Ron Paul Thread. "Farewell Address" Pt.1 Vid and text.

[sillyputty]

Ron Paul really isn't that great of a candidate... 

[url=http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/09/02/the-difference-between-what-liberals-believe-what-libertarians-believe-and-what-ron-paul-believes/]http://www.addictinginfo....-what-ron-paul-believes/[/url]
[h1]The Difference Between What Liberals Believe, What Libertarians Believe, And What Ron Paul Believes[/h1]


I’m constantly barraged with comments from liberals who tell me that Ron Paul is the only real candidate Liberals should support. The most prominent argument I hear is that Ron Paul would legalize cannabis and other drugs, but to me that is not enough criteria to be considered a “Liberal

 

[sillyputty]

Ron Paul really isn't that great of a candidate... 

[url=http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/09/02/the-difference-between-what-liberals-believe-what-libertarians-believe-and-what-ron-paul-believes/]http://www.addictinginfo....-what-ron-paul-believes/[/url]
[h1]The Difference Between What Liberals Believe, What Libertarians Believe, And What Ron Paul Believes[/h1]


I’m constantly barraged with comments from liberals who tell me that Ron Paul is the only real candidate Liberals should support. The most prominent argument I hear is that Ron Paul would legalize cannabis and other drugs, but to me that is not enough criteria to be considered a “Liberal

 

[ac4three]

These are NOT my words, but I was reading a message board the other day and came across this post. It addresses many of the misconceptions associated with Ron Paul and his policies:

"Ron Paul doesn't support abortion because you can't preserve one persons rights or liberties by destroying another. That is a very defensible position and probably the single most disagreed upon answer by libertarians.

His answer for gay marriage is that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Once you have made that stance, you don't win by making the federal government intervene in marriage. Eventually, I believe the supreme court will rule in favor of gay marriage, but over regulation isn't the answer.

Civil rights is a completely different issue. Ron supports 9/10ths of the civil rights act. The issue is the one part that deals with private property. Since Ron is an extreme protector of private property rights, he agrees with the notion that you cannot tell someone who they can and can't serve regardless of their reason for denying them service. This is a Lockean method of thinking and a very defensible position. The government authorized itself to do so by a gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause and as such, the government has expanded on that abuse many times since then. It has nothing to do with racism, but everything about prevent government from over-expanding and gaining power it was never meant to have."

 

[ac4three]

These are NOT my words, but I was reading a message board the other day and came across this post. It addresses many of the misconceptions associated with Ron Paul and his policies:

"Ron Paul doesn't support abortion because you can't preserve one persons rights or liberties by destroying another. That is a very defensible position and probably the single most disagreed upon answer by libertarians.

His answer for gay marriage is that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Once you have made that stance, you don't win by making the federal government intervene in marriage. Eventually, I believe the supreme court will rule in favor of gay marriage, but over regulation isn't the answer.

Civil rights is a completely different issue. Ron supports 9/10ths of the civil rights act. The issue is the one part that deals with private property. Since Ron is an extreme protector of private property rights, he agrees with the notion that you cannot tell someone who they can and can't serve regardless of their reason for denying them service. This is a Lockean method of thinking and a very defensible position. The government authorized itself to do so by a gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause and as such, the government has expanded on that abuse many times since then. It has nothing to do with racism, but everything about prevent government from over-expanding and gaining power it was never meant to have."

 

[kash55]

Originally Posted by AC4Three

Which policies need to be more aggressive?

Well he caved in on extending the George Bush tax cuts, which if left expired was going to bring the taxes back to the level that was under Clinton (a time when the US economy was strong and growing), this tax would have effected people making over $250,000 / yr and up.
$680 billion in revenue would have been made from this to help the deficit. 

But he caved in to the Republicans and agreed to extend it until 2013.

He hasn't got out of Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as he said he would, he hasn't closed or at least minimalized Guantanamo, he hasn't stopped tax loop holes that lets companies get away with paying little to no tax:

ie. Double Irish Arrangement

Eli Lilly and Company, Facebook, Forest Laboratories, Google, Microsoft, Oracle Corp., Pfizer Inc. payed little to no tax using this loophole

Link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_Arrangement

And G.E. skirted paying any taxes on $5.1 billion in profits in 2010--in addition to claiming a $3.2 billion tax credit.

Link:http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/g-e-paid-no-taxes-5-1-billion-20110325-082417-878.html

Along with cutting oil and corn subsidies, which costs the U.S. $10 billion and $7.5 billion /yr respectively. 

Not putting money in to green technology like wind, solar, geothermal, etc. Like China, EU, Brazil have. 

Now all these points are some of the core issues that the right has a problem with, they don't want any of it and Obama has failed to implement ideas like these. Most economic experts seem to agree that taxes + some cost cutting + and investment is the best way to get out of a deficit like this, but these seemingly common-sense ideas has caused massive polarization between the two parties.

 

[kash55]

Originally Posted by AC4Three

Which policies need to be more aggressive?

Well he caved in on extending the George Bush tax cuts, which if left expired was going to bring the taxes back to the level that was under Clinton (a time when the US economy was strong and growing), this tax would have effected people making over $250,000 / yr and up.
$680 billion in revenue would have been made from this to help the deficit. 

But he caved in to the Republicans and agreed to extend it until 2013.

He hasn't got out of Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as he said he would, he hasn't closed or at least minimalized Guantanamo, he hasn't stopped tax loop holes that lets companies get away with paying little to no tax:

ie. Double Irish Arrangement

Eli Lilly and Company, Facebook, Forest Laboratories, Google, Microsoft, Oracle Corp., Pfizer Inc. payed little to no tax using this loophole

Link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_Arrangement

And G.E. skirted paying any taxes on $5.1 billion in profits in 2010--in addition to claiming a $3.2 billion tax credit.

Link:http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/g-e-paid-no-taxes-5-1-billion-20110325-082417-878.html

Along with cutting oil and corn subsidies, which costs the U.S. $10 billion and $7.5 billion /yr respectively. 

Not putting money in to green technology like wind, solar, geothermal, etc. Like China, EU, Brazil have. 

Now all these points are some of the core issues that the right has a problem with, they don't want any of it and Obama has failed to implement ideas like these. Most economic experts seem to agree that taxes + some cost cutting + and investment is the best way to get out of a deficit like this, but these seemingly common-sense ideas has caused massive polarization between the two parties.

 

[ac4three]

Originally Posted by kash55

Originally Posted by AC4Three

Which policies need to be more aggressive?

Well he caved in on extending the George Bush tax cuts, which if left expired was going to bring the taxes back to the level that was under Clinton (a time when the US economy was strong and growing), this tax would have effected people making over $250,000 / yr and up.
$680 billion in revenue would have been made from this to help the deficit. 

But he caved in to the Republicans and agreed to extend it until 2013.

He hasn't got out of Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as he said he would, he hasn't closed or at least minimalized Guantanamo, he hasn't stopped tax loop holes that lets companies get away with paying little to no tax:

ie. Double Irish Arrangement

Eli Lilly and Company, Facebook, Forest Laboratories, Google, Microsoft, Oracle Corp., Pfizer Inc. payed little to no tax using this loophole

Link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_Arrangement

And G.E. skirted paying any taxes on $5.1 billion in profits in 2010--in addition to claiming a $3.2 billion tax credit.

Link:http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/g-e-paid-no-taxes-5-1-billion-20110325-082417-878.html

Along with cutting oil and corn subsidies, which costs the U.S. $10 billion and $7.5 billion /yr respectively. 

Not putting money in to green technology like wind, solar, geothermal, etc. Like China, EU, Brazil have. 

Now all these points are some of the core issues that the right has a problem with, they don't want any of it and Obama has failed to implement ideas like these. Most economic experts seem to agree that taxes + some cost cutting + and investment is the best way to get out of a deficit like this, but these seemingly common-sense ideas has caused massive polarization between the two parties.

America's problems are much deeper than most people think, and I would argue that "right vs. left" is turning into a false dichotomy. While he is certainly a long shot, Ron Paul is America's last chance to "fix" the country. Obama has already proven that his campaign was based on mere rhetoric; he hasn't made the changes that need to be made, and the changes he has made have been negative.

Add this to the list of discussion topics for next time, along with designer goods.

 

[ac4three]

Originally Posted by kash55

Originally Posted by AC4Three

Which policies need to be more aggressive?

Well he caved in on extending the George Bush tax cuts, which if left expired was going to bring the taxes back to the level that was under Clinton (a time when the US economy was strong and growing), this tax would have effected people making over $250,000 / yr and up.
$680 billion in revenue would have been made from this to help the deficit. 

But he caved in to the Republicans and agreed to extend it until 2013.

He hasn't got out of Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as he said he would, he hasn't closed or at least minimalized Guantanamo, he hasn't stopped tax loop holes that lets companies get away with paying little to no tax:

ie. Double Irish Arrangement

Eli Lilly and Company, Facebook, Forest Laboratories, Google, Microsoft, Oracle Corp., Pfizer Inc. payed little to no tax using this loophole

Link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_Arrangement

And G.E. skirted paying any taxes on $5.1 billion in profits in 2010--in addition to claiming a $3.2 billion tax credit.

Link:http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/g-e-paid-no-taxes-5-1-billion-20110325-082417-878.html

Along with cutting oil and corn subsidies, which costs the U.S. $10 billion and $7.5 billion /yr respectively. 

Not putting money in to green technology like wind, solar, geothermal, etc. Like China, EU, Brazil have. 

Now all these points are some of the core issues that the right has a problem with, they don't want any of it and Obama has failed to implement ideas like these. Most economic experts seem to agree that taxes + some cost cutting + and investment is the best way to get out of a deficit like this, but these seemingly common-sense ideas has caused massive polarization between the two parties.

America's problems are much deeper than most people think, and I would argue that "right vs. left" is turning into a false dichotomy. While he is certainly a long shot, Ron Paul is America's last chance to "fix" the country. Obama has already proven that his campaign was based on mere rhetoric; he hasn't made the changes that need to be made, and the changes he has made have been negative.

Add this to the list of discussion topics for next time, along with designer goods.

 

[rashi]

America is speaking even without this Corporate Controlled Media.


Mitt Romney

Rick Perry

Pres. Obama

.......




.......


......


........








.........



Ron Paul

Truth shall set you free.









Proves he has more support than the media is telling you...

 

[rashi]

America is speaking even without this Corporate Controlled Media.


Mitt Romney

Rick Perry

Pres. Obama

.......




.......


......


........








.........



Ron Paul

Truth shall set you free.









Proves he has more support than the media is telling you...

 

[acemaster193]

End the Fed Reserve. This is the only man looking to attack important issues. However, all changes when the MAN reaches the White House. Let's hope he's not like the rest.

 

[acemaster193]

End the Fed Reserve. This is the only man looking to attack important issues. However, all changes when the MAN reaches the White House. Let's hope he's not like the rest.

 

[maelstroom]

 

[maelstroom]

 

[rashi]

Keep in mind, that these are rankings based on INDIVIDUALS, not CORPORATE donations.


Obama

1. Microsoft
2. Comcast
3. Harvard
16. Goldman Sachs
19. BoA

Perry

1. Ryan LLC
2. Murray Energy
3. USAA
14. JP Morgan
20. Morgan Stanley

Cain

1. Wassau Homes
2. Wells Fargo
3. Houston Texans

Romney

1. Goldman Sachs
2. Credit Suisse Group
3. Morgan Stanley
7. BoA
10. JP Morgan
17. Wells Fargo
19. Citigroup

Ron Paul

1. US Air Force
2. US Army
3. US Navy

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php


Well, we know who the powers that be are picking...for now. Always helps when you have more than one horse in the race.

 

[rashi]

Keep in mind, that these are rankings based on INDIVIDUALS, not CORPORATE donations.


Obama

1. Microsoft
2. Comcast
3. Harvard
16. Goldman Sachs
19. BoA

Perry

1. Ryan LLC
2. Murray Energy
3. USAA
14. JP Morgan
20. Morgan Stanley

Cain

1. Wassau Homes
2. Wells Fargo
3. Houston Texans

Romney

1. Goldman Sachs
2. Credit Suisse Group
3. Morgan Stanley
7. BoA
10. JP Morgan
17. Wells Fargo
19. Citigroup

Ron Paul

1. US Air Force
2. US Army
3. US Navy

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php


Well, we know who the powers that be are picking...for now. Always helps when you have more than one horse in the race.

 

[essential1]

Ron Paul

4. Mason Capital Management (Hedge Fund)
5. Microsoft
6. Boeing
7. Google
8. Lockheed Martin
15. Northrop Grumman


Corporations, Banks, Hedge Funds, etc.. BUY ALL POLITICIANS.. Ron Paul is not immune.. And IF he becomes a legitimate candidate to win the presidency... Then Goldman will pour the money into his coffers as well

 

[essential1]

Ron Paul

4. Mason Capital Management (Hedge Fund)
5. Microsoft
6. Boeing
7. Google
8. Lockheed Martin
15. Northrop Grumman


Corporations, Banks, Hedge Funds, etc.. BUY ALL POLITICIANS.. Ron Paul is not immune.. And IF he becomes a legitimate candidate to win the presidency... Then Goldman will pour the money into his coffers as well

 

[deuce king]

I don't see this thead ending well as the months go along for all you Ron Paul supporters, time will tell.

 

[deuce king]

I don't see this thead ending well as the months go along for all you Ron Paul supporters, time will tell.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Ron Paul

4. Mason Capital Management (Hedge Fund)
5. Microsoft
6. Boeing
7. Google
8. Lockheed Martin
15. Northrop Grumman


Corporations, Banks, Hedge Funds, etc.. BUY ALL POLITICIANS.. Ron Paul is not immune.. And IF he becomes a legitimate candidate to win the presidency... Then Goldman will pour the money into his coffers as well

Dude, these ranking ARE NOT CORPORATE DONATIONS. When you make a donation to a political candidate you have you put your employment AND who you work for. I'm sure Goldman Sachs loves to hear Ron Paul wanting to abolish their Piggy Bank.

I don't see this thead ending well as the months go along for all you Ron Paul supporters, time will tell.


Ron Paul wins regardless, whether he gets the nomination or not. The support for Ron Paul this cycle is leaps and bounds beyond what is has been, more and more people are listening and paying attention. Most of his support is from the younger generation.  More and more people are being exposed to his ideas. Look at how many people have signs of "END THE FED" in the OWS, and the people setting up camp at the numerous Federal Reserve branches since the beginning of the sit ins. Look at those maps, they say a lot. Way more diverse.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Ron Paul

4. Mason Capital Management (Hedge Fund)
5. Microsoft
6. Boeing
7. Google
8. Lockheed Martin
15. Northrop Grumman


Corporations, Banks, Hedge Funds, etc.. BUY ALL POLITICIANS.. Ron Paul is not immune.. And IF he becomes a legitimate candidate to win the presidency... Then Goldman will pour the money into his coffers as well

Dude, these ranking ARE NOT CORPORATE DONATIONS. When you make a donation to a political candidate you have you put your employment AND who you work for. I'm sure Goldman Sachs loves to hear Ron Paul wanting to abolish their Piggy Bank.

I don't see this thead ending well as the months go along for all you Ron Paul supporters, time will tell.


Ron Paul wins regardless, whether he gets the nomination or not. The support for Ron Paul this cycle is leaps and bounds beyond what is has been, more and more people are listening and paying attention. Most of his support is from the younger generation.  More and more people are being exposed to his ideas. Look at how many people have signs of "END THE FED" in the OWS, and the people setting up camp at the numerous Federal Reserve branches since the beginning of the sit ins. Look at those maps, they say a lot. Way more diverse.

 

[deuce king]

Ron Paul wins regardless, whether he gets the nomination or not. The support for Ron Paul this cycle is leaps and bounds beyond what is has been, more and more people are listening and paying attention. Most of his support is from the younger generation.  More and more people are being exposed to his ideas. Look at how many people have signs of "END THE FED" in the OWS, and the people setting up camp at the numerous Federal Reserve branches since the beginning of the sit ins. Look at those maps, they say a lot. Way more diverse.

 
It's great the his message is getting out and it's great that folks want to "END THE FED", I see your point there, but what I'm saying is if Paul isn't elected to the White House or at least gets the Republican Nomination than to me it's all for nothing.  It's great that he's bringning about awareness, but if he or his movement doesn't capitalize on it by getting him elected than I see it as a moot point.

 

[deuce king]

Ron Paul wins regardless, whether he gets the nomination or not. The support for Ron Paul this cycle is leaps and bounds beyond what is has been, more and more people are listening and paying attention. Most of his support is from the younger generation.  More and more people are being exposed to his ideas. Look at how many people have signs of "END THE FED" in the OWS, and the people setting up camp at the numerous Federal Reserve branches since the beginning of the sit ins. Look at those maps, they say a lot. Way more diverse.

 
It's great the his message is getting out and it's great that folks want to "END THE FED", I see your point there, but what I'm saying is if Paul isn't elected to the White House or at least gets the Republican Nomination than to me it's all for nothing.  It's great that he's bringning about awareness, but if he or his movement doesn't capitalize on it by getting him elected than I see it as a moot point.

 

[essential1]

rashi wrote:

---

Essential1 wrote:

---

Ron Paul

4. Mason Capital Management (Hedge Fund)
5. Microsoft
6. Boeing
7. Google
8. Lockheed Martin
15. Northrop Grumman


Corporations, Banks, Hedge Funds, etc.. BUY ALL POLITICIANS.. Ron Paul is not immune.. And IF he becomes a legitimate candidate to win the presidency... Then Goldman will pour the money into his coffers as well

Dude, these ranking ARE NOT CORPORATE DONATIONS. When you make a donation to a political candidate you have you put your employment AND who you work for. I'm sure Goldman Sachs loves to hear Ron Paul wanting to abolish their Piggy Bank.



Then Obama's donations, Romney's donations, Cain's and Perry's really don't make a difference either... If there small or large donations from individuals make a difference so does Paul's.. Who has received as much large contributions as he has small contributions 6,075,354 (48%) tp 6,114,372 (48%)....  But I guess to you that doesn't make a difference
 
And you're naive to think that no matter how Goldman feels about Ron Paul if he was even REMOTELY a LEGITIMATE candidate for the Presidency they would play their bets on him as well..

But because he is not a legitimate candidate there is no point for a donation to him. Let him win the Republican Nomination you will see how many corporations will play their bets on every number on the Roulette table including his..

To be intellectually honest which you refuse to be... Goldman and other corporations donate based on the relative chances that person has in winning the election.. So Obama, Romney, Cain, Perry have far larger donations than  Huntsman  or Paul...

Just be honest with yourself... The more legitimate the candidate the more funds he can raise in total from people... The more chance he has in winning, the more likely he is to get significant donations from corporations who put their hands in everyone's pocket...

Ron Paul's only immunity from this is NO ONE TAKES HIM AS A SERIOUS CANDIDATE.

Also in terms of small contributions Obama (46%) and Paul (48%) ... Whereas Mitt has 10%