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,
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.
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 "["QUOTE-LIBERAL MEDIA-ETOUQ"]" (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 "["QUOTE-LIBERAL MEDIA-ETOUQ"]" (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.
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:
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.