but if realistic is "we do what the overlords say so as we don't rock the boat and lose cheap chinese labor"....
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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?'
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.
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.
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.
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).
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:
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:
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."
KMC Community Forums
Feb 18th, 2011 07:58 PM
He's also not only "Jeffersonian" and has never said he was.
