night, people shouldn't be rabid when the country doesn't bounce back the day after he took the oath of office. Not an accusation aimed at you, simply a common sense observation. -Also one that does not mention that every policy or effort made by the administration for it's first two years was fought to a complete political stand still by a group of pissed off sore losers.

Originally posted by Robtard
Correct, they all spew shit to get into office, some more than others. But wouldn't it be nice just once to have a presidential hopeful say "*this* is what I'd like to do; *this* is what I'll likely be able to do, which won't be a whole lot of what I like. But vote for me if you agree." Instead of the song-n-dance show with the catchy key phrase.

But as you pointed out, that is exactly what he's doing. Instead of hope and change, he's selling 'revolution!' and 'doesn't the government just suck?'

Originally posted by inimalist
what a strange statement about democracy it is when you can say you would rather vote for the person who admits that the democratic process wont lead you to the change or type of nation you want...

That is exactly the sentiment expressed by the supporters of which ever political party isn't in power at any given time. It's as old as the political parties in this country; as old as the federalists and democratic republicans.

Originally posted by King Castle
this is why i rather get my news from the newspaper to me it seems more credible and impartial.

but doing so i miss more broader issues.

Newspapers are rarely any less partial.

Originally posted by red g jacks
espouses all the original views of the 'tea party,' so why they hatin 4?

The tea party doesn't even espouse the views of the tea party.

Originally posted by skekUng
Then when the President said he couldn't accomplish a complete economic recovery over night, people shouldn't be rabid when the country doesn't bounce back the day after he took the oath of office. Not an accusation aimed at you, simply a common sense observation. -Also one that does not mention that every policy or effort made by the administration for it's first two years was fought to a complete political stand still by a group of pissed off sore losers. some of us just aren't so sure that the current level of spending can really be maintained. i dont think anyone is simply disappointed that he didnt turn shit around overnight besides some of the people who probably voted him in. i think most of the dissent comes from the fact that we're faced with an economic crisis, now they debt is much bigger and the crisis hasn't changed. even if it worked to stall off worse effects i think in the end its not going to be worth the bill.

Originally posted by red g jacks
some of us just aren't so sure that the current level of spending can really be maintained. i dont think anyone is simply disappointed that he didnt turn shit around overnight besides some of the people who probably voted him in. i think most of the dissent comes from the fact that we're faced with an economic crisis, now they debt is much bigger and the crisis hasn't changed. even if it worked to stall off worse effects i think in the end its not going to be worth the bill.

No one thinks the level of spending can be maintained. This is why the administration slashed the budget. Voting in the party that wants to further deregulate wall street and lef the country in 13 trillion dollars worth of debt doesn't make sense, but that is exactly what we did in the midterms.

right i seem to be getting mixed reviews on his budget cuts.. we'll see if they have any effect or not. it might be too little too late if the neo-cons oust him in 2012.

Ron Paul is so frustrating to me. As an economic libertarian, I want to like him so badly, but he's such a dumb sh*t on certain things that I can't say I'm into him. That statement isn't really a commentary on the OP's video, just Paul in general.

But sure, give his ass 4 years. For science, if nothing else. I'd enjoy seeing the results on the country. A shame it'll never happen.

Originally posted by Digi
Ron Paul is so frustrating to me. As an economic libertarian, I want to like him so badly, but he's such a dumb sh*t on certain things that I can't say I'm into him. That statement isn't really a commentary on the OP's video, just Paul in general.

But sure, give his ass 4 years. For science, if nothing else. I'd enjoy seeing the results on the country. A shame it'll never happen.

I'd love to see him in office, just with a very compotent, nearly communist opposition, and a close split of both houses

I think he has so many great ideas, but like you said, sort of goes bananas on some other things. With a strong and at least relatively powerful opposition though, I think it might just work

It won't work, though; not without plunging the modern American's standard of living back into the agricultural age from which this nation was born. He demands to be a member of a party that refuses to accept that the planet's resources are finite; espouses outdated economic rhetoric as though the local blacksmith shouldn't be trodden on by the government; wants money to be based soley on tangible wealth like gold, while ignoring that would mean that 99.9% of people in this country would suddenly have no money, decries American Empire as though sucking up the resources of other nations through military superiority isn't the only reason the dollar has any value and US citizens can afford tube socks, soup and electricity because of it; pretends he thinks there is a prepackaged American ingenuity-based replacement for the fact that a majority of our economy is based on being the consumers of the capitalist arm of China; supports the green revolution as long as it doesn't trample on the capitalism of oil companies...and on and on and on. The assumption of so many people is that others voted for Obama because he muttered "Hope" and "Change", like they didn't know it was a tagline.

Originally posted by skekUng
He professes to be Jeffersonian,

But.....he is Jeffersonian on multiple policies. He's also not only "Jeffersonian" and has never said he was.

Edit - I understand now what you make this seem negative: you think all polices from the nascent US are bad.

Originally posted by skekUng
espouses Washingtonian foreign policy values,

You mean George Washington's Farewell Address (because "Washingtonian" foreign Policy is not a real political term, it's a word made up when people want to pontificate (nothing wrong with that, just make sure you pontificate with accuracy).

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=washingtonian+foreign+policy (Ignore the smartass way it goes about taking you to the results, please: just wanted a quick way to show you the results.)

Originally posted by skekUng
decries Carter and Obama realities that are the end result of every Republican president since Nixon (and Clinton, I might add),

This "feels" like empty rhetoric on your part. I don't think that you can legitimately substantiate the above claim without showing that you're just typing out empty anti-Paul rhetoric. If you do attempt to substantiate that, you'll end up showing that you misunderstood Paul, were simply wrong, or a combination of the 2.

Originally posted by skekUng
evokes Eisenhower (91% tax rates)

Oh, wow. You could not be further from the truth. Just the opposite. Are you getting your information directly from Ron Paul's stances or are you getting this from an anti-Ron Paul blog?

As fact, here's the reference you are taking out of context:



http://www.jeremiahproject.com/trashingamerica/healthcare.html

Seems to have been taken completely out of context on your part. He's not talking about 91% tax rates. Just the opposite: he wants to eliminate income taxes or settle for a flat tax. In addition, he wants to give the same tax benefits that the RICH get.

Originally posted by skekUng
and his distrust of the MIC,

That's definitely wrong in addition to also being an inappropriate criticism. The MIC is so heavily entrenched in the government's pockets that it is almost impossible to cut certain programs because they intelligently fragment projects into different programs. If that's not corrupt, I do not know what is.

Additionally, he wants to cut the budget, massively, to military. Why is that a problem?

Originally posted by skekUng
bables about the end of the gold standard,

Oh, you mean the illegality of NOT using gold and silver? He's not whining: he's right.

He's also advocated the removal of taxes on gold transactions. He also has stated that he does not want to go back, 100% to a pure "gold standard."

Here's the official quote:

RKQmYfY3R7c

Start at around 2 minutes.

He proposes a "newer" type of gold standard. It's not the "pure" gold standard of yesteryear.

Originally posted by skekUng
while never once addressing the reality that to do everything he proposes is to instantly decrease the standard of living for every single teenager in that crowd that treats him the same way they themselves shitcan anyone who supported Obama in'08;

Decreasing the rate of inflation, extending tax benefits related to healthcare to the average joe, and even trying to get rid of income taxes? That's runs directly opposite to your anti-Paul rhetoric.


Originally posted by skekUng
as unrealistic hopeydreamy idealists.

Unrealistic because of corruption and a gigantic government, not because all of his ideas are bad. We would need 20 years to undo 70 years of crappy government polices.

Originally posted by skekUng
He craps, constantly, on democrats and republicans, while never once seriously entertaining the idea of forming his own party;

As do most rational, free-thinking voters.

Additionally, the diversity in the democratic and republican parties is huge. Why does he need to form his own party when he fits in just fine into his own party's ideals (the Republican party is much larger than it's contemporary elected officials. The same goes for the Democratic party.)

Originally posted by skekUng
consuming the very same kind of unrealistic idealism his supporters poopoo when others support any and everyone else.

You REALLY hate Ron Paul, don't you?

Anyway, again, only unrealistic because it would be impossible to dismantle so much infrastructure without falling prey to what I outlined to Darth Jello a week back.

Originally posted by skekUng
He speaks of the founding fathers as though their words flow directly from him,

If by that you mean, "the constitution of the USA", then, yes, the words flow right through him. What's different about Paul is he "hides" directly behind the most correct and fundamental elements of our laws rather than hiding behind the bloated legislation we have today.

Originally posted by skekUng
while ignoring that Presidents like Adams (1) and Jefferson wrote constantly to one another about how their intentions would be corrupted, through misinterpretation OR stagnation via rhetoric for political gain,

Can you provide examples of Ron Paul corruptly interpreted or misinterpretted the constitution? From what I can tell, he's the exact opposite of what you stated above.

Originally posted by skekUng
He speaks constantly of giving up taxes to support a government -flat or otherwise-

No, not really.

Originally posted by skekUng
and then, like every republican, decries any responsability for that government to give back to those from whom they collected those taxes.

No, not that either.

In fact, this particular point of yours is exactly wrong. You would have been correct if you had stated something like, "He whines about the big corrupt government stealing from it's people and lying about what they do with the money." He supports a small flat-tax (10%) if eliminating income taxes is not possible.

Originally posted by skekUng
Every pedal pusher in the audience clapped and hoped and drooled over 10% taxes, free and clear, but then also salivated when they heard pavlov's bell of "not depending on the government for anything" mentioned.

So...where's the problem with that?

Originally posted by skekUng
What drivel, to assume that the economics of the founding father's is at all realistic in this day and age of global trade agreements, peak oil production having passed and interconnected standards of living

So Ron Paul is advocating we change the US system to that of the one 1792 (he's not)? You also believe that all of the policies in the constitution are not at all realistic in today (because, that's what you've indicated with your sweeping statement)?


Originally posted by skekUng
His supporters should be on their knees in front of Jimmy Carter, not calling him Obama v1.0

I've never heard one single Ron Paul supporter calling him "Obama" or "Obama version 1." The best I've heard from Paul supporters is people saying something similar, "Meh, I guess I'll have to settle for Obama."

Originally posted by Robtard
"Fair and honest", bro.

Fair and Balanced*

Feh, Ron Paul. The guy and his son skeeve me out and set off my racist and antisemitic spider sense worse than Pat Buchanan writing a Reagan speech. Besides, Libertarianism is failed concept. It didn't work 200 years ago, it is largely responsible for the mess we're in right now, and there's no way for digging up out of the hole. We should stop listening to morons like Ron Paul and the fascist tea baggers and embrace hard line social democracy in the style of Europe in the 1980's and the German Iron Front in the 1930's. Freedom, security, and employment for all, Justice for all, innovation helping all, and zero tolerance of conservatism (aka what it really is, post-enlightenment feudalism), communism, and fascism.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, you mean the illegality of NOT using gold and silver? He's not whining: he's right.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If by that you mean, "the constitution of the USA", then, yes, the words flow right through him. What's different about Paul is he "hides" directly behind the most correct and fundamental elements of our laws rather than hiding behind the bloated legislation we have today.

This seems no better than Biblical literalism. How cans he "believe in the Constitution" but not in the legitimacy of the institutions it created? Last I checked the THE CONSTITUTION said that deciding if a law was constitutional or not was the job of the Supreme Court rather than unilateral declarations by Congressman.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But.....he is Jeffersonian on multiple policies. He's also not only "Jeffersonian" and has never said he was.

Edit - I understand now what you make this seem negative: you think all polices from the nascent US are bad.



You mean George Washington's Farewell Address (because "Washingtonian" foreign Policy is not a real political term, it's a word made up when people want to pontificate (nothing wrong with that, just make sure you pontificate with accuracy).

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=washingtonian+foreign+policy (Ignore the smartass way it goes about taking you to the results, please: just wanted a quick way to show you the results.)



This "feels" like empty rhetoric on your part. I don't think that you can legitimately substantiate the above claim without showing that you're just typing out empty anti-Paul rhetoric. If you do attempt to substantiate that, you'll end up showing that you misunderstood Paul, were simply wrong, or a combination of the 2.



Oh, wow. You could not be further from the truth. Just the opposite. Are you getting your information directly from Ron Paul's stances or are you getting this from an anti-Ron Paul blog?

As fact, here's the reference you are taking out of context:



http://www.jeremiahproject.com/trashingamerica/healthcare.html

Seems to have been taken completely out of context on your part. He's not talking about 91% tax rates. Just the opposite: he wants to eliminate income taxes or settle for a flat tax. In addition, he wants to give the same tax benefits that the RICH get.



That's definitely wrong in addition to also being an inappropriate criticism. The MIC is so heavily entrenched in the government's pockets that it is almost impossible to cut certain programs because they intelligently fragment projects into different programs. If that's not corrupt, I do not know what is.

Additionally, he wants to cut the budget, massively, to military. Why is that a problem?



Oh, you mean the illegality of NOT using gold and silver? He's not whining: he's right.

He's also advocated the removal of taxes on gold transactions. He also has stated that he does not want to go back, 100% to a pure "gold standard."

Here's the official quote:

RKQmYfY3R7c

Start at around 2 minutes.

He proposes a "newer" type of gold standard. It's not the "pure" gold standard of yesteryear.



Decreasing the rate of inflation, extending tax benefits related to healthcare to the average joe, and even trying to get rid of income taxes? That's runs directly opposite to your anti-Paul rhetoric.




Unrealistic because of corruption and a gigantic government, not because all of his ideas are bad. We would need 20 years to undo 70 years of crappy government polices.



As do most rational, free-thinking voters.

Additionally, the diversity in the democratic and republican parties is huge. Why does he need to form his own party when he fits in just fine into his own party's ideals (the Republican party is much larger than it's contemporary elected officials. The same goes for the Democratic party.)



You REALLY hate Ron Paul, don't you?

Anyway, again, only unrealistic because it would be impossible to dismantle so much infrastructure without falling prey to what I outlined to Darth Jello a week back.



If by that you mean, "the constitution of the USA", then, yes, the words flow right through him. What's different about Paul is he "hides" directly behind the most correct and fundamental elements of our laws rather than hiding behind the bloated legislation we have today.



Can you provide examples of Ron Paul corruptly interpreted or misinterpretted the constitution? From what I can tell, he's the exact opposite of what you stated above.



No, not really.



No, not that either.

In fact, this particular point of yours is exactly wrong. You would have been correct if you had stated something like, "He whines about the big corrupt government stealing from it's people and lying about what they do with the money." He supports a small flat-tax (10%) if eliminating income taxes is not possible.



So...where's the problem with that?



So Ron Paul is advocating we change the US system to that of the one 1792 (he's not)? You also believe that all of the policies in the constitution are not at all realistic in today (because, that's what you've indicated with your sweeping statement)?




I've never heard one single Ron Paul supporter calling him "Obama" or "Obama version 1." The best I've heard from Paul supporters is people saying something similar, "Meh, I guess I'll have to settle for Obama."

No, I do not misunderstand Ron Paul, but your entire post screams of misunderstanding what I have said. In the morning, I'll tell you exactly what you misunderstood, stepped over, misconstrude and flat out ignored in favor of your position that Ron Paul is what you are now saying that I think of Obama; that he is the answer to everything. You're wrong, just as wrong as Mr. Paul, in your understanding of reality.

Originally posted by skekUng
No, I do not misunderstand Ron Paul, but your entire post screams of misunderstanding what I have said. In the morning, I'll tell you exactly what you misunderstood, stepped over, misconstrude and flat out ignored in favor of your position that Ron Paul is what you are now saying that I think of Obama; that he is the answer to everything. You're wrong, just as wrong as Mr. Paul, in your understanding of reality.

I figured I would at least give you post a fair shake. Everyone else seemed to not really take it seriously. I think you did make some good points, but most of them were either wrong or the typical political poop slinging. There's much better criticisms that I've seen such as "ending birthright citizenships." I like that "law." I do agree that the reasons around that, ending illegal immigrant welfare, is a good idea.

I was talking to Robtard about Paul a few years back and I think I concluded that I liked somewhere between 70-90% of what he had to offer.


I'm against and for a flat tax.

I think we should become super isolationist compared to what we do now, but also improve foreign relations. That means: bring troops home, fire half of them, and put the rest to better work. Instead of spending tens of billions building and protecting other nations, why can't we spend about half of that, domestically? What's wrong with the army building houses, here, instead of in a poor country? What's wrong with feeding, via our military, the poor, here? And so forth.

There's a huge list of things he has great ideas on...but there's also a sizable list of things that are either not feasible or just can't happen. (And those lists overlap.) Just like Romney, I really don't care about listing out tons and tons of positions and telling you why I agree or disagree with each point: that would take hours.


So, I concede whatever it is you will counter.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This seems no better than Biblical literalism. How cans he "believe in the Constitution" but not in the legitimacy of the institutions it created? Last I checked the THE CONSTITUTION said that deciding if a law was constitutional or not was the job of the Supreme Court rather than unilateral declarations by Congressman.

Some things are very specific and easy to understand. Such as, the way we conduct war, 'handle' money, and so forth. No amount of the application of the elastic clause can justify those other than: "Who the **** cares about what the constitution says?" No challenge reaches the SC, the law happens. At this point, it is impossible to dismantle them.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I figured I would at least give you post a fair shake. Everyone else seemed to not really take it seriously. I think you did make some good points, but most of them were either wrong or the typical political poop slinging. There's much better criticisms that I've seen such as "ending birthright citizenships." I like that "law." I do agree that the reasons around that, ending illegal immigrant welfare, is a good idea.

I was talking to Robtard about Paul a few years back and I think I concluded that I liked somewhere between 70-90% of what he had to offer.


I'm against and for a flat tax.

I think we should become super isolationist compared to what we do now, but also improve foreign relations. That means: bring troops home, fire half of them, and put the rest to better work. Instead of spending tens of billions building and protecting other nations, why can't we spend about half of that, domestically? What's wrong with the army building houses, here, instead of in a poor country? What's wrong with feeding, via our military, the poor, here? And so forth.

There's a huge list of things he has great ideas on...but there's also a sizable list of things that are either not feasible or just can't happen. (And those lists overlap.) Just like Romney, I really don't care about listing out tons and tons of positions and telling you why I agree or disagree with each point: that would take hours.


So, I concede whatever it is you will counter.

That's a nice way of going back an pretending you know everything I'm going to day as a response to your bullshit post; your bullshit, assumptive post. Had you waited until I responded, then you might have come across as more certain of your statements AND less insecure of your ability to totally misinterpret a post. On the internet. Where we both apparently spend to much time.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But.....he is Jeffersonian on multiple policies. He's also not only "Jeffersonian" and has never said he was.

Edit - I understand now what you make this seem negative: you think all polices from the nascent US are bad.

It is exactly nascent. The fact that you realized that afterwards explains a alot of what you're capable of understanding that counters what Mr. Paul pretends not to understand - even though you now decide to use it as a reason to further your support for the man.

Mr. Jefferson wrote a living document, meant to change with the understand, evolution and progress of the times. Some of this change has happened under republican control, under democrat control, etc. What corrupts Mr. Pauls ideaology, thus making it naive, is that it hinges uppon any and every evolution of the document. Mr. Paul wants the wordsof our founders to be absolute and unchanging. This is not only unrealistic, but it is -as I pointed out earlier- not Jeffersonian. Mr. Jefferson spoke at length to Mr. Adams about this happening with their words, just as they did with the words of Jesus the Christ. What might strike Mr. Paul, is the profound sympathy Thomas Jefferson had for him, even though Jefferson called for revolution in every generation, it wasn't the kind of head-in-the-sand revolution Mr. Paul espouses his own support. Mr. Jefferson, more than anybody, more than Mr Paul, understood the constitution was a document concieved of as a living one. A document meant to change with the times and hoped that those elected to change it were bright enough to know how and why they were doing so. Mr Paul draws a line in the sand, and ignores the intentions of the very document he professes to holdin such high regard. His writing proves that. His son's public positions cement that.





Exactly the historical reference I am addressing...one Mr Paul claims with little ebarassment. Mr. Jefferson ignored Washington's advice, based on the shift in political realities of the time. That shift was based on the reality that what happened with the barbary pirates, Adams sedition act, etc, were realities facing the country of that time. Mr. Paul wants to end every foreign entanglment, but ignores thaqt doing such a thing would mean the end of every teenager cheering for him at C-Pac, but also people like yourself who post on the internet about him being the greatest constitutionalist since the founding fathers themselves.

Not rhetoric, at least not on my part. He and his party have both decried and bashed Carter for the national call for responsability, sacrifice and understanding. He poopoos Carter as though free-market capitalism, if the government would just get out of the way, proves Carter andObama wrong. But, there is no other reality than our finite planet, the bullshit of assuming that it isn't limited and that any political perspective, global warming aside, is the position of the naive and irresponsible. Mr. Paul professing that everyone will be fine if the government gets out of the way is unrealistic and naive. Especially when he pretends to decry the government so that private business can reign free and suck up those finite respources even faster -and at a profit at the expense of their consumers- even faster



This is where you supposed two different statements, but assumed only one. He mentioned Eisenhower, but ignored the 91% tax on business, which is how Eisenhower proposed to fund that MIC -AND-AND- the progress made by Roosevelt's promises, deserved promises, to the
American people. Mr. Paul would like to see all of us pay 10 tax. Which is fine, except that he wants no ounce of government getting between a business and it's own consumers.



I have ZERO concern about cutting the military budget. But, I'm pretty sure that everyone who enjoys television, pesticides, indoor paint, cell phones, liking something on facebook or text blogging about Ron Paul does.

The entire point of my industrial revolution comments are aimed at Mr. Pauls inability or unwillingness to realize that everything this country assumes is it's standard of living, it's unapologetic standard of living, is oil based. We no longer have the oil; that's why we have an empire. It has nothiong to do with spreading democracy, spreading free market ideas, promoting common wealth among the citizens of a nation or just wanting to **** with brown people in hot parts of the world. It has everything to do with the plastic that goes into a ron paul sign, a rand paul sign, and cell phone, a tire and an airbag. Our standard of living in based entirely on our ability to consume oil. How loud will your cry for a Ron Paul presidency, or the hard on you get about thinking you've just proven something to a stranger on the internet, sound when there is no more internet, no more laptop, no more digital camera to photograph your smug face? Perhaps that sounds like a good idea given Mr. Pauls willingness to dial back our society, but as long as that return to growing corn and tobacco is still plausible for the rape of big business, then Mr. Paul will be vindicated in ignoring the desired evolution, not of money or religion or indifference, of the thought process. The very and most-pure desire of those founding father's Mr. Paul incites so often and you ignore while defending him.



RKQmYfY3R7c

Start at around 2 minutes.

He proposes a "newer" type of gold standard. It's not the "pure" gold standard of yesteryear.

Where, exactly, does that leave everyone without gold? I did close my panning operation in favor of unbacked cotton paper with a government promise facetype on it? No, but thazt's what I've been trading since the Nixon administration. My neighbor doesn't have any gold. That's fine, though, he doesn't have any kids.





You are confusing this with a conversation about anti-Paul and my support ofr Obama. I can assumre you that gutting Mr. Paul's desire for pretending that everything has to be for profit and can not be given government intrusion is a real desire of mine. It's called socialism. The marriage of socialism and democracy (which democracy really was to begin with) is the most correct way to go. So, by those standards, everything I say and support is anti-Paul. It simply doesn't take into consideration how naive Mr. Paul is, given the blind support for his strict historical interpretation. An interpretation you seem to love.

Originally posted by skekUng
That's a nice way of going back an pretending you know everything I'm going to day as a response to your bullshit post; your bullshit, assumptive post. Had you waited until I responded, then you might have come across as more certain of your statements AND less insecure of your ability to totally misinterpret a post. On the internet. Where we both apparently spend to much time.

Originally posted by skekUng
It is exactly nascent. The fact that you realized that afterwards explains a alot of what you're capable of understanding that counters what Mr. Paul pretends not to understand - even though you now decide to use it as a reason to further your support for the man.

Mr. Jefferson wrote a living document, meant to change with the understand, evolution and progress of the times. Some of this change has happened under republican control, under democrat control, etc. What corrupts Mr. Pauls ideaology, thus making it naive, is that it hinges uppon any and every evolution of the document. Mr. Paul wants the wordsof our founders to be absolute and unchanging. This is not only unrealistic, but it is -as I pointed out earlier- not Jeffersonian. Mr. Jefferson spoke at length to Mr. Adams about this happening with their words, just as they did with the words of Jesus the Christ. What might strike Mr. Paul, is the profound sympathy Thomas Jefferson had for him, even though Jefferson called for revolution in every generation, it wasn't the kind of head-in-the-sand revolution Mr. Paul espouses his own support. Mr. Jefferson, more than anybody, more than Mr Paul, understood the constitution was a document concieved of as a living one. A document meant to change with the times and hoped that those elected to change it were bright enough to know how and why they were doing so. Mr Paul draws a line in the sand, and ignores the intentions of the very document he professes to holdin such high regard. His writing proves that. His son's public positions cement that.





Exactly the historical reference I am addressing...one Mr Paul claims with little ebarassment. Mr. Jefferson ignored Washington's advice, based on the shift in political realities of the time. That shift was based on the reality that what happened with the barbary pirates, Adams sedition act, etc, were realities facing the country of that time. Mr. Paul wants to end every foreign entanglment, but ignores thaqt doing such a thing would mean the end of every teenager cheering for him at C-Pac, but also people like yourself who post on the internet about him being the greatest constitutionalist since the founding fathers themselves.



Originally posted by skekUng
Not rhetoric, at least not on my part. He and his party have both decried and bashed Carter for the national call for responsability, sacrifice and understanding. He poopoos Carter as though free-market capitalism, if the government would just get out of the way, proves Carter andObama wrong. But, there is no other reality than our finite planet, the bullshit of assuming that it isn't limited and that any political perspective, global warming aside, is the position of the naive and irresponsible. Mr. Paul professing that everyone will be fine if the government gets out of the way is unrealistic and naive. Especially when he pretends to decry the government so that private business can reign free and suck up those finite respources even faster -and at a profit at the expense of their consumers- even faster



This is where you supposed two different statements, but assumed only one. He mentioned Eisenhower, but ignored the 91% tax on business, which is how Eisenhower proposed to fund that MIC -AND-AND- the progress made by Roosevelt's promises, deserved promises, to the
American people. Mr. Paul would like to see all of us pay 10 tax. Which is fine, except that he wants no ounce of government getting between a business and it's own consumers.



I have ZERO concern about cutting the military budget. But, I'm pretty sure that everyone who enjoys television, pesticides, indoor paint, cell phones, liking something on facebook or text blogging about Ron Paul does.

The entire point of my industrial revolution comments are aimed at Mr. Pauls inability or unwillingness to realize that everything this country assumes is it's standard of living, it's unapologetic standard of living, is oil based. We no longer have the oil; that's why we have an empire. It has nothiong to do with spreading democracy, spreading free market ideas, promoting common wealth among the citizens of a nation or just wanting to **** with brown people in hot parts of the world. It has everything to do with the plastic that goes into a ron paul sign, a rand paul sign, and cell phone, a tire and an airbag. Our standard of living in based entirely on our ability to consume oil. How loud will your cry for a Ron Paul presidency, or the hard on you get about thinking you've just proven something to a stranger on the internet, sound when there is no more internet, no more laptop, no more digital camera to photograph your smug face? Perhaps that sounds like a good idea given Mr. Pauls willingness to dial back our society, but as long as that return to growing corn and tobacco is still plausible for the rape of big business, then Mr. Paul will be vindicated in ignoring the desired evolution, not of money or religion or indifference, of the thought process. The very and most-pure desire of those founding father's Mr. Paul incites so often and you ignore while defending him.


Where, exactly, does that leave everyone without gold? I did close my panning operation in favor of unbacked cotton paper with a government promise facetype on it? No, but thazt's what I've been trading since the Nixon administration. My neighbor doesn't have any gold. That's fine, though, he doesn't have any kids.





You are confusing this with a conversation about anti-Paul and my support ofr Obama. I can assumre you that gutting Mr. Paul's desire for pretending that everything has to be for profit and can not be given government intrusion is a real desire of mine. It's called socialism. The marriage of socialism and democracy (which democracy really was to begin with) is the most correct way to go. So, by those standards, everything I say and support is anti-Paul. It simply doesn't take into consideration how naive Mr. Paul is, given the blind support for his strict historical interpretation. An interpretation you seem to love.

You're right about everything.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're right about everything.

I know I am. Do you understand that Mr. Paul is wrong about almost everything, though? That's the question.

Originally posted by skekUng
I know I am. Do you understand that Mr. Paul is wrong about almost everything, though? That's the question.

My understanding is that he's not wrong about most things (political stances), meaning, greater than 50%. Like I said prior, most people did not take you seriously, I decided to take just that one post seriously, to show you how far the discussion really could be taken. We could go back and forth for days, but that's not something I desire. After I made my point about the Anti-Paul rhetoric, I was done. I did not feel a nagging need to argue any more points as I had shown what I chose to show: it can be argued just like any other political stance can. We could do the same for Romney, Obama, Palin, and so forth. It's just that no one really gave that post a good reply, so I figured I would.

I'm a "middle" with a 2 point lean (on a 50 point scale) towards the "libertarian" quadrant. Meaning, I share ideas with contemporary republicans, democrats, independents, and general libertarianism.

I must have missed the PM that said you spoke for everyone. No one took anything I said seriously, why? Because you are naive enough to buy Ron Paul's bullshit?

Oh, you agree with every political ideology. Is that so you can enter every thread, read the topic, spend the next hour researching it on wikipedia and then coming back on here and showing all of us how much you know about 'a little bit of everything'? That position much be a real luxury when it comes time to defend something you've said. Guess what, Cephus, everybody agrees with something in every political ideology. But, this isn't about every political ideology; this is about Ron Paul, the unrealistic and naive crap he spews and the dipshits who buy it.

Didn't you say I was a sock troll and that you would never speak to me again? What changed? Do you hate me that much, or do you just love Ron Paul that much?

Maybe we could talk about all those unprovided reasons you think Mitt Romney would make the best president. but, then again, when you didn't do so in that conversation, you said you agreed a little with Obama, and a little with Hillary, and a little with McCain, and a little with a number of candidates on every side. Does that stance sound familiar to you?

Sounds like an undecided voter.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Feh, Ron Paul. The guy and his son skeeve me out and set off my racist and antisemitic spider sense worse than Pat Buchanan writing a Reagan speech. Besides, Libertarianism is failed concept. It didn't work 200 years ago, it is largely responsible for the mess we're in right now, and there's no way for digging up out of the hole. We should stop listening to morons like Ron Paul and the fascist tea baggers and embrace hard line social democracy in the style of Europe in the 1980's and the German Iron Front in the 1930's. Freedom, security, and employment for all, Justice for all, innovation helping all, and zero tolerance of conservatism (aka what it really is, post-enlightenment feudalism), communism, and fascism. i've heard that he's supposedly some kind of racist cause there was a newsletter with his name on it that had some racist comments..

personally i could really give a shit. he is vocally opposed to to war on drugs, and speaks openly about the prison industrial complex. thats more resistance against the racial status quo than i've seen out of any democrat.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i've heard that he's supposedly some kind of racist cause there was a newsletter with his name on it that had some racist comments..

personally i could really give a shit. he is vocally opposed to to war on drugs, and speaks openly about the prison industrial complex. thats more resistance against the racial status quo than i've seen out of any democrat.

If you've just "heard" what you're talking about, then you don't really know enough about it. Read the papers in question, consider the position his kid has when it comes to privte businesses waiting on gays or coloureds, or just anyone they don't like, compare it to the social progress of the country as a whole, and get back to us.

Originally posted by skekUng
I must have missed the PM that said you spoke for everyone. No one took anything I said seriously, why? Because you are naive enough to buy Ron Paul's bullshit?

Oh, you agree with every political ideology. Is that so you can enter every thread, read the topic, spend the next hour researching it on wikipedia and then coming back on here and showing all of us how much you know about 'a little bit of everything'? That position much be a real luxury when it comes time to defend something you've said. Guess what, Cephus, everybody agrees with something in every political ideology. But, this isn't about every political ideology; this is about Ron Paul, the unrealistic and naive crap he spews and the dipshits who buy it.

Didn't you say I was a sock troll and that you would never speak to me again? What changed? Do you hate me that much, or do you just love Ron Paul that much?

Maybe we could talk about all those unprovided reasons you think Mitt Romney would make the best president. but, then again, when you didn't do so in that conversation, you said you agreed a little with Obama, and a little with Hillary, and a little with McCain, and a little with a number of candidates on every side. Does that stance sound familiar to you? No one takes you seriously because you throw ad hominem around in your posts like it's going out of style, and you talk like a jackass. "I know I am. -flex-"

Just pointing out the elephant in the room.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That's a euphemism for "black people".

It's a euphemism for "ghetto black people" to be exact.

Originally posted by skekUng
I must have missed the PM that said you spoke for everyone.


Who's sock account are you? You don't make enough spelling and punctuation mistakes to be Devil King and you're not well-spoken enough to be him, either.

Regardless, instead of spending an hour wasting my time addressing your lengthy posts, I'll address this post (it's easier.)



Originally posted by skekUng
No one took anything I said seriously, why? Because you are naive enough to buy Ron Paul's bullshit?

A personal attack, eh?

Well, let's see:

Originally posted by Robtard
I am for giving him four years though, even if he is an old, old fart.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm still willing to give people a shot,

Originally posted by red g jacks
i think he seems more honest and principled than these other assholes we've got to deal with,

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'd personally like to see Ron Paul in a cabinet position

Originally posted by Digi
But sure, give his ass 4 years. For science, if nothing else.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'd love to see him in office...
I think he has so many great ideas, but like you said, sort of goes bananas on some other things. With a strong and at least relatively powerful opposition though, I think it might just work

So why single me out and say I'm naive when my opinion is EXACTLY the same as Robtard's on Ron Paul? Obviously, your points were largely ignored (if read at all) an no one was "enlightened" to what a "poor choice" he would be.


Originally posted by inimalist
Oh, you agree with every political ideology.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm a "middle" with a 2 point lean (on a 50 point scale) towards the "libertarian" quadrant. Meaning, I share ideas with contemporary republicans, democrats, independents, and general libertarianism.

As fact, the opposite would have to be true.

I wonder how you got that I scaled as "50" into all quadrants on a Cartesian plane when I would have to actually be 0 on all scales except libertarian (actually, I believe it was 1 point into republican and 2 points into libertarian)? That's a very hard thing to pull off, but, meh, i guess you thought it was a four point mapping and looked like a quadrilateral on the Cartesian plane? I took the test online and it was through some research OU was conducting on what people claim their political philosophies were vs. what their actual political philosophies were (because most people claim to be Republicans in Oklahoma but have no idea what Republicans actually stand for or push on Capital Hill.) I said I was neutral with a slight republican and libertarian lean. It ended up being almost exactly true at the end. It was fun. I wish that the test was still open because every here should take it.


Originally posted by skekUng
Is that so you can enter every thread, read the topic, spend the next hour researching it on wikipedia and then coming back on here and showing all of us how much you know about 'a little bit of everything'?

Woah. False conclusion based on a false premise and a personal attack, as well.




Originally posted by skekUng
That position much be a real luxury when it comes time to defend something you've said.

It's a real luxury to be able to have an adult conversation with fellow posters and friends about topics I may or may not agree on, but not what you said because you're...like...way off base there.

Originally posted by skekUng
Guess what, Cephus, everybody agrees with something in every political ideology.

Now you're being condescending and a smartass about it? Come on, dude, at least try to have an adult conversation.


Originally posted by skekUng
But, this isn't about every political ideology;

No, this is exactly about political ideas and how yours fits with Ron Paul's because of him taking CPAC.


Originally posted by skekUng
this is about Ron Paul, the unrealistic and naive crap he spews and the dipshits who buy it.

Don't think you're going to slyly sneak in that calling me a dipshit.

Because you said:

Originally posted by skekUng
Because you are naive enough to buy Ron Paul's bullshit?

And then you said:

Originally posted by skekUng
this is about Ron Paul, the unrealistic and naive crap he spews and the dipshits who buy it.

So, let's make it quite clear that you're making two personal attacks:

1. You called me naive, and everyone else in the thread naive.
2. You called me a dipshit and everyone else in the thread a dipshit.





Originally posted by skekUng
Didn't you say I was a sock troll and that you would never speak to me again? What changed? Do you hate me that much, or do you just love Ron Paul that much?

Lord Sorgo, eh? So your hate from Facebook spilled over into KMC, yet again?

Originally posted by skekUng
Maybe we could talk about all those unprovided reasons you think Mitt Romney would make the best president.

Please quote where I said that Mitt Romney would make the best president.

Originally posted by skekUng
but, then again, when you didn't do so in that conversation, you said you agreed a little with Obama, and a little with Hillary, and a little with McCain, and a little with a number of candidates on every side. Does that stance sound familiar to you?

I don't remember saying: "I agree a little with Obama, and a little with Hillary, and a little with McCain, and a little with a number of candidates on every side." Or even something very similar to that.

But, to address your point, it's called being a moderate that doesn't agree, fully, with any of the mainstream politicians. I don't even identify myself as a libertarian...I do have libertarian leanings at times, but I'm not a libertarian.





Do you think children should be randomly murdered? If you don't, then you agree with McCain, Clinton, Obama, Romney, Paul, etc. Do you see how your logic got lost in translation?



Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Sounds like an undecided voter.

Correct. That's a very simple point and one that he's ignoring to make personal attacks.

Originally posted by dadudemon


I didn't say that

Originally posted by inimalist


I didn't say that

Mess up quote tag and or copy and paste.

that is suspiscious, I suspect intentional slander

Originally posted by inimalist
that is suspiscious, I suspect intentional slander


HA!

Alright, skekUng, no need to make it this personal with dadude. It's easy enough to turn a thread into a argument flame fest but I'd much prefer it if you did not.

Originally posted by skekUng
If you've just "heard" what you're talking about, then you don't really know enough about it. Read the papers in question, consider the position his kid has when it comes to privte businesses waiting on gays or coloureds, or just anyone they don't like, compare it to the social progress of the country as a whole, and get back to us. alright, fair enough, after some googling it looks like he is a racist

guess i still have nader?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Alright, skekUng, no need to make it this personal with dadude. It's easy enough to turn a thread into a argument flame fest but I'd much prefer it if you did not.

I simplydon't understand why you tolerate a person who treats this site like it belongs to him. From the moment I joined this site, he's called me a troll sock, and then supported it by tossing old members in my face. Which is more sad; that I've figured out how he operates or that he sees a threat in every new member that doesn't kowtow to his gravitas? Just because he's been here longer doesn't mean he's right. In fact, I've noticed he has no real opinion, short of feeling threatened. Do you?

I'm pretty sure that in elementary school, even before you learn adding and subtracting, you're taught that "he started it" is not a valid excuse for anything.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
No one takes you seriously because you throw ad hominem around in your posts like it's going out of style, and you talk like a jackass. "I know I am. -flex-"

Just pointing out the elephant in the room.

Then point out what you're talking about, and we'll see if you know what you're talking about.

Man, you're a badass.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Regardless, instead of spending an hour wasting my time addressing your lengthy posts, I'll address this post (it's easier.)

I'm not suprised you won't take the time to respond to the on-topic accusations. It's always easier to say that everyone agrees with you, with posts no less, that ignore the position often taken by other supporters of Mr. Paul, that his message is too pure for popular support and ignoring just eaxctly how many people have also fallen for the dupe. You still ignore how naive Mr. Pauls position is on so many things, how naive and retroactive and counter-beneficial. You keep bring up the constitution he professes to understand so well, but ignore the intent of the document, it's authors and the reality of the world we all enjoy now. We're all in favor of streamlining the government, but not at the expense of the country in which we all live & thrive. Mr. Paul's understanding of the founding fathers and the documents they wrote is willfully ignorant, his espousing of Mr. Washington's foreign policy is naive and unrealistic considering the people who support his message and how they profess it -in this day and age-, and his assumption that getting rid of government while trying to further the ability of private business and individual ingenuity to progress -all the time ignoring that the government is and has been an extension of private business since the 1970s- is just factually ignorant and childish. If you or others in this thread feel I've insulted you by calling his supporters dipshits, then perhaps you should extend to yourself the same scrutiny you heap upon others when they dare to support another candidate (or all of them, because it's "easier" or calling out your own. But you don't do that, do you? You just accuse others of being socks, provide no substantiation for on-topic claims or just flat out ignore the accusations leveled against your position through distraction. Even if I were this internet boogy man you need me to be everytime you can't defend your point, the points raised and claims made are still there for your response and rebuke. But you don't; you go instantly to socks and trolls and who else agrees with you and how else you can distract from backing up a damn thing you claim.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Man, you're a badass.

Do it, then.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I'm pretty sure that in elementary school, even before you learn adding and subtracting, you're taught that "he started it" is not a valid excuse for anything.

I'm not the one who called for an end to the entire debate. Defend Mr. Paul if you can, not Mr. Dadude. Take the conversation back on track and don't be middle school, then. If you can't, then you have no point other than spitting in the wind.

Originally posted by skekUng
Do it, then. Do what?

Originally posted by skekUng
I'm not the one who called for an end to the entire debate. Defend Mr. Paul if you can, not Mr. Dadude. Take the conversation back on track and don't be middle school, then. If you can't, then you have no point other than spitting in the wind.

Who are you a sock of? Your posts sound so familiar. Sorgo..? No... I don't think it's sorgo. I could be wrong, though.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Who are you a sock of? Your posts sound so familiar. Sorgo..? No... I don't think it's sorgo. I could be wrong, though.

It's not Sorgo. I asked him, today, on Facebook and he said it was not him.

Originally posted by skekUng
I'm not suprised you won't take the time to respond to the on-topic accusations. It's always easier to say that everyone agrees with you, with posts no less, that ignore the position often taken by other supporters of Mr. Paul, that his message is too pure for popular support and ignoring just eaxctly how many people have also fallen for the dupe. You still ignore how naive Mr. Pauls position is on so many things, how naive and retroactive and counter-beneficial. You keep bring up the constitution he professes to understand so well, but ignore the intent of the document, it's authors and the reality of the world we all enjoy now. We're all in favor of streamlining the government, but not at the expense of the country in which we all live & thrive. Mr. Paul's understanding of the founding fathers and the documents they wrote is willfully ignorant, his espousing of Mr. Washington's foreign policy is naive and unrealistic considering the people who support his message and how they profess it -in this day and age-, and his assumption that getting rid of government while trying to further the ability of private business and individual ingenuity to progress -all the time ignoring that the government is and has been an extension of private business since the 1970s- is just factually ignorant and childish. If you or others in this thread feel I've insulted you by calling his supporters dipshits, then perhaps you should extend to yourself the same scrutiny you heap upon others when they dare to support another candidate (or all of them, because it's "easier" or calling out your own. But you don't do that, do you? You just accuse others of being socks, provide no substantiation for on-topic claims or just flat out ignore the accusations leveled against your position through distraction. Even if I were this internet boogy man you need me to be everytime you can't defend your point, the points raised and claims made are still there for your response and rebuke. But you don't; you go instantly to socks and trolls and who else agrees with you and how else you can distract from backing up a damn thing you claim.

You've convinced me that Ron Paul is a horrible person and his ideas are just terrible. Honestly, is that satisfactory enough to you?

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's not Sorgo. I asked him, today, on Facebook and he said it was not him.

So you were thinking the same thing?





He wants you to kneel. Kneel before skekUng.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So why single me out and say I'm naive when my opinion is EXACTLY the same as Robtard's on Ron Paul? Obviously, your points were largely ignored (if read at all) an no one was "enlightened" to what a "poor choice" he would be.


Because he couldn't handle the sheer magnitude of Robtard's eBadassery. /fact

Robtard can power himself up to ePower-level of over 50,000,000. /fact

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
He wants you to kneel. Kneel before skekUng.

I did. Hopefully, that's enough.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Do what?



Who are you a sock of? Your posts sound so familiar. Sorgo..? No... I don't think it's sorgo. I could be wrong, though.

Point out where I'm wrong and Mr. Paul is right. So much talk on forums about trolls and socks; it just comes across as distraction from the topic and inability to substantiate.

Then you didn't see Mr. Tard's opinon that the platitudes so many of his followrs gobble up as naive. Perhaps Mr. Tard just wasn't willing to argue for someone he really has muddled feeling about? I can't speak for Mr. Tard. I simply know his point came across to me as "why not? what can it hurt? at the very least it will shut up people who adore him, once he accomplishes nothing.". Was that your point, Mr. Dadude? If so, then you've been babbling an awful lot about nothing. Or, perhaps that's why you suddenly change the topic from the conversation to socks and trolls and how paranoid you are when any new member dares to question your opinions. You aren't interested in any conversation on this website, only bringing up former members any time you can't defend your position in a effort to get anyone who disagrees with you banned. Belly up to the bar, big man. Have a conversation; a real one that you profess Ron Paul would respect, not some "I've been here longer, I don't get questioned!" crap. Let's talk about Ron Paul's positions, not your childish inability to handle anyone disagreeing with you. Or Mr. Tard's. Or anyone else, for that matter. You quote a lot of people you say disagree with me, but most of them posted before I did in this thread.

Originally posted by skekUng
Then you didn't see Mr. Tard's opinon that the platitudes so many of his followrs gobble up as naive.

Granted, you didn't see where I had made similar comments, in 2008.

Originally posted by skekUng
I simplydon't understand why you tolerate a person who treats this site like it belongs to him. From the moment I joined this site, he's called me a troll sock, and then supported it by tossing old members in my face. Which is more sad; that I've figured out how he operates or that he sees a threat in every new member that doesn't kowtow to his gravitas? Just because he's been here longer doesn't mean he's right. In fact, I've noticed he has no real opinion, short of feeling threatened. Do you?

Regardless, you've put yourself in the worse position. If you want him to be seen as the bigger problem, then turn down your hostile behaviour.

I have no intention of arguing the matter with you.

Do you speak to everyone that way?

Originally posted by skekUng
Do you speak to everyone that way?

He always talks that way, if you think he's more abrupt with you cause you are somewhat newer that is not the case.

Originally posted by skekUng
Do you speak to everyone that way? Ooo, buddy. Yeah... you're that new.

Ron Paul sucks. Fox news sucks. Nuff said.

Originally posted by Bardock42
He always talks that way, if you think he's more abrupt with you cause you are somewhat newer that is not the case.

Then I suppose I'm lucky I never intended to debate anything with anyone -other than the topic at hand- and everything I pointed out in my post was done so rhetorically.

I just want to know if Ron Paul killed "it" or not?

Originally posted by Robtard
I just want to know if Ron Paul killed "it" or not?

Knowing Ron Paul I'm sure he offered to lie "it" die a painful death so you could save ten cents on your taxes.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Knowing Ron Paul I'm sure he offered to lie "it" die a painful death so you could save ten cents on your taxes.

those are my 10 cents, though

Originally posted by inimalist
those are my 10 cents, though

But it is everyone's country. Everyone loves their country, their laptops, their car, their cheap crap at Wal-Mart and their current standart of living. Certainly it makes a huge amount of sense to levy a 10% flat tax. The problem arises when political systems convince people who pay their 10% on the dollar when they make 500 a week that they have anything in common with people who make 500 an hour and pay .7%.

Originally posted by skekUng
Everyone loves...their current standart of living.

I do not. I'm working on improving that.


Originally posted by skekUng
Certainly it makes a huge amount of sense to levy a 10% flat tax. The problem arises when political systems convince people who pay their 10% on the dollar when they make 500 a week that they have anything in common with people who make 500 an hour and pay .7%.

Your example actually makes the "real world" prospect look REALLY good. I do not think you were trying to convince us that the flat tax of 10% was a good idea, though.

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4545124/ron-paul-on-benefits-of-flat-tax/

That means that those poor are not paying Medicare, social security, less in federal taxes, and so forth IF they opt out. Guess what? Those all add up to greater than 10% IF they claim 1 (It comes to around 15%, I just looked at my own paystub), just for themselves. So, no, opting out, for most, would actually put MORE money in their pocket. So the poor would benefit more on their paychecks because: they already don't have medical insurance. However, they would lose allll of the other goodies that they rarely take advantage of, anyway (besides welfare, housing assistance, and so forth. Even then, those programs are not taken advantage of by even a forth of all those that qualify). Sure, the poor take advantage of lots of those programs, but the poor are not the primary benefactors. Numbers show that it is the middle class that mostly take advantage of those programs.

Additionally, in your example, the poor person has less being taken out of their paycheck and the rich person has a giant increase of 9.3%. That seems like a gigantic shift in the tax burden, using your example (and not the real world numbers.) Why wouldn't a poor person be all over that, based on your example? This is primarily why I said that you made a really good case for being in favor of the flat tax, unintentionally.

Also, the system is going to initially be an "opt-out", meaning, it's not something everyone does. Unlike what Paul says in the video, it WILL increase bureaucracy until enough people have opted out that scrapping the old system can be justified.

That means: the poor will not opt out. Everyone else will. Why would the poor want to opt out of a system that hands them so much?



Here are the tax brackets which clearly show the nice drop in taxes for the income group you listed:

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

They get to drop between 4-5% off of their taxes.

Sounds like a swell idea, eh?

Originally posted by skekUng
But it is everyone's country. Everyone loves their country, their laptops, their car, their cheap crap at Wal-Mart and their current standart of living. Certainly it makes a huge amount of sense to levy a 10% flat tax. The problem arises when political systems convince people who pay their 10% on the dollar when they make 500 a week that they have anything in common with people who make 500 an hour and pay .7%.

.7% is still too high

government didn't earn that cash, I did. Sweat off my brow.

Originally posted by inimalist
.7% is still too high

government didn't earn that cash, I did. Sweat off my brow.

And, "they turk er jeeeeerrrbs!"

Originally posted by inimalist
.7% is still too high

government didn't earn that cash, I did. Sweat off my brow.

Oh, no. You aren't an anarchist, are you?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do not. I'm working on improving that.

Then you are working towards a standard of living that will not longer exist, should Mr. Paul actually work to accomplish anything he espouses in regards to foreign relationships, lack of empire, doing away with the muscle behind the federal government, etc.




Originally posted by dadudemon
I do not think you were trying to convince us that the flat tax of 10% was a good idea, though.

That is because I wasn't.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That means that those poor are not paying Medicare, social security, less in federal taxes, and so forth IF they opt out. Guess what? Those all add up to greater than 10% IF they claim 1 (It comes to around 15%, I just looked at my own paystub), just for themselves. So, no, opting out, for most, would actually put MORE money in their pocket. So the poor would benefit more on their paychecks because: they already don't have medical insurance. However, they would lose allll of the other goodies that they rarely take advantage of, anyway (besides welfare, housing assistance, and so forth. Even then, those programs are not taken advantage of by even a forth of all those that qualify). Sure, the poor take advantage of lots of those programs, but the poor are not the primary benefactors. Numbers show that it is the middle class that mostly take advantage of those programs.

Additionally, in your example, the poor person has less being taken out of their paycheck and the rich person has a giant increase of 9.3%. That seems like a gigantic shift in the tax burden, using your example (and not the real world numbers.) Why wouldn't a poor person be all over that, based on your example? This is primarily why I said that you made a really good case for being in favor of the flat tax, unintentionally.

Also, the system is going to initially be an "opt-out", meaning, it's not something everyone does. Unlike what Paul says in the video, it WILL increase bureaucracy until enough people have opted out that scrapping the old system can be justified.

That means: the poor will not opt out. Everyone else will. Why would the poor want to opt out of a system that hands them so much?



Here are the tax brackets which clearly show the nice drop in taxes for the income group you listed:

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

They get to drop between 4-5% off of their taxes.

Sounds like a swell idea, eh?

I was calling on Mr. Paul's 10% flat tax, as espoused in the video at the beginning of the thread. I don't think I need to point out to you that I just pulled .7% out of the air as a tounge in cheek example. I never intended for anyone to do the math and then illustrate why Mr. Paul's notion of a flat tax for every income is too unrealistic an expectation.

Originally posted by skekUng
Then you are working towards a standard of living that will not longer exist, should Mr. Paul actually work to accomplish anything he espouses in regards to foreign relationships, lack of empire, doing away with the muscle behind the federal government, etc.



Also, do you program? I notice that only programmers make the mistake of "will not longer" exist and sayings like that: it's because of the "not" we speak in our heads to negate something it it accidentally comes out in our written words. Am I right?






Originally posted by skekUng
That is because I wasn't.



Originally posted by skekUng
I was calling on Mr. Paul's 10% flat tax, as espoused in the video at the beginning of the thread. I don't think I need to point out to you that I just pulled .7% out of the air as a tounge in cheek example.

That's cool and I understand. I just thought that it failed, horribly, at actually making your point and, instead, made it sound good.

Originally posted by skekUng
I never intended for anyone to do the math and then illustrate why Mr. Paul's notion of a flat tax for every income is too unrealistic an expectation.

Yeah, I understand that too.

I still do not think, even if you average out that amount of money "per unit income" shows that poor people pay less than 10% in taxes. For some (without kids, medical issues, and so forth), it would be a gigantic reduction in their tax burden. As you pointed out, some rich can afford the legal assistance and accountants to decrease their tax burden to far less than 10%.

On average, it looks like it will decrease the government's revenue.


It is really easy to calculate that out:

First, find the average household income. That's easy because it's already calculated for us at about 50,000 a year.

Then, multiply that by the number of people in the US:

310,000,000*50,000 = 15,500,000,000,000



Multiply that by 10% to find out how much flat tax revenue would generate if it applied equally, across the board:

$1,550,000,000,000

Compare that to the current tax revenue: it looked like the 2009 collections were between 850,000 and 900,000. I cannot tell, yet.

Anyway, it looks like revenues would increase.


If we go by total taxes collected, it's closer to $2,000,000,000,000. That would be a cut. So what are total revenues including? Tariffs? Weapons sales? And so forth. It could be that the 1.5 tril is actually a giant increase in revenue.


So what does a flat tax do for us? Is it bad for the government? Is it better for the poor? Is it worse for the poor?

Does it cut our revenues? Does it increase them?


Like I told you before, I'm for and against a flat tax. Convince me the only way possible: use numbers. If you can make a case, with some numbers, I may change my stance on a flat tax. I'm a flip flopper and not ashamed of it. Why should one be? If someone comes up with a better idea or tells you why an idea is bad and they are factually correct, why SHOULD you not "flip flop?"

No, I am not a programer. It was a simple typo.

That standard of living you're trying to improve will not be attainable should Mr. Paul ever get what he wants because he wants to pretend that our foreign wars aren't for oil and that since everything in our economy is based on oil prices -production of gasoline, to the paint on your walls to the pesticides we spray on our crops, the laptops we're all using to post on this forum, cell phones to twitter how he "killed it" at CPAC, practically everything- and the foreign wars and intelligence community he proposes to scrap are integral to this nation and others being able to secure that oil.

I'm sure we're all impressed by your math skills, but save them for after you've convinced anybody that Mr. Paul's position wouldn't allow for individuals and corporations to prop up huge tax shelters off shore and avoid paying their fair share. The rich have never paid their fair share. You and I would be happy to offer up 10% of our income, but will the mega rich? Nope; and getting away with it would be ten times easier than it is now without a federal government to do the mediocre job it's even doing currently and closing tax loops and following funds across the border to other nations.

So, ask yourself why these huge companies don't back him the way they do other republicans or democrats. Why do you think that is, when what I've just said would be a wet dream for them?

Originally posted by skekUng
So, ask yourself why these huge companies don't back him the way they do other republicans or democrats. Why do you think that is, when what I've just said would be a wet dream for them?

The first answer that comes to mind is that what you just said is wrong, I am sure that's not your interpretation, why do you think he is not backed then?

Originally posted by Bardock42
The first answer that comes to mind is that what you just said is wrong, I am sure that's not your interpretation, why do you think he is not backed then?

ditto

Originally posted by skekUng
No, I am not a programer. It was a simple typo.

AHA!

Well, it was a good enough guess.

Originally posted by skekUng
That standard of living you're trying to improve will not be attainable should Mr. Paul ever get what he wants

That's wrong in the most direct way possible.

My standard of living will explicitly increase should Mr. Paul take office if only for his tax plans of either a flat tax or as he has said numerous times, no income tax.

Obviously, you're commenting on his other policies causing the economy to go to shit. That's an unsubstantiated claim and virtually impossible to prove without showing that it could both increase in quality and decrease in quality.

Originally posted by skekUng
because he wants to pretend that our foreign wars aren't for oil and that since everything in our economy is based on oil prices -production of gasoline, to the paint on your walls to the pesticides we spray on our crops, the laptops we're all using to post on this forum, cell phones to twitter how he "killed it" at CPAC, practically everything- and the foreign wars and intelligence community he proposes to scrap are integral to this nation and others being able to secure that oil.

To me, this seems like a rant that confuses cause and effect. Granted, there are plenty of things to rant about when it comes to Paul.

What about the billions we spend in Japan? How is that "oil" at all? What about Germany? How is our military presence there related to oil? What about the very shitty conditions we created for "oil" in Iraq? We shot ourselves in the ass with that one. Afghanistan? As if oil was even there in any usable fashion. Maybe you think that we are renewing our scrapped multi-billion dollar pipeline in Afghanistan?: unsubstantiated and unsubstantiate-able. Though, it does sound like a really good motive: it's just a conspiracy theory that makes Paul look relatively sane. If that was our real goal, it would be very easy to accomplish that and on much more public and international terms.


Originally posted by skekUng
I'm sure we're all impressed by your math skills,

You mean elementary math? How is that even remotely impressive?

Originally posted by skekUng
but save them for after you've convinced anybody that Mr. Paul's position wouldn't allow for individuals and corporations to prop up huge tax shelters off shore and avoid paying their fair share.

Wah?

How is that any different than now?

Originally posted by skekUng
The rich have never paid their fair share.

I submit to you the 50s and some of the 60s; they have paid what you call "their fair-share", before.

Originally posted by skekUng
You and I would be happy to offer up 10% of our income, but will the mega rich?

Depends: the numbers say they pay, on average, much higher of a percentage of their income, than any other tax bracket.

And, according to these charts, they are paying the majority of taxes (if you consider the top quartile to be the rich

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html




Originally posted by skekUng
Nope; and getting away with it would be ten times easier than it is now without a federal governmehttp://www.killermovies.com/forums/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&postid=13246495nt to do the mediocre job it's even doing currently and closing tax loops and following funds across the border to other nations.

Can you provide evidence (direct, no vague political statements, but something direct) that proves that his tax policies would make it easier to commit tax evasion and tax fraud, than it is now? I see this as another empty claim.

Originally posted by skekUng
So, ask yourself why these huge companies don't back him the way they do other republicans or democrats. Why do you think that is, when what I've just said would be a wet dream for them?

It's actually very easy to know why corporations, sometimes (not all of them hate him...in fact, I'd say that a majority don't), do not like Ron Paul: he wants to investigate the Federal Reserve Banks and Board.

i'm pretty sure ron paul actually does espouse the belief that our presence in the middle east is largely motivated by the goal to 'secure our natural resources.' it's part of his whole empire bit.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i'm pretty sure ron paul actually does espouse the belief that our presence in the middle east is largely motivated by the goal to 'secure our natural resources.' it's part of his whole empire bit.

Yeah, I was pretty dang sure he accuses the "current" system of having dangerous interests in oil with the middle east. I could have sworn he was about getting rid of those corrupt interests. But he's "foreign" policies are not just about oil: it's about bringing military infrastructure back home, which is what my comments were about, earlier.



This: "because he wants to pretend that our foreign wars aren't for oil..." goes directly against Paul's positions and statements on our "foreign wars."

Originally posted by dadudemon
I submit to you the 50s and some of the 60s; they have paid what you call "their fair-share", before.

Sadly, it is the year 2011. In fact, your example of the 50s is a good one because it illustrates why mr. Paul's calls for gutting the federal government are unecessary.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's actually very easy to know why corporations, sometimes (not all of them hate him...in fact, I'd say that a majority don't), do not like Ron Paul: he wants to investigate the Federal Reserve Banks and Board.

So, he wants to investigate an organization that he is also calling unecessary and wants to dismantle. So, Big Business doesn't want their money affected by the dismantling of our current practices and standards, but you can't see how that would directly effect each and every person in this country? Standard of living be damned.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Can you provide evidence (direct, no vague political statements, but something direct) that proves that his tax policies would make it easier to commit tax evasion and tax fraud, than it is now? I see this as another empty claim.

Oh, so you want direct evidence? You? The person who posts links to entire wikipedia pages as "direct evidence" of why Mitt Romeny would make a better President, while providing nothing but personal opinions as the substantiating evidence? Sure, I'll tell you exactly why I think the man will make it easier. BECAUSE THE CENTRAL GOAL IN HIS PLAN IS TO DEREGULATE BUSINESS IN THIS NATION. Not only deregulate, but dismantle every single institution that police the practices of business and accountability.

Originally posted by dadudemon
My standard of living will explicitly increase should Mr. Paul take office if only for his tax plans of either a flat tax or as he has said numerous times, no income tax.

Obviously, you're commenting on his other policies causing the economy to go to shit. That's an unsubstantiated claim and virtually impossible to prove without showing that it could both increase in quality and decrease in quality.

You open the statement by saying your standard of living will increase 'explicitly', for taxes, and then ignore that Mr. Paul wants all our troops home, gutting the MIC, and preventing the oil from flowing to the entire world, making it impossible for your standard of living to increase...explicitly.

You want to know why he hits that nerve in his supporters, but can't ever be a serious candidate? Because our standard of living and the people who profit from it realize that his policies would render the nation ineffective in foreign relations AND free global trade. He wants everything to be decided by some business model, ignoring the fact that the government's existence is an extention of that model as it operates now. He wants to buy the stud bull and chop off it's balls at the same time. It's naive.

Originally posted by skekUng
Sadly, it is the year 2011. In fact, your example of the 50s is a good one because it illustrates why mr. Paul's calls for gutting the federal government are unecessary.

I disagree with that period being a "fair tax" as well. That's why I distanced myself from calling it a "fair tax" as much as possible.

That period of time "flourished" for reasons other than a high tax rate. Again, you're confusing cause and effect.

If you want to legitimately discuss ending the ability to conduct business and destroying the economy, we could talk about the horrible idea of raising taxes on the rich to 80+%.

Originally posted by skekUng
So, he wants to investigate an organization that he is also calling unecessary and wants to dismantle. So, Big Business doesn't want their money affected by the dismantling of our current practices and standards, but you can't see how that would directly effect each and every person in this country? Standard of living be damned.

No, he knows that he could never get it dismantled in his lifetime, but wishes it to be so. So he has other options which include investigating the obvious corruption. And, again, you presume that dismantling them = investigating and ending corruption, which is incorrect. That's a strawman and avoids the original point that I responded to:

You want taxes to be 80+% for the rich, yet you do not want an investigation into government entities which would end some of the corrupt business practices in America which directly tie into corrupt tax policies. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. That, or you are simply opposing everything that is Paul while opposing yourself into a conflicting circle.

Additionally, you've also confused how business is even conducted.

You also forget that we have "conducted business" far longer as a nation withOUT The Fed. Furthermore, making The Fed more accountable rather than run by wallstreet would create MORE stability, flying directly in the face of your claim of a negative impact on a US Standard of Living. Are you aware of the giant list of legitimate criticism of The Fed and all the problems it has caused? This is, of course, external to the conspiracy theories about The Fed.

Your points also incorrectly assume, "by the dismantling of our current practices and standards." The ending of corrupt practices != all practices of The Fed. Additionally, lots of the practices are legitimate.

Originally posted by skekUng
Oh, so you want direct evidence? You? The person who posts links to entire wikipedia pages as "direct evidence" of why Mitt Romeny would make a better President, while providing nothing but personal opinions as the substantiating evidence?

A very poor dodge and an ad hominem logical fallacy. Additionally, I offered to give you my stances in private IF you PM-ed me asking for them. You never did. You do not want to know my stances: you want to make a public spectacle of it. You are being very disingenuous about your wanting to know that information: you really do not want to know my political stances.

Evidence of Ron Paul having a stance that YOU claimed he had is not the same thing as providing my opinion on each and every political stance of a former presidential candidate.

That's an apples to hedgehogs comparison.

Originally posted by skekUng
Sure, I'll tell you exactly why I think the man will make it easier. BECAUSE THE CENTRAL GOAL IN HIS PLAN IS TO DEREGULATE BUSINESS IN THIS NATION. Not only deregulate, but dismantle every single institution that police the practices of business and accountability.

I did not ask for your opinion. I asked you to back up your claim.

Originally posted by skekUng
You open the statement by saying your standard of living will increase 'explicitly', for taxes,

No, not "for taxes". My "standard of living" will increase because I pay LESS taxes.

Originally posted by skekUng
and then ignore that Mr. Paul wants all our troops home,

Annndddd....why is that a problem?

Additionally, that's a non-sequitur argument. That has little to do with taxes decreasing in the way you've presented it.

Originally posted by skekUng
gutting the MIC,

Wrong in the most direct way possible.

"We should have a strong national defense. But we should stay out of other countries' internal affairs. Our role is not nation building, and not to be world policeman."

http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/331321_joel12.html

Originally posted by skekUng
and preventing the oil from flowing to the entire world,

You couldn't be more wrong:

Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution.

Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC.

Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore.

Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries.

Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Some consider Ron Paul and environmental ***hole because of his liberal petro-policies.

Originally posted by skekUng
making it impossible for your standard of living to increase...explicitly.

Since your first point was not even related to the issue at hand, it is thrown out as a "supporting argument" for decreasing "my" standard of living.

Since you were directly wrong about the next two points you made, you literally did not create any supporting arguments for why "my" standard of living would decrease.

Your approach to this discussion is very dishonest and it seems like you don't even know what Paul's actual stances are. You are making tons of vague statements about Paul's statements: why can you not make specific statements about his stances and criticize those?

Originally posted by skekUng
You want to know why he hits that nerve in his supporters, but can't ever be a serious candidate? Because our standard of living and the people who profit from it realize that his policies would render the nation ineffective in foreign relations AND free global trade.

Again, you really are making baseless claims and, as fact, that runs directly against his desire for better trade relations. You also incorrectly support your argument, above, by stating that we would become ineffective in foreign relations. Ending most foreign occupations, improving trade relations, and stopping our policing of other nations runs directly opposite to your notion of "ineffective in foreign relations."

Originally posted by skekUng
He wants everything to be decided by some business model, ignoring the fact that the government's existence is an extention of that model as it operates now. He wants to buy the stud bull and chop off it's balls at the same time. It's naive.

More baseless and empty rhetoric that you just supported with points that were wrong or inapplicable.

Originally posted by Digi
Ron Paul is so frustrating to me. As an economic libertarian,
I'm almost certain that you don't know what that means. Please elaborate on your perceptions about economic freedom.

Point being: Ron Paul can save the country (or at least salvage what's left of it). But nobody will let him. Not the people, and not the folks in charge. Also, Faux News should be completely destroyed for repeatedly lying to the American people in an attempt to empower the Zionist neoconservative warmachine.

Nope, running the country by gutting the government and allowing the free market concept to extend to so much of the business of the nation is lunacy, as free-market doesn't work because the idea that it is self-correcting and self-regulating is a false one.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of issues and problems with the government's operating tactics and the regulating it is supposed to do, economically and socially. But, free-marketing the whole thing is absurd.

I like Ron Paul.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I like Ron Paul.


You can't Pm me and tell me to ignore people like Dadudeman and then just chime in so quietly. I like Ron Paul, too. He and his message of free-market sounds good, as long as you have a profitable product to offer the free market you seem to be espousing. But, most people do not. Most people NEVER F-ING will. His message also sounds good to people who still think the potential of their countrymen somehow still equate to potential, as though the idea is going to ever be original. But, in a nation where nothing is original, much less innovative -or potentially employ others- the wonder that surrounds an original idea that can be exported (or downplayed) to other nations is lauded when it comes at a tax break; which is argued agaisnt by so many so-called patriots...and Ron Paul...there isn't much room for negotiation.


Mr. Paul sounds wonderful, until one considers how naive his world view really is. He (Mr. Paul) wishes to dismantle a federal government that subsidizes a 4 dollar gallon of gasoline that keeps this economy running, while espousing that he (nope, not really) has an alternative to his supporter's cars, laptops, standards of living, cell phones, plasma TVs, cable boxes, scrapbooking depots, etc. All based on oil, but ignored by his supporters and so many in the "" (By the way, as soon as you hear anyone use the term, much less operate as though they are refuting it, "The Liberal Media" the next word out of their mouths are bound to be equally as skewed) The Republican media machine has it very right: we need the oil and everyone but America be damned to get it. People just shouldn't be confused when that sentiment is blurred with flag pins and scary Muslims and Teacher's Unions.

Dating a teacher in a non-Union state, I can still tell you how the union is encouraging systemic abuse, but still deserves collective bargaining rights.

i hear what you're saying, and honestly im more left leaning than anything else, i don't really care for free market idealism, i'm more into his condemnation of the american empire and the military industrial complex. i just gave up on the democratic party.. still a liberal in my fundamental stances.

but one thing i guess i'm unsure about here is you keep asserting that we 'need' these wars in order to maintain oil prices. maybe you could elaborate on that. is there some reason we can't buy oil from other countries without invading the region and setting up a military presence?

Originally posted by red g jacks
i hear what you're saying, and honestly im more left leaning than anything else, i don't really care for free market idealism, i'm more into his condemnation of the american empire and the military industrial complex. i just gave up on the democratic party.. still a liberal in my fundamental stances.

but one thing i guess i'm unsure about here is you keep asserting that we 'need' these wars in order to maintain oil prices. maybe you could elaborate on that. is there some reason we can't buy oil from other countries without invading the region and setting up a military presence?

I do not assert we "need" the wars, I assert they serve a purpose. Do we need dead soldiers? No But we do need less people on the planet sucking up it's natural resources. (Another thread.) What Mr. Paul asserts is that we'll get the oil if we play fair and make the best deal for it. That is naive.

It's naive beause no one else is playing fair and offering the best free-market, everyone-wins deal. His supporters do not consider this. We hated Bush for being neck deep in oil, but we still ignored his actions because we benefitted from them. It's something that everyone who loves paul and thinks he a messiah, but hates Obama because he got into office and realized it, ignores.

Originally posted by skekUng
You can't Pm me and tell me to ignore people like Dadudeman and then just chime in so quietly. I like Ron Paul, too. He and his message of free-market sounds good, as long as you have a profitable product to offer the free market you seem to be espousing. But, most people do not. Most people NEVER F-ING will. His message also sounds good to people who still think the potential of their countrymen somehow still equate to potential, as though the idea is going to ever be original. But, in a nation where nothing is original, much less innovative -or potentially employ others- the wonder that surrounds an original idea that can be exported (or downplayed) to other nations is lauded when it comes at a tax break; which is argued agaisnt by so many so-called patriots...and Ron Paul...there isn't much room for negotiation.


Mr. Paul sounds wonderful, until one considers how naive his world view really is. He (Mr. Paul) wishes to dismantle a federal government that subsidizes a 4 dollar gallon of gasoline that keeps this economy running, while espousing that he (nope, not really) has an alternative to his supporter's cars, laptops, standards of living, cell phones, plasma TVs, cable boxes, scrapbooking depots, etc. All based on oil, but ignored by his supporters and so many in the "" (By the way, as soon as you hear anyone use the term, much less operate as though they are refuting it, "The Liberal Media" the next word out of their mouths are bound to be equally as skewed) The Republican media machine has it very right: we need the oil and everyone but America be damned to get it. People just shouldn't be confused when that sentiment is blurred with flag pins and scary Muslims and Teacher's Unions.

Dating a teacher in a non-Union state, I can still tell you how the union is encouraging systemic abuse, but still deserves collective bargaining rights.

It wasn't really aimed at you, I just like Ron Paul the way he behaves as a person. He's consistent in his worldview and truly believes that he would be helping people.

I don't agree with everything he says, but a lot of the things he says in interviews are very smart and take way more into account as the cardboard cutout that the press generally summarizes of him makes out. He also is aware of the limitations a President has in office...honestly even if his ideas may be harmful if gone through with all the way, to certain degrees they make sense definitely.

I do believe that he would be a better president than anyone that was running on either major party last year.

You are a bit all over the place, with your post, but on Unions, I am a fan of Unions (just like Ron Paul) I just don't think it is fair to empower them at the expense of everyone. Industry wide collective bargaining and involvement of non.union workers is a huge disgrace, everyone should be able to make their own contracts and the people not wanting to be in a union should be protected from this practice. That's general though, I am not sure what the specifics are in the US at the moment.

As for the rant on free markets, profitable products and intellectual property, I am not sure what to make of that. Personally I lately agree that it is good to have safety nets for citizens, the amount of bureaucracy around it and the extend of benefits is definitely something that should be discussed.

Don't confuse "all over the place" with my disdain for Ron Paul's ideology.

I could truly believe I was a black woman, but no matter how hard I try to convince people I am, it isn't so.

Originally posted by skekUng
Don't confuse "all over the place" with my disdain for Ron Paul's ideology.

I could truly believe I was a black woman, but no matter how hard I try to convince people I am, it isn't so.

lol, you are way weird, I like it.

this is kinda related, at least with regards to how insane some republicans are and how out of touch they are with the American people. Weiner is apparently amazing, so ya, enjoy:

E_s-hDWNG8w

What the hell was that?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What the hell was that?
Republicans want to defund NPR, and claim it has a left-bias. Car Talk (with Click and Clack) is one of NPRs most popular shows.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What the hell was that?

beautiful political satire by a mainstream politicain on the floor of the house

the irony is in the time he wasted on it as opposed to actually using his 2 minutes to fix the problems he was complaining about at the top.

These 2 parties are in it together, that should be obvious by now.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Republicans want to defund NPR, and claim it has a left-bias. Car Talk (with Click and Clack) is one of NPRs most popular shows.

I'd say that they do have a left-bias. It's hard not to be leftist when you interview remote tribal leaders, political activists in other countries, and have debates which clearly show how stupid Republicans are, currently.

Originally posted by truejedi
the irony is in the time he wasted on it as opposed to actually using his 2 minutes to fix the problems he was complaining about at the top.

These 2 parties are in it together, that should be obvious by now.

what better do you think he could have accomplished during 2 minutes of dialogue with a republican party that trumpets the fact they wont negotiate with the democrats?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'd say that they do have a left-bias. It's hard not to be leftist when you interview remote tribal leaders, political activists in other countries, and have debates which clearly show how stupid Republicans are, currently.

in terms of american politics at least, the truth has a liberal bias

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'd say that they do have a left-bias. It's hard not to be leftist when you interview remote tribal leaders, political activists in other countries, and have debates which clearly show how stupid Republicans are, currently.
i would say, by international standards they are quite moderate.

Originally posted by King Kandy
i would say, by international standards they are quite moderate.

I sort of agree.


Originally posted by inimalist
in terms of american politics at least, the truth has a liberal bias

Yeah, that was more my point.

Originally posted by inimalist
what better do you think he could have accomplished during 2 minutes of dialogue with a republican party that trumpets the fact they wont negotiate with the democrats?
what do you consider negotiation? I mean, i look at Wisconsin and Indiana, and the Democratic party doesn't seem all that interested in negotiation there.

Originally posted by truejedi
what do you consider negotiation? I mean, i look at Wisconsin and Indiana, and the Democratic party doesn't seem all that interested in negotiation there.

neither did the republicans. in the prank call to governor walker,'it was revealed he was trying to use negotiations as a ruse to pass the legislation behind their backs.

I guess, my question more is, why do you think mocking satire isn't a good use of that time? what better point could he have made? I'm not even American and is vote for that man.

Originally posted by inimalist
neither did the republicans. in the prank call to governor walker,'it was revealed he was trying to use negotiations as a ruse to pass the legislation behind their backs.

I guess, my question more is, why do you think mocking satire isn't a good use of that time? what better point could he have made? I'm not even American and is vote for that man.

to answer that question: I watched that video, and I have no idea what point he was trying to make. So maybe a coherent one?

have you been following the NPR issue

yes i have. I did notice that his speech seemed more at causing further partisanship rather than finding a middle ground.... was that his point?

Originally posted by truejedi
yes i have. I did notice that his speech seemed more at causing further partisanship rather than finding a middle ground.... was that his point?

/facepalm

how is satire so confusing?

do you deny his satire probably did nothing to help the partisan problem? Do you think the Right will be more willing or less willing to negotiate with this man in the future? If his message was "negotiate with me" he did it wrong.

Originally posted by truejedi
do you deny his satire probably did nothing to help the partisan problem? Do you think the Right will be more willing or less willing to negotiate with this man in the future? If his message was "negotiate with me" he did it wrong.

what is the partisan problem?

but no, i think that was his point. It is silly to be negotiating about NPR in the first place when the government has bigger issues to face. There is no need to reach across the aisle here, NPR serves an excellent purpose and its funding is trivial compared to the real problems that plague government, and the issue itself is a red herring used by a party that is becoming further and further distanced from the ideals of the American people. Its not as funny said like that though.

the partisanship. Where the Right won't negotiate with the Left, and the Left won't negotiate with the right, and they keep passing temporary benefits because they can't reach an accord. How is 2 minutes wasted on satire going to do anything other than alienate the lawmakers who worked on the bill he is mocking and make it more difficult for the two sides to work together? These two parties make me sick.

what is the use of political parties if they agree with eachother?

You haven't noticed the trend in recent years towards strict party line voting? It didn't used to be that way. Rural democrats would side with rural republicans on some issues. Mostly representatives would vote with the best interest of their constituency in mind, not vote the party line on everything. In that way, compromise could be reached, and things got passed.

Now its D vs. R, and the country is divided, even though both parties do the SAME THINGS. The whole country is divided on a few social issues while the economy gets ripped apart no matter who is in power.

so, because Weiner makes a satirical speach, you think he is voting party line, rather than pointing out how silly it is to be talking about NPR funding?

you don't have to negotiate on every issue. Just because a bill is introduced to cut some funding, doesn't mean a negotiation and comprimise needs to be made. Sometimes, the Democrats are actually serving the will of the people who voted for them by saying "no comprimise". this is how a democracy works. We dont want a system where the powerful just collude to make deals that serve eachother's interests, you want real challange to all ideas.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, because Weiner makes a satirical speach, you think he is voting party line, rather than pointing out how silly it is to be talking about NPR funding?

you don't have to negotiate on every issue. Just because a bill is introduced to cut some funding, doesn't mean a negotiation and comprimise needs to be made. Sometimes, the Democrats are actually serving the will of the people who voted for them by saying "no comprimise". this is how a democracy works. We dont want a system where the powerful just collude to make deals that serve eachother's interests, you want real challange to all ideas.

I thought you originally said that your main problem with the R is that they won't negotiate? If you say Left is justified with saying "no compromise" surely you wont' deny the Right the same option?

Originally posted by truejedi
I thought you originally said that your main problem with the R is that they won't negotiate? If you say Left is justified with saying "no compromise" surely you wont' deny the Right the same option?

I suppose that is true

Originally posted by truejedi
You haven't noticed the trend in recent years towards strict party line voting? It didn't used to be that way. Rural democrats would side with rural republicans on some issues. Mostly representatives would vote with the best interest of their constituency in mind, not vote the party line on everything. In that way, compromise could be reached, and things got passed.

Now its D vs. R, and the country is divided, even though both parties do the SAME THINGS. The whole country is divided on a few social issues while the economy gets ripped apart no matter who is in power.

The increasing "divide" on parties lines being a contemporary issue is a myth. There was a video made which was basically a "voice-reenactment" of the political parties in days past that showed that even as far back as the very beginning of the US, there was very severe sh*t-slinging, lying, and logical fallacies being committed in campaigns across party-lines.

Originally posted by truejedi
I thought you originally said that your main problem with the R is that they won't negotiate? If you say Left is justified with saying "no compromise" surely you wont' deny the Right the same option?

Well, to sum up the Dems over the last 2.5 years...they've been appeasing the right on almost every major issue, direclty contradicting campaign promises to their constituents. What we need is a 70% saturation from one party or the other in both the house and the senate. THEN we could see some real change.

Hopefully not Republican. God, it makes me sick to think that I'd rather have Democrats in office than Republicans.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What we need is a 70% saturation from one party or the other in both the house and the senate. THEN we could see some real change.

see, I don't know if I agree

comparing Canada to America, I don't know if a government unable to do anything is worse than one that gets to do whatever it wants

I don't think either are preferable, but I hate the idea of majority parties, it becomes indistinguishable from single party rule

I don't think we want to see the kind of change that would be wrought by either party getting 70 percent saturation. That's terrifying actually.

Fact: Democrat and Republican politicians are not good people. Honestly, they are all millionaire who look at for their own interests. That's why they get a freaking a raise every year. You are forgetting they voted themselves a raise in the bailout bill, right? We don't want either party with that much power.

Originally posted by inimalist
see, I don't know if I agree

comparing Canada to America, I don't know if a government unable to do anything is worse than one that gets to do whatever it wants

I don't think either are preferable, but I hate the idea of majority parties, it becomes indistinguishable from single party rule

I actually do not want 70% of either major party. I was only commenting on what was necessary for significant change to occur, which ties back into this topic about Ron Paul: he needs about 69 senators to think similar to him in order to get any sort of change done...regardless if the change is good or bad.

Every time I see the thread title I expect this to be about Ron Paul murdering someone.

Yeah I've been wondering just what he killed. An animal? The Constitution? American resolve?