Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum

Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Off Topic => Topic started by: goodsamaritan on August 15, 2011, 09:48:17 pm

Title: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 15, 2011, 09:48:17 pm
I can't help it.  I want to meddle into USA affairs.  Just like USA meddles in my country's affairs.  Hopefully with this Ron Paul in office, he will call the troops back home and stop all the evil empire wars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrj9-gHpQsw

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

Talk is cheap. You must register to vote as a republican to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. Follow this link to learn how to register in your state:  http://www.dailypaul.com/165288/register-republican-to-vote-for-ron-paul-in-republican-primary (http://www.dailypaul.com/165288/register-republican-to-vote-for-ron-paul-in-republican-primary)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on August 15, 2011, 09:54:52 pm
he has no chance, too radical for average voters.  the troops will come home only when pentagon runs out of money. 
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 15, 2011, 10:12:18 pm
Look, Ron Paul is PRO-LIFE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plDcyC4Gnrs

My kind of guy.

And anti-war.
And anti-federal reserve.
And anti-income tax.

Bring the troops home!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Eric on August 15, 2011, 10:46:22 pm
he has no chance, too radical for average voters.  the troops will come home only when pentagon runs out of money.  

Poppycock. He came in a VERY close second in the Iowa straw poll, beaten only by Bachmann who, in my mind, doesn't have a chance of winning the Republican primary on account of her resemblance to Sarah Palin and her extremist, hateful rhetoric.

Ron Paul came in second place in the NH straw poll after Mitt Romney, who won't win the Republican primary either because he's Mormon (not that I dislike Mormon's, but let's be honest: US voters aren't going to elect someone who is of a minority religion that most deride to the Presidency).

Ron Paul obviously has a chance. He might be too radical for you as a voter, but that says more about you than it does about voters more generally.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: zbr5 on August 15, 2011, 11:06:32 pm
Yes, Americans please vote on Ron Paul. He can start the global revolution. I keep fingers crossed for him 2012!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: klowcarb on August 15, 2011, 11:50:35 pm
I am in love with RP!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 16, 2011, 12:03:49 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqaVZPTEqMU

Ron Paul wins 2011 RLC Straw Poll

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVcTTihd7ec

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

Ron Paul Wins Historic Vote Total In Ames Straw Poll


Ron Paul Wins Historic Vote Total at Ames Straw Poll

Dr. Paul shatters expectations, proves strength of candidacy

AMES, Iowa– Congressman Ron Paul won 4,671 votes in today’s Iowa Republican Straw Poll, topping Governor Mitt Romney’s vote total from 2007 and drawing a near statistical tie with today’s winner at 27.6 percent of the vote versus 28.5 percent.

Dr. Paul’s finish earned him a strong second place and it was the fourth highest vote total ever received by a candidate at the important test of candidate strength.

Said campaign chairman Jesse Benton,

“Dr. Paul is surging in this race, and today’s results show the strength of his grassroots support and top notch organization.

“These straw poll results, our growing poll numbers and our strong fundraising shows that our message is resonating with Iowans and Americans everywhere.

“Our message was the same in 2007 as it is in now in 2011, but this time we have quadrupled our support. That means our message is spreading, our support is surging, and people are taking notice.

“We are uniting a coalition of longtime supporters, fiscal conservatives, constitutional conservatives, independents, tea party and anti-big government activists to take on the Washington establishment.

“Today, Ron Paul has emerged as a top tier candidate and is a serious contender to win the Republican nomination and the Presidency.”
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on August 16, 2011, 01:49:13 am
Wow, I'm not an American which kind of makes it, not my business... however I like him. He makes sense!!!!

Can't disagree with anything he says.

Go Ron Go!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on August 16, 2011, 02:05:10 am
Quote
Ron Paul obviously has a chance. He might be too radical for you as a voter, but that says more about you than it does about voters more generally.

i never said he is too radical for me.  in fact i never disclosed anything that might reveal my beliefs.

again my personal opinion is he has no chance for majority of voters based on past elections and reading popular blogs from left to right and anywhere in between.  statistically the odds are against him as well.  congressmen don't get elected for presidency that often, it's always either governor or senator.  but i guess time will tell.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: djr_81 on August 16, 2011, 05:16:37 am
My wife and I watched the very first Republican debate this year and that is when I got acquainted with Ron Paul. It was refreshing to see someone so candid and honest in the debate which was that much more apparent contrasting with his fellow debaters (who to me came off as sleazy and disingenuous). I was an instant supporter of his and would love to see him get elected.

Interestingly the talking heads on the television have been derisive of his chances on both sides of the party lines, when they even mention him, but he has slowly been building a support base. My biggest concern about his chances are his links to the early "Tea Party" movement and the farce of itself this has become.

I'm a big proponent of reduction of government and less infringement on personal liberties (like many others here on the forum I guess I lean Libertarian). Ron Paul comes across as someone with the same viewpoint which is a big difference from many in Washington. Go Ron Go indeed. :)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 16, 2011, 06:06:27 am
I'm currently leaning to Ron Paul, but haven't decided. By the time the primaries get to my state, they are usually decided anyway. It would be nice to be able to give a vote to an honest politician.

Alex Jones has been making some really good videos lately and that was one of his better ones.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on August 16, 2011, 06:21:36 am
In Canada we used to have 2 political parties; Liberal and Conservative. There were others in days gone by but my world started when it was Liberals and PC.

Then the NDP came along who were basically the wingy dingy liberals  ;D Prior to that the Liberals were in power lots. After that the vote split with the right wing (rich) liberals and the left wing NDP sharing.

Then along came the Reform party which was basically the ultra Redneck Conservatives which split the right wing vote. The Conservatives were reduced to being a Corvette party. 2 seats. Then they wised up and went back together as the Conservatives again.

All that to ask where will Ron Paul take the vote from?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 16, 2011, 06:41:31 am
Ron Paul is a Republican, not a third party candidate, so he doesn't take the vote from either of the two major parties, as he is a member of one of them. What could happen if Ron is nominated is that hawkish Republicans might stay home and not vote in the general election. On the other hand, fiscally conservative Democrats might vote for Ron in the general election and make up for that potential loss.

Have any of the polling services run a poll of Ron Paul vs. Obama? If so, what were the results? If Paul did well, he could use that to say that he's a viable candidate.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: magnetic on August 16, 2011, 07:01:56 pm
Ron Paul is a Republican, not a third party candidate, so he doesn't take the vote from either of the two major parties, as he is a member of one of them. What could happen if Ron is nominated is that hawkish Republicans might stay home and not vote in the general election. On the other hand, fiscally conservative Democrats might vote for Ron in the general election and make up for that potential loss.

Have any of the polling services run a poll of Ron Paul vs. Obama? If so, what were the results? If Paul did well, he could use that to say that he's a viable candidate.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/election_2012_barack_obama_42_ron_paul_41 (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/election_2012_barack_obama_42_ron_paul_41)

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/07/22/ron-paul-competitive-against-obama-in-new-poll/ (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/07/22/ron-paul-competitive-against-obama-in-new-poll/)

I am a big Ron Paul supporter, but not because I think that he as an individual, if elected, would have the power to make any positive changes. What we need is less government. He has helped more people to become aware that government is the problem, and the free market is the solution. His support is growing, but it may be too late for America. Americans are full of fear, and quick to surrender their rights for the illusion of security. Everyone seems committed to their own brand of socialism.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on August 16, 2011, 10:51:45 pm
it appears someone is paying big money to keep Ron Paul out of the news
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61430.html

popularity is the key, the most popular will win this circus.  kind of like why burger king and mcdonalds are so popular with the masses.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 16, 2011, 11:31:41 pm
The banksters of course don't want Ron Paul to win.

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/16668278

Ron Paul Media Blackout

http://www.awareandprepare.com/ron-paul-media-blackout-hits-main-street-media/

Super funny 2nd video!!!

-----------

Ron Paul is my total dream candidate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn7FAXVnSR8

and Ron Paul's amazing "What if?" speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjuUWr9vaXo

-----------

OMG - USA Media and its people should be ashamed of yourselves how LOOOWWWWW your mass media has gone.  You guys are living in HITLER times.  HEIL the BANKSTERS.  Bought, bought, bought, bought, bought.


---------

The gov't controlled media will never support Dr. Paul. That in itself should be enough to tell you that he's the best choice.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on August 17, 2011, 12:17:05 am
US does not have government controlled media.  media is controlled by various special interests outside of the government such as Soros, Murdoch, Koch, etc, the complete spectrum from left to right.  even PBS is controlled by left-wing groups.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: magnetic on August 17, 2011, 06:51:31 am
US does not have government controlled media.  media is controlled by various special interests outside of the government such as Soros, Murdoch, Koch, etc, the complete spectrum from left to right.  even PBS is controlled by left-wing groups.

Yes, it is government controlled. Maybe you've never heard of the FCC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on August 17, 2011, 11:19:08 am
i know what FCC does, but do you?  FCC has no control over media contents.  it regulates broadcasting methods but not the contents.  Mike Savage can bash anyone including FCC and the government and FCC cannot do jack to him.  and Mike Savage draws huge numbers.  where is your government control?

FCC also has no control over Internet media.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: magnetic on August 17, 2011, 11:25:42 am
i know what FCC does, but do you?  FCC has no control over media contents.  it regulates broadcasting methods but not the contents.  Mike Savage can bash anyone including FCC and the government and FCC cannot do jack to him.  and Mike Savage draws huge numbers.  where is your government control?

FCC also has no control over Internet media.

You need a license. They decide who gets one. Mainstream media is government media. You are right about internet media, that is why the government is looking to crack down on internet freedom. The traditional media has become irrelevant so they are running to the government, hoping for a little help.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on August 17, 2011, 09:02:16 pm
absolutely you need a license because the broadcasting space is very limited.  It cannot be unregulated.

mainstream media is not government controlled.  please provide radio station or channel and evidence of government control?

you have not answered my question.  Mike Savage is mainstream media, his show is being re-broadcasted to hundreds of radio stations and his ratings are huge.  where is government control here??

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 17, 2011, 10:39:32 pm
*** You guys can go make a new thread about your MEDIA topic so we can concentrate on RON PAUL. ***

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pChzOaIeyxY

(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/strawpoll-1.jpg)
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread741250/pg1


Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: magnetic on August 18, 2011, 10:49:40 am
absolutely you need a license because the broadcasting space is very limited.  It cannot be unregulated.

mainstream media is not government controlled.  please provide radio station or channel and evidence of government control?

you have not answered my question.  Mike Savage is mainstream media, his show is being re-broadcasted to hundreds of radio stations and his ratings are huge.  where is government control here??



Your argument would imply that anything "limited" needs to be rationed by government. Food is limited, land is limited, etc. We live in a world where everything exchanged is limited. Everything can be unregulated, but the violent gang of thugs supported by a brainwashed populace keeps regulations in place, and big profits for a few corporations are the result.

Name a mainstream broadcast news source that is broadcasting without government approval. Anything that is broadcast is the subject of government scrutiny, government censors. If you do not satisfy the bureaucrats, they can pull the plug on you. They put pressure on the media outlets, who can only continue broadcasting with the permission of government thugs.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 18, 2011, 11:27:15 am
*** Um... let's stop with the MEDIA off topic guys.  You guys might want to make a new thread re MEDIA being CONTROLLED. ***
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on August 18, 2011, 04:28:41 pm
The controlled media is the establishments first line of defense against Ron Paul. The establishment has developed methods of preventing a Ron Paul from getting a fair chance. The corrupt media is the issue, America is full of people who would vote for Ron Paul if they could hear his message, but the major network media outlets are trying to pretend that Ron Paul doesn't exist, and doing everything to suppress Ron Pauls campaign. The entire media may not be entirely under the establishments control, but there is evidence enough to make one believe that there is a concerted effort to blackball him from the democratic process.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJcx3e0I1R8

 
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 19, 2011, 04:05:41 am
Given the rise in interest in Ron Paul again this election cycle, it seems like good timing to dust off some vintage conspiracy videos from deep in the AboveTopSecret.com archive. In this three-part video interview from 1988, then four-term Congressman Ron Paul describes the American power structure. As a member of the House Banking and Currency Committee, Paul was in a unique position to see the inner workings of economic power and control of the country, and how this power translates into political power. Paul describes how, through the control of the Federal Reserve and the banking system, the American power elite is basically out of reach of the democratic system. Concurrently, by using such organizations as the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, control over the political process is maintained, resulting in what is in reality a in the U.S.

Vintage Ron Paul: The American Power Elite (videos)

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread741633/pg1

He is going to win!
Wow look at this:
Video: Ron Paul 81%, Rick Perry 19%

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcE8PTid6qU&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 19, 2011, 05:40:35 am
The controlled media is the establishments first line of defense against Ron Paul. The establishment has developed methods of preventing a Ron Paul from getting a fair chance. The corrupt media is the issue, America is full of people who would vote for Ron Paul if they could hear his message, but the major network media outlets are trying to pretend that Ron Paul doesn't exist, and doing everything to suppress Ron Pauls campaign. The entire media may not be entirely under the establishments control, but there is evidence enough to make one believe that there is a concerted effort to blackball him from the democratic process.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJcx3e0I1R8

 
Jon Stewart's show has grown to be establishment media and he has consistently given Ron Paul respect. That was a brilliant report by Stewart. He makes the rest of the media look like bumbling idiots and party hacks in comparison. On the other hand, Stewart does have a conflicting interest--he's antiwar and Ron Paul is the only credible candidate who wants to get the troops out of all wars ASAP. . Obama did the opposite of what he promised and expanded the US foreign war involvement. Ron Paul said that the wars have cost us seven trillion dollars so far. No wonder the US gov't has a massive debt.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: nicole on August 19, 2011, 05:58:23 am
I am definitely for Ron Paul even though he isn't precisely a libertarian he is eons better than those other jerks. He is better in one way than many libertarians because he does not believe in abortion.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on August 19, 2011, 06:26:28 am
I am definitely for Ron Paul even though he isn't precisely a libertarian he is eons better than those other jerks. He is better in one way than many libertarians because he does not believe in abortion.
I see nothing wrong with abortion. It at least allows the possibility of preventing crack babies from being born and the like.  A genuine libertarian should allow people more freedom of choice, not less.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 19, 2011, 09:08:06 am
Obama 2012 Vs. Ron Paul 2012!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWSF0ddWVJo

Obama's change means MORE WAR!

----------

Fox news complete liars, lying about their own POLL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRozwnDeaTA
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: majormark on August 19, 2011, 10:00:57 pm
I dont think RP will win, but if actually does he would not be able to do much anyway. When will people wake up and realize that the ones that keep a government alive are themselves and not the one person called "president"? 

If you want better change, than change yourself first and than influence others to become better persons, to eat better, etc.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on August 19, 2011, 10:06:55 pm
I dont think RP will win, but if actually does he would not be able to do much anyway. When will people wake up and realize that the ones that keep a government alive are themselves and not the one person called "president"? 

If you want better change, than change yourself first and than influence others to become better persons, to eat better, etc.
Correct. Someone once said:- "Every country has the government it deserves".
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: wodgina on August 19, 2011, 10:40:39 pm
The ultra rich decide what will change what you will think.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: The King of Currumpaw on August 19, 2011, 11:46:01 pm
http://youtu.be/Lyppp_2GPa4
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on August 20, 2011, 01:46:43 am
Great Man! He stated that foreign aid involves money from poor people in rich countries being paid to rich people in poor countries. That's what I've been saying for years.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 20, 2011, 03:18:08 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alfi7cm0qjw

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiWyUxcVM04

For the sake of world peace, foreigners must meddle in the affairs of the USA and help elect Ron Paul as President.  Let good win for a change.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on August 20, 2011, 03:41:26 am
are you willing to donate to his campaign?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 20, 2011, 03:45:15 am
are you willing to donate to his campaign?

Sure.  I donate a lot to rawpaleodietforum.com, I can donate to Ron Paul.  Best tell the foreigners how to donate to Ron Paul without it being illegal and disqualifying him.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: magnetic on August 20, 2011, 09:02:35 am
are you willing to donate to his campaign?

I have already donated far more than I should. Bye-bye budget.

There is a money bomb tomorrow, Saturday the 20th. I pledged $100.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 20, 2011, 09:08:36 am
For the sake of world peace, foreigners must meddle in the affairs of the USA ....
Aha! I knew it! LOL
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: nicole on August 20, 2011, 09:53:07 am
I see nothing wrong with abortion. It at least allows the possibility of preventing crack babies from being born and the like.  A genuine libertarian should allow people more freedom of choice, not less.
Freedom of personal choice yes, not choice to hurt someone else though.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 21, 2011, 07:21:29 am
Ron Paul Wins NH Straw Poll

The Texas congressman won Saturday's New Hampshire Young Republicans Straw Poll by a commanding margin.

Ron Paul got a great birthday present Saturday, as the 76-year-old defeated 11 other Republicans in Saturday's New Hampshire Young Republicans Straw Poll.

Paul, a congressman from Texas, won a commanding 45 percent of the vote and bested runner-up Mitt Romney by 35 percent votes despite not actually attending the event, which was held in New Castle and also included a lobster bake.

There were 302 ballots cast Saturday, and the full vote results are as follows, in the order the candidates were listed on the ballot: Jon Huntsman - 3 percent ; Herman Cain - 5 percent; Rick Perry - 8 percent; Fred Karger - 0 percent ; Paul - 45 percent; Mitt Romney - 10 percent; Thaddeus McCotter - 8 percent; Rick Santorum - 3 percent; Michele Bachmann - 5 percent; Buddy Roemer - 3 percent; Gary Johnson - 6 percent; and Newt Gingrich - 1 percent.

Rudy Giuliani and Paul Ryan each received 1 percent of the vote as write-in candidates, while another 1 percent was comprised of candidates who received less than 1 percent, according to event officials.

Gingrich, Perry, Romney and Santorum all were unrepresented at Saturday's event, as no one spoke on their behalf and none had a table at the event.

State Sen. Jim Forsythe spoke on behalf of Paul.

Saturday's event, which drew roughly 350 people, also featured a vote for New Hampshire governor.

http://hampton-northhampton.patch.com/articles/nh-straw-poll-winners
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on August 21, 2011, 07:36:55 am
Freedom of personal choice yes, not choice to hurt someone else though.
Trouble is that by forbidding abortion, you are making those womens' lives an utter misery, thus definitely hurting them. 

If you hate abortion so much, read Philip K Dick's short story "The Pre-Persons", which is a fun SF story which is fanatically anti-abortion in its theme.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: wodgina on August 21, 2011, 08:26:07 am
I used to think 'pro choice' (which social engineer came up with that for wording for abortion?) now I don't. Some instances though, the reasons for, are academic.

It's extremely unhealthy physically to abort and I know it messes up girls heads.



Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: wodgina on August 21, 2011, 08:41:00 am

For the sake of world peace, foreigners must meddle in the affairs of the USA and help elect Ron Paul as President.  Let good win for a change.
Aha! I knew it! LOL

 ;)

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: klowcarb on August 21, 2011, 09:25:57 am
I support Ron Paul and I support anyone's right to be PERSONALLY pro-choice. I don't want children, have never had an abortion and don't plan on having one. That said, I support every woman's right to make that decision, and it is no one else's business.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on August 21, 2011, 09:45:42 am
The banksters of course don't want Ron Paul to win.

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/16668278

Ron Paul Media Blackout

http://www.awareandprepare.com/ron-paul-media-blackout-hits-main-street-media/

Super funny 2nd video!!!

-----------

Ron Paul is my total dream candidate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn7FAXVnSR8

and Ron Paul's amazing "What if?" speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjuUWr9vaXo

-----------

OMG - USA Media and its people should be ashamed of yourselves how LOOOWWWWW your mass media has gone.  You guys are living in HITLER times.  HEIL the BANKSTERS.  Bought, bought, bought, bought, bought.


---------

The gov't controlled media will never support Dr. Paul. That in itself should be enough to tell you that he's the best choice.

Thanks GS, He's the man.

He even raised the issue of pro-life in a way that I've never heard it expressed. Made sense.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: wodgina on August 21, 2011, 09:56:05 am
If you guys don't want him, we'll take him!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: nicole on August 21, 2011, 10:03:32 am
Trouble is that by forbidding abortion, you are making those womens' lives an utter misery, thus definitely hurting them. 

If you hate abortion so much, read Philip K Dick's short story "The Pre-Persons", which is a fun SF story which is fanatically anti-abortion in its theme.

Yes, but a baby who has already been born can make someone's life misery, all they do is drink milk and cry-they are worthless and completely dependent, why not kill the baby then if the woman decides she doesn't want to take care of it?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 21, 2011, 10:27:46 am
Can we just talk about pro-life in another thread?
No more pro-life / pro-death arguments after this.

Let's go back to Ron Paul.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on August 21, 2011, 01:24:56 pm
Yes, but a baby who has already been born can make someone's life misery, all they do is drink milk and cry-they are worthless and completely dependent, why not kill the baby then if the woman decides she doesn't want to take care of it?
  Actually, that's what most women did in the countless millenia before birth-control:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

 It was notorious for women to , for example, drown their newborn babies in the river Tiber in Rome all the way up to the 19th century, simply because they couldn't cope with the child, plus there was the social stigma of being a single mother etc.. Now that we have the birth-control pill, this is largely prevented, and modern abortion methods kill only a barely sentient tiny embryo in a humane pain-free fashion, rather than the previous method of smothering or drowning a fully functioning baby.

One of my reasons for being in favour of abortion is that a hair-dresser acquaintance  was the result of a rape of an Austrian woman by a Russian soldier in c. 1945. Her mother, due to foolish Catholic reasons etc. , did not abort her, and so gave birth to her daughter. The mother then, naturally, treated the child like the purest dogsh*t until the daughter could eventually grow up and escape from that  sheer hell. Some of the more psychotic pro-life people forbid abortion even in the case of rape or birth-defects, and that just stinks. Plus, abortion is often used by those elements of society who, quite frankly, shouldn't be having children anyway, such as crack-addicts and the like.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 21, 2011, 02:59:44 pm
(http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/2020/drtjr.jpg)

Can we quit with the off-topic pro-life / pro-death thing?

Back to Ron Paul.

News is that his birthday bash drive for fund raising was interrupted by hackers doing a DDOS on their server.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5VHEtXOxHc

and Ron Paul is exploding!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg3EptrKOms
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on August 22, 2011, 10:16:25 am
(http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/2020/drtjr.jpg)
interesting cartoon GS

I am neither pro-life or pro-choice

I think this stand may be detrimental to his campaign because I suspect that a lot of women and men may not agree. However there is a certain population that will buy into it.

However he does do a very credible job of selling it.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on August 22, 2011, 10:20:12 am
I also love what he says about government Police with bulletproof vests etc raiding people who want to drink raw mik.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw on August 22, 2011, 10:38:44 am
Ron Paul  :-*
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: zbr5 on August 24, 2011, 06:06:23 pm
Not the newest one but I always enjoy watching the part starting at 04:25

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-N5adYM7Kw


Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: zeno on August 25, 2011, 12:38:18 am
Here are some videos of endorsement of Ron Paul by African-Americans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eukFNN44ibM&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6sYZxZi4qQ&feature=player_embedded#!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on August 25, 2011, 09:03:15 pm
he has no chance, too radical for average voters.

This statement was clearly true when he ran in 2008. However, just about all his predictions came to life....from economic bubble bursts to the wars overseas. Suddenly even Sean Hannity & Rush Limbaugh are treating him with respect.

He is no longer fringe. Even ideas that still seem radical to people...well, they pause now and wonder if he might be right about those ideas, too.

If you live in the US, join your local RON PAUL MEETUP GROUP and give just one hour per week to help him secure the republican nomination.

Win or lose, never let it be said that you sat and watched from the sidelines.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on August 25, 2011, 09:46:35 pm
he has a chance only if he has backing of wall street, lawyers, oil, and other powerhouses.  without their money it is very difficult to bring the message to the masses.  local meetup groups have limited outreach.  usually (but not always) candidates with the deepest pockets win elections.

i think the defense industry is not too happy about him.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: zbr5 on August 25, 2011, 11:33:00 pm
Of course they are not happy about him, in fact i am afraid he might die in "unfortunate car accident" or something if he wins election.
Look at the video I posted few post above, establishment does not want anyone to speak it aloud.

But he is going to do it anyway, without their fuckin help. Lincoln is believed to say:
"You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time but you cannot fool all the people all the time"

Ron Paul raised $1.8 mil on Monday only!

I hope it is time for ordinary people to take the power back.


Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 25, 2011, 11:42:21 pm
You guys ever watch Star Wars?
USA today is just like the "Republic" in Star Wars.
Controlled by the "Emperors"
Terrorizing, invading and occupying the globe.

Ron Paul is like Obi Wan and Yoda taking the Republic back... with the younger people's help... back to the side of good!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on August 26, 2011, 12:07:51 am
A better analogy would be that the US is the evil "Federation" with Ron Paul and a few others representing the "Liberator's" crew, as in the Blake's 7 universe. It's a more realistic interpretation of the chances of Ron Paul winning anyway...

Never could stand either Star Trek/Star Wreck or Star Wars. Star Trek was all about how  absolutely "wonderful"  l) it was to impose the evil of American Liberalism on other alien planets, happily destroying alien cultures because humans were supposedly morally "superior" to everybody else; then there was the really bad acting involved in the shows, and the irritation caused by the fact that the aliens in Star Wreck all looked exactly like humans with just the minor difference of a few fake-looking skull-ridges or pointy ears - at least Babylon 5 made an effort in the 1st season and introduced an insectoid alien as a character. Reminds me of John W Campbell, the great SF editor, who similiarly  stubbornly insisted that all SF stories  in his SF magazine  which featured either aliens or artificial intelligences, had to always end with the humans winning the fight every time, due to the humans'  supposedly superior intellect or whatever nonsense. The result is that many of that magazine's stories really stank in terms of bad writing etc.

Star Wars was just as bad. The only decent, 3-dimensional characters in Star Wars were Han Solo, the Emperor and Darth Vader, and possibly Obi Wan Kenobi(the Alec Guinness version only!). The only truly decent film in that genre was the Empire Strikes Back. Sadly, I watched the 3 prequels out of boredom and  have regretted it since.  Harrison Ford once, tellingly, said about George Lucas's writing ability re Star Wars:- "George, you can type this shit, but you sure as hell can't say it."

I happen to be an SF aficionado, and I feel like weeping when I go into the Science Fiction section of a book-store and  find half of the book-shelves in that section devoted to the drivel that is Star Wars and Star Trek.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on August 26, 2011, 12:23:23 am
Quote
You guys ever watch Star Wars?
USA today is just like the "Republic" in Star Wars.
Controlled by the "Emperors"
Terrorizing, invading and occupying the globe.

Ron Paul is like Obi Wan and Yoda taking the Republic back... with the younger people's help... back to the side of good!

for some reason your fellow countrymen are dreaming to join the dark side.  ask them why that is?  philipinos are fleeing anywhere they can.  US is the first on their list, then Canada, Singapore, Australia, New Zeland, Europe, Japan, and finally UAE.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: miles on August 26, 2011, 04:47:50 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm2sLSWXOOM&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 26, 2011, 05:43:20 am
Even if Ron Paul doesn't win the presidency or the primary, if he gets significant support from the people, the Republican Party will have to start taking Libertarian voters and libertarian views seriously. Both money and votes talk. Don't be afraid to vote your conscience.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: wodgina on August 26, 2011, 05:46:39 pm
Ron Paul makes so much sense it's scary. I like when Chris Rock was saying they want you to get hooked on 'their' drugs.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: wodgina on August 26, 2011, 06:13:35 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/SdyHE.jpg)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on August 26, 2011, 10:52:29 pm
here is the reality, he is 76yo, so this is probably his last run, after he is gone there is really no one known to take his place.

mccain is one year younger and his age was a big issue in the last election.  going back 50y 80year olds don't get elected.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on August 26, 2011, 11:59:08 pm
here is the reality, he is 76yo, so this is probably his last run, after he is gone there is really no one known to take his place.

mccain is one year younger and his age was a big issue in the last election.  going back 50y 80year olds don't get elected.

There is ALWAYS someone else with similar views. In this very election cycle running in the same (republican) primary is Ron Paul's friend, former governor Gary Johnson. Ron's son, Rand Paul, is no libertarian, but is much closer to it than most others in his party. Of course, one could always vote for Libertarian Party members at the local, state, & federal levels.

But the time is NOW. We don't need reasons why something CAN'T be done, we need to go DO it.

Again....If you live in the US, join your local RON PAUL MEETUP GROUP and give just one hour per week to help him secure the republican nomination.

Win or lose, never let it be said that you sat and watched from the sidelines.

Do it. Do it now.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Eric on August 27, 2011, 12:07:42 am
Amen brother McLean!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 27, 2011, 05:24:41 am
TIME Magazine Pens Five Page Spread To Convince America Ron Paul Can’t Win

TIME magazine has published a five page spread on Ron Paul’s presidential campaign that hits newsstands today. While some are declaring this a lifting of the veil on media coverage of the Congressman, the reality is that the piece will go out of its way to convince readers that Paul is a fad and has no chance of winning.

http://www.infowars.com/time-magazine-pens-five-page-spread-to-convince-america-ron-paul-cant-win/

(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y205/MJU1983/winning.jpg)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 27, 2011, 05:46:07 am
I hope Ron Paul is elected president to not only try to change the destructive course the nation is on, but to prove the smug assholes in media and politics wrong.

The Time Magazine article requires a subscription: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2090364,00.html#ixzz1W48YLrHP
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: klowcarb on August 28, 2011, 03:41:08 am
I would have the best orgasm if Ron Paul were elected.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 28, 2011, 06:51:04 am
I would have the best orgasm if Ron Paul were elected.

I thought you would be paleo pregnant if Ron Paul became president.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on August 28, 2011, 07:58:45 am
Our country is a republic, not a democracy.

Historically democracy never worked in the long term.

We are suppose to be a republic by the constitution of our founders.

I am not really sure what you could say to define our current government. Its been gerrymandered into some beast that our founders could never fathom.

From what Ron Paul has discovered and I agree with him on most issues, is that there is a plutocracy that operates outside of the elected government that sets most of the policy for the nation. Then through a number of different channels they use their influence within the bureaucracy to bypass the whole democratic process.

Obama is just an empty suit he has no soul of his own and is just a mouthpiece of the plutocrats. Of course some of the plutocrats do view themselves as good Shepard's and perhaps some of their policy regarding world domination, grand larceny and empire building do have a trickle down effect. Perhaps Obama supporters believe honestly that he is the best choice (given how F'ed up everything is.)

If anyone has an intelligent argument for the support of Obama over Ron Paul I would like to read it.

 Ron Paul is a wise and respectable man, Obama is just a Political Hack who has somehow been given an inside track to the seat of power.

OBAMAS appeal may be in the fact that he is deception incarnate and he puts on a front that no other diplomat could read through. As some supper secret agent of the allied forces of the world, he may be just the man for the job.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on August 28, 2011, 08:35:54 am
Quote
Getting rid of government is the fastest way to foster corruption and suck the remaining wealth out of the middle and lower classes and funnel it straight to the wealthiest few.

that's exactly what our government does.

i don't like republicans but at least they allow us to keep guns.  Democrats want to take our guns away and when they do then all doors are open towards an authoritarian regime.  Armed citizens will never allow attempts of authoritarian regimes.

And we must get rid of all unions.  Unions=mafia.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on August 28, 2011, 08:47:23 am
Quote
Our country is a republic, not a democracy.

absolutely correct, the country you live in has never been a democracy.  US has democratic elections.  And is  probably too much democratic for allowing illegals to vote.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on August 28, 2011, 11:56:27 am
Quote
If your born poor in EU, you are more likely to become rich than if you're born poor in the U.S.

oh yes, especially in Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain (PIIGS for short).  you make me laugh.

and Keynes is not right. Keynes theory is just that -  a theory.  the only thing that has been proved is when you spend more than you earn you end up like PIIGS.  been proven so many times over and over again.

government spending did not get us out of the great depression.  that's the biggest lie far left keep spreading.  great depression ended only after WWII because it brought rapid globalization.  and US started exporting like crazy.  that's what got us out and not 13 years of prior government spending.

and it was democrats who got us in current mess.  they pushed for relaxed lending requirements creating sub-prime loans so that low-income, minority, and even illegals could jump on the red-hot real estate bubble.  and Bush allowed this stupidity.  i clearly remember Greenspan's address before Congress around 2005.  he said current real estate prices are highly inflated and not sustainable.  and surely no one listened to him.

republicans are the same turds as democrats only older, harder, and less smelly.  if you want to pick a fresh smelly turd go ahead.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on August 28, 2011, 12:04:54 pm
Ys is absolutely right.


Re Obama:- Ron Paul really ought to have his campaign slogan altered to "Change!".
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: wodgina on August 28, 2011, 02:07:00 pm
Obama, what a let down that guy is
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on August 29, 2011, 02:05:51 am
Quote
Republicans are the ones for deregulation, not democrats.

Federal regulations are the problem.  We are already regulated up to our asses.  What's next?  Regulating how to pee, poop, and wipe our asses?  Regulation is state's job not federal.  Let states regulate whatever they want and federal government should stay aside.  Anything government does is a complete failure.  borders are not secure, post office is broke, obamacare is a total disaster.  It would be amazing to see Supreme Court to rule obamacare unconstitutional given that obama is supposed to be constitution specialist.  And clinton quickly moved right in the center when dems lost the house.

The same government who can't fix post office must not be allowed to regulate anything!!  That goes for both democrat and republicans.  Government should run like a business not a charity.

Quote
Try France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and Norway.

Norway does not count.  They have oil coming out of their ears.  Sweden was smart enough to stay away from the euro disaster, they don't have to pay for PIIGS disaster.  In France and Germany unemployment especially for recent grads is much worse than US.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on August 29, 2011, 02:48:40 am
It doesn't matter what party is for what regulation or deregulation, if the bureaucracy is under the control of the plutocrats. Clinton was just a yes man and so was bush and Obama. Ralph Nader even called Obama an uncle tom. The regulatory agency's like the SEC have been busted shredding documents and covering up investigations under both republican and democratic presidents. The white house obviously allows for such corruption to persist, so by that logic, they are all as thick as thieves.

What would Warren Buffet have to say about that?

that's exactly what our government does.

i don't like republicans but at least they allow us to keep guns.  Democrats want to take our guns away and when they do then all doors are open towards an authoritarian regime.  Armed citizens will never allow attempts of authoritarian regimes.

And we must get rid of all unions.  Unions=mafia.

America is a Union. We must keep it.
The mafia is a part of the government.
Getting rid of labor unions will solve nothing.

The union has become obsolete, due in part to globalization and outsourcing of jobs
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 29, 2011, 04:59:20 am
It doesn't matter what party is for what regulation or deregulation, if the bureaucracy is under the control of the plutocrats. Clinton was just a yes man and so was bush and Obama. Ralph Nader even called Obama an uncle tom. ...
Speaking of which, there have been several articles, with authors on both the left and right, about "George W. Obama":

George W. Obama
After his first year, Obama shows his true face
By Nat Hentoff Tuesday, Jan 12 2010
http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-01-12/columns/george-w-obama/

George W. Obama
March 29, 2011 9:37 A.M.
By Daniel Pipes
The National Review
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/263288/george-w-obama-daniel-pipes#

George W. Obama?
By David Bromwich
August 18, 2011
http://www.thenation.com/article/162842/george-w-obama-symptoms-bush-obama-presidency

George W. Obama
Last Updated:11:11 PM, August 22, 2011
Posted:10:55 PM, August 22, 2011
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/george_obama_TekN1YIUqyYcpIa6D5lJIK
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on August 29, 2011, 10:55:52 pm
And just in case I forgot to mention it....

The time is NOW. We don't need reasons why something CAN'T be done, we need to go DO it.

Sooooo....If you live in the US, join your local RON PAUL MEETUP GROUP and give just one hour per week to help him secure the republican nomination.

Win or lose, never let it be said that you sat and watched from the sidelines.

Do it. Do it now.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on August 29, 2011, 11:10:00 pm
If I lived in your country I would.

Go for it. If you don't then you can't complain.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 29, 2011, 11:24:11 pm
Ron Paul dead even vs Obama in poll

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ccUFWUnQcY

and

Lew Rockwell interview with Alex Jones

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecNHl_qx8QE

If the rest of the world could vote, we would all vote for the real peace maker, Ron Paul.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Raw Kyle on August 30, 2011, 01:12:37 am
And just in case I forgot to mention it....

The time is NOW. We don't need reasons why something CAN'T be done, we need to go DO it.

Sooooo....If you live in the US, join your local RON PAUL MEETUP GROUP and give just one hour per week to help him secure the republican nomination.

Win or lose, never let it be said that you sat and watched from the sidelines.

Do it. Do it now.

I've done a wee little bit of campaigning in the Philadelphia/South Jersey area. I have a bunch of cards to give out and am willing to buy more stuff, does anyone live in that area and want to put something together? I volunteered to the official campaign but haven't gotten any response yet, they're probably putting all of their resources into Iowa and New Hampshire at this point. I'm thinking of hitting parking lots, like malls and stuff, and flyering cars. Suggestions welcomed.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on August 30, 2011, 04:31:23 am
Clone him and send him up to Canada.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on August 30, 2011, 09:39:25 pm
I've done a wee little bit of campaigning in the Philadelphia/South Jersey area. I have a bunch of cards to give out and am willing to buy more stuff, does anyone live in that area and want to put something together? I volunteered to the official campaign but haven't gotten any response yet, they're probably putting all of their resources into Iowa and New Hampshire at this point. I'm thinking of hitting parking lots, like malls and stuff, and flyering cars. Suggestions welcomed.

Is there not a Meetup Group in your area, Kyle?

The meetups are actually coordinating in most areas with the official campaign (meetups are where the people are coming from). Should be a faster way in since the official campaigns are over-loaded.

We did a lot of marching with signs last cycle...then worked with the campaign on phone campaigns and whatnot. Flyers in parking lots, hanging signs, etc.

Hang on, lemme find the RP groups....HERE:

http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-458/

http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-201/

http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-25/
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Raw Kyle on September 01, 2011, 01:25:15 am
Ugh another account I have to create. Thanks though. I had signed up at the official campaign. Is it awkward doing phone calls? I don't want to bother people, these days people can get annoyed very easily. On July 4th I gave out a few flyers at the Constitution Center and some people seemed annoyed just by being approached.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on September 01, 2011, 09:17:04 pm
Some get annoyed. If you're not comfy doing phone stuff, don;t do it. Do what you can put 100% onto....sign waving, flyer distro...even just telling family & friends!

Maybe wearing a Ron Paul 2012 t-shirt!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: wodgina on September 01, 2011, 09:21:51 pm
Do you really want Ron Paul to take over this mess?

I vote no for Ron Paul
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: miles on September 01, 2011, 11:10:31 pm
Do you really want Ron Paul to take over this mess?

I vote no for Ron Paul

Do explain.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Raw Kyle on September 01, 2011, 11:56:26 pm
Maybe wearing a Ron Paul 2012 t-shirt!

I did that just yesterday. I also have a bumper sticker and sign on my lawn. I'd like to help expose people to libertarian philosophy and Ron Paul as a candidate, but there's a shell most people have around them that prevents that pretty effectively.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on September 02, 2011, 05:10:58 am
Ron Paul Can Win
by Robin Koerner
Publisher, WatchingAmerica.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/ron-paul-can-win_b_939993.html
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: wodgina on September 02, 2011, 10:09:34 pm
Do explain.

We are past the point of no return, I think something big is happening but I don't know what.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on September 03, 2011, 12:37:39 am
We are past the point of no return, I think something big is happening but I don't know what.

Something big like Ron Paul winning the republican nomination and offering a viable alternative to Obama's Big Gov Solutions???
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: miles on September 03, 2011, 03:07:08 am
Something big like Ron Paul winning the republican nomination and offering a viable alternative to Obama's Big Gov Solutions???

Roger roger.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on September 03, 2011, 08:19:32 am
Its seems like Gatewood is getting the Ron Paul treatment from our current Administration down here in Kentucky. Steve Beshear wont debate with the more libertarian candidate, so that they can continue the media blackout on real issues. All you see of our governor is carefully crafted add commercials(Paid for by the establishment)
Beshear ran on legalization of gambling as his answer to the economic issues.(Just another boss hog)

Local state government can be used as protection against the threat of globalism, and our Gatewood Galbraith could work hand in hand with a Ron Paul type president to face the real issues of the American people.

Call out and force out all the crooks. Its possible with the power of social networking.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 03, 2011, 10:59:08 am
(Just another boss hog)


Then who's his Roscoe P. Coltrane?

ROFL

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on September 03, 2011, 01:06:44 pm
Then who's his Roscoe P. Coltrane?

ROFL


http://capitalistbanner.com/2010/10/25/fox-news-reports-on-jack-conway-drug-scandal/

Jack Conway, Attorney General.

The man who is suppose to investigate the corruption perpetrated by our own Governor Beshear is too busy trying to run for senate, as well as too involved in his own criminal activities to do his job.

Its a fact that our governor is more interested in lining the pockets of his political backers than he is in doing his job. Whats more incredible is that the local media is completely covering up the fact that he is doing a terrible job and the coverage he gets is almost entirely positive with no mention of the big money backers who run him.

(coincidentally Jack Conway was the establishments candidate aginst Rand Paul in the senate election)


Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on September 03, 2011, 01:58:01 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzPFZukWYrc
Gatewood Galbraith author of "The last free man in America"

Ron Paul supporter

He was my Parents divorce lawyer, I went to school with his kids.

He is a real contender for Governor and an advocate for the average person.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on September 07, 2011, 09:34:52 pm
I voted for Gatewood last time he ran!

Gatewood for Gov...Ron Paul for prez!

Oh yeah!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on September 08, 2011, 10:18:11 pm
I saw the last 40 minutes or so of the republican debate last night. Interesting.....

I like Huntsman, too, but was wondering where Gary Johnson was. Still gotta back Ron Paul all the way, though. Would like to see a Paul/Huntsman or Paul/Johnson ticket....
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Raw Kyle on September 09, 2011, 10:03:55 am
Huntsman? Seriously? I mean if you like everyone else Huntsman is ok, but I don't see him as even the closest to Paul of the bunch.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on September 09, 2011, 11:06:51 pm
I don't know where Hunstman stands on all the issues, but he was VERY successful as a governor (like Johnson, he took his state out of debt in record time, helped create jobs, cut taxes by record amounts, etc.), is extremely fiscally conservative, wants to bring the troops home, is socially moderate (more important, doesn't believe in mandating his personal positions by force of law), understands that border fences & "boots on the ground" is not ta viable solution to any problem, and has extensive experience both in the private sector and public sector (this guy worked under Reagan and has been a US ambassador).

Ron Paul is by far the better choice and Gary Johnson is good second. But coming up behind (though distant) is Huntsman, who is FAR ahead of the rest of the pack, in my view.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 10, 2011, 05:30:29 am
Huntsman? Seriously? I mean if you like everyone else Huntsman is ok, but I don't see him as even the closest to Paul of the bunch.
Huh? Isn't Huntsman libertarian-leaning (after all, he received a 'B' grade from the libertarian CATO institute http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/2011/06/does-huntsman-have-shot-to-win-gop.html), like most Mormons have been reported to be (http://deadseriously.net/2009/02/18/are-mormons-really-libertarians/, except for the chamelion Mitt Romney, who will take whatever position will win him the most votes)?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Raw Kyle on September 10, 2011, 09:07:02 am
Hmm, sorry for the ignorance. I was going on his debate performance where he specializes like the other candidates (other than Ron Paul) of not saying anything. Not anything out of the mainstream at least, mostly just talking points and other blah blah, I don't trust people like that.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on September 10, 2011, 08:45:42 pm
Yeah, I prefer Ron Paul - no doubt.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 10, 2011, 08:48:32 pm
Hmm, sorry for the ignorance. I was going on his debate performance where he specializes like the other candidates (other than Ron Paul) of not saying anything. Not anything out of the mainstream at least, mostly just talking points and other blah blah, I don't trust people like that.
I see, same here. That's one reason Romney turns me off, as he seems to be more of a chamelion than any politician I can recall. I was living in Massachusetts when Romney ran as a liberal against Ted Kennedy and claimed he would do more for gay rights than Ted. Then when Romney announced he was running for president he claimed to be the real conservative. I was astonished by the shameless audacity of his flip flops. Ron Paul has been the opposite--a man who sticks to principles and follows through on his promises--and that's one of the things that appeals to me about Ron.

The risk for Ron is going to far in the other extreme toward irrational dogmatism. So far Ron seems to have done relatively OK on that score, though no doubt his critics would disagree.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on September 11, 2011, 11:31:37 pm
The risk for Ron is going to far in the other extreme toward irrational dogmatism. So far Ron seems to have done relatively OK on that score, though no doubt his critics would disagree.

I'm not sure one could accuse a libertarian of "irrational dogmatism". Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Nothing irrational about it, and while it has it's tenants, dogma is non-existent precisely because it can be interpreted in various ways (see libertarian arguments over abortion, for example, or intellectual property).

By contrast, "democrat" and "republican" are political parties and have no inherent political philosophies attached. They change from era to era....sometimes with the wind. It is assumed that republicans are war-hawks, socially & fiscally conservative, no fun to be around, just as it is assumed that democrats are peace-loving, socially & fiscally liberal, progressive & happy. But we all know that isn't really true.

Bush spent more money & grew the federal gov FAR more than Clinton...who, in turn, ramped up the war on drugs, established "don't ask, don't tell", and bombed the shit out of Kosovo in the same unilateral fashion as Bush entered Iraq. Lincoln, who ended slavery, was a republican. Vietnam, it has been noted, was a democrat war (with Nixon, a republican, pulling us out). It is a republican congress who allow our current democrat prez to spend us into oblivion...and then raise the debt ceiling so that it doesn't look so bad.

"They" can accuse Ron Paul of anything they like. But in the end, it is simply irrational to believe that spending FAR more than you have is acceptable policy; that printing more money is a way to maintain a stable currency & a stable economic environment; that meddling in the internal affairs of other countries is a good way to spread the idea of freedom & increase national security; that fences and armed guards are a rational way to address the actual issues of why people come to the US thru illegal channels; that we should spend trillions abroad "nation building" while the US falls apart physically (infrastructure), economically (the market and the monetary system), and culturally (for example, we've locked up generations of mostly young men in a senseless war on drugs - a war that costs more annually to fight than the industry annually generates); and more.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 12, 2011, 12:06:30 am
I'm not sure one could accuse a libertarian of "irrational dogmatism".
People of any ideology are at risk of irrational dogmatism. No ideological group is perfect.

Quote
By contrast, "democrat" and "republican" are political parties and have no inherent political philosophies attached. They change from era to era....sometimes with the wind.
Yes and that is the opposite of dogmatism.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on September 12, 2011, 12:14:12 am
I'm not sure one could accuse a libertarian of "irrational dogmatism". Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Nothing irrational about it, and while it has it's tenants, dogma is non-existent precisely because it can be interpreted in various ways (see libertarian arguments over abortion, for example, or intellectual property).

By contrast, "democrat" and "republican" are political parties and have no inherent political philosophies attached. They change from era to era....sometimes with the wind. It is assumed that republicans are war-hawks, socially & fiscally conservative, no fun to be around, just as it is assumed that democrats are peace-loving, socially & fiscally liberal, progressive & happy. But we all know that isn't really true.

Bush spent more money & grew the federal gov FAR more than Clinton...who, in turn, ramped up the war on drugs, established "don't ask, don't tell", and bombed the shit out of Kosovo in the same unilateral fashion as Bush entered Iraq. Lincoln, who ended slavery, was a republican. Vietnam, it has been noted, was a democrat war (with Nixon, a republican, pulling us out). It is a republican congress who allow our current democrat prez to spend us into oblivion...and then raise the debt ceiling so that it doesn't look so bad.

"They" can accuse Ron Paul of anything they like. But in the end, it is simply irrational to believe that spending FAR more than you have is acceptable policy; that printing more money is a way to maintain a stable currency & a stable economic environment; that meddling in the internal affairs of other countries is a good way to spread the idea of freedom & increase national security; that fences and armed guards are a rational way to address the actual issues of why people come to the US thru illegal channels; that we should spend trillions abroad "nation building" while the US falls apart physically (infrastructure), economically (the market and the monetary system), and culturally (for example, we've locked up generations of mostly young men in a senseless war on drugs - a war that costs more annually to fight than the industry annually generates); and more.
Excellent SD, thanks. Same is true in your northern neighbour, re: Liberal and Conservative parties.

Initially in the US there was a big debate on whether to have parties at all. Don't recall the players names or positions but a lot of people were vehemently opposed to it.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on September 12, 2011, 09:17:12 pm
People of any ideology are at risk of irrational dogmatism. No ideological group is perfect.
....Yes and that is the opposite of dogmatism.

I didn't mean to imply that libertarianism is immune to dogmatism. Just pointing out that because certain issue sare hotly contended within it's fences, so to speak, that dogmatic is a long way off.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on September 12, 2011, 09:22:29 pm
Excellent SD, thanks. Same is true in your northern neighbour, re: Liberal and Conservative parties.

Initially in the US there was a big debate on whether to have parties at all. Don't recall the players names or positions but a lot of people were vehemently opposed to it.

I suspect people (& the media) like parties because it makes it easy to pigeon-hole and simply not think much about where an individual stands. But that is just me being cynical.

When I'm not (being cynical), I tend to think parties are a good way to get a quick idea of where someone stands. Unfortunately, this doesn't work so well for parties like "democrat' and "republican" anymore. And since no politician seems to feel a need to be truthful, we can't even rely on more philosophical descriptions like "conservative" and "liberal" and "progressive" and whatnot.

Speaking of....since Canadian politicians have taken terms like "liberal" and "conservative", do the parties match ideologies?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on September 12, 2011, 10:44:57 pm
I suspect people (& the media) like parties because it makes it easy to pigeon-hole and simply not think much about where an individual stands. But that is just me being cynical.

When I'm not (being cynical), I tend to think parties are a good way to get a quick idea of where someone stands. Unfortunately, this doesn't work so well for parties like "democrat' and "republican" anymore. And since no politician seems to feel a need to be truthful, we can't even rely on more philosophical descriptions like "conservative" and "liberal" and "progressive" and whatnot.

Speaking of....since Canadian politicians have taken terms like "liberal" and "conservative", do the parties match ideologies?
There is not a lot of ideological difference between Republicans and Conservatives (name of the Canadian party) and Democrats and Liberals.

We also have the NDP (New Democratic Party) which are the ultra-left wingers.There have been various parties over the years which have risen and fallen, usually regionally based.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 13, 2011, 06:24:14 am
I didn't mean to imply that libertarianism is immune to dogmatism. Just pointing out that because certain issue sare hotly contended within it's fences, so to speak, that dogmatic is a long way off.
Sure, I just said that it's a risk, not a reality. Any group based on ideology is at risk for counterproductive dogmatism. It's actually refreshing when a political group stands on principles rather than sways with the polls, the way that many Democrats and Republicans tend to, but I also recognize that there is a potential for problems when ideology is the driver. I don't get the sense that Ron has fallen prey to that, but it's a risk to be aware of.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on September 13, 2011, 07:38:13 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlYG6vh2T-M

Uploaded by TheRevolutionPAC on Sep 11, 2011

Want this ad to air in major primary states? Make it possible with a contribution at http://RevolutionPAC.com/donate

SuperPACs have NO contribution limits. Individuals, businesses, and organizations may donate any amount (must be US citizens, US-bases businesses & orgs).
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA - BEST VIDEO EVER!
Post by: goodsamaritan on September 13, 2011, 11:52:58 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohKz9OeiI0g

http://youtu.be/ohKz9OeiI0g

Please view and share this with as many NON Ron Paul fans you can find. Not trying to preach to the choir... but to educate and inform those who don't know his (and the other candidates') history. Thanks-

Music: "The Only Moment We Were Alone" by Explosions in the Sky

Video: Special Thanks to Veterans for Ron Paul, and "For Liberty" - a film by Chris Rye and Corey Kealiher

Other clips courtesy of:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
The Young Turks
Fox News
CNN
CSPAN
CSPAN-2
MSNBC
PBS NEWSHOUR
ABC News

--------------

Find out about the delegate process in your state...Ron Paul needs delegates delegates delegates...no delegates, no Ron Paul!!!...find out who Ron's delegates are, or consider becoming one...but you might want to go under the radar,,,,if you become a delegate, don't tell the party leaders you support Ron!!!!? Start/Join a meetup and get organized in your district!!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on September 14, 2011, 11:32:49 pm
Just starting to read the book "The Creature From Jekyll Island" which is the story of the crooks who started the Federal Reserve system. Guess who is the first name on the reviews on the back cover.....

Ron Paul - "A superb analysis. Be prepared for one heck of a journey through time and mind."

It's a fairly large tome but interestingly there is a suggestion at the start of the book to read the preview at the beginning of each chapter and a summary at the end of each chapter. Although they will not cover the details or documentation, they will cover the major points and will provide an overview of the complete story. So you don't get lost in the details. People can only read so much before they get lost or discouraged and by following their suggestion you can do it.

This author also wrote some interesting stuff on how Andrew Carnegie also engineered the current medical system. Amazing story.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on September 16, 2011, 12:10:41 am
We got these at the library:
http://ottawa.bibliocommons.com/item/show/560205026_end_the_fed
http://ottawa.bibliocommons.com/item/show/223645026_end_the_fed
http://ottawa.bibliocommons.com/item/show/471440026_the_revolution
http://ottawa.bibliocommons.com/item/show/622883026_liberty_defined
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA: WINS California Straw Poll
Post by: goodsamaritan on September 18, 2011, 10:57:47 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm6D9VenmmE

Congressman Ron Paul Wins California Straw Poll

http://www.cagop.org/index.cfm/press_release_1500.htm#.TnVXuWEDn3I.twitter

Posted: Saturday, September 17, 2011

LOS ANGELES – Minutes ago in front of the California Republican Party convention delegation at the JW Marriott at L.A. Live, CRP Chairman Tom Del Beccaro announced Congressman Ron Paul as the winner of the 2011 California Straw Poll.

A full breakdown of the results is copied below. A total of 833 ballots were cast during the 2011 Straw Poll which included a write-in opportunity for the first time.  

The 2011 California Straw Poll was held on Saturday, September 17th between 9:00AM – 5:00PM, where CRP members, associate members, and registered guests were allowed to choose their favorite from among the 11 official Republican presidential candidates.

2011 Straw Poll Full Results (Votes, %)

Congressman Ron Paul (374, 44.9%)

Governor Rick Perry (244, 29.3%)

Mitt Romney (74, 8.8%)

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (64, 7.7%)

Jon Huntsman (17, 2.0%)

Herman Cain (15, 1.8%)

Newt Gingrich (14, 1.7%)

Thad McCotter (7, 0.8%)

Rick Santorum (7, 0.8%)

Gary Johnson (2, 0.2%)

Fred Karger (1, 0.1%)

Write-ins (15, 1.8%)

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA - National Press Club
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 07, 2011, 07:42:12 am
Ron Paul for President of the USA - National Press Club

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF02OxXhrvQ

(4 parts)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: RogueFarmer on October 07, 2011, 07:59:27 am
I can't stomach politics but if Ron Paul is GOP candidate I will actually go out and vote.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 07, 2011, 08:11:53 am
Ron Paul is the embodiment of the fairy tale ideal USA benevolent super power told to us Filipinos (your old colony and still economic colony).

Maybe Ron Paul will bring in an era of WORLD PEACE.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on October 07, 2011, 01:22:57 pm
Ron Paul is the embodiment of the fairy tale ideal USA benevolent super power told to us Filipinos (your old colony and still economic colony).

Maybe Ron Paul will bring in an era of WORLD PEACE.


So you would say that Filipinos are more influenced by the US cultural influence than the Spanish who were there for longer?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 07, 2011, 03:18:38 pm
So you would say that Filipinos are more influenced by the US cultural influence than the Spanish who were there for longer?

Lots of Spanish influence is ingrained in religion and in words for tools and utensils and counting.

Lots of American in the form of government, education, language, economy, media.  Migration wise, most Filipinos dream of USA thinking the USA is still Ron Paul's USA of the 1950s.

Maybe Ron Paul will bring back the good old American Dream and end this current Nightmare of World Empire.  It is a nightmare for any country with natural resources of any value and any country with an independent banking system that is not under the US FED or Rothschilds system.

Sheesh... the Americans in the UN are again stirring up war in Syria via the UN.  Good thing the Russians and the Chinese vetoed them this time.

And the Americans want more war in Iran and Pakistan... it never ends.

And the marked for execution official policy of Obama lately was the same principle our old DICTATOR Ferdinand Marcos in the 1970s and 1980s had with "secret martials" killing all who whispered anything "bad" or "threat" to Marcos and the government...

... I GREW UP in that nightmare of Patriot Act / Martial Law and that was what we fought against in the mid 1980s to achieve in 1986... freedom.  Other asians call us Filipinos Demo-CRAZY but we are FREE.

Americans are living in the 1984 nightmare TODAY in 2011.  I sincerely hope Ron Paul can end the American nightmare.

And the USA controlled media?

Intentionally IGNORING Ron Paul... same as our old Marcos times media. 

Ron Paul is like our old opposition candidate Benigno Aquino Jr., he was killed / assassinated in 1983 Ron Paul needs to be careful with his security because his life is in DANGER, just like Lincoln, just like JFK and his brother.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on October 07, 2011, 03:38:36 pm
I have a great sympathy for Assad, Syria's president. I mean, he may be a dictator, but he at least protects the interests of the Shia minority in his country, whereas most other Arab countries routinely crush the Shia minority and don't let them share in the oil-wealth, with the corrupt Western powers actively supporting those latter regimes.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 07, 2011, 03:41:25 pm
Assad just inherited his responsibility from his father.

Obama and before him Bush Jr are dictators.

They order executions and order war without congressional approval.

They force congress to give bail out money to their CRONIES.  Sick.  Just like our old dictator.

Too big to fail my ass... CRONIES.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: RogueFarmer on October 07, 2011, 07:36:52 pm
How can we ask one person to fix any of this nations problems? Nothing short of a national revolt will save America and the rest of the world from the corporate monster.

Up until now, Americans have been kept too fat and happy to care about anything. The fuckups are finally starting to get uppity as we see with the formation of the Tea Party and the new Occupation of Wallstreet.

I think that the unwritten goal of Britain, USA and Israel has been to steal enough, to keep their population sedated, to allow monarchy (corporations) free reign to destroy the world. I have never ever been able to even venture an idea as to what the fuck the point is. How small are these people's penises? Why do they need to curb stomp everything, what are they trying to prove?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on October 08, 2011, 01:05:52 am
How can we ask one person to fix any of this nations problems?

One person can't and one person won't.

Ron Paul can't get elected if no one votes for him. Ron Paul can't get elected if people don't understand the issues. It takes people talking about the underlying CAUSES of economic strife & terrorism & illegal immigration, etc (as opposed to simply reciting numbers and pointing fingers) for people to understand; it takes people actively demonstrating to raise name recognition and drive others to the information; it takes opening your wallet and giving whatever you can to help spread the word; it takes marching to the polls and pulling the lever to put a man in office.

It took 70 million votes for Obama to win the election. It took 10 million votes to put McCain in the running as the republican nominee.

Ron Paul will need the continued support of 10+ million registered republicans to beat Perry, Romney, Santorum, Bachman, Cain, etc......and then it will take 70 million to put him in office.

That is hardly "one person".

70 million people all agreeing one prime topics such as auditing (& possible abolishing) the Fed, slashing unconstitutional spending, balancing the federal gov's budget, returning rights to the states & the people, ending an expensive, pointless, & destructive war on drugs, stopping the nanny state dead in its tracks.....this allows one man to go to Washington DC and make it all happen.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on October 08, 2011, 01:49:29 am
It's amazing how low the rate of voting is in the US and then the people who don't vote whine about how it doesn't matter ...... blah blah blah.

Get people off their sofas to vote. It's darned important. People in your cities are dying in foreign lands just like they did in England when Kings and Queens sent their young off to die.

Read Ron Paul's books and see his vids. Pass them on to friends.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on October 08, 2011, 01:59:05 am
Quote
auditing (& possible abolishing) the Fed, slashing unconstitutional spending, balancing the federal gov's budget, returning rights to the states & the people, ending an expensive, pointless, & destructive war on drugs, stopping the nanny state dead in its tracks.....this allows one man to go to Washington DC and make it all happen.

that's not the president's job, he legally cannot do much about it.  it's the congress that passes laws regardless who is the president.  his job is to keep congress in check (just like congress keeps him in check) and to lead international policy which in my personal opinion Paul has no clue about whatsoever. 

to make any meaningful changes a la Ron Paul you would need to sweep Presidency, Senate at 60%, and House with members of similar mindset.  otherwise Ron Paul as president would be exactly like Obama for the far left who he promised everything and can't deliver nothing for the exact same reason.

for the changes you are talking to go forward republican party must be completely replaced by the tea party.

i personally prefer Cain over Paul.  we need a CEO not another career politician (who happens to be ex-gynecologist).  we need an expert in running a business and not an expert in vaginas.  i've seen many people talk pretty but talk is cheap.  i would even vote for Perot even thought i dislike him greatly as person.  but he has success record that none of career politicians can match.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 08, 2011, 02:03:59 am
Looking at vaginas is just his past thing.
Ron Paul is that expert you speak of.

Andrew Gauze monetary historian says Ron Paul and his VP go under separate bunkers and he orders the Marines to take over the FED.  That's how you end / take over the FED.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: cherimoya_kid on October 08, 2011, 03:07:46 am
Looking at vaginas is just his past thing.
Ron Paul is that expert you speak of.

Andrew Gauze monetary historian says Ron Paul and his VP go under separate bunkers and he orders the Marines to take over the FED.  That's how you end / take over the FED.

There is no way that would ever happen.  Military deployment of any type on American soil is done strictly for peaceful functions.  Americans don't appreciate being forced to do things at gunpoint.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: RogueFarmer on October 08, 2011, 04:00:31 am
There is no way that would ever happen.  Military deployment of any type on American soil is done strictly for peaceful functions.  Americans don't appreciate being forced to do things at gunpoint.

See Wounded Knee.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on October 08, 2011, 04:44:33 am
that's not the president's job, he legally cannot do much about it.

You are mistaken.

Presidents set domestic & foreign policy (a president Paul could effectively end the war on drugs at home and bring troops home from all over the globe, for 2 examples). Most of them freely wield Executive Orders (a president Paul could use an XO to erase all unconstitutional XOs). They create departments (like DEA, DHS, Dept of Ed, etc) and just as easily abolish those departments. They hire (& fire) federal executive, diplomatic, regulatory, and judicial officers (who answer to a president Paul) and can exercise pardons & reprieves (imagine emptying prisons of non-violent, victimless "offenders").

Shall I continue?

A president Paul can make sweeping changes...including ending the war on drugs, ending imperialism, radically reducing federal spending (bringing troops home alone saves billions a year), and much, much more.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Brad462 on October 08, 2011, 06:11:18 am
YS said:
"
i personally prefer Cain over Paul.  we need a CEO not another career politician (who happens to be ex-gynecologist).  we need an expert in running a business and not an expert in vaginas.  i've seen many people talk pretty but talk is cheap.  i would even vote for Perot even thought i dislike him greatly as person.  but he has success record that none of career politicians can match."

 Not sure how being a CEO of a failed pizza company and having zero political experience qualifies you to be president, but to each his own. Cain is a warmonger and not what this country needs right now.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: cherimoya_kid on October 08, 2011, 10:22:09 pm
See Wounded Knee.

Yes, because Americans of today would accept a military takeover of the Fed to the same degree that Americans of 1890 accepted military action against the Indians.

 Dude, come on.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on October 11, 2011, 01:41:38 am
Quote
Presidents set domestic & foreign policy

that's the problem, most of the domestic policy should be set by states, not president.  drugs included.  states should regulate drugs just like they do with firearms (but even here feds have their hand somewhat). things like gay issues, medical, abortion, etc. should be handled by states.  president should not be involved with any of these.  currently federal government has way too much power, much more than how it was envisioned by the founding fathers.

Quote
A president Paul can make sweeping changes
i'll believe you when i see it with my own eyes.  so far none of the modern presidents did any such sweeping changes despite promises (lies to be correct).  look where obama's promised changes are.

Quote
Not sure how being a CEO of a failed pizza company and having zero political experience qualifies you to be president,

i would vote for a CEO of a failed company over a carrier politician.  carrier politicians are carrier liars.  their first and foremost priority is to get a hold of their job indefinitely.  everything else is secondary.  no matter how pretty Paul can sing there is nothing in him that differentiates from other carrier politicians.  i see no bases to trust him.  i would vote for him if he would say 'You know, I'm somewhat wealthy, I will work for free to show that I'm true patriot of my country'.  i do not get any hints that his priority is being a patriot and not presidential pension (which is times more than congressional pension) and other benefits.

political experience is nothing more than fooling voters to keep getting re-elected over and over again.

but if Paul gets Republican nomination i would surely vote for him.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Brad462 on October 11, 2011, 07:21:20 am
Please tell me one other politician that talks about ending the federal reserve. (Cain was head of a fed branch)
Status quo is not a label you can stick to paul. He wants to end the cia and the IRS for god sakes!!! 

Cain is just another establishment type authoritarian . If you want another bush type "conservative " with a hard on for war and the patriot act then cain is your man.

I guess I would prefer him over Obama, but that's not saying much.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Raw Kyle on October 11, 2011, 09:27:46 am
i personally prefer Cain over Paul.  we need a CEO not another career politician (who happens to be ex-gynecologist).  we need an expert in running a business and not an expert in vaginas.  i've seen many people talk pretty but talk is cheap.  i would even vote for Perot even thought i dislike him greatly as person.  but he has success record that none of career politicians can match.

You must not know that Paul is an accomplished and recognized Constitutional scholar and Austrian economist.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on October 11, 2011, 09:07:53 pm
...no matter how pretty Paul can sing there is nothing in him that differentiates from other carrier politicians.  i see no bases to trust him.

Ron Paul's voting record speaks for itself....and clearly differentiates him from all others.

His nickname is "Dr. No" (because he votes no so often because he will, in his words, "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution"). For what its worth (a great deal to some, not so much for others), he is the ONLY current candidate (republicans or Obama) who has served in the military.

 Further:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

No one else in DC can make the same claims, or even get close.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 11, 2011, 09:12:17 pm
I'd like to import this guy and teach our congressmen.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: miles on October 11, 2011, 10:02:59 pm
...

Trollin' trollin' trollin'
Though this thread be swollen
Keep them Shamies trollin'
Rawpaleo!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 12, 2011, 08:13:33 am
It looks like Romney, the chameleon, is being annointed the Republican standard bearer by Republican party insiders, the media and campaign-funding corporations. In the areas of principles, integrity, courage and consistency, Romney is pretty much the opposite of Ron Paul. Romney is a slick politician with no firm views, changing his tack based on where the polls guide him. Sickening.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on November 01, 2011, 05:52:35 am
i would vote for a CEO of a failed company over a carrier politician.  carrier politicians are carrier liars.  their first and foremost priority is to get a hold of their job indefinitely.  everything else is secondary.  no matter how pretty Paul can sing there is nothing in him that differentiates from other carrier politicians.  i see no bases to trust him.  i would vote for him if he would say 'You know, I'm somewhat wealthy, I will work for free to show that I'm true patriot of my country'.  i do not get any hints that his priority is being a patriot and not presidential pension (which is times more than congressional pension) and other benefits.

political experience is nothing more than fooling voters to keep getting re-elected over and over again.

but if Paul gets Republican nomination i would surely vote for him.
I think you mean career politician which incidentally Ron Paul is not. I recommend you read his books.

He is a gynaecologist who has delivered over 4000 babies.
He is a very principled man and it shows very clearly in his book.

The other politicians who have made it to the White house don't have a clear and serious agenda other than some airy fairy motto which means nothing prior to the election and the same after.

He has spelled out his agenda very clearly in his books. You can probably get them at the library if you don't want to buy them.
Title: Ron Paul Wins Illinois GOP Straw Poll
Post by: goodsamaritan on November 07, 2011, 02:47:23 pm
CHICAGO (IRN) - The winner of the Illinois Republican straw poll for President is U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

The first-ever statewide Illinois straw poll took place on-line over the last week, and in person on Saturday at 22 locations around the state, with Paul the winner, getting 52% of the 3,649 votes cast.

U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who organized the poll, interprets the result this way, ““I think what this does is it shows the relative strengths of the candidates,” he said in announcing the results on Saturday night at Republican headquarters in Chicago. “Ron Paul is obviously a big on-line performer, and we saw that tonight. But what we saw in the in-person voting is that Gov. [Mitt] Romney took 35 percent of the vote, Herman Cain took 29 percent of the vote, and Ron Paul took 8 percent of the vote for the in-person voting.”

Participants had to pay $5 to the Republican Party to vote.

The final vote totals were: Ron Paul 1907, Herman Cain 670, Mitt Romney 515, Newt Gingrich 332, Rick Perry 87, John Huntsman 54, Rick Santorum 43, Michele Bachmann 41.

Copyright Illinois Radio Network

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/11/06/ron-paul-wins-illinois-gop-straw-poll/ (http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/11/06/ron-paul-wins-illinois-gop-straw-poll/)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: zbr5 on November 07, 2011, 10:20:05 pm
30 minutes worth watching:

The American Dream Film-Full Length (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGk5ioEXlIM#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on November 14, 2011, 08:19:52 am
I'm impressed. While the Republican candidates are now all intent on declaring war on Iran if they win, Ron Paul appears to have been reasonable and suggested that Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weaponry:-

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/ron-paul-iran-bomb/2011/08/11/id/407043 (http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/ron-paul-iran-bomb/2011/08/11/id/407043)

He's right, of course. Iran now has numerous countries surrounding it which have nuclear weapons, and no nation should ever be subject to nuclear blackmail from any other country. People are far less likely to invade a country which has nuclear weapons, so wars would be fewer etc.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on November 14, 2011, 09:35:46 am
I agree 100% Tyler, who the he## is the US to tell the world how to act. ( That's a statement not a question)

Even if iran had an air force.

US politicians have become self-righteous Global Dictators.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on November 14, 2011, 09:50:40 am
I agree 100% Tyler, who the he## is the US to tell the world how to act. ( That's a statement not a question)

Even if iran had an air force.

US politicians have become self-righteous Global Dictators.

USA is the current Roman Empire and will invade and kill and maim whichever its money masters choose to do so.  And if history has anything to teach us is that the Empire usually wins... but their reign does not last forever.

I believe it is in the world's best interest to have Ron Paul elected and then he arrests all the globalists / money masters and convicts all of them.  Sort of like a global coup de etat.  Yeah yeah, in our dreams.

Personally, I'd rather be low key and inconspicuous.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 14, 2011, 10:10:49 am
I agree, Ron Paul is looking better and better in comparison to the other candidates, who are looking worse and worse. Unfortunately, the establishment candidate and expected winner, Romney the chameleon, is back in the lead. He's possibly the only politician in American history to have the audacity to run to the left of a leftist like Ted Kennedy on an issue (gay rights --a stance which he will quickly abandon once elected) and then claim to be the "real conservative" Republican. l) Overall, the Republican candidates have been largely an embarrassment. It's looking better for Obama.

No one other than Ron Paul or the other libertarian candidate (Gary Johnson, who actually seems even sharper than Ron, based on what little I've seen of him), has shown the slightest interest in reining in the deficit. Obama talks about more stimulus and tax cuts and the Republicans are talking about yet another war. Decreased revenues and increased spending, leading to larger and larger deficits, more printing of fiat currency, and more IOUs to the Chinese, destined to be our new overlords. And thus Rome crumbled--interesting to see, GS, that you were thinking of the same Roman Empire analogy. The leaders and majority of the people of every empire thinks that theirs will last forever, or at least for their lifetime, and yet every empire crumbles and returns to a more humble nation-state.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on November 14, 2011, 10:14:13 am
And thus Rome crumbled--interesting to see, GS, that you were thinking of the same Roman Empire analogy.
Amen
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on November 20, 2011, 04:18:42 pm
I don't see the US empire crumbling anytime soon, I am sure that US intelligence operatives at the CIA still have a few Aces up its sleeve. Like the Rothschild dynasty it is often in the best interest of those with great power and wealth to be deceptive and give the impression of decline. Do not be fooled by the psychological programming laced into news programs about western decline. Its all propaganda designed to make sheeple more open to world governance.

I am still astonished at how the 911 event was orchestrated and the evidence covered up. The powers behind such an operation are much more sophisticated and unstoppable than any imperial organisations of the historic past.

There was over 9 trillion dollars missing from the government pension funds, along with countless other trillions from CIA drug money that have been funding shadow government activities. Congress was in the initial stages of an investigation in regards to the missing trillions when conveniently all those records where destroyed in the 911 event.

I believe as many other conspiracy theorist, that there are globalist within US intelligence, working in concert with other secretive groups to construct a world government. That is what I believe a good portion of the stolen and laundered money is going toward. That is why 911 was staged.

My main point is that if they did it before they can do it again. I believe that if China starts to play hardball and calls in its loans or tries to exert political power over the US, the powers that be will find some way to cheat China out of the trillions we owe them.

The empire can get away with 911, invade Iraq, Afghanistan, fund and support the rebel uprising in Libya. Orchestrate the financial market collapses and demand unlimited powers in order to bail out the economy.

I just don't see any signs of weakening. What I do see is that peoples standard of living is being lowered by design, and there seems to be a universal call for austerity. This isn't signs of a decline of the empire, it is actually the imperial masters robbing its own  subjects and keeping them poor and stupid, as a means of control and consolidation of wealth and power. The individuals loss of personal power,freedom and wealth is a different issue.

Ron Paul is a plausible answer to this problem of an empire run rampant. His libertarian stance is a great bulwark by which the people can use to protect themselves from further loss of freedoms and standards of living.

My only concern is, Perhaps someone like Ron Paul would throw a huge wrench into the cogs of the imperial machine and he would unwittingly dismantle the armor that is all that protects us from other more sinister forces. Perhaps the shadow government is necessary to protect the free world, just as the Roman legions protected Rome.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Fermenter Zym on November 20, 2011, 09:44:23 pm
I saw Ron Paul speak at Penn State for the 2008 election. He had a strong grassroots following and had a lot of promise for winning the election. The media, however, absolutely did not want him to win. This was likely due to the fact that he would reduce the media's influence on government through revoking corporate personhood. The media, therefore, simply did not mention him as much as the other candidates in that election. When they did mention him, they often criticized him. So despite the strong grassroots campaigning (where he made more in personal donations than any other candidate), the media presented him as radical and without a chance to win. Then he was destroyed in the election, receiving a few percent of the votes in most states.

This year the media is not even mentioning that he continues to come out in the top three in many straw pools. Because his agenda would endanger the profits of so many big agencies, I have to say that the odds are not in his favor. (Did anyone catch my Hunger Games reference?  ;D)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 20, 2011, 11:01:47 pm
I don't see the US empire crumbling anytime soon, I am sure that US intelligence operatives at the CIA still have a few Aces up its sleeve. Like the Rothschild dynasty it is often in the best interest of those with great power and wealth to be deceptive and give the impression of decline. Do not be fooled by the psychological programming laced into news programs about western decline. Its all propaganda designed to make sheeple more open to world governance.
Don't worry, my views aren't based on news programs. They are my own.

Mind you, when empires decline it's not always the end of the state that built them. The descendant people and culture of "Rome" still exist in the form of the city of Rome and the nation of Italy, though they are going through yet another of their debt crises, just like the Roman empire did.

I think Ron Paul is right that the USA cannot afford to maintain its policy of foreign interventionism and global policeman forever.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on November 20, 2011, 11:14:13 pm
Its all propaganda designed to make sheeple more open to world governance.

(/quote]

I love it :) sheeple........ roflmao
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 21, 2011, 12:22:21 am
Also, Ron Paul (and Nassim Taleb, Nouriel Roubini, Jim Rogers, Peter Schiff, the deceased Benoit Mandelbrot, and others) recognized many of the problems and warned about them years before the media started paying close attention. The media used to largely dismiss these guys as extreme gloom-and-doomers or even nuts. Since the start of the economic crisis, when so many of the things they have warned about have come to pass, they have been taken more seriously. They are definitely not sheeple. Check out their youtube videos and writings from years ago to see.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: miles on November 21, 2011, 06:35:07 am
I think Ron Paul is right that the USA cannot afford to maintain its policy of foreign interventionism and global policeman forever.

Who are global policemen? That's just psyops stuff.

The invasions etc are about maintaining power, it's proactive defence. Securing oil and other resources, whilst keeping down possible threats before they become dangerous. Oil is stored energy, it allows nations to do things much faster, and if the USA and allied nations didn't have it then someone else would. The USA can't just hide behind its walls, or it will suffocate whilst other nations become stronger.

Only if there is a near global-empire can the wars end.

The other alternative to a global empire is that most of the people in the world become enlightened, and come to feel connected as one people.

Why has there never been a powerful nation who's leaders told the truth to its people? Can it work? Enlightened people should have even more support for wars than Sheeple...
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on November 21, 2011, 10:55:37 am
Who are global policemen? That's just psyops stuff.

The invasions etc are about maintaining power, it's proactive defence. Securing oil and other resources, whilst keeping down possible threats before they become dangerous. Oil is stored energy, it allows nations to do things much faster, and if the USA and allied nations didn't have it then someone else would. The USA can't just hide behind its walls, or it will suffocate whilst other nations become stronger.

Only if there is a near global-empire can the wars end.

The other alternative to a global empire is that most of the people in the world become enlightened, and come to feel connected as one people.

Why has there never been a powerful nation who's leaders told the truth to its people? Can it work? Enlightened people should have even more support for wars than Sheeple...
Miles,

the US and most other countries are currently addicted to oil. This addiction is a great way to send money over to countries where unstable kooky theocracies reign supreme. These clowns are running out of ridiculous toys to buy and have opted to spread their virulent forms of racism/religion to the rest of the world.

Evidence of this is everywhere from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and even European cities. Surprise, Surprise!

 It would be wiser for those sending all their dough abroad to these nutbars, to examine with much eagerness the use and proliferation of various and sundry alternative forms of energy. If the expenditure on the military were to be spent in their own backyard, the current draining of the purse would at least be stemmed.

Additionally this would put the US in the forefront of movement into the future, able to export brains rather than body bags.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on November 21, 2011, 12:14:25 pm
We all just want an improvement in the world order.  Maybe Ron Paul can deliver something good.

Other republicans in the race want MORE WAR.

Obama promised CHANGE but it was a TOTAL LIE, Obama does MORE WAR.

Ron Paul will bring the troops home, as fast as the ships will take them.

Ron Paul promises to end the FEDeral Reserve Bank... which will also signal a big change to a hopefully better direction.  They killed JFK for trying to kill the FED, let's hope Ron Paul succeeds where JFK failed.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on November 21, 2011, 08:29:43 pm
JFK caught the money men off guard. The establishment believed that because his father was a big wheeler and dealer that the son would be someone who could be coerced. Instead JFK went rouge after the establishment had already put him into power, and if he wasn't taken out he would of outed the whole secret government , abolished the fed and the world may be a very different place.

The establishment Knows who Ron Paul is and they will do everything within their means to keep him out of office, even outright fraud. If you think that GW bush didn't rig the vote in Florida or that it cant be done again you are mistaken.  A lot has changed since JFK and the money men have tightened there grip over anyone who becomes president.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on November 21, 2011, 09:33:30 pm
JFK caught the money men off guard. The establishment believed that because his father was a big wheeler and dealer that the son would be someone who could be coerced. Instead JFK went rouge after the establishment had already put him into power, and if he wasn't taken out he would of outed the whole secret government , abolished the fed and the world may be a very different place.

The establishment Knows who Ron Paul is and they will do everything within their means to keep him out of office, even outright fraud. If you think that GW bush didn't rig the vote in Florida or that it cant be done again you are mistaken.  A lot has changed since JFK and the money men have tightened there grip over anyone who becomes president.

And if enough Americans realized this truth, then they should start their own revolution this 2012.  My country had its own revolution in 1986.  Maybe it is about time the Americans had their own revolution.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on November 21, 2011, 09:44:37 pm
US already had its revolution, in 1770s.

GS, for your information Philippines has much higher corruption rate and your elite's control of the national money is by far much worse than in the US.  You also forgot about muslim revolution in the south.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on November 21, 2011, 10:10:23 pm
US already had its revolution, in 1770s.

GS, for your information Philippines has much higher corruption rate and your elite's control of the national money is by far much worse than in the US.  You also forgot about muslim revolution in the south.

Philippines does not destroy, invade, kill foreign nations. 
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on November 21, 2011, 10:52:37 pm
You know why?  Because Philippines does not have the money.  If they did, they would do it in a heartbeat.  Not just them, every other country as well.

Quote
Philippines does not destroy, invade, kill foreign nations.
It's called spreading the influence.

After WWII there were only two countries who could spread their influence at will - US(and UK as a sidekick) and Soviet Union.  Soviet Union ran out of money.  Modern Russia is dreaming about the day when it can start spreading its influence once again.

Other countries who are close to start spreading their influence:
China - they have the money, they don't have advanced military capabilities yet, they are working on it
Brazil - looking to be a regional superpower, for now.
Turkey - dreaming about old days as Ottoman empire, PM Erdogan is actively working on it
Iran - dreaming about old days as Persian empire, nuclear bomb will help immensely
Saudi Arabia - competes with Iran to be regional superpower

Japan would love to take pacific occupation back from the US. 

Every single nation would like see its neighbors weakened and submissive.  The only exceptions are those very remote island nations who do not have immediate neighbors and small countries like Norway who have oil coming out of their ears.

US is no more evil than any other country.  US is simply playing the same game that has been played for thousands of years.  A few big players trading smaller cards back and forth.  And the rules have not been changed as far as I know.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on November 21, 2011, 11:07:53 pm
And maybe Ron Paul can do better and bring some PEACE for a change.

(http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/pauldeb_dees.jpg)

Ron Paul Crushes The Competition In North Carolina

http://www.thecarolinapatriot.com/ (http://www.thecarolinapatriot.com/)

The Consistent Candidate: Ron Paul 2012 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICwwgCW5jF4#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on November 22, 2011, 01:34:28 am
You know why?  Because Philippines does not have the money.  If they did, they would do it in a heartbeat.  Not just them, every other country as well.
It's called spreading the influence.

After WWII there were only two countries who could spread their influence at will - US(and UK as a sidekick) and Soviet Union.  Soviet Union ran out of money.  Modern Russia is dreaming about the day when it can start spreading its influence once again.

Other countries who are close to start spreading their influence:
China - they have the money, they don't have advanced military capabilities yet, they are working on it
Brazil - looking to be a regional superpower, for now.
Turkey - dreaming about old days as Ottoman empire, PM Erdogan is actively working on it
Iran - dreaming about old days as Persian empire, nuclear bomb will help immensely
Saudi Arabia - competes with Iran to be regional superpower

Japan would love to take pacific occupation back from the US. 

Every single nation would like see its neighbors weakened and submissive.  The only exceptions are those very remote island nations who do not have immediate neighbors and small countries like Norway who have oil coming out of their ears.

US is no more evil than any other country.  US is simply playing the same game that has been played for thousands of years.  A few big players trading smaller cards back and forth.  And the rules have not been changed as far as I know.

YS You are absolutely right! The US is acting no different than any other country, if given the chance.

However I don't think that Goodsamaritan is attacking the US. He is pointing at the fact that the US is acting like an empire because it can. This does not reflect on ordinary citizens any more than all the other countries in the world who would if they could.

Unfortunately power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

GS is simply pointing out that one politician seems to be shining out like a beacon in the night, an inspiration to others to do the same. There will always be a buildup of corruption in any country.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on November 22, 2011, 02:08:19 am
I believe that the book "The Israel Lobby" explains a lot of the craziness going on in the US regarding military activity and it explains why Ron Paul gets virtually no media coverage.

Ron Paul (2nd) Still Ignored By Media - Here's Why! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyx7Mkb5uDU#ws)

I believe that the Israel lobby via the various organizations which are it's constituents, is doing it's best to keep the likes of Ron Paul out of power as Israel right now gets the largest foreign aid largesse from the coffers of the US to the tune of a $500. per year, per person (man woman and child) subsidy from Uncle Sam. They also receive enormous military assistance including direct access to military technology. They also have a full arsenal of nukes and were the first in the middle east to do so and the US was well aware of it and yet Saddam who had no nukes and other things that Israel had from the get go (including "Weapons of mass destruction") was attacked by the US.....  DAH, Gee I wonder why. Maybe all the media attention from the Israel Lobby in the US media talking about that nasty Saddam had something to do with it.........

The Israel Lobby (American's of Jewish religion or sympathies) is terrified that Israel will lose it's subsidy, plain and simple. BTW this does not mean that all Jewish people agree with this particular modus opperende,  just the vocal and politically minded and over-burdened with money to give away.

You don't hear about it in the media as the media is owned, operated or staffed to a large degree by these people.

BTW in case anyone thinks I am anti-Semitic, forget it. Some very good friends and one girl that I almost married are of that persuasion.

All groups of people in the world have a nutbar element. That doesn't mean that every person in the group is a nutbar.

Historically Jews in Europe have had a rocky ride. Not sure why. Lots of people's have had rocky rides.

Read Ron Paul's books.

Read "Inside The Kingdom" by Osama Bin Ladin's sister in law - Carmin Bin Ladin
http://ottawa.bibliocommons.com/item/show/240941026_inside_the_kingdom (http://ottawa.bibliocommons.com/item/show/240941026_inside_the_kingdom)

Read The Israel Lobby" 
http://ottawa.bibliocommons.com/item/show/240941026_inside_the_kingdomhttp://ottawa.bibliocommons.com/item/show/473852026_the_israel_lobby_and_us_foreign_policy (http://ottawa.bibliocommons.com/item/show/240941026_inside_the_kingdomhttp://ottawa.bibliocommons.com/item/show/473852026_the_israel_lobby_and_us_foreign_policy) by John Mearsheimer

Read "Hot Flat and Crowded" Thomas L. Friedman
http://ottawa.bibliocommons.com/item/show/467549026_hot,_flat,_and_crowded (http://ottawa.bibliocommons.com/item/show/467549026_hot,_flat,_and_crowded)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on November 22, 2011, 02:54:10 am
US does not really care about Israel, all this talk about supporting the only democracy in the Middle East is just empty talk.  US needs Israel as a military and intelligence base to keep Middle East influence in check.  And as cheap source of highly skilled labor, tech start-ups, and science.

So all this so-called Israeli aid is nothing more than payment for these services which is pretty cheap when considering what US is getting back.  US does not spend money periodically year over year without getting more money back.  Unless they stumble on the big pile of poop like Iraq and to some degree Afghanistan.  Even cheap Iraqi oil is not worth the outcome.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on November 22, 2011, 03:32:04 am
US does not really care about Israel, all this talk about supporting the only democracy in the Middle East is just empty talk.  US needs Israel as a military and intelligence base to keep Middle East influence in check.  And as cheap source of highly skilled labor, tech start-ups, and science.

So all this so-called Israeli aid is nothing more than payment for these services which is pretty cheap when considering what US is getting back.  US does not spend money periodically year over year without getting more money back.  Unless they stumble on the big pile of poop like Iraq and to some degree Afghanistan.  Even cheap Iraqi oil is not worth the outcome.
Dream on YS. You seem to be drinking the Kool-aid.

You really ought to read about the topic.

The US is being taken to the cleaners. There was even one scandal about an Israeli general who was selling US military secrets to the Ruskies. He was caught and not much happened to him and the Israelites did not respond to the US as to his fate or the court proceedings..

The US clearly has little to gain from militarily combining forces with a teeny weeny country which seems to be at war with everybody, treating it's poor neighbours with contempt and utter disregard for human life.

There was a very slim excuse for giving the subsidy to Israel in the very beginning when Russia was the bogyman in Reagan's day, and Israel could serve as a staging airport for Russia, but that slim excuse has long ago evaporated and wasn't really useful then at all.

Then there's the issue of the nukes. Israel basically built them (after profusely lying about not doing it) and said FU to the rest of the world.

Israel has treated the US with arrogance throughout the period of the relationship as well as it's neighbours.

The US is getting FA back for their considerable largesse.

What it really does is piss off the Muslims who have been staring down the barrel of Israel's very powerful forces and been treated like s#@t by them in the country which by rights is theirs.

They were imposed upon by the Zionists who used such tactics (in the beginning) as bombing school busses and other despicable acts of terror. The tactic of terrorism was something the Arabs picked up from the Zionists. This hatred of Jews was not there in the beginning. It was a learned response.

The American lack of knowledge on the Israel/Palestine question is amazing. The rest of the world seems to know about it.

Please advise of the sources of your info.

Other books that may be on interest:
"Jimmy Carter" "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid"

"Queen Noor" "Leap Of Faith" The American born wife of the King of Jordan King Hussein.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Noor_of_Jordan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Noor_of_Jordan)
http://www.biography.com/people/queen-noor-of-jordan-9542217 (http://www.biography.com/people/queen-noor-of-jordan-9542217)
http://books.google.ca/books/about/Palestine.html?id=c5byFwiV1TEC&redir_esc=y (http://books.google.ca/books/about/Palestine.html?id=c5byFwiV1TEC&redir_esc=y)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on November 22, 2011, 05:16:36 am
haha, Carter, seriously, Carter??  the most failed president.

Quote
The US is being taken to the cleaners.

That's your personal opinion.  I am saying US gets much more in return for few billion a year.

First of all, it looks like you are the one drinking and it is not a koolaid.  Your response is 90% irrelevant.  The subject of discussion is value of the aid.  And you start talking about israeli nukes, arab-israel relationship, and israel attitude.  All of this is completely irrelevant.

Second, US does not have any friends, only business partners.  That's what Israel is - a source of certain services, materials, and intelligence.

Code: [Select]
The US clearly has little to gain from militarily combining forces with a teeny weeny country which seems to be at war with everybody
You really don't get it.  US is using Israel as a proxy to flex it's political muscles in the area without ever putting US forces there.  The goal of US is to keep conflict ongoing because it weakens all participating parties.  It is so much easier to boss around weak countries.  If US is not the boss in the area then it would be China.

US is dreaming about the days of Iran-Iraq war.  US made a strategic mistake by neutralizing Saddam who was the only force in the area to keep Iran in check.  Now Iran is spiraling out of control and no one knows what to do about it.  I bet US is secretly asking Israel to bomb Iranian nuclear sites.  They would say the usual condemnation but give Israel money under the table and veto any Security Counsel resolutions.

And that's what Ron Paul does not get it.  He wants to relinquish all the control of the area to Chinese.  And I guarantee China will not stop there.  The day China takes control of the middle east oil it'll be the end of Europe and very tough times for the US.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on November 22, 2011, 05:19:39 am
I don't think there is any one to take responsible for the state of affairs. Although I have been about as guilty of blaming the Zionist  just as much as Christ himself had done in his day.

There have always been conflicting interest of opposing views in regards to a basic religious difference between the god of the human heart and the lord of the material world.

In the time of Christ it was called Mammon. The god of material things is uncaring and unjust, and Christ spoke out against it.  Mammon is unable to differentiated between a free man who is standing up for basic rights and a deviant who is a real threat communal order. Mammon is the personification of greed, its a religion of  worldly people. Its the aspiration to dominate and lord over others.

An example of mammon in modern times:
 In order to contain "communism" the United states had it invade a bunch of peasants in Vietnam.  Its not mortally right by any means, but in the end they maintained supremacy and no one in the  power structure was brought up on war crimes. The power to create money and then force people from other parts of the world to take that fiat money in exchange for real assets has been saved once again.

Of course  the type of communism in fashion at the time is just an other more terrible type of mammon, so perhaps there is a means justify the ends mentality that is held by many under the spell of mammon. If the capitalist don't loot and plunder every part of the world then someone else more ruthless will do it anyway. Its the hook that drawls people into the spell.

This is far from what the framers of America wanted ever wanted for the new world they were constructing. They tried to build a government that could allow the human being personal freedom, while at the same time keeping the lord mammon within some ridged restraints. Its not something that can ever be totally accomplished given the complexity of human events, but it is still a balance that should be worked for.

We need a prophet like Ron Paul , along with others to lead the people in this spiritual war against of what has become the mammon of today.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on November 22, 2011, 05:40:29 am
Ys, as raw-al pointed out, you really have no idea what you are talking about. For one thing, you can be sure that most Middle-Easterners would far rather have China controlling them than the US. China, unlike the US, isn't 100 percent pro-Israel and hasn't gone in for the vast number of puppet regime-installations/prop-ups that the US has done in the Middle-East and elsewhere, so would be way more popular and more honourable.  What I find funny is that the Arab Spring is now ushering in Islamic Fundamentalists into governments all round since these were the only effective anti-establishment forces during the era of US-allied puppet-regimes.

Re Iraq/Iran war:-  The US only attacked Saddam because the other Sunni Moslem nations and Israel wanted it to. There was no real benefit for the US.  There certainly isn't any benefit for the US to invade Iran, given that the latter country is hardly powerful and is too far away from the US to be a nuisance.

Re budget:- Because of Israeli pressure to start wars in the Middle-East, the US has wasted vast amounts of money on fruitless military campaigns and increased anti-terrorist security rather than spending it on the American population.  All they had to do was not invade Muslim countries, to vacate their bases in the Middle-East and to not back Israel, and there would be no Al-Quaeda of any note. We commoners could then quickly go through airport gates without having our genitals forcibly groped every time by overly eager security personnel, more government money could be spent on the current economic crisis etc.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on November 22, 2011, 07:33:34 am
YS,
Some great business partner Israel is. The Iraq war seemed to have a rather unbusinesslike effect on the price of oil......

Even after the Iraq war the Jewish press in the US which had been urging this debacle were soon seen scurrying for the manhole covers, with hardly a whimper lest they be seen. Hiding behind such silly platitudes as supporting the troops, supporting the President, war on Terror, ad nauseum. They knew it was a huge mistake and they didn't want to be seen as having an opinion, although a precious few were seen to whimper it was a mistake.

I used to visit an airport FBO where US troops passed through on their way across the pond to the Mid east. It pained me to see the fine gentle people being shipped off to a possible early grave.

As far as China goes TD is absolutely right. Indeed the Chinese have signed very long term contracts with the mid east countries for oil and signed at top dollar.

As far as Jimmy Carter and his presidency, I cannot comment. He appeared to be an honest man. I suspect he was a victim of a press that your country seems to sic on everyone who gets into power.

To say someone is the most failed president I think you are leaving Bush out of the running. According to Wackipedia Here is a reference to Bush's approval rating...
"By early 2006, his average rating was near 40%, and in July 2008, a poll indicated a near all-time low of 22%. Upon leaving office the final poll recorded his approval rating as 19%, a record low for any U.S. President."
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on November 22, 2011, 10:50:38 pm
Once a bureaucratic has the right to grab your genitals its  becomes hard for them to let go of that kind of power.

I am almost more opposed to the nanny state regulations that the world government control freaks are forcing on us, as I am about the out right criminality of the financial world.

You cant buy raw milk, raw glands, or foods that are actually tested free of harmful pesticides. We have all kinds of resources available for blowing up other countries to ensure that they can live as free as US.

There are cameras everywhere, Cops are on the prowl for criminals who don't wear seat belts, commit acts of rolling stops or have expired bar codes.

I can see whats in store, {for the next generation in my part of the world}, if things keep progressing as they are. People everywhere need to start preaching out against arrival of the nanny state. I don't want my children living under Chinese one child policy and having limited personal freedom, lower standard of living. We are now Paying taxes to organisations that close off resources,suppression of actually functional and healthy forms educational alternatives  and suppress technology in the name of environmentalism.

The UN already sets up ,through its think tank foundation backed organisations, the basic curriculum of most public school systems world wide, as well as the vaccine scheduled, and dietary content of cafeteria food. They want to feed us all soy...( ok maybe I am getting a bit silly now, so I will digress)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on November 23, 2011, 09:59:05 am
Quote
Because of Israeli pressure to start wars in the Middle-East

That's a lie.  Israel did not start the war.  It was 6 arab states that started the war in 1948.  While it maybe true that UN's partitioning of Palestine was a shady affair the responsibility lies on countries that voted for it.  The same can be said for partitioning of India which was a botched job as well.

Quote
Some great business partner Israel

Much better than Egypt which was receiving significant amounts of military aid as well.
US does not admit it but they do indeed favour puppet regimes and seek to establish them wherever they can.  Soviet Union did the same thing.  And China is in the process as well.  They are actively buying foreign debt so they can have a controlling stake in those countries.

China is going to eat everyone's lunch, yours included, if not contested in the world arena.   Globalization is only going to expand.

Quote
As far as Jimmy Carter and his presidency, I cannot comment.

Hmmmmmm, then why do you advise me to read his book if you don't know what he has done?

Quote
I used to visit an airport FBO where US troops passed through on their way across the pond to the Mid east. It pained me to see the fine gentle people being shipped off to a possible early grave.

You know, one must be real stupid to sign up for army and not know they might be sent to some shithole to die for nothing significant.  Army is completely voluntary.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on November 23, 2011, 03:31:06 pm
That's a lie.  Israel did not start the war.  It was 6 arab states that started the war in 1948.  While it maybe true that UN's partitioning of Palestine was a shady affair the responsibility lies on countries that voted for it.  The same can be said for partitioning of India which was a botched job as well.

It is somewhat understandable that the Arabs attacked Israel - no region likes the notion of other peoples stealing part of their land. One could even argue that the Israelis started the whole business by having Irgun etc. terrorists bombing British and Arab targets in Palestine.

As regards some of the other wars, here is Begin's own admission that Israel started at least 3 of them:-

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0794/9407073.htm (http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0794/9407073.htm)

Here is a list of all the wars Israel has been involved in:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_involving_Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_involving_Israel)

What is incredible is that the last Israeli war against Lebanon got started over a mere 2 Israeli soldiers being kidnapped by Hizbollah. As a result of this minor matter, the Israelis bombed much of Lebanon(even the Christian areas!), which is interesting since the Christians had been allies of the Israelis in the previous Lebanon conflicts Israel got started:-

http://gulfnews.com/news/region/lebanon/christian-support-to-israel-dies-under-hail-of-bombs-1.248710 (http://gulfnews.com/news/region/lebanon/christian-support-to-israel-dies-under-hail-of-bombs-1.248710)

This behaviour seems due to Israel's policy of  "Meet force with greater force".
Quote
Much better than Egypt which was receiving significant amounts of military aid as well.
US does not admit it but they do indeed favour puppet regimes and seek to establish them wherever they can.  Soviet Union did the same thing.  And China is in the process as well.  They are actively buying foreign debt so they can have a controlling stake in those countries.

China is going to eat everyone's lunch, yours included, if not contested in the world arena.   Globalization is only going to expand.
The only reason that Egypt was given all that money by the US was to dissuade it from attacking Israel in revenge for all those wars Israel started in previous decades.

As for China, they are not seeking to set up puppet regimes, they merely aim to dominate economically.  Their approach appears to be that they don't care who is in charge as long as the bought-for oil/metals etc/ all go unhindered to China.

Quote
You know, one must be real stupid to sign up for army and not know they might be sent to some shithole to die for nothing significant.  Army is completely voluntary.
  The trouble is that the US provides all sorts of free training(driver's licence/pilot's licence/truck driver's licence etc.) plus money for university education, I believe, as well. This sort of bribe does give a huge incentive to people.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on November 24, 2011, 02:38:42 am
Quote
As for China, they are not seeking to set up puppet regimes, they merely aim to dominate economically.

I see it completely different.  China currently does not have the  military might to do what US is doing.  But they are catching up.  China is building aircraft carriers and stealth technology.  These things are used exclusively for invasions and bullying.  Except in very rare occasions where one needs to defend remote territory as in the case of UK defending Falklands.  China is also building nuclear subs, and attack missiles.

China was also aggressively scouting Israeli UAV technology and Israel was willing to cooperate.  But US paid Israel not to share it with the Chinese.  That's just one of the examples why US is paying Israel.

On the side note India is building their first aircraft carrier and Russia is thinking to do the same when money will allow it.

Quote
The only reason that Egypt was given all that money by the US was to dissuade it from attacking Israel in revenge for all those wars Israel started in previous decades.

Dude, that is so wrong.  Mubarak was one of the only friend of Israel (and of course US).  He was true secular authoritarian who would do anything for money.

Quote
What is incredible is that the last Israeli war against Lebanon got started over a mere 2 Israeli soldiers being kidnapped by Hizbollah.

You don't understand middle eastern culture and mentality.  Only the strong is respected.  If you don't respond with brutal force it'll be considered a defeat and invitation for more attacks.  That's why diplomacy never worked in that area.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on November 24, 2011, 05:42:24 am
I see it completely different.  China currently does not have the  military might to do what US is doing.  But they are catching up.  China is building aircraft carriers and stealth technology.  These things are used exclusively for invasions and bullying.  Except in very rare occasions where one needs to defend remote territory as in the case of UK defending Falklands.  China is also building nuclear subs, and attack missiles.

China was also aggressively scouting Israeli UAV technology and Israel was willing to cooperate.  But US paid Israel not to share it with the Chinese.  That's just one of the examples why US is paying Israel.
Think about it, the US is being forced to bribe one of its supposed "allies" in order to stop it from selling secrets which this ally had already taken from the US, in the first place. That makes it clear that Israel has no usefulness to the US as an ally. If it didn't have to support Israel, it wouldn't have to support Egypt either, since the two are intertwined. Also, if the US had the sense to grasp that imposing sanctions is one of the 3 or 4 main reasons why the US is so despised around the world, and lifted its sanctions from Burma, Cuba and Iran, among others, then its reputation would also increase.

As for China's current policy, they already have constant problems within their own country, such as in Tibet, Xinjiang etc. They are extremely unlikely to attack anyone except their nearest neighbours, and their overwhelming economic might means they simply don't need to go to war. Indeed, there are now signs of an approach to creating an EU-style economic organisation in East Asia.

As for its military buildup, nuclear submarines and the like are necessary to show how unpleasant it would be to invade that same country. Every country, even Iran, should have the right to avoid the horror of nuclear blackmail from another country.
Quote
On the side note India is building their first aircraft carrier and Russia is thinking to do the same when money will allow it.
  Cool - as history has shown, it's usually the case that those who give up their weapons will usually end up being destroyed sooner or later by another entity with bigger weapons. Best that everyone provide their own military deterrent to being invaded. I note that Libya and Iraq were invaded, but would not have been if they had had nuclear weapons, for example.
Quote
Dude, that is so wrong.  Mubarak was one of the only friends of Israel (and of course US).  He was true secular authoritarian who would do anything for money.
He was no genuine "friend". You are right that he liked to be bribed, but that does not make him a genuine "friend". I am sure he would have listened to his people, and adopted a far more aggressive stance towards Israel, if he had not been bribed away from that stance.
Quote
You don't understand middle eastern culture and mentality.  Only the strong is respected.  If you don't respond with brutal force it'll be considered a defeat and invitation for more attacks.  That's why diplomacy never worked in that area.
  That is plain ridiculous. I previously gave a typical example whereby Israel bombed a whole country(Lebanon) simply because a  (non-government-aligned) militia had abducted 2 Israeli soldiers. That is such psychopathic, excessive overkill that it is plain that Israel is its own worst enemy.

That said, while I find the above quoted comment rather extreme, I do think that the Middle-East has its problems. For one thing,  they are still an intensely tribal culture which means that a regime can't really survive in the Middle-East unless it  a) represents/supports one allied group of those tribes and b) cracks down on any opposing tribes. Europe got around this tribal/regional problem by centralising the State, during monarchic reigns, and by crushing the power of the provincial peoples via Versailles and other unpleasant methods.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on November 24, 2011, 06:14:22 am
You don't understand middle eastern culture and mentality.  Only the strong is respected.  If you don't respond with brutal force it'll be considered a defeat and invitation for more attacks.  That's why diplomacy never worked in that area.
You do not show your country of origin.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on November 24, 2011, 06:46:54 am
That's a lie.  Israel did not start the war.  It was 6 arab states that started the war in 1948.  While it maybe true that UN's partitioning of Palestine was a shady affair the responsibility lies on countries that voted for it.  The same can be said for partitioning of India which was a botched job as well.


The Zionists treat(ed) the Arabs like dirt. They murdered adults and children including school busses full of Arab children, they drove the people off not only the land that somehow was given to them (the Zionists) without the approval of the owners (Arabs) but additional lands which they have continued to take over today including the infamous demarcation line with towers that they built on Arab land.

They have brutally killed Arabs indiscriminately in these areas and bulldozed their homes.

Hmmmmmm, then why do you advise me to read his book if you don't know what he has done?

At least I admit what I know less about.

Rather than dump on Jimmy Carter who you seem to know nothing about, other than to make wisecracks, maybe you should read his book on Palestine. He is but one of many on the sad subject.

one must be real stupid to sign up for army and not know they might be sent to some shithole to die for nothing significant.  Army is completely voluntary.


If you knew anything about Ron Paul which I see you do not, you would know that this is something he is against.

The US had various periods of enforced conscription in the military with a variety of selection schemes. Indeed if you are an American my understanding is that you are legally required to sign up for conscription. Whether or not they will do anything about the list remains to be seen. At one time you could buy your way out of it. (Civil War period) but nowadays you have to buy your way out like Bush Junior did during Vietnam.

Here's Wackipedia's version;

"The United States discontinued the draft in 1973, moving to an all-volunteer military force, thus there is no mandatory conscription.
However, the Selective Service System remains in place as a contingency plan; men between the ages of 18 and 25 are required to register so that a draft can be readily resumed if needed. In current conditions conscription is considered unlikely by most political and military experts. In fact, some experts consider the selective service system itself to be pointless since the chances of a draft are nearly zero and since a draft would be extremely ineffective in a nuclear war, for example."
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on November 24, 2011, 09:00:38 am
Jesse Ventura There's Only ONE Person I Like At All That's Ron Paul! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc5D0rsTmfM#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on November 24, 2011, 10:44:34 am
Ron Paul is the only candidate from any party (with the possible exception of Gary Johnson) who understands what the problem truly is, and the solution.

It is that simple.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on November 25, 2011, 12:55:05 am
Second, US does not have any friends, only business partners.  That's what Israel is - a source of certain services, materials, and intelligence.

So you are suggesting that the Taliban, leaders of the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan (where 10 - 12 year old boys are lured in to learn how to strap bombs to their bodies and kill people who have stereos, or no beards or "gasp" girls who show their ankles or children who dare to go to school), Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein etc etc etc are business partners.......... hmmmmmmm interesting business.

It's quite illuminating the information that Ron Paul brings to light as the actual cost of this clandestine nonsense.

The US has 900 bases in 135 countries in the world. The military budget eclipses the total that the rest of the world spends on the military.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 01, 2011, 10:41:16 pm
Will The Jews Let Ron Paul Win?

Will The Jews Let Ron Paul Win? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OYY5doGI2g#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 02, 2011, 01:38:57 am
Will The Jews Let Ron Paul Win?

Will The Jews Let Ron Paul Win? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OYY5doGI2g#ws)
Not likely, and Americans are too lazy to vote to get rid of this political juggernaut that runs America. The Jews vote en masse.

They are essentially the latest version of the Mafia.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: cherimoya_kid on December 02, 2011, 05:26:15 am
The Jews vote en masse.


Jews make up about 2% of the US population.   Your math is broken.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 02, 2011, 06:27:33 am
Jews make up about 2% of the US population.   Your math is broken.
As I recall, this figure applies only to those actively practising Judaism as a religion. Those of the same ethnic affiliation but who are Christian, Buddhist, agnostic or atheist etc. are not included.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 02, 2011, 07:55:31 am
Quote
"Although Jews make up just over 2 percent of the population of the United States--approximately 5.5 million out of 262 million--many Americans mistakenly believe that we constitute a full 20 percent of the American people, because of our disproportionate visibility, influence, and accomplishments. But our numbers may soon be reduced to the point where our impact on American life will necessarily become marginalized. One Harvard study predicts that if current demographic trends continue, the American Jewish community is likely to number less than 1 million and conceivably as few as 10,000 by the time the United States celebrates its tricentennial in 2076. Other projections suggest that early in the next century, American Jewish life as we know it will be a shadow of its current, vibrant self--consisting primarily of isolated pockets of ultra-Orthodox Hasidim.

Jews have faced dangers in the past, but this time we may be unprepared to confront the newest threat to our survival as a people, because its principal cause is our own success as individuals. Our long history of victimization has prepared us to defend against those who would destroy us out of hatred; indeed, our history has forged a Jewish identity far too dependent on persecution and victimization by our enemies. But today's most serious threats come not from those who would persecute us, but from those who would, without any malice, kill us with kindness--by assimilating us, marrying us, and merging with us out of respect, admiration, and even love. The continuity of the most influential Jewish community in history is at imminent risk, unless we do something dramatic now to confront the quickly changing dangers."

The Vanishing American Jew
In Search of Jewish Identity for the Next Century
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
1997
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 02, 2011, 08:22:29 am
Yes, I have read Derschowitz's claims re the Vanishing Jew, but given that he is a particularly  ardent admirer of Israel etc., one can safely state that his fears are wholly unfounded, to say the  least.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on December 02, 2011, 08:57:52 am
Joe Biden says I am a zionist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0ZIJdN05QE#)

You can't make this stuff up , the vice president of the united states is a Zionist.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 02, 2011, 09:12:54 am
Yes, I have read Derschowitz's claims re the Vanishing Jew, but given that he is a particularly  ardent admirer of Israel etc., one can safely state that his fears are wholly unfounded, to say the  least.
Good. Gooood. ... The Force is strong with you! A powerful Sith, you will become! Henceforth, you shall be known as Darth... Tyler.

The fact of the matter is, English- and Irish- Americans (aka the Sith) are the real dominant power. I should know, being one, and Jews are merely our puppets. We use them to take the heat while we really run things, and our opponents are powerless to stop us. Muwahahahaaaa!

I can safely reveal this because our propaganda has so saturated peoples' minds that they can't help but blame Jews even when we reveal our nefarious workings. The dwindling relative size of the Jewish segment of America means we'll soon need a new scapegoat to distract people with, though.

We have cool secret meetings with special handshakes, human sacrifice and everything.  O0 >D  Now back to your Jew-bashing like good apprentices. Once more the Sith will rule the galaxy and we shall have peassss.

While you're at it, take care of Jon Stewart will you? He's spoiling things by sticking up for Ron.
Ron Paul Mentioned on Daily show: Jon Stewart exposes media censorship of Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUXBz6AGJFM#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 02, 2011, 10:50:15 am

The fact of the matter is, English- and Irish- Americans (aka the Sith) are the real dominant power. I should know, being one, and Jews are merely our puppets. We use them to take the heat while we really run things, and our opponents are powerless to stop us. Muwahahahaaaa!

I can safely reveal this because our propaganda has so saturated peoples' minds that they can't help but blame Jews even when we reveal our nefarious workings. The dwindling relative size of the Jewish segment of America means we'll soon need a new scapegoat to distract people with, though.
  I must admit, your above drivel is shown as being particularly stupid right now. I mean, if the above were true, there's no way that affirmative action would exist right now, let alone the rabid support for Israel by the US. Quite aside, from the Israeli lobby's current dominance of Hollywood and the White House/Congress.

I don't personally approve of the extremist Islamic viewpoint, as of this time, but , compared to the Israeli/Zionist viewpoint, they seem like tame doves by comparison. I do often wonder  if the world's current problems could all just be resolved just by a few tactical nuclear strikes in the major Israeli cities...
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 02, 2011, 11:14:48 am
Gooood. Use your aggressive feelings. Let the hate flow through you.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 02, 2011, 11:36:08 am
This will ADD more FUEL to the reality that JEWS hate Ron Paul:

http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/01/republican-jewish-coalition-bars-ron-pau (http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/01/republican-jewish-coalition-bars-ron-pau)

Republican Jewish Coalition Bars Ron Paul From Presidential Debate, Saying He's Too "misguided and extreme"

On Wednesday, Dec. 7, the Republican Jewish Coalition will host a presidential-candidates forum featuring Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. Not invited is the GOP candidate currently polling around third in New Hampshire and second in Iowa: Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). The explanation:

Quote
    Paul was not invited to attend the RJC's candidates forum because the organization - as it has stated numerous times in the past - "rejects his misguided and extreme views," said [RJC Executive Director Matt] Brooks.

    "He's just so far outside of the mainstream of the Republican party and this organization," Brooks said. Inviting Paul to attend would be "like inviting Barack Obama to speak."

Most of the mainstream US Media is owned by Jews.  As well as a lot of the owners of the FED.  And it is the MSM that shapes the MASSES who to vote. 

Ron Paul needs to find a way to get his message out to the 98% of the Americans who are NOT jews.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 02, 2011, 12:14:42 pm
i missed old replies somehow.  sorry for lengthy replies, just catching up.

Quote
Rather than dump on Jimmy Carter who you seem to know nothing about, other than to make wisecracks
Haha, I think this is so dumb for you to say.  How can you conclude that I know nothing about Carter when I only said that he was the most failed president?  Well for starters let me remind you that Carter brokered Camp David accord which was humongous failure that resulted in current Israeli-Palestinian relations.  And his failure during Iran hostage crisis.  Need any more?

Quote
So you are suggesting that the Taliban...
Absolutely correct.  They were used to counteract USSR invasion of Afghanistan in case you forgot.  Same thing with Saddam until his ego took the best of him and got himself lots of enemies.

Quote
The Zionists treat(ed) the Arabs like dirt. They murdered adults and children including school busses full of Arab children, they drove the people off not only the land that somehow was given to them (the Zionists) without the approval of the owners (Arabs) but additional lands which they have continued to take over today including the infamous demarcation line with towers that they built on Arab land.

Hmmmm, maybe jews should give a bill to Italians for their expulsion from Palestine?  What do you think?

And in case you don't know arabs who stayed and are now Israeli citizens have more rights and freedom than citizens of Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and the rest of the arab world.  How do you explain that arabs in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan treat their Palestinian refugee brothers like dirt?  When muslims expelled jews from Morocco, Lybia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and others Israel took them all and gave them citizenship right away.  And Lebanese, Syrians, and Jordanians treat arab refugees like dirt.  Do you know why?  Because arabs in those countries do not have national identity, they live by medieval tribal rules and given chance would love to cut throats of competing tribes.  Not just arabs, but pretty much throughout muslim world with few exceptions.  Do you see where the problem is?

Quote
If you knew anything about Ron Paul which I see you do not, you would know that this is something he is against.

Exactly why Ron Paul is completely clueless about foreign policy.

Quote
Not likely, and Americans are too lazy to vote to get rid of this political juggernaut that runs America. The Jews vote en masse

Ron Paul will not win even if all the American Jews vote for him.  Whoever gets the most fundraising money from bankers, lawyers, farma, oil and unions has the best chance of winning regardless of the agenda.  Ron Paul does not have the backing of any of those groups.  He relies on individual contributions which would not be enough to win even the Senate or Governor's seat.  Unfortunately in this country money make all the weather.  Ron Paul isolated himself from big money and for that he will get his 5%.

Quote
Also, if the US had the sense to grasp that imposing sanctions is one of the 3 or 4 main reasons why the US is so despised around the world, and lifted its sanctions from Burma, Cuba and Iran, among others, then its reputation would also increase.

Oh yes, US is greatly despised, but somehow most of them want to come to the US.  Care to explain that?

Quote
As for its military buildup, nuclear submarines and the like are necessary to show how unpleasant it would be to invade that same country. Every country, even Iran, should have the right to avoid the horror of nuclear blackmail from another country.
I repeat, aircraft carriers do nothing for the defense.  Those things are ridiculously expensive and costly to maintain.  Only superpowers who have invasions in mind build them.
You really have no clue who is in power in Iran.  Iran's president publicly calls for Israel's destruction.  No sane president would ever say that.  Unless of course you greatly don't like Israel then you would want Iran to have nuclear bomb.

On a similar topic can you explain why US keeps paying Pakistan even though both pretty much hate each other?

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: cherimoya_kid on December 02, 2011, 12:44:02 pm
As I recall, this figure applies only to those actively practising Judaism as a religion. Those of the same ethnic affiliation but who are Christian, Buddhist, agnostic or atheist etc. are not included.

For that matter, everyone of European descent is Jewish, if by "Jewish", you mean "descended from a Jew". Your point is ridiculous.  As far as the strict definition of Jewish, only a few million people on the planet are born to a Jewish mother, which is the strict definition.

I just don't get all the anti-Semitism. Rise above hate.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 02, 2011, 01:06:05 pm
Quote
As I recall, this figure applies only to those actively practising Judaism as a religion. Those of the same ethnic affiliation but who are Christian, Buddhist, agnostic or atheist etc. are not included.

I think you are confused about religion and ethnicity.  2% are the ethnic Jews, not just those who practice judaism.    In other languages Jewish nationality and Jewish religion are different words.  cherimoya_kid is mostly correct, majority of people born to Jewish fathers are also considering themselves Jews.  Read wikipedia, it's all there.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 02, 2011, 02:41:22 pm
Quote
Ron Paul will not win even if all the American Jews vote for him.  Whoever gets the most fundraising money from bankers, lawyers, farma, oil and unions has the best chance of winning regardless of the agenda.  Ron Paul does not have the backing of any of those groups.  He relies on individual contributions which would not be enough to win even the Senate or Governor's seat.  Unfortunately in this country money make all the weather.  Ron Paul isolated himself from big money and for that he will get his 5%.

Love this hard truth from YS.

But people are free to dream.  Maybe the internet will allow Ron Paul a vehicle to challenge the dominance of the MSM.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 02, 2011, 08:18:15 pm
Gooood. Use your aggressive feelings. Let the hate flow through you.
It's so sad that you have to resort to George Lucas's notoriously dismal attempts at dialogue in the movies, when you have nothing useful or valid to add to any discussion.

"“George, you can type this shit, but you sure as hell can't say it". Harrison Ford commenting on George Lucas' appalling dialogue in Star Wars.

Incidentally, you tried, falsely, to imply that I was attacking "all jews". Not in the slightest true - after all, I'm a big fan of Bruno Kreisky who was heavily anti-Israel, plus a fan of Noam Chomsky, among others.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 02, 2011, 08:31:16 pm
For that matter, everyone of European descent is Jewish, if by "Jewish", you mean "descended from a Jew". Your point is ridiculous.  As far as the strict definition of Jewish, only a few million people on the planet are born to a Jewish mother, which is the strict definition.

I just don't get all the anti-Semitism. Rise above hate.
First of all, there was no anti-semitism whatsoever in simply pointing out that data  re population figures was flawed. Secondly, most people nowadays, jews included, do not take religion too seriously. In the case of Israel, for example, they are even now  willing to invite people with just Jewish fathers into their country. I suppose a more valid population census would include all those with jewish surnames, but that would not include those who changed their names to more anglo-saxon ones.

The absurdity in suggesting that all Europeans are descended from Jews is surprising and shows a lack of knowledge of history. In case, you weren't aware, Jews lived in closed-off ghettoes in most European cities for centuries upon centuries. Hardly an opportunity to intermingle much.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 02, 2011, 09:25:01 pm
Absolutely correct.  They were used to counteract USSR invasion of Afghanistan in case you forgot.  Same thing with Saddam until his ego took the best of him and got himself lots of enemies.
  The point raw-al was making was that these "allies" of the US were tyrants who made their own peoples' lives hell, thus showing that the US was pure evil in trying to recruit them at all. What the fate of US allies, such as Mubarak and Gaddhafi, shows us, too, is that the US can never be trusted and will always stab its allies in the back whenever the opportunity arises(not only the US:- another example being Pinochet being betrayed by the UK etc. etc.)

Quote
And in case you don't know arabs who stayed and are now Israeli citizens have more rights and freedom than citizens of Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and the rest of the arab world.  How do you explain that arabs in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan treat their Palestinian refugee brothers like dirt?  When muslims expelled jews from Morocco, Lybia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and others Israel took them all and gave them citizenship right away.  And Lebanese, Syrians, and Jordanians treat arab refugees like dirt.  Do you know why?  Because arabs in those countries do not have national identity, they live by medieval tribal rules and given chance would love to cut throats of competing tribes.  Not just arabs, but pretty much throughout muslim world with few exceptions.  Do you see where the problem is?
Iran did not expel the Jews, they simply emigrated to Israel, given Israel's generous bonuses to Jewish immigrants. In fact, the Iranians go to great lengths to give rights to Jews, and even give them one parliamentary seat, despite the very low Jewish population in Iran. The main rights they are not allowed are service in the military or government.  As for Israel's appalling treatment of its Arab citizens, one only has to look at the Koenig Memorandum:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koenig_Memorandum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koenig_Memorandum)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel)
Quote
Oh yes, US is greatly despised, but somehow most of them want to come to the US.  Care to explain that?
  People only want to emigrate to the US because they get a skewed, highly unrealistic view  of the US from watching Hollywood films and imported US TV shows, nothing more. If other countries had any sense, they would forbid all US film and TV imports and produce their own media rather than depending on low-grade trash/propaganda from the US about the american nightmare(sorry, .."dream"   l)  ).
Quote

I repeat, aircraft carriers do nothing for the defense.  Those things are ridiculously expensive and costly to maintain.  Only superpowers who have invasions in mind build them.
  Not true. An aircraft carrier is a symbol of power and versatility and so creates a deterrent to enemies planning an invasion.
Quote
You really have no clue who is in power in Iran.  Iran's president publicly calls for Israel's destruction.  No sane president would ever say that.  Unless of course you greatly don't like Israel then you would want Iran to have nuclear bomb.
Utter rubbish. The Iranian president was deliberately misquoted. Here are the actual facts:-

http://antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025 (http://antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025)

It is interesting to note that Iran hasn't attacked another country aggressively for over a century. By comparison, the US and Israel have done so repeatedly within the last 50 years.
Quote
On a similar topic can you explain why US keeps paying Pakistan even though both pretty much hate each other?
Hmm, without regular warfare, the US couldn't justify keeping such  vast armed forces, so it's in their interests to bribe foreign governments/politicians in order to carry on with their wars.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 02, 2011, 09:31:21 pm
Out of curiosity, does Ron Paul support Nasa, or at least private sector space industry?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on December 02, 2011, 09:59:45 pm
I am not an anti-semite, I just blame the jews for screwing up humanity with their invention of the mono God and cursing the world with such a nonexistent entity. Then there is the idea I can't stand, that the Israelites are the chosen people and that Jerusalem is the Holy land.

 Too much ignorance to even begin to break down.

The pharisees and their attempts to create Zion and control the earthly realm have failed miserably. Lucky for this day and age it seems that the dogmatism has faded out and many contemporary Jewish believers are just as watered down as the modern Christians.

There still seems to be a covetousness among the elders of zion and a religious drive to control the money,  to worship Mammon in secret.

To digress, and not single out one group unfairly I have to admit this same demon of falsely professed faith and secret worship of mammon possesses the power elite of other faiths as well. Skull in bones, being the christian equivalent of the Elders of zion.

 Many anti-semitics like Hitler were insane with hate at the realization that Jews orchestrated the financial collapses that left Germany in abject poverty. He just didn't realize that it was the Jews in roles of power and high finance that were responsible, not the entire Jewish race. A christian group with the same power and wealth would probably be much more ruthless world controllers than the Rothschilds.

Considering Hitler's insanity I am far more content to live under the governance of the Zionist in the Obama administration. Although I am a radical who still believes that a Ron Paul  could do a lot better job of president without  the help of a cabinetry of Jewish Mafia types like Rahm Israel Emanuel. Our White house chief of staff was an Israel agent. Now he is the mayor of Chicago, the mafia capital of the world.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 02, 2011, 11:49:11 pm
Hmm, Ron Paul does seem to be against NASA but he appears to have solid reasons for his stance:-
http://www.islandone.org/Politics/LP.space-dom.html (http://www.islandone.org/Politics/LP.space-dom.html)

 I have often wondered why, though, countries didn't simply pool together their resources for specific manned missions and just each contribute 0.5 percent of their national budgets to space. That way, we would by now have reached Mars.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 03, 2011, 03:22:39 am
  I must admit, your above drivel is shown as being particularly stupid right now. I mean, if the above were true, there's no way that affirmative action would exist right now, let alone the rabid support for Israel by the US. Quite aside, from the Israeli lobby's current dominance of Hollywood and the White House/Congress.

I don't personally approve of the extremist Islamic viewpoint, as of this time, but , compared to the Israeli/Zionist viewpoint, they seem like tame doves by comparison. I do often wonder  if the world's current problems could all just be resolved just by a few tactical nuclear strikes in the major Israeli cities...

I agree.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 03, 2011, 03:39:03 am
Lots info good info gents. Nothing like a good raucous discourse to spread info and misinfo.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 03, 2011, 03:47:41 am
Love this hard truth from YS.

But people are free to dream.  Maybe the internet will allow Ron Paul a vehicle to challenge the dominance of the MSM.


Sadly you both are right IMHO. Ron said in his books and his speeches that when big money walked in his doors he said FO.

Sadly, big money, or whoever has it in hand, is the bestower of power. This is true everywhere from the powerful Indian (aboriginals) chiefs and further back to when we were swinging from tree to tree.

He with the largest phallus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallus) rules the roost.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 03, 2011, 06:08:33 am
Hmm, Ron Paul does seem to be against NASA but he appears to have solid reasons for his stance:-
http://www.islandone.org/Politics/LP.space-dom.html (http://www.islandone.org/Politics/LP.space-dom.html)

 I have often wondered why, though, countries didn't simply pool together their resources for specific manned missions and just each contribute 0.5 percent of their national budgets to space. That way, we would by now have reached Mars.

I grew up watching Space 1999, a TV show, and while the Apollo missions were still running.   I had dreams of being an astronaut.  (I was named after Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin) But then the manned missions after Apollo stopped. 

I thought by 2020 we'd have space colonies in the solar system... or at least have a working populated moon colony.  Probably why programmed as I'm pro-life, pro-polygamy, pro-natal.

Instead the powers that be are brainwashing everyone we are stuck in island earth so they tell you to stop making babies and drown yourselves in contraception.

We are like that stupid Chinese emperor who stopped all the shipping explorations. 

This is also why some people think the Apollo moon landings were hoaxes.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 03, 2011, 11:21:03 am
Quote
What the fate of US allies, such as Mubarak and Gaddhafi, shows us, too, is that the US can never be trusted and will always stab its allies in the back whenever the opportunity arises

Correction - Gaddafi was never ever an ally of the US.  He was the enemy since the day one after the coup in 1969.
You finally starting to understand how the world works.  Congrats.

To everyone else here is a simplified analogy.  Countries are like flowers in the field.  For a country to prosper it has to spread its leaves over its neighbors.    Add to it the fact that there are thousands of languages and only about 200 countries.  There is not enough space for everyone.   Conflicts are inevitable.  It make take another 1000 years to consolidate languages and nationalities.  Look how long it took for Europe to shape itself -  few thousand years.

And Ron Paul does not understand any of it!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 03, 2011, 11:26:38 am
Quote
I have often wondered why, though, countries didn't simply pool together their resources for specific manned missions and just each contribute 0.5 percent of their national budgets to space. That way, we would by now have reached Mars.

The answer is simple.  That's 0.5 percent less for ruling elite pockets esp in the 3rd world and they are not willing to share.  That's why only the richest countries can afford to do space exploration and only those programs that promise the best ROI. 
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 03, 2011, 12:23:41 pm
Quote
Quote

    On a similar topic can you explain why US keeps paying Pakistan even though both pretty much hate each other?

Hmm, without regular warfare, the US couldn't justify keeping such  vast armed forces, so it's in their interests to bribe foreign governments/politicians in order to carry on with their wars.

Nope, they don't even cooperate anymore, not military nor intelligence.  Today's cooperation is a mere shell of what it used to be only 5 years ago.  US and Pakistan hate each other guts.   US keeps paying Pakistani military only to keep nuclear bombs out of hands of radical islamists.

Quote
Not true. An aircraft carrier is a symbol of power and versatility and so creates a deterrent to enemies planning an invasion.

It is not a symbol of anything.  They don't make symbols that take 15 years to build the first unit, cost $10 billions, and billions more to operate.
It is not a deterrent of the invasion.   During the invasions carriers are sitting ducks and would be the first to get destroyed.  No one can invade China, not even US, EU, and Russia combined.  And Chinese know that.  China needs carriers to start doing what US is doing - bullying smaller countries with natural resources.

Quote
Utter rubbish. The Iranian president was deliberately misquoted. Here are the actual facts:-

http://antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025 (http://antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025)

It is interesting to note that Iran hasn't attacked another country aggressively for over a century. By comparison, the US and Israel have done so repeatedly within the last 50 years.

haha, of course from antiwar website, what else to expect.
Israel never attacked anyone first.  Arab states started the war.  Anything happened before 1948 you can blame UK for that.  They were responsible for the Mandate.  All the subsequent Israel attacks were because Israel was in state of WAR that it did not start.  In case you don't know it is still at WAR with Lebanon and Syria since 1948.

Quote
Iran did not expel the Jews, they simply emigrated to Israel
OK, I'll take Iran off the list.  But all the other mentioned countries did expel all the jews and took their land.  Not sure why no one raised the question of return of jewish refugees.

All this Israel thing is blown way out of the proportion.  Israel was defending itself and should have annexed the land just like Allies annexed 3 years earlier.
And another thing to think about.  In 1939 Soviet Union grabbed a chunk of Finland just because it could.  Surely Finland lost the war and land was grabbed.  League of Nations kicked Soviet Union out only to take them back into UN (with veto power!).  You don't hear Finns talk about land return and refugees return.  That's because Soviet Union was a superpower at the time and Israel is just a small tiny country that can be picked on.

Why no one is crying for poor Kurds which are being terrorized by Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Iraq?  The civilian death toll in that conflict is thousand times more than in Israeli-Palestinian.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: cherimoya_kid on December 03, 2011, 12:26:25 pm


The absurdity in suggesting that all Europeans are descended from Jews is surprising and shows a lack of knowledge of history. In case, you weren't aware, Jews lived in closed-off ghettoes in most European cities for centuries upon centuries. Hardly an opportunity to intermingle much.

The Jews have existed for about 5000 years.  Any Jew alive 5000 years ago who has descendants today is an ancestor of ANYONE with European, MIddle Eastern, or European ancestry.  The Jews have been insular, but not insular enough to completely avoid sowing wild oats, or to prevent people from leaving the faith and intermarrying with outsiders.

I don't think you understand heredity.  Not that it matters, it's barely germane to the discussion, let alone to the main purpose of the board, but...we are pretty much all Jews here, except maybe Good Samaritan.  The PERCENTAGE of Jewish blood is a separate issue.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 03, 2011, 12:46:14 pm
Quote
but...we are pretty much all Jews here, except maybe Good Samaritan.  The PERCENTAGE of Jewish blood is a separate issue.

In Spain maybe.  They had large number of Jews converted to Christianity and assimilate with locals.  Not too sure about France but the rest of European Jews were very segregated in ghetto-like compounds esp in the Eastern Europe.  Jews in Western Europe and UK especially had more rights but marriages to non-Jews were very very rare and only possible  when converting to Christianity.  Only later in the beginning of 1900s there were more mixed marriages.

Segregation is one of the reasons why jews remained a distinct nationality as oppose to Ancient Egyptians which got completely assimilated with invading Arabs.  Same thing with Gypsies, they don't intermingle much with locals and still have their national distinction.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 03, 2011, 01:46:24 pm
Quote
People only want to emigrate to the US because they get a skewed, highly unrealistic view  of the US from watching Hollywood films and imported US TV shows, nothing more. If other countries had any sense, they would forbid all US film and TV imports and produce their own media rather than depending on low-grade trash/propaganda from the US about the american nightmare(sorry, .."dream"   l)  ).

Not at all ( or should I say "rubbish"  >D).  Everyone I know who landed in the US recently (few hundred people) don't want to go back to their home country.  Some succeeded to such point they never dream about.  Most are much better off than before.  Even some who appear to had easier life back home for some reason do not want to go back.  So it is not propaganda.  Clearly US offers something that other country  do not have.  Even Canadians don't mind relocating to the US given the chance.

And you said it yourself.  UK sucks when it comes to obtaining quality wild food.  US has it all.  US offers the OPPORTUNITY to succeed, buy land, and hunt as much as you want, or do any other thing one is interested in.  I say those who despise US are really envious.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 03, 2011, 06:20:43 pm
The Jews have existed for about 5000 years.  Any Jew alive 5000 years ago who has descendants today is an ancestor of ANYONE with European, MIddle Eastern, or European ancestry.  The Jews have been insular, but not insular enough to completely avoid sowing wild oats, or to prevent people from leaving the faith and intermarrying with outsiders.

I don't think you understand heredity.  Not that it matters, it's barely germane to the discussion, let alone to the main purpose of the board, but...we are pretty much all Jews here, except maybe Good Samaritan.  The PERCENTAGE of Jewish blood is a separate issue.
Would you believe 3000 years....... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 03, 2011, 06:59:50 pm
Not at all ( or should I say "rubbish"  >D).  Everyone I know who landed in the US recently (few hundred people) don't want to go back to their home country.  Some succeeded to such point they never dream about.  Most are much better off than before.  Even some who appear to had easier life back home for some reason do not want to go back.  So it is not propaganda.  Clearly US offers something that other country  do not have.  Even Canadians don't mind relocating to the US given the chance.

And you said it yourself.  UK sucks when it comes to obtaining quality wild food.  US has it all.  US offers the OPPORTUNITY to succeed, buy land, and hunt as much as you want, or do any other thing one is interested in.  I say those who despise US are really envious.
When people emigrate to the US it is because they hear about the land of promise as Tyler said. It's the old "other man's grass is always greener stuff. They hated some or other thing in the old country up to and including their parents. Typically only educated people are "allowed" in so that skews any results. People are motivated to move and for a wide variety of reasons.

This also happens in the other direction where people leave the US for other destinations. They go to third world countries and live under sub-optimal conditions for various reasons.

Canadians move south and Americans move north for a variety of reasons. I used to live in a house that was full of US war resisters, during the Vietnam fiasco. A lot of Canadians were loyalists who did not want to have anything to do with the American Revolution. They left in droves. I buy my raw honey from a guy who used to be a Yank. He was not a war resister. American troops passing through Newfoundland married a high proportion of the local girls in the various military bases.

I personally have a lot of US friends for a variety of reasons. I used to hang glide and paraglide in a bunch of different locations there. I used to go for training annually in various locations, Wichita, Atlanta, Orlando, Toledo and I have visited a # of places on business.

Other than your crazy gun laws, completely ununderstandable political system and propensity for hanging flags outside your homes.... Americans are essentially the same as Canucks. There is just 10 times as many people on a lot less land. I am not sure I could handle moving there though. Politics.

It is amazing though to travel to the US. When you drive a mile over the border it's like another universe. Different accents, expressions, points of view. I remember once I was flying into a small to town in Maine and I visited the weather office. It was late at night and so I had a chat with the weather guy. As I was leaving I remember he said something about how he loved briefing Canadians because they were so "nice". I sincerely replied that that my experience was the same.

It's too bad that Americans all get tarred with the same brush due to their military presence in the world.

Another time I was in a  hangar getting ready to go to a hotel and a young pilot from Israel was buttoning up his aircraft also. It was a military version of what I was flying and it had a variety of military antennae hanging out and was painted military grey. I chatted with him a bit. They had just picked it up and they were taking it home. I felt badly that he was essentially cannon fodder but that was his choice.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 03, 2011, 07:11:48 pm
It is not a symbol of anything.  They don't make symbols that take 15 years to build the first unit, cost $10 billions, and billions more to operate.
It is not a deterrent of the invasion.   During the invasions carriers are sitting ducks and would be the first to get destroyed.  No one can invade China, not even US, EU, and Russia combined.  And Chinese know that.  China needs carriers to start doing what US is doing - bullying smaller countries with natural resources.
  Rubbish. For example, nuclear weapons are far more expensive, even, than aircraft carriers and have been routinely used as a deterrent against invasion. In fact, the only time nuclear weapons were used aggressively was in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 66 years ago or so.
Quote
haha, of course from antiwar website, what else to expect.
That's stupid, the antiwar website merely took the explanation from elsewhere, it wasn't thought up by the antiwar website itself.There are many other sites pointing out the sheer idiocy in believing that Ahmadinejad's statement was all about destroying Israel:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_map.22_controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_map.22_controversy)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/260107offthemap.htm (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/260107offthemap.htm)

A jewish site even grudgingly admits that the remark was falsely translated:-

http://www.jewcy.com/post/did_ahmadinejad_call_israel_be_wiped_map (http://www.jewcy.com/post/did_ahmadinejad_call_israel_be_wiped_map)

What is even more imbecilic is that Aahmadinejad not only was merely stating that he hoped the Israeli regime would collapse at some time in the future (not remotely the same thing he was accused of) but he was merely quoting the Ayatollah.



Quote
Israel never attacked anyone first.  Arab states started the war.  Anything happened before 1948 you can blame UK for that.  They were responsible for the Mandate.  All the subsequent Israel attacks were because Israel was in state of WAR that it did not start.  In case you don't know it is still at WAR with Lebanon and Syria since 1948.
  All lies. I already previously showed you an article in which Begin, the former Israeli leader and former terrorist, openly admitted to Israel having started at least 3 wars:-

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0794/9407073.htm (http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0794/9407073.htm)

Now, this admission occurred in 1982, and Israel has started other wars since that time, such as the recent Lebanon war. Now, if a former Israeli leader is willing to admit to 3 wars started up to 1982, one can be sure that the actual number of wars started by Israel is higher than that number, given Begin's obvious bias, being an Israeli commander.

Plus, the British only introduced the Mandate because of political pressure from Zionists and eventually gave up Palestine because of all the bombings by the Stern gang and other Israeli terrorist organisations. They can be blamed for being weak and giving in to pressure, but, ultimately, they were not responsible, overall.
As for Syria and Lebanon, the reason for the continuing state of war is because Israel stole land from both of those countries, such as the Gholan Heights etc. Naturally, neither of those 2 countries wishes to recognise the state of Israel in any way  until the latter country has the decency to return those stolen territories.
Quote
OK, I'll take Iran off the list.  But all the other mentioned countries did expel all the jews and took their land.  Not sure why no one raised the question of return of jewish refugees.
They expelled them because of the appalling behaviour of Israel at the time. I've sometimes wondered if Israel deliberately acted outrageously re its invasions so as to encourage emigration of Jews from surrounding countries to Israel.
Quote
All this Israel thing is blown way out of the proportion.  Israel was defending itself and should have annexed the land just like Allies annexed 3 years earlier.
And another thing to think about.  In 1939 Soviet Union grabbed a chunk of Finland just because it could.  Surely Finland lost the war and land was grabbed.  League of Nations kicked Soviet Union out only to take them back into UN (with veto power!).  You don't hear Finns talk about land return and refugees return.  That's because Soviet Union was a superpower at the time and Israel is just a small tiny country that can be picked on.
Israel cannot be compared to Finland. Finland was deserted by the Western Allied Powers, betrayed by the Nazis to the Soviets(one reason why they never fully allied with them after Barbarossa), whereas Israel has been fully supported, first  by Britain and France and then the US.
Quote
Why no one is crying for poor Kurds which are being terrorized by Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Iraq?  The civilian death toll in that conflict is thousand times more than in Israeli-Palestinian.
Very simple. Turkey is a NATO ally so the US is hardly going to condemn ill treatment of the Kurds. Actually, Iraq has its own Kurdish province in the North, and they're doing quite well there - so much so, that Turkey constantly threatens to invade Northern Iraq.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 03, 2011, 07:19:27 pm
Correction - Gaddafi was never ever an ally of the US.  He was the enemy since the day one after the coup in 1969.
  Wrong again. Or "nearly right" as some  US teachers like to say, instead. Gaddhafi was made into an ally after he promised to remove any nuclear facilities and made other numerous concessions:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi#Western_acceptance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi#Western_acceptance)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 03, 2011, 07:21:31 pm
haha, of course from antiwar website, what else to expect.
Israel never attacked anyone first.  Arab states started the war.  Anything happened before 1948 you can blame UK for that.  They were responsible for the Mandate.  All the subsequent Israel attacks were because Israel was in state of WAR that it did not start.  In case you don't know it is still at WAR with Lebanon and Syria since 1948.
OK, I'll take Iran off the list.  But all the other mentioned countries did expel all the jews and took their land.  Not sure why no one raised the question of return of jewish refugees.

All this Israel thing is blown way out of the proportion.  Israel was defending itself and should have annexed the land just like Allies annexed 3 years earlier.
Israel never attacked anybody.... poor little Israel... you must be an Israeli working for the department of public relations.

Poor little Israel is alarmed that some other country wants to be nuclearatized like them.

The whole sorry mess over there can be laid on the doorstep of many nations, not just the UK. That group includes the US as it was the US and Canada who refused the ship of immigrants from war torn Europe so many years ago.

Alas but history is not a simple subject.

However that does not take away anything from the fact that Ron Paul is saying that the US should haul it's overgrown proboscus out of the business of the rest of the world and mind it's own freakin business, look after it's own interests, in it's own country.

He is dead on the money with his discussion on the Federal Reserve. I do not agree with absolutely everything he says but the vast majority and he is the only one who is saying it. The only honest upright politician who actually worked for a living prior to getting into politics and he came from a family who actually worked for an honest living. He left his prior work out of choice not like a lot of politicians.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 03, 2011, 07:26:24 pm
And you said it yourself.  UK sucks when it comes to obtaining quality wild food.  US has it all.  US offers the OPPORTUNITY to succeed, buy land, and hunt as much as you want, or do any other thing one is interested in.  I say those who despise US are really envious.
Ironically, that's actually not true. I am easily able to obtain raw wild game from local farmers' markets in the UK, and at dirt-cheap prices, too. By contrast, many americans have complained about how laws in most States forbid  the sale of wild game so that their only hope is to find a hunter-friend who is willing to give them a carcass for free, an unlikely prospect.

I once came across a quotation that stated that "all that is the best and the worst in the world can all be found in the US", or something like that. The implication being that there was no middle-ground, only extremes, some wonderful, some truly revolting. That more or less sums up my own view.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 03, 2011, 07:30:29 pm
The only thing I disagree with Ron Paul on is his discussion on gun laws. He makes a totally ridiculous statement.

He says that guns make people polite. That is so laughable. He is essentially saying that a gun-toting American is more polite than a Canadian/Brit/Japanese...... Hmmmm try again Ronny....

However having said that, he is the only politician that I am aware of that actually states his positions clearly and concisely, giving the reasoning which led up to it.

He even defends the right to have raw milk. His father owned a dairy.

He is truly a jewel, an honest man.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 03, 2011, 07:37:37 pm
The Jews have existed for about 5000 years.  Any Jew alive 5000 years ago who has descendants today is an ancestor of ANYONE with European, MIddle Eastern, or European ancestry.  The Jews have been insular, but not insular enough to completely avoid sowing wild oats, or to prevent people from leaving the faith and intermarrying with outsiders.

I don't think you understand heredity.  Not that it matters, it's barely germane to the discussion, let alone to the main purpose of the board, but...we are pretty much all Jews here, except maybe Good Samaritan.  The PERCENTAGE of Jewish blood is a separate issue.
Like I said, you are not familiar with European history. For example, not only were Jews routinely settled in closed-off ghettoes, but they were also subject to regular pogroms against Jewish communities over millenia. Plus, countries regularly expelled their Jewish populations. Therefore there was very little scope for intermarriage, with both sides frowning on such a practice. As for ancestry, what relevance is that? 

You do have this ridiculous "one-drop-rule" in the USA, which, I suppose, is why  you go on about this irrelevant issue of Jewish ancestry, which has nothing to do with the point I made earlier that statistics don't usually take into account those Jews who are not religiously affiliated, only ethnically.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 03, 2011, 07:55:03 pm
I remember reading one book that suggested stated the C. Columbus was a Jew who went (along with a crew of other Jews) to sea to avoid the apparently inevitable coming of anti-seminist forces which were spreading at the time in Spain. I don't remember the details but it had to do with the pope etc. It was quite the conspiracy theory. It's the only place I have read it.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 03, 2011, 08:25:05 pm
 
Not at all ( or should I say "rubbish"  >D).  .
C'mon ease up the chokechain a bit, he hasn't said rubbish in a long time...  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 03, 2011, 08:49:55 pm
I'd like to remind everyone that this thread is about RON PAUL for president of the USA.

The Jews topic can go on a different thread.  No more Jew replies on the Ron Paul thread PLEASE.

Ron Paul on CBS's Face the Nation 11/21/11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXvHPkRHBvk#ws)

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Democracy (is not equal to) Freedom

100 Reasons for Ron Paul: Democracy ? Freedom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoFvHpnPJFE#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 03, 2011, 09:54:14 pm
I say those who despise US are really envious.

This is a bunch of 'merican BS. Reminds me of George Bush's BS about people attacking America because they are "jealous of our freedom". Dah... what planet is he from.

People attack (US of) America because they attack everywhere else.

Just like Ron Paul says.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 03, 2011, 10:32:40 pm
Quote
I say those who despise US are really envious.

Good grief.

I on purpose did not renew my 10 year US VISA because I cannot stand Orwellian 1984 crap in the USA. And the constant threat of terrorism and hate from more and more countries the USA murders.

I live in a house full of people who do not want to migrate to the USA ( my in laws already tried living there and returned here, because they didn't like the lifestyle there - having 1 child is hard, they wanted lots more so they went back and had 8 kids )

We've traveled around too and agree there are prettier countries to visit on the next and next vacation.

I don't see how I can be envious when I live in a compound of extended relatives, we have a combined 4 maids, 1 clothes washer, 1 ironer, 2 drivers, and 4 cars.  And chicks? Chicks are plentiful here.

Back to Ron Paul.

Maybe Ron Paul will stop the war mongering of the USA for a while.  That will be a relief of at least 4 years.  The world needs a rest from evil soldier invasions backed up by media lies. 

You may not have realized it yet but around the world when your USA military is shown in pictures, in videos, etc... you are the BAD GUYS, the INVADERS, the MASS MURDERERS.  Wouldn't it be nice to be called the GOOD GUYS for a change? (like in the days of WW2)

And if Ron Paul ends the FED, then maybe the world can have a more equitable money system.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 03, 2011, 10:47:30 pm
I don't see how I can be envious when I live in a compound of extended relatives, we have a combined 4 maids, 1 clothes washer, 1 ironer, 2 drivers, and 4 cars.  And chicks? Chicks are plentiful here.
I'm deeply envious of you, anyway. I mean, in developed countries like the UK, hiring 8  permanent servants is financially ruinous, you practically have to be a multi-millionaire  to support their lifestyles. Partly it's because of the high wages people demand over here, but also one has to pay towards their pensions etc.. If you give them a flat or house to live in, it's very difficult indeed to evict them once they stop working for you due to illness  or retirement etc.

As for Ron Paul, shouldn't we really be worrying about who will lead China, as the Chinese seem to be the only ones capable of running the world economy in the future?

As regards the US, empires which overstretch themselves, and start wars too far away from their genuine spheres of interest, usually are about to soon collapse.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 03, 2011, 10:50:24 pm
As for Ron Paul, shouldn't we really be worrying about who will lead China, as the Chinese seem to be the only ones capable of running the world economy in the future?

Maybe if Ron Paul does get to be president and brings all the troops home as fast as the ships will take them... there will be peace... and then we can talk about China.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: cherimoya_kid on December 04, 2011, 12:02:28 pm
In Spain maybe.  They had large number of Jews converted to Christianity and assimilate with locals.

Any European alive 1200 years ago or more who has descendants today is most likely the ancestor of several million European-descended people today.  You know that Charlemagne is the ancestor of about 50% of Europeans, right?  The Jews have been mixing in for a long, long time.  This gives plenty of time for that blood to make its way through all of Europe, the Middle East. etc..

Granted, none of the Spanish/Europeans Jews had as many children as Charlemagne individually...but as a group, they had far more than he alone did. Ergo, I'm right.

To TylerDurden--I don't see the point of calling someone a Jew if they are secular. That's like calling me an animist, just because I have couple of great-great-great grandparents who were Cherokee Indians.  You are either referring to those of Jewish BLOOD, or those of Jewish BELIEF. It's pointless and useless to conflate the two, no?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 04, 2011, 02:02:53 pm
In the case of Jewish blood and belief, the 2 are more or less the same thing. Just like Mormon Fundamentalists, the Amish and similiar largely isolated religious sects. Sure, a few others may join every so often(often discouraged), but that doesn't change the fact that current Mormon Fundamentalists, for example,  are almost wholly descended from those who went on the Mormon trek. Almost all Amish are descended from just 200 people in the 18th century etc.

I really don't understand this bizarre American fascination with your one-drop-rule. The idea that a tiny, microscopic percentage of ethnic DNA makes one a member of that one ethnic group is just ridiculous, beyond  belief. I mean, for example, for all I know I might have one Mongol ancestor 800 years ago, but by now, after c. 32 generations, this represents such a  tiny amount(0.5 xy 31=0.00000000046566128730773926), that I could not possibly be considered to be a Mongol(well I'm pretty sure I don't anyway have such ancestry, as my plotted genealogical tree goes back a 1,000 years). Sure, if I had a Mongolian great, great-grandfather or whatever, then that's different, as that's reasonably close. I just find it amusing that people like to trace themselves back to Charlemagne or Genghis Khan or whoever,  when they share negligible amount of genes with them, after so many centuries.

Anyway, this topic has been hijacked. The thread is about Ron Paul.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on December 04, 2011, 09:53:36 pm
http://www.infowars.com/republican-jewish-coalition-bars-ron-paul-from-debate-hes-misguided-and-extreme/ (http://www.infowars.com/republican-jewish-coalition-bars-ron-paul-from-debate-hes-misguided-and-extreme/)
Title: Re: Ron Paul Has Won More Straw Polls Than Any Other Republican Candidate
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 04, 2011, 11:29:22 pm
Ron Paul Has Won More Straw Polls Than Any Other Republican Candidate
Sunday, 04 December, 2011 05:27

(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001510035/4325745783_2012_211x300_xlarge.jpeg)

Ron Paul has garnered 19 GOP Presidential Straw Poll wins -- more than ANY other GOP candidate -- and ALMOST FIVE TIMES AS MANY as establishment favorite, Mitt Romney. Flavor of the Month, Newt Gingrich, has won ONE straw poll. Ron Paul’s straw poll victories constitute 48.7% of the 39 GOP Straw Polls thus far.

2011 GOP Straw Poll Wins for Ron Paul:

1st - February 12, 2011, Washington, D.C. – CPAC Straw Poll
1st - February 27, 2011 Phoenix, AZ - Tea Party Patriots Virtual Summit Straw Poll
1st - March 20, 2011, Sacramento, California – Republican Liberty Caucus of California Presidential Straw Poll
1st - June 16–18, 2011, New Orleans, Louisiana – Republican Leadership Conference Straw Poll
1st - June 19, 2011, Clay County, Iowa Republican Party Straw Poll
1st - August 20, 2011 New Hampshire Young Republicans Straw Poll
1st - September 12, 2011 Cincinnati Tea Party Straw Poll
1st - September 17, 2011 California GOP Straw Poll
1st - October 7–9, 2011, Washington, D.C. – Values Voter Straw Poll
1st - October 13, 2011, Los Angeles County, California - RPLAC Straw Poll
1st - October 18, 2011, Charleston, South Carolina - Charleston County Republican Party
1st - October 22, 2011, Columbus, Ohio - Ohio GOP Swing State Straw Poll
1st - October 29, 2011, Des Moines, Iowa - National Federation of Republican Assemblies Presidential Straw Poll Tally 1
1st - October 29, 2011, Des Moines, Iowa - National Federation of Republican Assemblies Presidential Straw Poll Tally 2
1st - November 5, 2011, Illinois - Illinois Straw Poll
1st - November 14, 2011, North Charleston, South Carolina - Charleston County Republican Party Straw Poll
1st - November 14, 2011, San Diego, California - San Diego GOP Straw poll
1st - November 15, 2011, Springfield, Missouri - Missouri Tea Party Straw poll
1st - November 19, 2011, North Carolina- NC Registered Republicans Straw Poll

Ron Paul's 2nd Place GOP Straw Poll results:

2nd - January 22, 2011, Derry, New Hampshire – New Hampshire Straw Poll
2nd - (Statistical Tie for 1st) - August 13, 2011 Iowa Straw Poll, Hilton Coliseum in Ames, Iowa.
2nd - (Statistical Tie for 1st) - August 27, 2011 Georgia State GOP Straw Poll
2nd - October 29, 2011, Tuscaloosa, Alabama; West Alabama Straw Poll
2nd - November 19, 2011, Rockford, Illinois - Memorial Hall Straw Poll

VOTE THIS UP!!!

THEN Vote for Ron Paul in the primaries and caucuses!!!

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1459/345/Ron_Paul_Has_Won_More_Straw_Polls_Than_Any_Other_Republican_Candidate.html (http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1459/345/Ron_Paul_Has_Won_More_Straw_Polls_Than_Any_Other_Republican_Candidate.html)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 04, 2011, 11:33:35 pm
That says it all Sabertooth, they are afraid of him and thus will be the ones that try to bring him down or at least make his road rocky, which will make the taste of victory sweeter.

There are so many people who would lose if he succeeds, ie; military empire, manufacturers of weapons of mass destruction, Israel, and the huge government sector, that he has a large mountain to climb. Go team go!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 05, 2011, 12:28:16 am
http://www.infowars.com/republican-jewish-coalition-bars-ron-paul-from-debate-hes-misguided-and-extreme (http://www.infowars.com/republican-jewish-coalition-bars-ron-paul-from-debate-hes-misguided-and-extreme)
Apparently, the "No more Jew replies on the Ron Paul thread" is not in force, or does it only apply to those that don't support the blame-the-Jews meme?

I must admit, your above drivel is shown as being particularly stupid right now. I mean, if the above were true, there's no way that affirmative action would exist right now, let alone the rabid support for Israel by the US. Quite aside, from the Israeli lobby's current dominance of Hollywood and the White House/Congress.
 
I don't personally approve of the extremist Islamic viewpoint, as of this time, but , compared to the Israeli/Zionist viewpoint, they seem like tame doves by comparison. I do often wonder  if the world's current problems could all just be resolved just by a few tactical nuclear strikes in the major Israeli cities...
It's so sad that you have to resort to George Lucas's notoriously dismal attempts at dialogue in the movies, when you have nothing useful or valid to add to any discussion.
Tyler, are you really so obtuse as to take what I wrote as intended literally rather than as satire to highlight the ridiculousness of your extreme posts? The fact that I was quoting from a low-brow FICTIONAL movie and talked about human sacrifice was supposed to be a clue. l)
 
Do you consider your remark about wondering if the nuking of the major Israeli cities could resolve "the world's current problems" to be useful or valid? If so, how?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 05, 2011, 12:32:40 am
Congratulations to the Jew-focused Ron Paul promoters, you've managed to cost Ron Paul a supporter. My favorite candidate was Ron Paul, with Gary Johnson as my second choice, but the extreme language and focus on Jews is tilting me to Johnson. I wasn't aware of the depth and extent this negative element of Ron's support and it led me to investigate and find some rather naive and extreme foreign policy statements by Ron that I found Johnson took more sensible positions on. Ron is still my second choice, but you guys have contributed to giving his campaign a bad aroma and my enthusiasm is curbed. With supporters like you guys, Ron doesn't need enemies.

The negativity in this thread is not only counterproductive to Ron Paul's campaign, it's also counterproductive to the credibility of this forum and certainly is not welcoming to Jewish or Israeli members (including the Palestinian Israelis who live in the major Israeli cities and thus would also be killed by nuking of those cities). Of course, Tyler will remain as always blatantly ignorant of this and impervious to reason on the subject, so I don't expect to change his mind, but I do want Jewish and Israeli readers and supporters of basic human decency to know that not everyone here agrees with the more extreme of his and others' rants.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 05, 2011, 01:01:16 am
Tyler, are you really so obtuse as to take what I wrote as intended literally rather than as satire to highlight the ridiculousness of your extreme posts? The fact that I was quoting from a low-brow FICTIONAL movie and talked about human sacrifice was supposed to be a clue. l)
A low-brow satire to emphasise a low-brow point on your behalf. Not terribly impressive.
 
Quote
Do you consider your remark about wondering if the nuking of the major Israeli cities could resolve "the world's current problems" to be useful or valid? If so, how?
Well, I was exaggerating with the nukes comment, but for a good reason, because I am well aware of how my own life has been made more complicated by the incessant wars in the Middle-East etc. The point I was really making was that with Israel no longer existing, there would be far fewer wars in the Middle-East against other countries or freedom-fighter organisations, therefore more money around to fund economic initiatives to end our current recession/depression, I wouldn't have to routinely queue for ages at airport security nor would I have to wait for hours because a bomb-scare has  caused the authorities to shut down the Underground etc. etc.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 05, 2011, 01:13:28 am
A low-brow satire to emphasise a low-brow point on your behalf. Not terribly impressive.
Luckily your rants make my posts look reasonable in comparison and I was highlighting the ridiculousness with ridiculousness that you and others promoting the Jew-blame meme might recognize, which you did. So it succeeded, at least with you.

Quote
Well, I was exaggerating with the nukes comment
And that IS impressive?

Quote
but for a good reason, because I am well aware of how my own life has been made more complicated by the incessant wars in the Middle-East etc.
I agree with you on this and wish the USA could be relieved of this burden of empire, which makes it unfortunate that you undercut your good points by going off into la la land.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 05, 2011, 04:33:37 am
You were the only fool making irrelevant moronic  statements(re the Sith etc.), so, actually, you failed quite miserably. Everyone else was just putting forward their various different views, making various additional points and debunking others' points, even ys, who I did not even necessarily  agree with, mostly. In future, please at least make an effort, however difficult that may be, to use logic and reason and back up your points with evidence etc., as you used to be able to.

By the way, I was pretty certain that you were deeply insincere re Ron Paul, and libertarianism in general, given your past behaviour/personality-type. I'm pleased to see I'm right in the first case, and I will probably turn out to be right in the 2nd case when you finally put in your vote in due course.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 05, 2011, 04:50:01 am

Incidentally, I am not too happy with Ron Paul's stance on abortion. I understand his reasons since he was a doctor present at late-term abortions, but still...

I vaguely know someone who was born  as a result of a forced rape of her mother  during wartime 9 months before, and her life was a living hell because her Catholic mother treated her appallingly. I do think that women should be entitled to abort in cases of rape and the like, or in early pregnancy. Late-term abortion should apply in cases of disability, given the future burden on the child and family.

Still, he's against climate change budgeting wastage, against the war on drugs because of the waste of money involved, and so on and on... Other than abortion, I agree with virtually everything else he states.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 05, 2011, 05:30:48 am
Incidentally, I am not too happy with Ron Paul's stance on abortion. I understand his reasons since he was a doctor present at late-term abortions, but still...

I vaguely know someone who was born  as a result of a forced rape of her mother  during wartime 9 months before, and her life was a living hell because her Catholic mother treated her appallingly. I do think that women should be entitled to abort in cases of rape and the like, or in early pregnancy. Late-term abortion should apply in cases of disability, given the future burden on the child and family.

Still, he's against climate change budgeting wastage, against the war on drugs because of the waste of money involved, and so on and on... Other than abortion, I agree with virtually everything else he states.

I struggled a bit on the abortion thing as it is a toughee.

Can't help but think that nowadays technology makes it easy to determine gender and other things (which will only expand as time goes on) which would make it tempting to abort, for say wanting a different gendered child or something else idiotic.

Abortion is not an easy topic to pass judgement on in any case. I do not believe we were put on earth to pass judgement anyways. (I'm wide open on that statement  ;D ;D ;D )

There will always be girls having abortion whether it's legal or not. I guess making it legal just ensures the girl gets better quality medical attention.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 05, 2011, 06:07:52 am
The way I see it, as science/technology advances, we will inevitably gain access to such technologies. In the case of those societies who frown on having female children, if they do reduce the number of girl children, that actually only benefits their societies since they(India, the Middle-East and China in particular) have too high a birth-rate already and need to reduce that in order to maintain a higher standard of living.

Now, people have argued that it is immoral to decide what physical or mental characteristics  child should have.  This idea has been rather conclusively debunked:-

http://web.archive.org/web/20060208032306/http://www.reason.com/rb/rb082504.shtml (http://web.archive.org/web/20060208032306/http://www.reason.com/rb/rb082504.shtml)

I mean, either we are just animals who do not manipulate ourselves or the environment, in which case we should just go back to living in the trees without technology, or we should go onward and choose what genes our children have.  In the case of abortion, I doubt it would be necessary if technology improved. For example, it might be possible, eventually, to redesign an embryo, mid-term,  to be female or male instead, rather than aborting it, or redesigning its future muscles to allow it to adapt to a high-gravity environment, or adding gills allowing it to survive in an underwater environment.... etc.

It should be obvious that I am a transhumanist and a science fiction aficionado.
Title: Re: Ron Paul Refusing To Attend Debate Hosted By Trump
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 05, 2011, 08:04:10 am
BACK TO RON PAUL
=================

Will The Jews Let Ron Paul Win? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OYY5doGI2g#ws)

Ron Paul Highlights in 12/3/2011 Presidential Forum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aeg4lXicyEA#)

Ron Paul Refusing To Attend Debate Hosted By "Reality Television Personality"

Ron Paul Refusing To Attend Debate Hosted By "Reality Television Personality" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X97GtNUIbyY#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 05, 2011, 08:29:18 am
You were the only fool making irrelevant moronic  statements(re the Sith etc.), so, actually, you failed quite miserably.
It was a joke and you recognized it as ridiculous, which was the intent, so it succeeded. Your ridiculous pondering of nuking Israeli cities was neither logical nor reasonable and you eventually grudgingly acknowledged that you exaggerated, which was another success. Whether you acknowledge these successes or engage in sour grapes is irrelevant.

Quote
By the way, I was pretty certain that you were deeply insincere re Ron Paul, and libertarianism in general, given your past behaviour/personality-type. I'm pleased to see I'm right in the first case, and I will probably turn out to be right in the 2nd case when you finally put in your vote in due course.
There you go trying to mind read again, failing miserably, as usual.

No politician is perfect. I was sincere re: Ron Paul and still may vote for him if Johnson isn't on the local ballot or if more reasonable people like Skinnydevil persuade me that Ron is the better choice, and if you paid attention you'd know that I didn't claim to be a full-fledged libertarian. I said I have libertarian tendencies.

You're not claiming to be libertarian, are you? You seemed to give that impression in the past, but since then the running theme I've seen in your posts is more authoritarian than libertarian. Didn't you write something positive about monarchy and other authoritarian styles of government/leadership?

Incidentally, I am not too happy with Ron Paul's stance on abortion. I understand his reasons since he was a doctor present at late-term abortions, but still...
Then it sounds like you agree more with Gary Johnson than Ron Paul on that. Also, some other of Johnson's views seem more libertarian than Ron's (though Ron seems more strictly libertarian on others, which is not suprising given that governors tend to have to compromise more than congressmen): http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2011/05/gary-johnson-vs-ron-paul-respective.html (http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2011/05/gary-johnson-vs-ron-paul-respective.html)

I'm still open to considering Ron Paul and my guess is he'll be the best option on the actual ballot by the time my state votes, but your posts are not doing him any favors. It's as if you're a mole planted by the conservatives to make Ron look bad. If you really support Ron Paul then if you had some sense you'd let Skinnydevil do the talking.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 05, 2011, 08:46:58 am
Geoff is a British "agent"... ha ha ha ha.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 05, 2011, 10:08:52 am
LOL, good one. Maybe he's 007?  ;)

Oh yeah, and in case anyone's not aware of the peculiarities of American politics, the "conservatives" tend to lean more to the authoritarian side of the scale than libertarians. Here's a political quiz with an admitted libertarian tilt that can help to illustrate the orientations in American politics: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 05, 2011, 10:19:46 am
Thanks Phil,
I am a Libertarian. I wasn't ten years ago.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 05, 2011, 10:45:50 am
You're welcome, Raw-Al.

GS, thanks for the 2nd and 3rd videos though I could have done without a repeat of the 1st. It was pretty cool to see Ron recommend a Bastiat book in the 2nd vid. Haven't seen a politician do that before.

"In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them." -Frédéric Bastiat, What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen

Here is the book Ron recommended:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basLaw.html (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basLaw.html)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 05, 2011, 04:00:31 pm
It was a joke and you recognized it as ridiculous, which was the intent, so it succeeded.
  Actually no, at the time, I thought you were just a truly sad geek("Star Woid") trying to come up with lame quotations from your most beloved  2 film trilogies, because you couldn't come up with a decent  valid point of your own. I mean, your lame citing of Alan Dershowitz who is infamous for getting OJ Simpson acquitted despite evidence to the contrary; his support for Jeffrey Epstein the prolific sex-offender and personal friend etc. , quite aside from a debate about Israel and Palestine in which he argued on Israel's side and lost convincingly.
Quote
Your ridiculous pondering of nuking Israeli cities was neither logical nor reasonable and you eventually grudgingly acknowledged that you exaggerated, which was another success. Whether you acknowledge these successes or engage in sour grapes is irrelevant.
  The nuke comment was never meant to be literally taken, anyway, just being an aside comment, you merely seized on it and pretended it  to be literal. It was just made as a result of my frustration with how one tiny little country in the world has caused a lot of disruption, to the extent of even wasting my own personal time re travelling around, quite aside from a myriad other matters. Besides, given that Israel's own Ariel Sharon has made subtle threats re nuking others, :-
"“Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches.",  I was merely copying him.
Quote
I said I have libertarian tendencies.
Ah, yes you actually did, now I recall. Forgive me for suggesting you might have claimed to have been  a full libertarian, that is clearly a case of slander/libel l) .  But then you shouldn't be posting here at all in this thread, for reasons of integrity.
Quote
You're not claiming to be libertarian, are you? You seemed to give that impression in the past, but since then the running theme I've seen in your posts is more authoritarian than libertarian. Didn't you write something positive about monarchy and other authoritarian styles of government/leadership?
  Just because most of my views seem to fall in the libertarian camp doesn't mean I can't sometimes admire other political systems too. I have always had an admiration for monarchies, for various reasons. The problem is that the monarch has to be a good one, that's all. Plus, I am also well aware that a particular individual's actions can be beneficial even if that person's political views are unrealistic or whatever.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 06, 2011, 09:17:36 am
  Actually no, at the time, I thought you were just a truly sad geek("Star Woid") trying to come up with lame quotations from your most beloved  2 film trilogies, because you couldn't come up with a decent  valid point of your own.
Nice try. You could hardly be further from the truth. How many times do I have to repeat that you're one of the worst mind readers I've ever encountered before it registers? You're so bad it's hilarious.

I shared your accusation with my sister and she laughed her head off because she was the Star Wars fanatic and I turned my nose up at it and resisted her nagging me to see the movie for many years. She used to annoy me by quoting from the movie and re-enacting it. I was probably one of the last people of my generation from that area to see Star Wars.

When Star Wars was in the theaters and a bunch of us kids went to a duplex movie theater which, like pretty much all theaters at the time, was showing it, I and my friend went to see the other movie while she and the rest of the kids saw Star Wars for probably the umpteenth time. There were less than half a dozen other people in the movie theater I was in and we were the only kids watching that movie. LOL As far as I was concerned, I would watch anything BUT Star Wars. I didn't watch Star Wars until I happened to be watching TV with someone else and they wanted to see it. It sounds like you would have been one of the few other kids on the planet who might have gone with my friend and I to the other movie instead of Star Wars. It's actually kind of disturbing to me that we might have that in common.  :o

Quote
I mean, your lame citing of Alan Dershowitz who is infamous for getting OJ Simpson....
OJ Simpson? Good grief! You're using that tangent seriously and you criticized my use of Star Wars quotes to highlight ridiculousness?  ;D

Quote
The nuke comment was never meant to be literally taken, anyway, just being an aside comment,
Earth to Tyler. Of course not, that's why I responded with a joke, Lord Tyler. Did you really take Star Wars quotes seriously?

Quote
you merely seized on it and pretended it  to be literal.
Wrong again. I treated it as ridiculous, which it was, and I didn't have to pretend. You're not really still trying to defend your use of the nuke nonsense are you? You're just digging your own hole deeper and deeper.

Quote
It was just made as a result of my frustration with how one tiny little country in the world has caused a lot of disruption, to the extent of even wasting my own personal time re travelling around, quite aside from a myriad other matters.
Yeah, I already got that you're seriously annoyed with Israel. That was pretty obvious from the get go.

Quote
Ah, yes you actually did, now I recall. Forgive me for suggesting you might have claimed to have been  a full libertarian, that is clearly a case of slander/libel l) .
LOL Hey, you actually are capable of some humor. Good for you. Tell me another.

Quote
But then you shouldn't be posting here at all in this thread, for reasons of integrity.
So people who are (or were) considering voting for Ron Paul and are interested in learning more shouldn't post here just because they aren't card-carrying members?  :o And I guess that pretty much cancels the possibility of any  debate, eh? I didn't realize that this was a yes-men thread.

Quote
Just because most of my views seem to fall in the libertarian camp doesn't mean I can't sometimes admire other political systems too. I have always had an admiration for monarchies, for various reasons.
And you're criticizing me for insufficient purity? This just gets richer and richer.

Quote
The problem is that the monarch has to be a good one, that's all.
Ah, that's it then. So monarchy can be a pretty good thing, eh? Have you ever tried to promote this view on a libertarian forum? Have you ever even participated in a libertarian forum?

Quote
Plus, I am also well aware that a particular individual's actions can be beneficial even if that person's political views are unrealistic or whatever.
So then why don't you cut me the same slack you give yourself? Unless you cherish hypocrisy too much. I've never implied that anyone has to be a purist libertarian to post in this thread the way you have and I didn't even claim to be a libertarian and you trashed me for being insufficiently sincere about libertarianism, then you did a 180 and tried to imply that I think being called a libertarian would be a slander. Make up your mind, they can't both be true. Or keep on playing the jester, it is a bit entertaining. ;D Thanks for the laughs!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 06, 2011, 10:06:36 am
New Ron Paul Ad - BIG DOG

New Ron Paul Ad - BIG DOG (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 06, 2011, 10:32:02 am
Nice kick-ass ad. Thanks for sharing it, GS.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 06, 2011, 01:41:01 pm
Star wars back-pedalling etc.

It really doesn't matter to me whether you are a star wars fanatic or not. Irrelevant. The very fact that you were so limited as to choose that star wars labelling rather than actually providing valid points to counter my arguments shows that you have no real imagination or logic.
Quote
OJ Simpson? Good grief! You're using that tangent seriously and you criticized my use of Star Wars quotes to highlight ridiculousness?  ;D
That wasn't the only point, and OJ Simpson can hardly be compared to your incredible lame citing of Star Wars to cover up bad arguments on your part. There was also mention of his support for a dear paedophile friend of his, and that debate over Israel he lost convincingly. Naturally, you would need to omit those points, given disingenuousness on your part.
Quote
Earth to Tyler. Of course not, that's why I responded with a joke, Lord Tyler. Did you really take Star Wars quotes seriously?
  You cited star wars because you couldn't think of anything useful to say. Not the same thing at all.
Quote
Wrong again. I treated it as ridiculous, which it was, and I didn't have to pretend. You're not really still trying to defend your use of the nuke nonsense are you? You're just digging your own hole deeper and deeper.
I already successfully defended my nuke comments by pointing out that Israelis have been making similiar comments about nuking others.
Quote
So people who are (or were) considering voting for Ron Paul and are interested in learning more shouldn't post here just because they aren't card-carrying members?  :o And I guess that pretty much cancels the possibility of any  debate, eh? I didn't realize that this was a yes-men thread.
It is a let's vote for Ron Paul thread. Those trying to sabotage the thread, like yourself, should not be here.
Quote
And you're criticizing me for insufficient purity? This just gets richer and richer.
Ah, that's it then. So monarchy can be a pretty good thing, eh? Have you ever tried to promote this view on a libertarian forum? Have you ever even participated in a libertarian forum?
Now that's just incredibly stupid and narrow-minded. Obviously, one should, for reasons of objectivity, not totally exclude the possibility that other systems can work as well, under certain conditions. To claim that only one system ever works is just blinkered thinking and does not allow for the likelihood that every philosophy has its flaws, since perfection does not exist in Nature. As for being a member of an online forum, that's like stating that one can't be a Conservative unless one is a member of the Conservative Party. Just moronic.
Quote
So then why don't you cut me the same slack you give yourself? Unless you cherish hypocrisy too much. I've never implied that anyone has to be a purist libertarian to post in this thread the way you have and I didn't even claim to be a libertarian and you trashed me for being insufficiently sincere about libertarianism, then you did a 180 and tried to imply that I think being called a libertarian would be a slander. Make up your mind, they can't both be true. Or keep on playing the jester, it is a bit entertaining. ;D Thanks for the laughs!
  An interesting load of pure b*llsh*t and doesn't get round the fact that you have been sabotaging this thread deliberately. If you really had any integrity whatsoever, you would by now have let others get on with discussing Ron Paul's myriad other themes(I mean he is hardly a 1-theme politician).
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 06, 2011, 02:53:32 pm
How about some Peace man, Peace.

Title: Re: Ron Paul WINS Oklahoma Straw Poll (Dec 06)
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 06, 2011, 07:50:14 pm
http://okgop.com/oklahoma-straw-poll-results/ (http://okgop.com/oklahoma-straw-poll-results/)

RON PAUL WINNING WINNING WINNING --- BIG

Oklahoma Straw Poll Results

Ron Paul - 46%
 Herman Cain - 25%
 Newt Gingrich - 17%
 Mitt Romney - 6%
 Rick Perry - 3%
 Michele Bachmann - 2%
 Rick Santorum - 1%
 Gary Johnson - less than 1%

Poll was conducted online at www.OklahomaStrawPoll.com (http://www.OklahomaStrawPoll.com) from November 21st to December 5th. For more details visit www.oklahomastrawpoll.com/faq (http://www.oklahomastrawpoll.com/faq) or call (405) 528-3501.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 06, 2011, 08:40:54 pm
It really doesn't matter to me whether you are a star wars fanatic or not. Irrelevant.
LOL, then why did you bring it up and go on about it yet again?  ;D Bravo! You show some talent at this jesting business. Here are three sovereigns for you, laddy boy.

Quote
The very fact that you were so limited as to choose that star wars labelling rather than actually providing valid points to counter my arguments...
Blah, blah, blah, redundant same old same old. What happened to your love of brevity?

Let's actually get back to Ron Paul, rather than just tell others to do so after a long rant, shall we?
Quote
Paul is the real deal (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/291492/paul-is-the-real-deal?SESSfb8d26f006f1f91e179873b108997334=google)
Nathan Armstrong, Concord
For the Monitor
November 10, 2011

"With the shattered economy the central issue in this presidential election, why not vote for the one candidate in the race who not only predicted the housing bubble and financial collapse but also proposed a bill that would have prevented it?"
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 06, 2011, 08:54:39 pm
So sad.. the sheer passive-aggressive behaviour of PP accusing me of the very same tactics he uses. Tut tut!   l)

Gasp*, could this mean that he will (eventually?) allow us to go on discussing Ron Paul's 1000-odd other policies without him trying to sabotage the thread, as usual?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 07, 2011, 09:00:36 am
Peeuu! Did someone fart in here?

Oooo, Ron went on the attack against Gingrich:
Ron Paul Ad - Newt Gingrich Serial Hypocrisy 60 second (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jzi3HBCS2M#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 07, 2011, 11:56:01 pm
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ka4ede8e58.jpg)

(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ec4ebcb7af.jpg)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 08, 2011, 12:18:52 pm
GS, I'm curious why Ron Paul draws such strong support from veterans. I know that Ron is a veteran himself, but I suspect it's more than that.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 08, 2011, 12:57:41 pm
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread783402/pg1 (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread783402/pg1)

Many like to claim Ron Paul's foreign policy is extreme but it seems he gets a vast amount of military support, dedicated I might add. Enough for them to actively participate in the Ron Paul Revolution.

Our troops on the ground and gathering intelligence around the world know Ron Paul is right, active duty military servicepersons cannot openly endorse a candidate, they can't even pledge their vote but they speak to us through their donations. Some that are not active have chosen to openly support Ron Paul all the way, which one of the other candidates have military support like Ron?

It is very clear and doesn't take much to see.

Veteran for Ron Paul: 2012 Randy Hilarski (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaomnIKzXKw#ws)

Veteran for Ron Paul: Derrick Marble (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y1PhlpKM-Q#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 09, 2011, 12:10:59 am
Thanks GS. Good links
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 15, 2011, 08:48:01 am
Dorothy and Ionna, fair warning that sweet persons like you may wish to skip the following. I am pissed off at Western politicians.
Quote
Romney: Gingrich an "unreliable" conservative
CBS News - ?4 minutes ago?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57343259/romney-hits-gingrich-with-tiffanys-jab/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57343259/romney-hits-gingrich-with-tiffanys-jab/)
NEW YORK - In the race for the Republican presidential nomination, it's just under three weeks to the Iowa Caucuses. As the time grows short, the knives get long.

...  "I think people get to know that an individual like myself who has been a governor, served, has a record is a person who has the kind of consistency of conservative principles that distinguish me from someone like our Speaker, Speaker Gingrich.
WTH? You lying scumbag, Romney! Few politicians in the USA have been more inconsistent than you! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. What does Romney take us for? We need Ron Paul or Gary Johnson instead of either of these slick, ethically-challenged politicians. Priority #1 is reducing the enormous and unethical government debt--it's stealing from future generations and has already hurt us in the present. Debit is evil! And I say that as someone who's not even religious! And I would take even Newt over this lying chamelion Romney.

Damn it! Why are the Republican politicians (excepting Paul and Johnson, of course) so inept and unethical just when their opportunity is at hand? Assholes! Morons! It's looking like four more years of Obama and that ass Bernanke unless the economy collapses or Bernanke takes his ill-begotten money/prestige and runs.

Skinnydevil, please show us the silver lining in this crap. I've never been more pessimistic (though I was equally pessimistic before the recent crash, vs. quite optimistic in the early 90's, before Clinton and the Congress fecked things up), even as the economy recovers somewhat. Maybe random dumb luck will save us from these idiots?

I'll say one good thing about Tyler--if he were dictator, I think he would hang Bernanke, and I would be there to cheer him on! Maybe that's why I paradoxically like him despite his insults, LOL.

"Neither a borrower nor a lender be." --Polonius (Yes, I know, Polonius was supposed to be comic relief in Hamlet, but he was actually right on the money on this--like many, Shakespeare was prone to common fallacies.)

Skinnydevil, I hope you will run for office some day. I'm fed up with these Republicans and Democrats.

----

Quote
Islamist parties won close to 70% of seats in the first round last month. Non-religious parties that included leaders of the protest movement that helped oust longtime dictator Hosni Mubarak won far fewer seats. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-12-14/egypt-islamists-lead-elections/51931194/1 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-12-14/egypt-islamists-lead-elections/51931194/1)
Fecking naive liberals, as usual. They idiotically bring about their own destruction.

Quote
Euro Falls Below $1.30 as Italy Finance Costs Rise; Krone Slumps (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_3_0_t&bvm=grid&topic=blended&sid=-5060995157923298794&usg=AFQjCNEe4qcbbNcMWbdnsoqJKJp167UdcA&did=7dac6b4464b1f299&sig2=RXMUwUhq8rn46KoFuZwYnw&cid=17593976611118&ei=ZU7pTtinBdG_gQfk9QE&rt=HOMEPAGE&vm=STANDARD&authuser=0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfgate.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Farticle.cgi%3Ff%3D%2Fg%2Fa%2F2011%2F12%2F14%2Fbloomberg_articlesLW7S231A74E9.DTL)
San Francisco Chronicle
The increase was the biggest since June 2010 in absolute terms, signaling banks are struggling to access other sources of finance.
So long you moronic European politicians as you drive the European economies and government credibility down the drain. You're no better than the American politicians you sneer at you fecktards!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 15, 2011, 11:37:42 am
OK I get the deal,

I nominate TylerD for Dictator

SkinnyD for President

and PaleoP for Speaker.


Only problem is that people might think that's nepotism TylerD and SkinnyD

I'll be the court jester. mu-ah-hahahah >D
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 15, 2011, 02:39:36 pm
On a more serious note, I know that Ron Paul is in favour of raw dairy being legalised all over(and therefore likely to be more rawpaleodiet-friendly in general), but are any of the other politicians pro-raw dairy as well? Not Obama, judging from recent raw milk scandals, the raw-dairy advocates seem to hate his guts.

Since voting doesn't seem to work, I am surprised as to why people haven't thought of refusing to pay taxes en masse. Should just one percent of the population refuse to pay taxes due to disagreement over an issue, the government would have to kow-tow as it can't fill the jails with so many.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 15, 2011, 02:42:20 pm
"At the stage between apathy and dependency, men always turn in fear to economic and political panaceas. New conditions, it is claimed, require new remedies. Under such circumstances, the competent citizen is certainly not a fool if he insists upon using the compass of history when forced to sail uncharted seas. Usually so-called new remedies are not new at all. Compulsory planned economy, for example, was tried by the Chinese some three milleniums ago, and by the Romans in the early centuries of the Christian era. It was applied in Germany, Italy and Russia long before the present war broke out. Yet it is being seriously advocated today as a solution of our economic problems in the United States. Its proponents confidently assert that government can successfully plan and control all major business activity in the nation, and still not interfere with our political freedom and our hard-won civil and religious liberties. The lessons of history all point in exactly the reverse direction." - Henning W. Prentis, Industrial Management in a Republic, p. 22
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 15, 2011, 03:27:05 pm
On a more serious note, I know that Ron Paul is in favour of raw dairy being legalised all over(and therefore likely to be more rawpaleodiet-friendly in general), but are any of the other politicians pro-raw dairy as well? Not Obama, judging from recent raw milk scandals, the raw-dairy advocates seem to hate his guts.

Since voting doesn't seem to work, I am surprised as to why people haven't thought of refusing to pay taxes en masse. Should just one percent of the population refuse to pay taxes due to disagreement over an issue, the government would have to kow-tow as it can't fill the jails with so many.
I was quite surprised  by Ron's singling out raw dairy and lifting of sugar duties, but I get that he is just being consistent. His father owned a dairy so he is aware of the tide of government being swayed into following lockstep with somebody in the populace with a mission in life. In the case of raw dairy, he tells the stories about government agents swarming in on a dairy farmer like some Nazi Stormtroopers.

The whole Pasteurization law thing was brought about by one prominent businessman who had made his fortune and was casting about for some cause to spend his time and money on in retirement. He picked Pasteurization and he succeeded.

You can just imagine being a farmer getting up at oh dark thirty to milk the cows when you walk out of the house only to be surrounded by "The Milk Police" with machine guns, etc.

If you read the book "The Untold Story Of Milk", there was a problem with dairy back in the 1800s and 1900s when Louis Pasteur was alive and after, when feeding cows the effluent (corn mash) from the prolific number of distilleries was causing the cows to be very sick, which of course caused the milk to be essentially rotten.

This combined with the lack of proper refrigeration and decent transportation, meant that many small children in larger cities in the US died, although there certainly were other factors including the fact that these cities were overrun with horse manure and overcrowding, due to the intense immigration from people fleeing famine, war etc in Europe and Asia and farmers leaving to live in the city and the dirty thirties. New York was basically bursting at the seams. So pasteurization was a reasonable precaution at the time and it did save lives.

However we stopped burning witches and blaming disease on "Spontaneous Generation" long ago and it's time to give up enforced pasteurization.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on December 15, 2011, 10:08:12 pm
Nobody would like me as president.

Several things I'd do....but it makes folks on the left & the right (and everywhere else) squirm.

The left says its a revenue problem (meaning raise taxes), the right says it's a spending problem (meaning cut programs), but the reality is that we have a WASTE problem that sits atop another, deeper problem (the role of gov).

Day one of my presidency would look like this: Slash corporate tax to a flat 10% and abolish the federal personal income tax.

Slash federal budget by 43% (the amount we borrow on every dollar spent) WITHOUT cutting services...meaning we need gov to be efficient. Then we need to cut it again (again, without cutting services) to account for "printing" & debt.

Bring troops home from overseas. Immediately embrace a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Immediate stay of executions. Immediately cease prosecuting  state/local-level drug crimes by federal-level authorities. Immediate pardons & release of all non-violent drug offenders from prison. End the War on Drugs.

Make moves to stabilize the currency (round table discussions of different commodity-based currency...gold, silver, mixed, time, etc), audit the Federal Reserve, and 1st steps to abolish the Fed. Begin removal of all federally-supported monopolies.

End ALL corporate welfare.

Abolish FEMA, Depts of Homeland Security, Education, Energy, ICC, and more. Withdraw from NATO, UN,  NAFTA, WTO, & other alliances, nullify all laws infringing the basic Bill of Rights (from censorship to gun rights to the Patriot Act), lift all sanctions & embargos (Cuba, etc) & re-evaluate, de-federalize airports/airport security,

Begin transferring stolen powers to the individuals & the states...along with the responsibilities!

Legalize dueling & personal combat as a method of settling disputes (hahaha!).

After lunch,  we need to look at what federal-level services can be better handled by the states, localities, individuals, and/or private sector. We need to maintain regulations that protect, and get rid of regs that hinder. We definitely need to get rid of regs that maintain artificial scarcity and/or monopolies (this is the root of why health-care, for example, is so expensive).

I'd probably need a nap after that.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 15, 2011, 11:34:53 pm
Nobody would like me as president.

Several things I'd do....but it makes folks on the left & the right (and everywhere else) squirm.

The left says its a revenue problem (meaning raise taxes), the right says it's a spending problem (meaning cut programs), but the reality is that we have a WASTE problem that sits atop another, deeper problem (the role of gov).

Day one of my presidency would look like this: Slash corporate tax to a flat 10% and abolish the federal personal income tax.

Slash federal budget by 43% (the amount we borrow on every dollar spent) WITHOUT cutting services...meaning we need gov to be efficient. Then we need to cut it again (again, without cutting services) to account for "printing" & debt.

Bring troops home from overseas. Immediately embrace a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Immediate stay of executions. Immediately cease prosecuting  state/local-level drug crimes by federal-level authorities. Immediate pardons & release of all non-violent drug offenders from prison. End the War on Drugs.

Make moves to stabilize the currency (round table discussions of different commodity-based currency...gold, silver, mixed, time, etc), audit the Federal Reserve, and 1st steps to abolish the Fed. Begin removal of all federally-supported monopolies.

End ALL corporate welfare.

Abolish FEMA, Depts of Homeland Security, Education, Energy, ICC, and more. Withdraw from NATO, UN,  NAFTA, WTO, & other alliances, nullify all laws infringing the basic Bill of Rights (from censorship to gun rights to the Patriot Act), lift all sanctions & embargos (Cuba, etc) & re-evaluate, de-federalize airports/airport security,

Begin transferring stolen powers to the individuals & the states...along with the responsibilities!

Legalize dueling & personal combat as a method of settling disputes (hahaha!).

After lunch,  we need to look at what federal-level services can be better handled by the states, localities, individuals, and/or private sector. We need to maintain regulations that protect, and get rid of regs that hinder. We definitely need to get rid of regs that maintain artificial scarcity and/or monopolies (this is the root of why health-care, for example, is so expensive).

I'd probably need a nap after that.
Don't be hard on yourself. I'd vote for you...

I'd add - abolish the FDA (Force Drugs on All) in the morning. Don't wait for the afternoon. This alone would save lives.

All in favour say "Aye"
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 16, 2011, 02:10:11 am
Even if Ron Paul gets the nomination he has very little chance against Obama.

Some years ago he made a big mistake by publishing very colorful newsletters and other dubious claims.

Some quotes.  Full article is published on HotAir, far right news aggregate, http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/15/can-ron-paul-win/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/15/can-ron-paul-win/)

"We’re already starting to see the “Paul didn’t write his own newsletter” response in the comments.  As Matt Welch notes, he actually acknowledged writing them in 1996, before they became a big liability, but even if he didn’t write them himself, he published them under his own byline, and made a profit on them.  As for them being 20 years old, well, you judge whether people will dismiss them as old news when Team Obama starts rolling out a Ron Paul Quote of the Day from the convention to the election."

I also recommend reading user comments.  Most of the readers are very right leaning.  That's should give you an idea how many of them are  supporting Paul.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 16, 2011, 11:00:55 am
Some years ago he made a big mistake by publishing very colorful newsletters and other dubious claims.
That's quite a coincidence. Sean Hannity brought up this same old issue today:
Quote
did he get a pass? He's had this newsletter in '80s and '90s and some unbelievable things written in it.

Would a Ron Paul Win in Iowa Hand the Election to Obama? http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2011/12/15/would-ron-paul-win-iowa-hand-election-obama#ixzz1gf98d03X (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2011/12/15/would-ron-paul-win-iowa-hand-election-obama#ixzz1gf98d03X)
It looks like Fox is running scared and is shifting from the tactic of largely ignoring and dismissing Ron Paul to aggressive attack mode:
Quote
Sean Hannity And Bill Bennett Trash Ron Paul: ‘The Candidacy Isn’t Going Anywhere’
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sean-hannity-and-bill-bennett-trash-ron-paul-the-candidacy-isnt-going-anywhere/ (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sean-hannity-and-bill-bennett-trash-ron-paul-the-candidacy-isnt-going-anywhere/)
We sensing a trend today? This evening on Fox News, Sean Hannity echoed (and added to) a thread begun by Chris Wallace and supplemented by Bill O’Reilly and guest Dick Morris: Electing Ron Paul as the GOP candidate will result in Barack Obama‘s re-election.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 16, 2011, 12:55:18 pm
Quote
Electing Ron Paul as the GOP candidate will result in Barack Obama‘s re-election.

That's the feeling I get from the right-wing community.  Kerry was much more popular than Paul and still ended up losing to Bush at the time when the Iraq war was hugely unpopular.  Paul's nomination will create a racist-fueled frenzy for Blacks/Hispanics, the same group that carried Obama, the same group that usually has very low turnout in other presidential elections.

Republicans don't want to nominate the best candidate to run the country.  They want to nominate the best candidate who can beat Obama.  And that would be Romney who you greatly despise (and for right reasons).   Gingrich is in the same unelectable boat as Paul.   They just sit at the opposite ends.  Cain had the best chance to beat Obama.  Oh well ..... Let's see how it goes.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 16, 2011, 03:04:47 pm
I can't believe Gingrich dares to be a candidate given his appalling treatment of 2 of his wives.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 16, 2011, 08:33:52 pm
Electing Ron Paul as the GOP candidate will result in Barack Obama‘s re-election.

That's the feeling I get from the right-wing community.
Perhaps, but you could say the same about any of the remaining GOP candidates. It's difficult to defeat an incumbent unless there is a substantial economic downturn or a quagmire war with depressing daily casualty reports, and even then it can be difficult, as Bush won during the difficult period of the Iraq intervention, as you pointed out.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on December 17, 2011, 12:43:26 am
Oh, yeah! FDA is definitely among those I'd abolish!

Obama is completely beatable. In fact, given the state of the economy, republicans are gonna have to try REAL hard to lose this one. Obama supporters are largely disillusioned by the sort of "change" that came their way. He has effectively lost the youth vote.

Paul has strong grassroots support and strong moderate support and threatens to mobilize those who won't go out for Obama this time around. Romney is a "safe" candidate who is easily capable of removing Obama.

Obama is done. Republicans, then, need to focus less on "beat Obama" (their current fear-driven model) and focus more on "who is best for the country".
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: cherimoya_kid on December 17, 2011, 04:20:16 am
Ron Paul's old newsletter will be his undoing.  There's no way he'll win with the kind of blatantly racist comments that were in that newsletter.

The newsletter actually suggested lowering the age at which BLACK males, but not white males, could be tried as adults in criminal cases.  Yeah.  He has no fucking chance. Get used to it, people.  It's Romney, or it's Obama.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 17, 2011, 08:09:23 am
Romney has little chance either, get used to that too. I was in Massachusetts while he was governor and I couldn't believe the extent of his hypocrisy. For example: implying he was more gay-friendly than Ted Kennedy, which shocked the hell out of me to see a so-called "Mormon" suggest, then abandoning the gays once elected. I have yet to encounter a single Republican who is super-enthusiastic about formerly liberal-leaning flip-flopper Romney.

What Romney does have going for him is his cunning and willingness to do ANYTHING to win, and his good looks, and there are enough superficial Americans to make that a factor, unfortunately. I doubt all that will be enough, though, unless the economy takes a major sour turn before the election. Americans generally prefer to vote for the incumbent unless things are going downhill bad in the economy or a war.

Sure Ron has done some boneheaded things when it comes to race, but it's not like any Republican is going to get many black votes anyway. I haven't seen any Republican even bother to ask for black folks' votes since Jack Kemp. They know it's a lost cause.

With the economy on a bit of an uptrend lately, per recent economic figures, it's looking like Obama will be re-elected regardless of the Republican choice. Given that, I think the top priority for Republicans is to choose a candidate who is consistent in ideology, puts the key issue in the forefront (reckless debt), and can inspire the youth so as to generate voters for Congressional candidates and attract new young members to the party. A candidate in the ideologically inspirational mold of Barry Goldwater and  William F. Buckley, Jr. makes the most sense.

Goldwater and Buckley inspired a generation of Young Turk Republicans who later generated multiple terms for Nixon (soured by the Watergate and Vietnam idiocies, of course) and the Reagan Revolution. On all the above counts, Ron Paul appears to be the best candidate. Mitt Romney is crafty and slick, looks good and acquits himself well in debates, as he did in MA, but I don't get the sense that he'll inspire a new generation of Republicans. A victory by Romney would probably spell further deterioration of the Republican party, whereas Ron Paul offers at least the hope of rejuvination.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 17, 2011, 08:37:15 am
If this article is to be believed, Mitt Romney will win the election:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/18/voters-tall-politicians-leadership (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/18/voters-tall-politicians-leadership)

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 17, 2011, 09:17:14 am
That's a good point about tallness. I can remember an article back in the 1970's making the same point and another finding that candidates with shorter names tend to win. Romney loses out slightly on the latter aspect. I was including height in Romney's appearance advantages, though I suspect that incumbency is even more important and I doubt that one inch height advantage is quite enough to overcome that. Romney's good looks are a bit of a wild card, though.

I wonder what the Creationist explanation would be for the height advantage phenomena?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: miles on December 17, 2011, 12:31:18 pm
"Legalize dueling & personal combat as a method of settling disputes"

YES
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 18, 2011, 01:32:03 am
If this article is to be believed, Mitt Romney will win the election:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/18/voters-tall-politicians-leadership (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/18/voters-tall-politicians-leadership)
Well I'll be darned... Dubyah is only 1/2" taller than me..... And to think I coulda been pres.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_and_presidential_candidates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_and_presidential_candidates)

I kid you not, I went to a Rolfer for a few sessions and when I finished up I was about 3/4" taller. Maybe if I had done the full meal deal, I could be his equal.
Title: Ron Paul & Joe Rogan on the Tonight Show w/ Jay Leno
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 19, 2011, 06:10:27 am
Ron Paul & Joe Rogan on the Tonight Show w/ Jay Leno

Ron Paul & Joe Rogan on the Tonight Show w/ Jay Leno (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMUZIVYuluc#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 19, 2011, 07:31:16 am
Ron could turn the Neocons' ridiculous explanation for 911 around (jokingly) and say that maybe the Neocons oppose Ron Paul because "they hate our freedom."  ;)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 19, 2011, 08:24:12 am
Gingrich: Gov't branches should rule 2 out of 3
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57344825/gingrich-govt-branches-should-rule-2-out-of-3/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57344825/gingrich-govt-branches-should-rule-2-out-of-3/)

WTH? I didn't realize that Newt was this off-the-wall. Creative ideas are good, but this is over-the-top.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: svrn on December 19, 2011, 11:38:08 am
Newt is 100% puppet material. Not only is he a neocon, he's also an eco-fascist. Heres some info on the man's ties.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/newt-gingrich-mr-new-world-order.html (http://www.prisonplanet.com/newt-gingrich-mr-new-world-order.html)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Aaaaaa on December 20, 2011, 12:30:28 am
I love that Jay Leno interview! :-)
Go Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 20, 2011, 09:58:28 pm
So, you'd vote for Ron Paul if it weren't for his wacky foreign policy?

U.S. military veterans and active duty soldiers overwhelmingly support Ron Paul for President in 2012. Find out why.

This video explains why they support Ron Paul so overwhelmingly, including a discussion of "blowback" resulting from U.S. interventionist foreign policy.

DOWNLOAD THE .MOV FILE OF THIS VIDEO AND? BURN TO DVD: sendspace(dot)com/file/zrwz13

Special thanks to Chris Rye (creator of the "For Liberty" documentary) and Veterans for Ron Paul.

Music: "Catastrophe and the Cure" by Explosions in the Sky; "The Mighty Rio Grande" by This Will Destroy You

PLEASE LIKE, FAVORITE AND SHARE THIS VIDEO.

PLEASE DONATE TO THE DEC 16TH MONEY BOMB AND SUPPORT RON PAUL.

You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 21, 2011, 01:24:42 am
Liberals defect; supporting Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyGGe7qOyJ4#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 21, 2011, 01:43:37 am
Ron Paul Highlights Fox News Debate Iowa GOP December 2011 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3TANdm_Teo#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 21, 2011, 02:08:38 am
Newt Gingrich vs Ron Paul on Predicting the Economic Collapse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmmCWfAIf5w#)
Maddow "Ron Paul Is The Only Presidential Candidate That Doesn't Want To Start Another War!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTHrbYllfk4#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 21, 2011, 03:47:19 am
are you really watching this communist channel?  and Rachel Maddow, seriously, Maddow??  she is becoming more like olby.  the only reason she wants Paul to be nominated is because he will be crushed by Obama.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 21, 2011, 11:55:15 am
Quote
Despite money and support, Ron Paul still not in lead
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-20/ron-paul-rises-in-polls/52132336/1?csp=34news (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-20/ron-paul-rises-in-polls/52132336/1?csp=34news)
WASHINGTON – Texas Rep. Ron Paul can raise millions of dollars in a single day, has a solid organization of passionate supporters and recently has been moving up in the polls, yet few mainstream Republicans are willing to give him the "front-runner" title so many of his rivals in the GOP presidential field have held.
Give me a break! Even with Ron Paul in the lead in Iowa and rising in the polls, some in the media and political establishment still say he is not really in the lead. I'm sick of this cognitive dissonance. He could get elected and his critics would claim that he hadn't really been elected. No facts will change their views about Ron Paul or libertarianism.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on December 21, 2011, 02:26:51 pm
The new method being used against Paul is for people like Sean Hanity and his kind to openly refer to Ron Paul as a Kook that may have his heart in the right place but is full of nutty Ideas. Some talking heads refer to him in such a condescending way that anyone listening could easily be convinced of their slander. Hanity will only allow inarticulate people to speak in favor of Ron Paul on his show, so that no one ever has the chance to have a real discussion. Its propaganda at its most sophisticated, all designed to keep the public a slave to the false left right paradigm, which ensures that only the establishments candidate has a chance at winning.



Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA - LEADING in IOWA!
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 22, 2011, 07:19:04 am
Ron Paul is hated by establishment Republicans. The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks down a politico article on the 2012 Republican Presidential candidate.

Ron Paul Hate From Establishment Republicans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGPDTkeYjFs#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 22, 2011, 07:57:37 am
Yes, granted, that guy is a liberal Democrat, but I didn't need that video to know that the establishment is definitely running scared and saying some desperate and whacko things that only further undermine their credibility and make Ron Paul look better. Here's some more:

Quote
Ron Paul: Rivals say he hates Republicans
Ron Paul’s rise has caught the party’s notice, and they’re not ignoring him any longer. Other front-runners have endured withering attacks this political season, and now it is the libertarian’s turn.

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / December 21, 2011
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/1221/Ron-Paul-Rivals-say-he-hates-Republicans (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/1221/Ron-Paul-Rivals-say-he-hates-Republicans)

... Naturally, in light of Paul’s surge in fortunes, those in the party who disapprove of the Texas libertarian are now moving to attack him.

First up this week was the Weekly Standard, a newsmagazine notable for its (fruitless) efforts to get New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and/or Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin into the GOP race. It ran a piece by journalist James Kirchik about the racist language  contained in newsletters issued under Paul’s name in the 1980s and 1990s.

For decades, Mr. Kirchik writes, Paul promoted “hateful and conspiratorial nonsense,” including outlandish tales of racial violence, and hate speech about Martin Luther King, Jr.

This is not a new story – Kirchik and others have written about it in years past. Paul has defended himself by pointing out that he did not write any of this stuff himself and he did not know who the ghost writers producing it were.

Asked about the Kirchik story Tuesday during an appearance on CNN’s “American Morning,” Paul said that it must mean he was doing well, since people are starting to dig up old charges to try to stop him.

“It wasn’t good – but I didn’t write [the stories] and those aren’t my beliefs, so I sleep well,” said Paul.

Then Wednesday the conservative blog RedState posted a piece titled, “Ron Paul Hates Republicans and Everything They Stand For.” ....
Quote
December 21, 2011
Ed Rollins: Ron Paul ‘Will Win Iowa’ Caucus, But Not GOP Nomination
Fire it up31 Share
Republican strategist and Fox News contributor Ed Rollins was a guest on Studio B Tuesday, and matter-of-factly told Shepard Smith that he thinks Texas Rep. Ron Paul, “will win Iowa.”

A flabbergasted Smith raised his voice in surprise. “That would turn the establishment on its left ear!” He bellowed. “Spinning!”
Quote
Fox News' Chris Wallace Has an Anti-Ron Paul Agenda
By Saul Relative  | Yahoo! Contributor Network – Thu, Dec 15, 2011
http://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-chris-wallace-anti-ron-paul-agenda-215300287.html (http://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-chris-wallace-anti-ron-paul-agenda-215300287.html)

COMMENTARY | With the most recent Republican presidential debate occurring on Thursday, Dec. 15, Fox News wants Iowans -- and the rest of the nation -- to understand that if Texas congressman Ron Paul should win, their first-in-the-nation caucus will count as a waste of time and serious GOP-leaning voters should look toward New Hampshire and South Carolina to choose a truly viable Republican candidate to run against President Obama.
Or that seems to be the gist of what Chris Wallace had to say on Fox News' "Your World with Neil Cavuto" (as reported by Mediaite ) a few hours before the sole remaining debate standing between Paul, who is surging in the local polls, and a possible victory in the Hawkeye State on Jan. 3.

"Well, and the Ron Paul people aren't going to like me saying this," Wallace said, "but, to a certain degree, it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because, rightly or wrongly, I think most of the Republican establishment thinks he is not going to end up as the nominee. So, therefore, Iowa won't count and it will go on."

So, to reiterate: "Iowa won't count." But only if Ron Paul wins.

The establishment is still optimistic about Romney's chances...
Quote
No votes, but things seem to be going Romney's way
By KASIE HUNT, Associated Press – 17 minutes ago 
KEENE, N.H. (AP) — The stars may be aligning for Mitt Romney — and at just the right time.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iXViCButIZeUJGnBCjASlB2PbePA?docId=045b4f14bf7340b9a2ad8fa90dde24fd (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iXViCButIZeUJGnBCjASlB2PbePA?docId=045b4f14bf7340b9a2ad8fa90dde24fd)

but Ron Paul may be the only Republican who has a chance of beating Obama:
Quote
PRESS RELEASE
Dec. 21, 2011, 3:53 p.m. EST
Ron Paul Polls Strong v Obama in Relation to Paul's Competitors
Survey shows Dr. Paul popular among broad, conventional voting base

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ron-paul-polls-strong-v-obama-in-relation-to-pauls-competitors-2011-12-21 (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ron-paul-polls-strong-v-obama-in-relation-to-pauls-competitors-2011-12-21)

.... "This poll further debunks the establishment-created myth about Ron Paul's electability and shows an expanding base of support," said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton. "Americans of all stripes are tired of the status quo Washington insider games, and are looking for someone who represents real change. Congressman Paul is that candidate."

....

SOURCE: Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 22, 2011, 10:34:30 pm
Imagine Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWqZJf8SOdg#ws)

Cafferty : People In Iowa Are Rallying Around Someone Who Represents real change, REAL CHANGE! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiwUAMY_Xrw#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 22, 2011, 11:24:41 pm
Well, if the Ron Paul campaign see fit to have John Lennon's song "Imagine" as their campaign song( re the 1st video shown in the previous post) then I truly pity them. I mean, it's pretty much THE worst song of all time, written by a hypocritical faux-Communist-leaning drug-addict, and it is so sanctimonious and so dictatorial in its tone. It seems "I'm not the only one"(sic - lol) either as regards having this opinion, as it's been voted in polls as being "the worst song of all time"!:-

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/kschlichter/2009/10/27/the-worst-song-of-all-time-imagine/ (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/kschlichter/2009/10/27/the-worst-song-of-all-time-imagine/)

http://nikkirichards.blogspot.com/2009/11/i-hate-song-imagine-by-john-lennon.html (http://nikkirichards.blogspot.com/2009/11/i-hate-song-imagine-by-john-lennon.html)

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 23, 2011, 12:40:39 am
Now now Tyler,
Relax.

A lot of people like the song. A considerable amount less dislike it. Like maybe six. The two authors you submitted, yourself and maybe three others.  ;D ;)

What difference does it make?

I agree that John Lennon was no angel and so forth and he was an interesting combination as he was obviously a capitalist. John Lennon albums were not free and from what I gather he elected not to support his first wife and child despite his obvious wealth and he obviously had "issues", but we all have issues. Beethoven etc had issues. I don't particularly like Elvis, but he had one "H E double hockeystick" of a voice.

The song is probably one of the most identifiable songs in the world whether you like it or not.

One of the larger themes of the race is peace. American soldiers want it. Middle Easterners want it. People all over the freakin globe want it and there is a small but determined group of people who are making a ton of money off of it not hapnin'.

People on the left are the ones that need to be wooed.

Any politician worth their salt knows there are four types of voters and only one of those is the prize.

The first two types are the people who would vote Democrat/Republican, even if it was uncovered that their candidate was a child porn addicted, heroin injecting, pedophile with a history of murder, rape and incest.

The next useless type is those that don't vote, supposing they are choosing between God and the Devil.

The only ones that a smart "politico" chases are the undecided, the great unwashed masses who sit in great heaps looking up and trying to decide which choice is worse, generally. These people might be John Lennonites, borderline Commies, borderline psychos, who knows. They may like to sway to oldies songs or make waves at football games. They are the only people that should concern a hopeful like Ron.

Whatever it takes.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: miles on December 23, 2011, 03:58:51 am
Tyler that wasn't the official video, someone removed the audio and replaced it with that song because they didn't like the original voice-over...
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 23, 2011, 04:37:58 am
Tyler that wasn't the official video, someone removed the audio and replaced it with that song because they didn't like the original voice-over...
  Ooops, my error.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 23, 2011, 09:11:11 am
Quote
Milking It: Ron Paul Wants Choice on Raw Milk
Dec 15, 2011 6:00am
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/milking-it-ron-paul-wants-choice-on-raw-milk/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/milking-it-ron-paul-wants-choice-on-raw-milk/)
I don't drink milk, but I endorse this message. I'm fed up with "experts" telling us what we can eat and which candidates we get to hear in debates. Both major US parties are dominated by establishment jerks who think they know better than I do for my own body (mainly because of the money funneled to them to spew the crap they do).

When they talk about how they know what's best for us and how they're "saving" us from the perils of raw milk, I feel like voting for Tyler for dictator to string up those ignorant assholes.

I think the Republican establishment is unaware of how much libertarian sentiment has been growing, with the growth of the Internet and the educational experience of violent Islamic fundamentalists and the 2008 financial debacle--both of which Ron Paul warned us about. I'm hoping that a victory by Ron in Iowa will start to change this, but entrenched elites tend to be slow to change.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 23, 2011, 10:29:23 am
Quote
I think the Republican establishment is unaware of how much libertarian sentiment has been growing

they are aware of it very well.  but it is still marginal to have much impact on republican establishment which has control of the money.  in the future - maybe, but not now.  just like growing socialist sentiment on the far left who are so furious of Obama not bending left enough.  most of them would love to primary Obama, they just don't have the money.

two parties are not enough to cover all spectrum.  we really have 4 main distinct flavors: far-right/libertarian, center-right, center-left, and far-left/socialist.

no one is willing to break off form the establishment because it will guarantee victory for another party.
everyone still remembers 2000 elections where some say Nader's 3% gave the victory to Bush.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 23, 2011, 10:47:59 am
they are aware of it very well.  but it is still marginal to have much impact on republican establishment which has control of the money.  in the future - maybe, but not now.
Yup, like I said, slow to change; relatively speaking, in modern terms, of course, and to their detriment. To a Stone Ager this all would be blindingly fast, and as I age the change does seem to accelerate.

Quote
two parties are not enough to cover all spectrum.  we really have 4 main distinct flavors: far-right/libertarian, center-right, center-left, and far-left/socialist.
I think that might be changed by the Internet too. Before the Internet, libertarianism could be easily dismissed. Just as products are increasingly becoming customized to niche markets, I suspect political parties will be too. I think this libertarian breakthrough may be just the cusp of the change. This isn't the fault of Ron Paul or the libertarians, it's a societal change, and that's what Rush Limbaugh and other dinosaurs don't understand (and I'm old enough to be a dinosaur too, in this fast-changing age--both Rush and I will be cast aside at some point, as will everything that isn't "new and improved").

Libertarians tried to warn establishment Republicans of all this, but they refused to listen and instead tried to dismiss Ron and all libertarians as "kooks" and "nuts." The chamelion, Romney, may still win, or maybe Perry will even regenerate, but the handwriting is on the wall. It's only a matter of time. An Internet society will become increasingly libertarian and segmented/customized. If the technology progresses, then so will this change and other unforeseen changes.

For example, traditional "values" and religion will become increasingly irrelevant and anyone who continues to espouse them (and some will, as there is a minority reaction to most actions) will become increasingly marginalized as reactionary kooks, even within the Republican party--especially if the fundamentalist Islamists continue to bomb people.

Romney's pretty sharp/cunning, so I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't change yet again and incorporate some of this libertarian boom into his own campaign. Never underestimate a chamelion. As a matter of fact, I predict that at some point Romney will adopt a more libertarian slant. He'll do whatever he thinks is necessary to win.

The most establishment of all Republicans has endorsed Romney...beware--don't count out or underestimate this Romney guy, libertarians:
Elder Bush backs Romney, snubs Perry, is no Gingrich fan
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16310753 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16310753) The elder Bush is showing his blue-blood, ivory-tower Yale roots and abandoning his brief Texas down-home pretensions:
Quote
"I'm not his biggest advocate," [George H. W. Bush] said, describing how Mr Gingrich withdrew his support after Mr Bush reneged on a campaign pledge of no new taxes, during a recession.
Ah, crap. It looks like the establishment have already dug up some more dirt on Ron:
Quote
In ad for newsletter, Ron Paul forecast "race war," (In ad for newsletter, Ron Paul forecast "race war," http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-paul-plotstre7bm033-20111222,0,3766303.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-paul-plotstre7bm033-20111222,0,3766303.story)).
You knew that the establishment were going to try to find something like this. This is ambrosia for the Romney camp. They had to dig deep, but the establishment media will love this and try to destroy Ron Paul over it. This is the fear-mongering the establishment have perfected to ensure their continued domination. I can hear it now: "Don't vote for Ron, he'll bring on this race war he predicted. Stick with the safe, sensible, Romney. Sure, he doesn't have any core values, but at least he isn't as kooky and DANGEROUS as Paul." They're clearly hoping that this will be the destroying revelation, a la the Cain revelations, that enable their favored establishment candidate (Romney) to rise above the plebian sludge and accept the predestined crown. Good grief, I hope my worst nightmare, of a Romney nomination, isn't coming true, but it seems almost inevitable, with the powers that be supporting him. If only the rest of the nation were intimately familiar with Romney's behavior in Massachusetts.

It's all so predictable, yet still disappointing. Let's hope that the libertarian trend overcomes this establishment attack, and others to come.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: cherimoya_kid on December 23, 2011, 11:52:31 am

everyone still remembers 2000 elections where some say Nader's 3% gave the victory to Bush.

Some say?  The difference between Bush and Gore in Florida was only about 1000 votes.  Nader took waaay more votes from Gore than from Bush.  Basically, Ralph Nader is why we spent 8 years in Iraq.

Thanks Ralph. 
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 23, 2011, 12:00:16 pm
8 years in Iraq, under both Bush and Obama (who promised to get us out but did the opposite, adding more troops early on and increasing our commitment to the insanity). It looks like Iraq is descending yet again into civil war (surprise, surprise /end sarcasm), and the instigators acted the very next day after our last troops left (talk about chutzpah). How I hope that our troops will not be sent back in, yet I suspect they will be. Oh please may I be wrong this time.

I will vote for whoever seems most believable about keeping us out of foreign civil wars, reducing our debt, ending moral hazard, and backing our currency with something more tangible than politicians' promises. Granted, there's no guarantee that any politician will follow through on any of this, but at least Ron Paul says he will try.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 23, 2011, 01:24:46 pm
Quote
I will vote for whoever seems most believable about keeping us out of foreign civil wars, reducing our debt, ending moral hazard, and backing our currency with something more tangible than politicians' promises.

foreign civil wars - globalization is the driver.  world is becoming much smaller and tighter place.  US has lots of vested interests in many places.   US will surely not repeat another Iraq due to cost.  They'll simply change the tactics but they will never abandon their interests.

reducing our debt - that's what every politician is promising.  the pyramid is so enormous now it is next to impossible to shrink it.  the good news - it could be very long time before it'll collapse.  but you can hedge yourself with gold, weapons, and land.

ending moral hazard - morals and governments do not co-exist (yet).  there are several exceptions but they are so specific they don't apply for general population.

backing our currency with something more tangible - trust is the only thing that backs up leading currencies.  they can't be backed up by any other physical means, not gold, not silver, not anything.  if you don't trust paper money you should buy non-perishable assets such as metals and land.  there is no other way around it.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 23, 2011, 05:35:10 pm
I have been watching a number of youtube videos of Ron Paul, mostly concerning the 2008/2012 elections. The other candidates came off looking like retards with psychopathic mania towards violence. When asked what they would do concerning a stand-off in which some small boats made some minor  threatening moves towards a major US naval vessel(in which incident the then President ordered the captain to remain passive), they all grudgingly stated they would remain passive in the same situation, but made it clear that even one tiny step beyond that would result in Armageddon of some sort. Ron Paul wisely pointed out that any attack would be  a shameful over-reaction and would just lead to retaliation and worsening relations etc.


What currently makes me very annoyed is that the American Establishment have been b*llsh*tting us about the supposed benefits for Middle-Easterners and us of going to war against Iraq and Afghanistan, but now Iraq is tearing itself apart again as soon as the US troops left(re recent bombings etc.), Afghanistan will erupt as soon as the US troops leave there too, and, worst of all, the Christians in the Middle-East are being hunted down as they are wrongly seen as being pro-Western. That last bit of genocide should get the American Establishment figures responsible  executed.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 23, 2011, 05:51:29 pm
I see that the more dishonest US news-reporters still love to trot out the lie that Ahmadinejad supposedly wanted to wipe Israel off the map....

As regards the race-war propaganda claim, I'm not so sure that will hurt his chances. A number of blacks seem to be big Ron Paul supporters, judging from youtube. It's mainly because Ron Paul is against the war on drugs which has led to the incarceration of many black men in the US.


Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 23, 2011, 08:24:14 pm
...backing our currency with something more tangible - trust is the only thing that backs up leading currencies.  they can't be backed up by any other physical means, not gold, not silver, not anything.
Check out Singapore's currency:
Quote
"All issued Singapore dollar currency in circulation is fully backed by international assets to maintain public confidence.[3] The foreign reserves officially stand at over US$230 billion - as of May 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_dollar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_dollar)"

I see that the more dishonest US news-reporters still love to trot out the lie that Ahmadinejad supposedly wanted to wipe Israel off the map....
The masses of Americans unfortunately tend to be rather gullible when it comes to the demonizing of foreign scapegoats.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 23, 2011, 11:18:00 pm
First they IGNORE you (Ron Paul)

Then they ATTACK you (Ron Paul)

(As Ron Paul is now the Front Runner in Iowa.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kSaQveEDitk# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kSaQveEDitk#)!

Ron Paul being attacked as a racist.

From my point of view as a non-american, I do not see any racism in this expose.  For me, this is not racism, this was merely reporting observation of apparent facts.

So does this mean statement of racial facts is being "racist" in the USA?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 24, 2011, 12:40:53 am
You're thinking of Schopenhauer's famous quotation:- "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 24, 2011, 01:02:30 am
two parties are not enough to cover all spectrum.  we really have 4 main distinct flavors: far-right/libertarian, center-right, center-left, and far-left/socialist.
Everywhere else in the world it is a fact of life. I noticed on the last ballot there were 5 or 6 candidates -
Liberal
Conservative
Libertarian
New Democrat
Green
Independant
Maybe some others???

In Europe some countries seem to have more.

The party system was very unpopular in the US in the beginning as the original founding fathers saw what it did in Britain and wanted to prevent it. The subsequent leaders fought against it because of the outcome we see nowadays. Hardening of the mental arteries, institutionalized graft, etc.

People do not vote on the candidate or issues but on the party.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 24, 2011, 06:03:55 am
Quote
Check out Singapore's currency:

Yes, that's because the emission of Singapore dollar is tiny compared to US dollar emission.  There are not enough assets in the world to back US dollar.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 24, 2011, 06:06:05 am
For anyone not familiar with the Federal Reserve system, here is a link to an author who has written a book on how it came about and what it really was. This jives with what Ron Paul says.
G. Edward Griffin on the Federal Reserve System (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWKlz2Z4Nlo#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 24, 2011, 08:49:03 am
To His Durdenship:
You're thinking of Schopenhauer's famous quotation:- "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Good heavens, man, I already pointed out to you that Schopenhauer didn't say that, remember? That's one of those damnable Internet urban legends--NEVER trust them (please forgive me, they are a pet peeve of mine and they have led me astray as well, at times). Ignorant morons dominate the Internet and mislead everyone (I'm not being elitist--my only claim to being above their level is that I don't accept what they say at face value and recognize that I am ignorant--thanks in part to the example that Socrates, bless him, provided me in high school). See here for a refresher: http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/urban-caveman-article/msg24991/#msg24991 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/urban-caveman-article/msg24991/#msg24991)

The earliest reported source was the General Executive Board Report of the Proceedings of the Biennial Convention of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America in 1914. Since that is too unwieldy a source, and since unions are widely hated by capitalists, executive boards are boring and widely regarded as useless, and brilliant philosophers highly respected, it's not surprising that the quote would be attributed to a respected philosopher who didn't actually originate it. Many quotes get attributed to respected people that didn't actually ever say them. People are generally lazy by nature and it's a lot easier to attribute a quote to some respected famous person (like  Schopenhauer, Shakespeare, Einstein, Confucius, etc.) than take the time to find out who actually said it. I find that the best practice is to assume that every Internet quote is misattributed and look into who actually originated them before quoting.

I love it when Schopenhauer is quoted, when he actually said or wrote it, not mass misconceptions about what he said.

Of course, if you have counter-evidence, I'm all ears and eyes.

To Raw-Al:
Everywhere else in the world it is a fact of life. I noticed on the last ballot there were 5 or 6 candidates -
Liberal
Conservative
Libertarian
New Democrat
Green
Independant
Maybe some others???
Good work, my good man. The Internet will produce more, if my guess is right.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 24, 2011, 09:11:26 am
Yes, that's because the emission of Singapore dollar is tiny compared to US dollar emission.  There are not enough assets in the world to back US dollar.
Maybe given our current profligacy (and if so, then that is telling), but all sound currencies can be backed by actual assets. Our current currency is backed only by Ponzi promises. If you put more confidence in Signore Ponzi than in hard assets, then, forgive me, shame on you.

if you don't trust paper money you should buy non-perishable assets such as metals and land.  there is no other way around it.
If you know enough to invest in hard assets, then you should know better than to support a fiat currency. If it's good for you, why is it not good for the country?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 24, 2011, 09:57:44 am
Black Man Breaks Down The Ron Paul Racist Smear (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rsXoeSm2X0#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: wodgina on December 24, 2011, 11:22:01 am
Black people are so different to my world.

I can understand what they are saying  intellectually if I really pay attention but the tone and change in volume of the speech makes it difficult. Most of the time I think it's a cover.





Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: miles on December 24, 2011, 10:41:05 pm
Rome invaded Gaul, because Gaul had many gold mines.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 25, 2011, 12:29:47 am
Yeah, and the documentary I saw on that said that Rome invaded because it had developed a large debt and needed to restock its treasury with gold. It appears we've been essentially repeating that history, except with oil as the coveted treasure.

---

I'm as white as they come and I understood the black fellow in the video GS posted just fine (though you might have to turn the volume down because of his shouting, heheh), and actually found him to come across as rather sincere, FWIW. Plus, Tyler's post about Ron Paul drawing black support on Youtube despite Paul's newsletter history is rather interesting, though we'll have to see how well that holds up under the barrage of attacks from establishment Republicans and media and if it also holds true in polls and elections.

US Veterans, Ron Paul and the CIA on blowback:
You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo#ws)
Blowback
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence))
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on December 25, 2011, 11:19:23 am
"War is over if we want it", John Lennon

This goes out to our friend Tyler by special request.

John Lennon -"Happy Xmas (War Is Over)"-Offical Video-HQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S84RLgnz7Rs#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 26, 2011, 04:43:17 am
Quote
If you put more confidence in Signore Ponzi than in hard assets, then, forgive me, shame on you.

I don't pay any attention to Singapore currency simply because it is so tiny.

Quote
If you know enough to invest in hard assets, then you should know better than to support a fiat currency. If it's good for you, why is it not good for the country?

I'm perfectly fine with paper money.  It's the only viable alternative.  Remember, for economy to function properly money has to be very liquid, compact, easily divisible into fractions, have relatively long shelf life, and have large enough supply.  Paper money (as legal tender notes) is the only one that fits that requirement.  Paper backed by precious metals has very limited supply not enough for economy to function properly especially in times of globalization.

Inflation is not a problem.  Economies grow the most when inflation is around 2-3%/year, anything outside of that range has negative effect on the economy.

I personally believe in diversification and plan to increase my share of less liquid assets.  But not because I think paper money is bad.

Paper money is the last thing I worry about.  I'm more concern of gross overpopulation and ever shrinking food sources.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 26, 2011, 05:00:03 am
Paper backed by precious metals has very limited supply not enough for economy to function properly especially in times of globalization.

Inflation is not a problem.  Economies grow the most when inflation is around 2-3%/year, anything outside of that range has negative effect on the economy.
Paper backed by precious metals is the only thing that is real. The current one leads to wars, and government encroachment on everything.

In the past governments were kept from going into needless wars by the reality of dough-ray-me. They had none to buy ships, guns and soldiers. But with your suggestion they just have to print more. Remember the Weimar Republic and the Continental.

Inflation slowly erodes the buying power of those on the lower end of the economic scale while increasing the wealth of those on the top. This type of thing eventually leads to anarchy as the peasants will only take it for so long as the wealth disparity becomes too wide.

The CEO of Wally World makes more in two weeks than his employees make in a lifetime. It's not a question of fairness, it's a question of when people hit the bottom. At a certain point people will just say no. History repeats itself.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 26, 2011, 05:22:39 am
Quote
Paper backed by precious metals is the only thing that is real

It maybe real but it does not work.  Find a working alternative first then bash it all you want.

Code: [Select]
Inflation slowly erodes the buying power of those on the lower end of the economic scale
I'm not sure about other countries but in the US if you are on the lower end of the economic scale it is mostly your fault.  US has virtually unlimited opportunity to succeed.  My family came to the US with nothing in our pockets and we succeeded because we took the opportunity instead of lying on the couch and play game consoles all day long.

I repeat, inflation of 2-3%/year is the most desirable rate EVERY country is trying to achieve.  It's the indication of stability and economic growth.  If you don't understand it then lower end of the economic scale would happily welcome you.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: miles on December 26, 2011, 10:45:41 pm
Paper backed by precious metals is the only thing that is real. The current one leads to wars, and government encroachment on everything.

In the past governments were kept from going into needless wars by the reality of dough-ray-me. They had none to buy ships, guns and soldiers. But with your suggestion they just have to print more. Remember the Weimar Republic and the Continental.

Leaders within empires always encroached upon everything, and empires always made big invasions to get more money when their's started to run low. Doesn't mean it has to stay that way, but you will never find the solution when you ignore this fact. If Gold is the international currency, then whoever has the most gold-mines will have the most money. If a country has less gold-mines but the power to acquire more, then they will do so, the same as with oil now; and the same as with Rome and Gaul in the past, ETC..! Except that now, people might be able to find out how many resources a country had, and then they would call this 'USA Gold', 'China Gold' etc, and they would still be worth different amounts depending on what useful resources the country had.

As long as everyone can keep up with calculating the exchange rate between currencies and the actual value of a currency, I don't see why it would matter how much a currency is worth relative to the numbers. When people print more money without gaining resources they are just fiddling with the numbers to make it look like they have a different value of money than they really do, it doesn't change the value they really have. VALUE of money is still based upon resources like food, oil, and whatever else people need or want.

Changing the numbers is just to make people spend more, or to trick other countries into selling stuff to them for a lot less than the numbers suggest. This is a desperate attempt to try and kick-start the economy somehow, and take it out of decline, to try and delay people's perception of the decline long enough for something to change, or to do something about it, etc. The decline is a decline in value, due to a decline in resources available. If the decline continues the country must secure more resources, which adds value to their currency, BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY HAVE STUFF TO TRADE.

When another country accepts payment from the USA, they expect that they can use that money at a later date to purchase something of similar value, but at a time when they have more need of it. As long as the country accepting the payment is aware of the TRUE value of the dollar, and the actual resources USA has, it is no problem. Money is an 'owe me one' for resources. It's like if I pretended I had 1000 apples growing in my orchard but not ripe yet, so I asked you to lend me 100 apples, since you have 1000 already ripe apples, and I wrote you a piece of paper saying I owe you 100 apples, and really I only had 10 apples.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 26, 2011, 11:13:18 pm
It maybe real but it does not work.  Find a working alternative first then bash it all you want.

Code: [Select]
Inflation slowly erodes the buying power of those on the lower end of the economic scale
I'm not sure about other countries but in the US if you are on the lower end of the economic scale it is mostly your fault.  US has virtually unlimited opportunity to succeed.  My family came to the US with nothing in our pockets and we succeeded because we took the opportunity instead of lying on the couch and play game consoles all day long.

I repeat, inflation of 2-3%/year is the most desirable rate EVERY country is trying to achieve.  It's the indication of stability and economic growth.  If you don't understand it then lower end of the economic scale would happily welcome you.

Interesting you say paper backed by gold doesn't work. Yet you give  no example. I gave two examples.

Blaming people on the lower end of the economic scale for their own woes is weak. You suggest that they deserve it because they play Gameboy all day and watch TV. It occurs to me that it would be easy to conclude that you should be in the lower economic echelon as you appear to be doing the same thing. Except in your case you are playing with a keyboard all day writing non-sensical posts on a forum which is about raw foods.  ;) ;D

Anyone who has made substantial amounts of money would be quite willing to cede that whether one works hard all day is not the litmus test of their financial prosperity.

We all like to claim that hard work and honesty were the precursors to our good fortune.

Any book on management, business, etc will tell you that working hard is usually an indicator that the person is not suited to what they are doing and should take up another form of employment. This gets proven over and over. Yet it is not 100% bulletproof. Some people do work very hard and become rich.

I am neither suggesting that poor people are all honest hard working or the reverse that rich are all lazy and indolent. Just that this has nothing to do with anything, it's your justification for talking loose and fast.

Sometimes just the fact of moving to a different locale can make one rich, or having a better mousetrap, or having better connections, or being nefarious, or, or, or.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 27, 2011, 12:59:37 am
I don't pay any attention to Singapore currency simply because it is so tiny.
How convenient. However, that is actually a good argument, even if inadvertent, for a more decentralized city-state-type society.

Quote
I'm perfectly fine with paper money.
Singapore currency is a paper currency--the difference being it's backed by hard assets. I take it you mean that you're fine with fiat currency, correct?

Quote
It's the only viable alternative.  Remember, for economy to function properly money has to be very liquid, compact, easily divisible into fractions, have relatively long shelf life, and have large enough supply.  Paper money (as legal tender notes) is the only one that fits that requirement.
Again, the Singapore currency is paper legal tender notes, and it does all that.

Quote
Paper backed by precious metals has very limited supply not enough for economy to function properly especially in times of globalization.
As I have pointed out, precious metals are NOT the only way to back a currency so that it is a hard currency. The Singapore currency is not backed just by precious metals but also foreign assets from nations it trades with.

The goal of the Singapore monetary authority is "sustained non-inflationary economic growth" (http://www.mas.gov.sg/ (http://www.mas.gov.sg/)). Singapore is one of the most globalized economies in the world. It's not without problems, but they seem to have figured out a decent way to create a hard currency in sophisticated economy. Here is an explanation of how the Singapore currency can grow to meet demand:

Ever Wondered How the Money Supply Grows in Singapore?
http://therichkidwannabe.blogspot.com/2011/01/ever-wondered-how-money-supply-grows-in.html (http://therichkidwannabe.blogspot.com/2011/01/ever-wondered-how-money-supply-grows-in.html)

Quote
Inflation is not a problem.  Economies grow the most when inflation is around 2-3%/year, anything outside of that range has negative effect on the economy.
There's no guarantee that inflation will remain forever within that narrow range, and it hasn't in the USA, historically, if you look beyond the last few decades:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a0/US-Inflation-by-year.png)

With a fiat currency, there is the potential for worse inflation and even catastrophic inflation and loss of confidence. As the chart shows, the shocks can also go the other way - to drastic deflation. Thus a fiat currency is less robust to unexpected shocks than a sophisticated modern hard currency. That's the point.

What has been the result of Singapore's pursuing a hard currency strategy (and sound fiscal policy)? "Singapore had a current account surplus of about 14 percent of GDP in 1995, the highest in the world, and much of this was used to acquire reserves (which stood at some $67 billion in September 1995, for less than 3 million people)...." (The Case for a Common Basket Peg for East Asian Currencies, http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=280 (http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=280)).

The Singaporean inflation rate has remained relatively stable over the years despite Singapore being a fast-growing tiger economy. They did suffer an oil-price shock in the early 70s, as Singapore is even more dependent on foreign oil than the USA. Recent spiking in commodities and housing prices has caused the inflation rate to rise above the historical averages, but it still remains relatively controlled and along with the increase in inflation has gone an increase in the value of the hard assets that back it.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-z_JSmoLd5Gw/TXMFCswGvoI/AAAAAAAAEis/1JTYvXOFRu4/s1600/inflation.jpg)
I don't know if the Singapore currency approach is exactly right for the USA, but it does appear to show that we are not without hope that there is a better way of doing things than our current fragile fiat currency approach. It seems like you're eliminating possibilities before you've even explored them, just so you can argue against Ron Paul.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 27, 2011, 01:19:23 am
I repeat, inflation of 2-3%/year is the most desirable rate EVERY country is trying to achieve.  It's the indication of stability and economic growth.  If you don't understand it then lower end of the economic scale would happily welcome you.
I do not know your age and therefore your susceptibility to the issue but once you have made your money and you are sitting on it (retirement) you will be much better off to be sitting on gold (or some other solid asset) than on a depreciating currency as it is eroded on an annual basis equal to inflation.

As a person who I am assuming is consuming raw foods with the objective of living a longer and more useful than normal lifespan, this will mean that your sunset years will be spent being concerned about your dwindling (deflated) asset base.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 27, 2011, 06:13:30 am
Quote
Interesting you say paper backed by gold doesn't work. Yet you give  no example.

It stopped working around 1930s in the US.  And shorty after all over the word.  Do you need any more examples?

Quote
As a person who I am assuming is consuming raw foods with the objective of living a longer and more useful than normal lifespan, this will mean that your sunset years will be spent being concerned about your dwindling (deflated) asset base.

If you put your money to work then inflation is not an issue.  If you only depend on fixed income then yes it is a big problem.  I plan not do depend on fixed income/pile of unused cash later in life.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 27, 2011, 07:01:40 am
It stopped working around 1930s in the US.  And shorty after all over the word.  Do you need any more examples?
The US system where gold guaranteed the paper was done away with in 1913. Speculation is that this is the major contributor to the crash of 1929 and all of the major crashes since then.
Creature from Jekyll Island 1 of 12 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7auQEXTWomA#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on December 27, 2011, 07:43:41 am
Money that was attached to gold was considered more trustworthy because it was historically harder for the money changers to manipulate.

Money manipulation is an old problem that may of good men through history have fought with in their day. Anyone interested in the facts of the matter I suggest watch "The Money Masters" as well as the "Secret of OZ".
The Secret of Oz - Winner, Best Docu of 2010 v.1.09.11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI#ws)

We have taken a quantum leap away from attaching our monetary system to hard assets like gold and silver(as in the story of OZ). Now the lord of mammon is ruled by a system of cyber centered credit manipulation.

Money these days is created digitally and its now easier than ever for the money masters to manipulate. Of course I think people are getting wise to the mass corruption currently ongoing and hopefully there will be enough blow-back from the masses of people getting screwed,  to force a change in the way money is being lorded over.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 27, 2011, 09:08:22 am
Quote
The Singapore currency is not backed just by precious metals but also foreign assets from nations it trades with.

Man, you are really obsessed with singapore dollar.

First, these so called international assets don't mean anything.  If you know what that means please explain what those assets are, how they got purchased and with what currency, and whats' the redemption mechanism.

Second, SMALL emission currency such as Singapore dollar (or New Zeland dollar, or similar) can be easily backed by hard assets.  (not a wise move though).  LARGE emission currency such as Euro, UK pound, Jap yen, and ESPECIALLY US dollar with its reserve currency status cannot be backed up by ANY hard assets.

They are not even backed up by the paper it is printed on.  If everyone went to the bank and asked to withdraw US dollars there will not be enough paper money for everyone.  Don't you see that?  Go to a nearest community college and ask Economics teacher and he will explain you in detail why US dollar cannot be backed by anything other than economic growth trends.

By the way, I've been in Singapore twice, very nice place, you should visit.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 27, 2011, 09:17:07 am
Quote
The US system where gold guaranteed the paper was done away with in 1913. Speculation is that this is the major contributor to the crash of 1929 and all of the major crashes since then.

Not true.  Gold coins were in circulation up until 1933.  You could exchange paper money for gold coins up until around 1933 when US government started taking gold coins out of circulation.  See executive order 6102.  Silver coins were in circulation up until 1964.

The crash of 1929 was caused by greedy people trying to make easy money.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 27, 2011, 10:21:59 am
Another thing is US currency just like currencies of every other major country is not fixable.  Those currencies can't go back to gold standard or any other standard just like we cannot go back in time.

Back to Ron Paul.  Experts are saying if weather is good Iowa would go to Romney.  If weather is bad it'll go to Paul.
 
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 27, 2011, 10:36:01 am
Man, you are really obsessed with singapore dollar.
Good grief. First you spouted the unsupported soundbite that leading currencies "can't be backed up by any other physical means, not gold, not silver, not anything." Then when someone points out examples that suggest that at least some backing might be possible, like the Singapore dollar (or the partially or fully gold-backed US currency and other currencies of the past, which others here have pointed to) and explains it when you go on to make mistaken assumptions about it, you claim they're obsessed with it. If you don't want to see anything about it, then don't make false claims about it or ask questions about it.

The most fervent gold or metal fans probably wouldn't be satisfied with a Singapore-type approach, but it does suggest a type of potential future compromise. These examples aren't necessarily the precise right path for the USA today, but that's not the point. The point is that you've failed to prove that leading currencies can't be backed by any hard assets to any extent at all. Resorting to insults only suggests the weakness of your argument and undercuts your credibility.

Quote
First, these so called international assets don't mean anything.  If you know what that means please explain what those assets are, how they got purchased and with what currency, and whats' the redemption mechanism.
Why should I do your work for you? Also, if you don't even know the answers to those questions, then how can you be so certain that a similar approach wouldn't work for other countries?  Besides, you implied with your "obsessed" comment that you're not interested in the Singapore dollar--so you're either merely feigning interest here or were feigning lack of interest above.

Another thing is US currency just like currencies of every other major country is not fixable.
Isn't that defeatist? Shouldn't you explore the topic further before coming to that dismal conclusion? Would you make no changes at all to the current US currency or federal reserve system?

All currencies are not precisely equal in every way, right? Given that, which nation currently has the best currency, in your opinion and why?

Quote
Back to Ron Paul.  Experts are saying if weather is good Iowa would go to Romney.  If weather is bad it'll go to Paul.
Who do you propose as a better alternative to Ron Paul and why?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Paleo Donk on December 27, 2011, 11:50:25 am
Gary Johnson
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 27, 2011, 11:55:51 am
Gary Johnson

Maybe in 2016.  Ron Paul has the ball now in 2012.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: wodgina on December 27, 2011, 02:24:09 pm
Problem with Gold backed currencies is who's to say the gold is actually there?

Fort Knox hasn't been audited since the 70's

Don't mind Singapore, been there heaps of times. Jim Rogers (American billionaire, gold bull) lives there...he said"If you were smart in 1807 you moved to London, if you were smart in 1907 you moved to New York City, and if you are smart in 2007 you move to Asia." and back on subject he endorsed Ron Paul.



Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 27, 2011, 03:36:59 pm
As I recall, the Fort Knox  conspiracy theory went on for decades until 1971 where it was convincingly debunked after an audit was forced as a result of all the pressure from conspiracy-theorists. So, Ron Paul is wrong to try to get another audit, since no US government would dare to rob Fort Knox of its bullion in case of a possible future audit.

Besides, conspiracy theories usually tend to be either  fallacious due to a total lack of truly verifiable information, or self-evident to many due to overwhelming, accurate information appearing, especially with the help of the Internet. To suppress data wholesale so well that not one single person/ex-employee of Fort Knox could tell the world that the gold was missing would imply that the US government was far more intelligent/superhuman and more competent than it actually is.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: wodgina on December 27, 2011, 04:30:23 pm
As I recall, the Fort Knox  conspiracy theory went on for decades until 1971 where it was convincingly debunked after an audit was forced as a result of all the pressure from conspiracy-theorists. So, Ron Paul is wrong to try to get another audit, since no US government would dare to rob Fort Knox of its bullion in case of a possible future audit.

Besides, conspiracy theories usually tend to be either  fallacious due to a total lack of truly verifiable information, or self-evident to many due to overwhelming, accurate information appearing, especially with the help of the Internet. To suppress data wholesale so well that not one single person/ex-employee of Fort Knox could tell the world that the gold was missing would imply that the US government was far more intelligent/superhuman and more competent than it actually is.

40 years ago?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 27, 2011, 04:50:44 pm
As I recall, there is a government audit once a year, anyway. For someone among the inspectors not to blab to the media about the loss of gold just sounds incredible.  And the government would always be sh*tting themselves about the possibility of a genuine audit forced by someone like Ron Paul. Not likely.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: wodgina on December 27, 2011, 05:15:47 pm
They don't feel fear.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 27, 2011, 10:58:41 pm
Don't mind Singapore, been there heaps of times. Jim Rogers (American billionaire, gold bull) lives there...he said"If you were smart in 1807 you moved to London, if you were smart in 1907 you moved to New York City, and if you are smart in 2007 you move to Asia."
Yeah, that's how I found out about Singapore's currency being partially backed by metals. When I learned that Jim Rogers had moved there, knowing how much a fan he is of hard currencies and metals, I wondered whether the Singaporean currency might have some hard backing and looked into it. Interestingly, Singapore also chose not to adopt a US-type central bank, instead opting for what it saw as a superior system with a monetary authority, one in which it is difficult for the government to just print money as needed or go deeply into debt. As a result, Merk Investments has said that "Singapore is the new Switzerland" and is investing heavily in their currency.

Quote
and back on subject he endorsed Ron Paul.
Cool.

Jim Rogers supports Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZKZzAGikKU#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 28, 2011, 03:48:42 am
Quote
Who do you propose as a better alternative to Ron Paul and why?

I personally like Bobby Jindal to run for president.  I think he is a real deal not a fake like most others.

Quote
Isn't that defeatist? Shouldn't you explore the topic further before coming to that dismal conclusion? Would you make no changes at all to the current US currency or federal reserve system?

I am completely satisfied with US currency and do not see any need for changes.  I get paid in US dollars and I spend US dollars.  Any excess I diversify into different kind of assets.

What is your problem with US dollar?

Quote
Why should I do your work for you?
Because I failed to find any info on it and say it again this so called backing is nothing more but empty words on paper.  Prove that it is any more useful than any other paper money and maybe I'll change my mind.  Here is the follow up question.  Can you go to a bank in Singapore and try to redeem SGD into some of those assets?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 28, 2011, 03:58:01 am
Quote
"Singapore is the new Switzerland"

Guess what, Switzerland was suffering because of strong frank and they finally pegged it to Euro.  The same thing will happen to SGD.  Strong SGD will bring Singapore economy down simply because Singapore is heavy exporter.  To combat strong SGD Singapore will either print more paper or peg it to another currency.  If you know any other way please let us know.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 28, 2011, 04:11:40 am
This was on today's Yahoo front page.

Ex-Aide: Ron Paul Foreign Policy is 'Sheer Lunacy'

http://news.yahoo.com/ex-aide-ron-paul-foreign-policy-sheer-lunacy-144730256.html (http://news.yahoo.com/ex-aide-ron-paul-foreign-policy-sheer-lunacy-144730256.html)

I won't go into details which some were already discussed here.  All I want to say it is next to impossible to win elections with headlines like that.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 28, 2011, 05:29:37 am
I personally like Bobby Jindal to run for president.
I meant among the people actually running for president. Do you even intend to vote? Can you recommend anyone I may actually be able to vote for?

Quote
What is your problem with US dollar?
You have indicated that you aren't concerned at all about potential problems with the US dollar, so why do you bother to ask?

Quote
Because I failed to find any info on it and say it again this so called backing is nothing more but empty words on paper.  Prove that it is any more useful than any other paper money and maybe I'll change my mind.
That is not believable, as you've already said that you won't "pay any attention to Singapore currency simply because it is so tiny," you implied you're fine with fiat currency, you indicated that "inflation is not a problem," and even though you report personally believing in diversification, you apparently don't see diversification or asset backing as an advantage for government reserves or currencies. Whatever information I've provided you've just dismissed and you haven't bothered to provide any supporting information to justify casually dismissing potential problems with fiat currencies. Your mind seems made up. So what's the point of discussing it further?

http://news.yahoo.com/ex-aide-ron-paul-foreign-policy-sheer-lunacy-144730256.html (http://news.yahoo.com/ex-aide-ron-paul-foreign-policy-sheer-lunacy-144730256.html)
That link does include some serious allegations. It will be interesting to see what response Ron Paul provides and how he weathers the latest candidate intense scrutiny. So far every campaign has crumbled under the scrutiny. If Ron Paul falters then I predict that Romney will be the next target, and Republicans who aren't very familiar with him won't like what they learn. Then, who knows, maybe the polls will shift back to Perry again? Obama must be loving this chewing up of Republicans.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 28, 2011, 05:39:36 am
The former aide who made those idiotic charges clearly has no credibility whatsoever. Admittedly, it's common for ex-aides to lie about their time spent with a politician after they've been fired for lack of ethics or whatever. Or perhaps he was just paid by neocons to say that b*ll.

In the case of Ron Paul and gays, the accusation that he felt uncomfortable around gays simply does not ring true. The incredibly stupid, desperately unfunny comedian, Sacha Baron Cohen, tried to ridicule Ron Paul, while disguised as the gay Austrian "Bruno" character, and made a move on Ron Paul while in a room that Ron Paul did not know was being filmed as well (as seen on youtube(
Ron Paul & Sasha Baron Cohen (Bruno) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7RnlPQCKBQ#noexternalembed)

). Despite Baron-Cohen  dropping his trousers, Ron Paul just left the room and saying "this is ended" etc. There was no punching or insults.

The accusation re Hitler does not seem to be Ron Paul's view. It is simply parroted by retarded NeoCons in the hope that, if it's stated often enough, idiots among the public will believe it. Ron Paul has stated, again and again, that he is NOT an isolationist, merely a non-interventionist - 2 quite different things.

As regards Afghanistan, it has been mentioned, again and again that, judging from the lessons of history, it is EXTREMELY stupid, indeed psychotic,  for countries to invade Afghanistan, as they always lose in the end due to the fractured, tribal  state of the country. The only exception to that rule was the Mongols - for them to keep order, however, they basically  had to  massacre whole tribes for the slightest crimes, something the US cannot afford to do  for fear of offending public opinion. So Ron Paul was right to be hesitant. I suppose he was told that the mindless public hysteria due to 9/11 would make people react irrationally against him if he voted against the war in Afghanistan, so he kowtowed. Well, no one's perfect...

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 28, 2011, 05:45:35 am
The Russians must now be laughing their heads off at the US's incredible stupidity in launching a war against Afghanistan. I mean, the US went to all that trouble to humiltate the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s and now.....
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 28, 2011, 05:56:25 am
The Russians must now be laughing their heads off at the US's incredible stupidity in launching a war against Afghanistan. I mean, the US went to all that trouble to humiltate the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s and now.....
Yes, I don't see that accusation hurting Ron. The call for abolishing Israel is a more serious allegation, but I would be surprised if RP actually made that statement in public or writing, so it will likely come down to the staffer's word vs. Ron's unless someone else comes out of the woodwork to support it, as happened with Cain.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 28, 2011, 06:01:37 am
"Hitler caused WW II, not the American People" - Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRbyrIzPCh4#)

The above video points out the stupidity of accusing Ron Paul of isolationism and stating that he would have appeased Hitler.

It has often been pointed out that when people use the reductio ad hitlerum(such as, here, accusing Ron Paul of being an appeaser to Hitler if he'd been born earlier) that it is a sign that they have already lost the argument and are just trying nasty tricks to discredit their opponents.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 28, 2011, 06:11:46 am
...and are just trying nasty tricks to discredit their opponents.
Of course, and Ron Paul is just the latest in line to be subject to these attacks. If he weathers the storm then that could bode well for his campaign, because it would stand in contrast to the crumbling of the other campaigns under scrutiny.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 28, 2011, 08:02:35 am
I do hope most people aren't fooled by all these ridiculous accusations. I mean, even the Herman Cain and the Wikileaks guy were obviously being smeared. After all, if there had been any real substance to these allegations, they would have been aired many years ago.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 28, 2011, 08:09:21 am
Yes, it does raise questions. If what Paul said or did was so terrible, why did the accuser wait until Paul rose in the polls before saying anything? Or did he report it before but it was just largely ignored until now? I wish the journalists would ask the accuser these questions.

One accuser is pretty easy to deny if there is little or no hard evidence to support the accuser on his more controversial accusations. What seemed to sink Cain's boat was that there were multiple accusers with similar stories.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 28, 2011, 08:23:48 am
The precise timing of those anti-Cain accusations makes it far, far more likely that they were attempts at smears.

All I can say is that I hope against hope that Mitt Romney is lying like a trooper, as always, and that, as soon as he becomes President, will betray everyone and act just like Ron Paul would have done  re libertarianism etc.. That would be cool.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 28, 2011, 08:32:51 am
The precise timing of those anti-Cain accusations makes it far, far more likely that they were attempts at smears.
The timing was indeed suspicious, what I meant was there eventually were too many accusers and Cain pulled out of the race. So far there is only one accuser (that I know of) of Paul re: the abolish Israel bit.

Quote
All I can say is that I hope against hope that Mitt Romney is lying like a trooper, as always, and that, as soon as he becomes President, will betray everyone and act just like Ron Paul would have done  re libertarianism etc.. That would be cool.
He tends to go with the flow and change his views depending on what will be popular with each constituency, so that is also my hope if he is elected, but it is probably far fetched, as libertarianism is currently still seen as radical among the wider populace of the USA, but it does seem like the nation is gradually becoming more libertarian as the Internet becomes more pervasive, so maybe there's a slight chance this election might trigger a tipping point and push Romney towards libertarianism, but no chance he would espouse Paul's full platform.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 28, 2011, 08:42:23 am
The number of accusers means nothing. Any truly well-planned smear campaign will involve several accusers so as to remove all doubt.


Hmm, I find one can develop a 6th sense re these things. For example, Ron Paul simply does not act, in everyday life, in the various ways that people accuse him of. Strauss-Kahn, however, is the exact opposite....
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 28, 2011, 09:16:25 am
The number of accusers means nothing.
It meant Cain's withdrawal and other politicians resigning before him. Maybe Paul won't pull out in such a case, who knows.

Quote
Any truly well-planned smear campaign will involve several accusers so as to remove all doubt.
That would be optimal, yes, assuming the campaign isn't uncovered of course.

Quote
Hmm, I find one can develop a 6th sense re these things. For example, Ron Paul simply does not act, in everyday life, in the various ways that people accuse him of.
Yes, I find it implausible that RP would have been so rash as to say such a thing or so extremely anti-Israel as to support it.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 28, 2011, 12:03:17 pm
Quote
I meant among the people actually running for president. Do you even intend to vote? Can you recommend anyone I may actually be able to vote for?

I don't like any of the running candidates.  I won't vote in the primary because in my state I have to be a registered Republican.  I have no plans of joining Republican party.  I will vote in the general election.

I'm not too concerned if Obama gets re-elected as long as either House or Senate stay Republican with enough Tea Party members.  I'd rather give Obama another 4 very hard years and wait for a better Republican candidate then see president Gingrich/Romney/Paul fail miserably and get kicked out after one term and here comes another Obama with democratic Congress.

President Gingrich/Romney would flip-flop all over the place and piss a lot of people off.

President Paul being a hard ass will veto everything that Congress will through his way and nothing will get done.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 28, 2011, 12:29:47 pm
I will vote in the general election.
So if it's Romney, Paul or Gingrich vs. Obama, who are you leaning towards voting for?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on December 28, 2011, 12:52:54 pm
If nothing gets past a Ron Paul veto then perhaps it would give this country enough time between bailouts to get its head on straight and begin to force congress to draft real solutions that benefit all.

I agree somewhat with Ys that there isn't a good alternative candidate out there. I support Ron Paul above the others, though he isn't my ideal chief. My main gripe is that he seems to allow himself to be marginalized by clinging to a position in the republican party.

If he could stand on an independent platform and go out in a blaze of glory on the campaign trail he may not win, but he could beneficently confront the fallacies of the two party system and force the establishment into some concessions in order to prevent his victory..

Regardless of how things unfold, I am hedging my bet with my Great great granddaddy's investment advice. Save your confederate money, for the south will rise again.
(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk1/sarahab88/Photo3225.jpg)

(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk1/sarahab88/Photo3226.jpg)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 28, 2011, 10:42:31 pm
I'm Australian and even I can see the vote fraud that is being prepared against Ron Paul. Perhaps we need to send observers to make sure US elections are undertaken fairly. Ron Paul deserves to win.

- Anthony Coralluzzo · Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Iowa GOP moving vote-count to 'undisclosed location'

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/iowa-gop-moving-votecount-to-undisclosed-location-108812.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/iowa-gop-moving-votecount-to-undisclosed-location-108812.html)
Title: Re: CFR declares "Time to Attack Iran" - Vote Ron Paul for PEACE
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 28, 2011, 11:37:51 pm
WWIII Countdown: CFR declares "Time to Attack Iran" - SCG News 12-27-11

WWIII Countdown: CFR declares "Time to Attack Iran" - SCG News 12-27-11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrdVqgt0Dwk#ws)

Time to Attack Iran
Why a Strike Is the Least Bad Option

Author:    
Matthew Kroenig

January/February 2012
Foreign Affairs

Opponents of military action against Iran assume a U.S. military strike would be far more dangerous than simply letting Tehran build a bomb. Not so, argues this former Pentagon defense planner. With a carefully designed strike, Washington could mitigate the costs—or at least bring them down to a bearable level—and spare the region and the world from an unacceptable threat.

http://www.cfr.org/iran/time-attack-iran/p26875 (http://www.cfr.org/iran/time-attack-iran/p26875)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on December 29, 2011, 02:28:02 am

I agree somewhat with Ys that there isn't a good alternative candidate out there.

Gary Johnson rocks. He's left the GOP and will be running as a libertarian.

He is in many ways a better candidate than Paul (among the most successful governors in US history, built a one-man handyman biz into a multi-million dollar company from scratch, climbed Everest, no personal baggage...), although I dislike his favor of Fair Tax and no corporate tax (I'd largely reverse that - zero personal income tax and flat 10% corporate tax).

If Paul doesn't get the nomination AND chooses not to run indie, an endorsement for Johnson could radically change the landscape.

That said, I'd prefer to see  President Paul....even if it is just one term.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 29, 2011, 05:06:50 am
My suspicion is that Paul can't stand Republicans in general.  There been so many times where he voted against party line.  Or that time when he was the only one voting against Civil Rights 40th anniversary (I'm with him on this one).  That's why he is going to have a hard time getting Republican nomination.

I think he would be much happier to run as Libertarian but the odds are much worse there.  In addition it would split conservatives badly and give Obama easy re-election.

Quote
So if it's Romney, Paul or Gingrich vs. Obama, who are you leaning towards voting for?
I'll probably vote with very sour face for the Republican candidate whoever that might be.  But I wont' be crying tears if Obama gets re-election as long as Republicans keep control of the Congress.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 29, 2011, 07:28:33 am
Gary Johnson rocks. He's left the GOP and will be running as a libertarian.
Cool, so I'll have an experienced libertarian to vote for in the general election even if Ron Paul loses the nomination.

My suspicion is that Paul can't stand Republicans in general.
That's a smear that the Neocon blog Redstate.com and other Neocons have tried to spread. Ron Paul only dislikes so-called Republicans who favor heavy gov't intervention in either the economy or the private lives of citizens or the affairs of foreign nations. He certainly doesn't hate the Republicans who have selected him in the polls and those who plan to vote for him.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 29, 2011, 09:34:40 am
Ron Paul has repeatedly and correctly pointed out that, actually, he is far more of a real Republican than the pseudo-Republican NeoCons or the religious right. His views are more in line with the old republican ideology in terms of not starting foreign wars, austrian libertarian economics etc.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 29, 2011, 11:28:21 am
Quote
That's a smear that the Neocon blog Redstate.com and other Neocons have tried to spread.
Not sure what smear you are talking about, did not read redstate.  I only used my own observation.
Which blogs are not Neocons?

Quote
Ron Paul only dislikes so-called Republicans who favor heavy gov't intervention in either the economy or the private lives of citizens or the affairs of foreign nations.
ummmmm, according to his vote record he dislikes most of the Republicans in the House.  He usually votes with Democrats but for a different reason.

Quote
Gary Johnson rocks. He's left the GOP and will be running as a libertarian.
And Obama is singing.  If Paul runs as independent Obama will dance as well.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on December 29, 2011, 05:14:23 pm


There is such little differences in the policy of Obama and the top tier republican candidates that we need a third choice. Even if that candidate sways the election towards Obama, so what would Gingrich be any better.

This election is not looking much better than Obama, Mccain.

The masquerade is rigged and Ron Paul is being pushed aside by the power elite of the republican party, regardless of his popularity. Then there is an attitude of futility that seems to allow it all to happen without much protest.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTJ0qYR6YFo#)

I wish I could find the clip where the alien impostor candidates are unmasked, but the people are still forced to vote between Kang and Kodos, because its a "two party system".
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 29, 2011, 06:07:33 pm
I've just read an aggressive comment from the US Navy:- "The free flow of goods and services through the Strait of Hormuz is vital to regional and global prosperity," said a spokeswoman for the US Navy's Bahrain-based Fifth Fleet. "Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations; any disruption will not be tolerated."

Such hypocrisy and pure evil in that statement. Like Ron Paul said, it is shameful that the US, which is supposed to be in favour of free trade, happily hands out sanctions to Cuba, Iran or anyone else who doesn't kowtow to the US. Now that Iran has threatened to disrupt oil-supplies in response to further disgraceful US sanctions, the US is hypocritically denouncing Iran despite the US being the aggressor.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 29, 2011, 10:29:15 pm
John was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred young layers (hens), called 'pullets,' and ten roosters to fertilize the eggs. He kept records, and any rooster not performing went into the soup pot and was replaced. This took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells and attached them to his roosters.

Each bell had a different tone, so he could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing. Now, he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report by just listening to the bells.

John's favorite rooster, old Butch, was a very fine specimen, but this morning he noticed old Butch's bell hadn't rung at all!

When he went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, would run for cover. To John's amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one.

John was so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the Saint Lawrence County Fair and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.

The result was the judges not only awarded old Butch the "No Bell Piece Prize," but they also awarded him the "Pulletsurprise" as well. Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making. Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the unsuspecting populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention.

Vote carefully in the next election, the bells are not always audible.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 29, 2011, 11:32:47 pm
Quote
Such hypocrisy and pure evil in that statement.

haha, is that your soft spot?  lighten up, these are official statements meant for general public who don't even know where Iran is.

it's international waters, common, it'll be fun watching the standoff.  these kinds of things been happening for thousands of years and world has not changed much in this regard.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 30, 2011, 12:26:41 am
haha, is that your soft spot?  lighten up, these are official statements meant for general public who don't even know where Iran is.

it's international waters, common, it'll be fun watching the standoff.  these kinds of things been happening for thousands of years and world has not changed much in this regard.
  Irrelevant.  The US has no right to deny free trade to other nations. When it starts whining about other nations retaliating in the same sort of way, then it's just laughable. Perhaps the rest of the world should apply mass sanctions on the US to teach it a lesson. After all, unlike Iran, the US already possesses vast numbers of nuclear weapons, and, unlike Iran, is the only country so far which was psychotic enough to actually use its nuclear weapons against another nation.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 30, 2011, 12:32:11 am
Sorenson stuns Michele Bachmann with switch to Ron Paul's camp
Members of her campaign were visibly distraught with news of his sudden support for the Texas congressman.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20111229/NEWS/312290071/?odyssey=nav (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20111229/NEWS/312290071/?odyssey=nav)|head
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on December 30, 2011, 02:42:23 am
From early December during the Gingrich surge in the polls....Gary Johnson thread....between YS and me:

me: Here's a prediction for Iowa (first primary): Romney wins with Ron Paul in 2nd. Gingrich will implode due to his record and his personal baggage.

ys: Let's see how good your predictions are in about 4 weeks.  Correction - Iowa holds a caucus not a primary.

me: Ahhh...you are correct!

A caucus differs from a primary in process.

In that case, Paul might actually win Iowa, or be a VERY close (rather than sub-20%) 2nd.


====

Told y'all Gingrich was imploding. The most recent (as I write this) 2 polls both have Romney in 1st, Paul behind by 2-3 points in 2nd, Santorum in a distant 3rd, and Gingrich falling to 4th.

I should add that I can't stand Santorum.

Anyway....I still think Romney will place 1st, unless the weather is VERY harsh, in which case Paul will win.

The big issue now is: How will it stack up in NH and beyond?

If Paul handles the newsletter issue well (meaning much better than he's handled it thusfar), he can actually win the nomination. If not, Romney will win.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 30, 2011, 04:20:51 am
Quote
Irrelevant.  The US has no right to deny free trade to other nations.

What are you talking about?? US is not denying anyone of free trade.  Zimbabwe can trade with Iran all they want and other as well.

If you are talking about sanctions then you don't understand what they are.

Most sanctions are unilateral between US and Iran only.  They don't apply to other countries.  Other countries can adopt similar sanctions if they wish.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 30, 2011, 04:23:51 am
I must admit that the Ron Paul ads seem much better, propaganda-wise than they were before, judging from youtube:-

The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4#ws)

Ron Paul 2012 "The High Tide" HD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhyaiOZhpSg#ws)

2008 wasn't so hot:-


Drunk ad 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxT5FHV6RPg#)

Changes - Ron Paul Ad (2008) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCR9WhnMd0s#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 30, 2011, 04:26:30 am
Code: [Select]
From early December during the Gingrich surge in the polls....Gary Johnson thread....between YS and me:
Good memory SD.
Let's watch what happens.

Huntsman officially gave the finger to Iowans: They Pick Corn in Iowa, Presidents in New Hampshire.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 30, 2011, 04:35:23 am
What are you talking about?? US is not denying anyone of free trade.  Zimbabwe can trade with Iran all they want and other as well.

If you are talking about sanctions then you don't understand what they are.

Most sanctions are unilateral between US and Iran only.  They don't apply to other countries.  Other countries can adopt similar sanctions if they wish.


  I am perfectly well aware what sanctions are. Since the US represents a very large portion of world trade, it is indeed restricting free trade.  And the US has been putting enormous pressure on other governments to kowtow and also apply sanctions on Iran. Since most foreign country or foreign companies do not  want to jeopardise their business interests in the US, they are mostly forced to go along with the US and stop all business  with Iran as well. Only China and similiar countries can get away with carrying on trading with Iran.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Raw Kyle on December 30, 2011, 05:46:33 am
What are you talking about?? US is not denying anyone of free trade.  Zimbabwe can trade with Iran all they want and other as well.

If you are talking about sanctions then you don't understand what they are.

Most sanctions are unilateral between US and Iran only.  They don't apply to other countries.  Other countries can adopt similar sanctions if they wish.

Why should the United States federal government be able to deny a United States citizen from conducting trade with Iran via the threat of violence?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 30, 2011, 07:18:52 am
Looks like Ron Paul will win Iowa:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/8983495/US-elections-2012-Ron-Paul-gaining-support-of-Iowan-Democrats-and-independents.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/8983495/US-elections-2012-Ron-Paul-gaining-support-of-Iowan-Democrats-and-independents.html)

Apparently, since democrats and independents are allowed to vote in Iowa for the republican contest, this will be a shoo-in for Ron Paul.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 30, 2011, 07:59:15 am
Skinnydevil, your words are warm and welcome on a cold evening, and your predictions are so far on target. Your posts are like poetry. You have the gift. If you won't run for political office, which I can't blame you at all about, I think you'd make a good political strategist or ad maker for a relatively honest party like the Libertarians. But how to partake in politics without becoming corrupted by it? That's the question.

NH is Romney's back yard, so he has the advantage there. If Ron Paul beats Romney in NH, that should finish Romney, but if Romney wins in both Iowa and NH, then Ron will probably be relegated to obscurity by the media and it will be Romney vs. Perry, Santorum, and Gingrich, with Perry probably getting some rejuvenation in the later Southern primaries, and then it would probably come down to Perry vs. Romney in the Midwest and Western states.

Regardless of who wins, the Libertarian phenomenon will roll on, for better or worse, thanks to the inherently libertarian Internet. The dingbat Republican establishment haven't figured that out yet and for some insane reason attack libertarians instead of joining forces with them to defeat Obama. Instead of fighting the inevitable, they should be jumping on the bandwagon (which I predict the chameleon Romney will gladly do if he sees that the polls suggest it and he senses that the tide has turned inexorably to libertarianism). Internet polls are still not representative of the public at large, however, but they increasingly will be as more and more people go online and are absorbed into the cyber-mind.

I must admit that the Ron Paul ads seem much better, propaganda-wise than they were before, judging from youtube:-

The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4#ws)
Quite right, Englishman, that first ad is one of the best I've ever seen. Unfortunately, the Neocons and the media they bought have smartened up and started to attack Ron Paul on the honesty angle. If they can show that Ron DID write the nasty stuff he has disowned, then poor Ron is probably cooked. A generally honest man who is proclaimed as honest is held to much higher standards than the usual political scum.

The hypocritical Neocons will try to nail Ron to a politically correct cross. I care less about the crotchety things Ron has written than the fact that he will do his utmost to stop the tide of red ink, the vain and suicidal attempts at hegemonic empire building, the growing fragility of our nation, and the crumbling of our core values.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 30, 2011, 10:31:40 am
Quote
Why should the United States federal government be able to deny a United States citizen from conducting trade with Iran via the threat of violence?

You made my day!  :) :)
Poor Bobby Fischer, he was asking the same kind of question.  Please watch Bobby Fischer Against the World, very interesting.

I cannot answer your question.  But you can ask your Senator or Congressman who likely voted for it.  Let us know what they say.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 30, 2011, 10:40:08 am
Quote
Since most foreign country or foreign companies do not  want to jeopardise their business interests in the US, they are mostly forced to go along with the US and stop all business  with Iran as well.

Darn it, why can't I have my cake and eat it too?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 30, 2011, 10:48:13 am
Quote
hypocritical Neocons

Phil,
Who are not hypocritical Neocons?  Do the have blogs?  I'd like to read them.

Quote
If they can show that Ron DID write the nasty stuff he has disowned, then poor Ron is probably cooked.

Paul: I did write parts of the newsletters, but not the bad parts.
Details are here http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/29/paul-i-did-write-parts-of-the-newsletters-but-not-the-bad-parts/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/29/paul-i-did-write-parts-of-the-newsletters-but-not-the-bad-parts/)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA - Watch the Vote!!! Prevent Fraud!
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 30, 2011, 10:53:49 am
www.WatchTheVote2012.com (http://www.WatchTheVote2012.com) -- Urgent! Iowa Caucus, Jan 3, 2012! This video is the only one that tells honest citizens how to STOP the rigging of the Iowa Caucus 2012. This video includes Ron Paul speaking about the necessity of Watching the Vote. The Iowa STATE GOP has a long history of rigging the Iowa Caucus. The LOCAL Iowans do everything honest and in the open at each local Caucus, and then call in their results honestly. THEN -- the Iowa Caucus is rigged at the STATE LEVEL by the Iowa STATE GOP. Google "A House without Doors" for how the Iowa GOP, the Big TV Networks, and Voter News Service (now renamed National Election Pool) stole 13% of Pat Buchanan's vote in Dubuque County in the 1996 Iowa Presidential Caucus. Dole benefited in 96. This year they will try to rig the Iowa Caucus against Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann -- and for Romney and Gingrich -- if they can get away with it. We MUST STOP THEM AND ENSURE AN HONEST COUNT. THIS VIDEO IS THE ONLY ONE THAT TELLS YOU HOW! Go to www.facebook.com/groups/WatchTheVote2012 (http://www.facebook.com/groups/WatchTheVote2012) and sign up to help! and also www.WatchTheVote2012.com (http://www.WatchTheVote2012.com)

Pt.1 PROOF Rigged Election - Watch the Vote 2012 - Iowa Caucus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeggPSL3gQs#)

and

Pt.2 PROOF Rigged Election - Watch the Vote 2012 - Iowa Caucus -FOR RON PAUL! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GxqWqKH8fg#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 30, 2011, 01:40:29 pm
Paul: I did write parts of the newsletters, but not the bad parts.
Details are here http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/29/paul-i-did-write-parts-of-the-newsletters-but-not-the-bad-parts/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/29/paul-i-did-write-parts-of-the-newsletters-but-not-the-bad-parts/)
Ah well, the poor man is probably cooked, unless his momentum is strong enough to miraculously overcome this stuff from the Neocon machine. Curmudgeons with outdated personal views are not generally welcome in this country. Let's hope he does overcome it--for the good of our nation.

Look how the Neocon caller tried to set him up:
Quote
CALLER: But Dr. Paul, many of the newsletters are filled with conspiracies. You had one newsletter from start to finish with fear that the $50 bill, because it was going to be made pink....
There will be much more  of that sort of thing to come.

Wow, looks like all but Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are in deep doo in Virginia:
Quote
Judge sets timetable for Perry's bid to get on Va. ballot
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-politics/2011/dec/30/tdmain01-judge-sets-timetable-for-perrys-bid-to-ge-ar-1575975/ (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-politics/2011/dec/30/tdmain01-judge-sets-timetable-for-perrys-bid-to-ge-ar-1575975/)
"The board already has determined that Texas Rep. Ron Paul's name will appear first on the primary ballot, followed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney — the only two candidates that the state GOP certified for the ballot."
This primary has been a chaotic disgrace for establishment Republicans. Young libertarians were their only hope for salvaging something from the mess, but they've decided to shun them and ridicule them and their candidate, after failing to dismiss him. How sad and suicidal.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 30, 2011, 02:17:53 pm
What I read elsewhere was that those newsletters were mainly grassroots efforts by his supporters who just used his name and sometimes some of his  articles, the rest was their work. Indeed, it was stated somewhere that electoral law forbids him from being too close re monitoring his own supporters, or something.

Re US/Iran:- In a way, much like Al-Quaeda, I'm grateful that the US seeks to continue wars/apply sanctions abroad as that helps to speed up the day when the US empire will inevitably fall.

Re "hypocritical NeoCons" comment by PP:- He was simply pointing out the obvious  for the "slower" people on this forum, that  all NeoCons are by definition hypocritical because they claim to espouse the causes of freedom/liberty et al, but routinely advocate wars and other nonsense which destroy freedom and liberty. 

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 30, 2011, 11:01:00 pm
Quote
Re US/Iran:- In a way, much like Al-Quaeda, I'm grateful that the US seeks to continue wars/apply sanctions abroad as that helps to speed up the day when the US empire will inevitably fall.

Dollar as the worlds preferred reserve currency will keep the empire afloat.  There is no clear alternative to the dollar so it make take a while.  Euro was suppose to break the monopoly but it backfired badly.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 30, 2011, 11:02:57 pm
I see that Ron Paul is also steadfastly against government grain-subsidies. This would mean far more farmers turning to feeding their animals on grass etc., if he got elected. I mean, he is on our side on all levels! I will send an e-mail to Aajonus to remind him to get all primal dieters to vote for Ron Paul.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 30, 2011, 11:04:46 pm
Dollar as the worlds preferred reserve currency will keep the empire afloat.  There is no clear alternative to the dollar so it make take a while.  Euro was suppose to break the monopoly but it backfired badly.
Big deal, so in a decade at most, we'll have the yuan as the main world currency, instead. Dollars are a waste of time to invest in, as the US government makes them the easiest to forge, and because the US economy is on the verge of becoming subject to China.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 30, 2011, 11:32:38 pm
Quote
Big deal, so in a decade at most, we'll have the yuan as the main world currency, instead.

Haha, remember your words in 10 years.  It is a huge Big deal, you have no idea.

Not going to happen because yuan is pegged to the dollar.  And China does not look like it will make yuan free float any time soon.

While China does hold huge American assets they can't easily manipulate it.  If they suddenly decide to unload US debt notes it would certainly be a huge blow to dollar but at the same time China will shoot itself in the foot.  So it is a bit more complicated than you think.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on December 30, 2011, 11:35:04 pm
Kelly Clarkson endorses Ron Paul

Kelly Clarkson endorses Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGtie7b8O7g#)

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 30, 2011, 11:41:36 pm
Hmm, the Chinese are slow and steady. Look at their Moon Landing attempts, to be finished by 2020, for example, while the castrated US looks on....

It might not take 10 years, but the US is already crippled and will not take much further to take it down, plus other areas like the EU do not have the power that China has, to replace it.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on December 31, 2011, 12:01:24 am
Regardless of who wins, the Libertarian phenomenon will roll on

This was the best part about Paul's 2008 run. He planted ideas and put issues on the table. They called him crazy.

4 years later, those crazy ideas have entered the mainstream (like auditing &/or ending the Fed) and he is no longer the only person on the stage calling for an end to the US war machine, the end of the income tax, the end of the war on drugs, repeal of the Patriot Act, and more.

Iowa is important, as already mentioned, because it is "open". As such, it better reflects the bent of the nation. NH is important also,  but Huntsman's remarks were out of line (and out of character).

Ron Paul, in one sense, has already won and will keep winning. But the victory will be slower if he doesn't get the nomination....and even if he does, he'd better choose his running mate carefully. It will be difficult to beat an Obama-Clinton ticket (that idea has been floating for quite some time) if the economy suddenly turns for the better.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Fermenter Zym on December 31, 2011, 03:00:12 am
Now can someone tell me whether or not he is still sticking by his views against corporate personhood? That would also be a wonderful reversal of United States policy.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 31, 2011, 07:04:40 am
It will be difficult to beat an Obama-Clinton ticket (that idea has been floating for quite some time) if the economy suddenly turns for the better.
Yeah, and the most recent economic numbers have been relatively positive. If that continues it will take some new catastrophe like perhaps dramatic escalation of bloody civil war in Iraq or Afghanistan or a miracle to defeat the incumbent. Unlike Rush Limbaugh, I of course don't wish for bad news, just speculating.

Quote
Ron Paul, in one sense, has already won and will keep winning. But the victory will be slower if he doesn't get the nomination....
Yeah, Ron Paul is the only Republican generating enthusiasm, particularly among the young. It will be a shame if it fizzles out this time, but there will also be future chances for libertarian-oriented candidates, as the overall enthusiasm for libertarianism seems to be growing. The first time I voted in a Libertarian primary, the young man at the polling station who gave me a Libertarian ballot to fill out got real excited when he saw it--it was the first Libertarian ballot he had seen. He shouted out something like, "Oh boy! A Libertarian!" which you're not actually supposed to do at the voting site, heheh. The actual voting was a bit of an anticlimax, though, as most offices had only one or zero Libertarians running, so there wasn't much choosing to do. However, at the time I figured I was making more of a statement by registering Libertarian than I would voting for Republocrats, and it sure made voting quick and easy as there was no line and not many boxes to check.  ;D
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 31, 2011, 07:26:39 am
It might not take 10 years, but the US is already crippled and will not take much further to take it down, plus other areas like the EU do not have the power that China has, to replace it.
Whatever the date, it will happen some day, as every empire eventually comes to an end (usually by returning to a nation state that mostly minds its own business). Despite the historical record, the ignorant masses in every empire tend to imagine it lasting forever, or at least a millennia or so, and acknowledging the inevitable is often stupidly seen as treachery. I see freeing ourselves of the burden of empire as a blessing rather than a curse, especially with the American form in which we pour money into the satellite states instead of sucking it out of them like the Romans did. Would having their old empires back really make the Romans, Egyptians, Mongols or Germans that much happier, even with the looting and taxing they did? Empire seems like a mixed bag at best.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on December 31, 2011, 07:36:05 am
Ah, if only the Roman Empire (or the Ancient Greek or  Ancient Persian Empires for that matter) had never gone under! I have always loved those 3 cultures, far more so than any other one, past or present.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 31, 2011, 07:37:14 am
Huh? Don't those cultures still exist? Granted, they've changed over time, but they would have changed in some ways even if they had remained empires.

Thanks for mentioning the Persian Empire, which was a cosmopolitan empire with advanced learning and culture and relatively high levels of religious and cultural tolerance for its time (see examples below). That reminds me that if Ron Paul is elected and the USA stops the bellicose rhetoric and economic punishing of Iran, it will likely lead to the Iranian people becoming more pro-USA (and surprisingly many already are rather pro-USA) and undercut the current Iranian regime's using of us as a whipping boy to stir up the hardliners and possibly even lead to the downfall of that regime, as people will be more likely to support alternative leaders who will focus more on the economy and other internal matters.

If Ron Paul is elected, I predict that Iran will tilt back more toward its Persian roots and away from the recent Arab-inspired Islamic aberration.

Quote
Cyrus [the Great] was a skillful ruler. He adopted a policy of toleration toward the people he conquered. For example, he allowed them to speak their own languages, practice their own religions, and follow their own ways of life. He also declared the first Charter of Human Rights.

The Origins and Impacts of the Persian Empire
http://www.eduplace.com/kids/socsci/ca/books/bkf3/writing/02_empires.pdf (http://www.eduplace.com/kids/socsci/ca/books/bkf3/writing/02_empires.pdf)
Quote
There were three main premises in the decrees of the Cyrus Cylinder: the political formulization of racial, linguistic, and religious equality, slaves and all deported peoples were to be allowed to return to home; and all destroyed temples were to be restored.[1]

In 1971, the Cyrus Cylinder was described as the world’s first charter of human rights,[1, 2, 3, 4] and it was translated into all six official U.N. languages.[4] A replica of the cylinder is kept at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City in the second floor hallway, between the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council chambers.[5]

Passages in the text of cylinder have been interpreted as expressing Cyrus’ respect for humanity, and as promoting a form of religious tolerance and freedom; and as result of his generous and humane policies, Cyrus gained the overwhelming support of his subjects.[6]

History of Iran
The Cyrus the Great Cylinder
Edited by: Shapour Ghasemi
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/cyrus/cyrus_charter.php (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/cyrus/cyrus_charter.php)
Quote
“In 410 AD, during the rule of Yazgard I (399-420), Christians were recognized as a millet, or separate religious community, and were protected as such within the organization of the Sassanid Empire."

The millet system of Yazdagird I, the enlightened rule of other Sassanid kings like Hormizd IV, and the open rule of the Parthians were, in a sense, continuations of a more ancient tradition of interfaith tolerance; established a millennium earlier by Cyrus the Great.

Religious Tolerance in Ancient Persia
kaweah on September 23, 2008
http://kaweah.com/2008/09/23/persian-millets/ (http://kaweah.com/2008/09/23/persian-millets/)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on December 31, 2011, 11:35:10 pm
The sledgehammer of reality

http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/war-is-a-racket/the-sledgehammer-of-reality.html (http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/war-is-a-racket/the-sledgehammer-of-reality.html)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on January 02, 2012, 07:15:57 pm
(http://www.jayweidner.com/images/biopic-Jay2011.jpg)

Ron Paul Will Win In The End

by
Jay Weidner


 

“All truth passes through three stages:
First it is ridiculed;
Second it is violently opposed;
Third, it is accepted as self evident.”
--Arthur Schopenhauer


Ron Paul will win in the end. That’s right. It doesn’t matter anymore how the criminals in charge try to change the vote, or how they conjure lies and attack him and his ideas. None of that is going to work anymore.

Don’t get me wrong. There is no way in hell that Ron Paul will win his quest for the Presidency. The corporate criminals and their toadies in the media will never let that happen. They will do everything they can to squash Ron Paul and his ideas.

Who has the uncanny ability to unite Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow, Dick Morris, Bill Clinton, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann, MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, The New York Times, Move On, Media Matters?

Answer: Ron Paul. Why does he unite everyone on the left and right? What is it about Ron Paul that unites the media?

Ron Paul and his movement are a direct result of the Internet. The Internet also showed the thinking people of the world that there is a corporate criminal mafia and it is in charge of everything. It owns the military, the media, the religions, the educational system the banks and most of the major corporations.

This revelation that we are ruled by a small group of corporate criminals is the real fuel behind Ron Paul.

When one carefully deconstructs Ron Paul’s positions one discovers a consistent and focused cohesion. Just underneath the facts and positions that he lays out is the driving reality that we are being run by this small group of criminals. Ron Paul is waaaay too smart to admit this in public. The idea of this criminal cabal is still taboo.

No Ron Paul refuses to actually name the criminals or even admit that they exist. That’s cool. That is a good way to keep your head intact. Look at the last two guys to go after this criminal network; their initials are JFK and RFK. So don’t expect him to be a 911 Truther or speak openly about this group of criminals. That’s asking too much.

But every single one of his positions is designed to obliterate this criminal network. When looking at Ron Paul it is necessary to completely remove your ideology goggles. One of the ways that the Internet is waking us up to is the fact that our ideologies, beliefs and protocols have all been given to us, invented by, this criminal network that now threatens our very existence. Examining his positions it is easy to see that Ron Paul knows and understands who is really ruling us. He has worked it out and his positions are really the only way out of the mess we are in. The criminal network has worked its way into almost every institution that exists. Understanding that it becomes clear that the only way out of the current predicament is too get rid of almost all of the institutions that exist.

That would be schools, militaries, large bloated federal programs, foreign aid and a lot more. These institutions exist almost solely to keep the masses in line and stupefied as to the existence of the criminal cabal. These institutions are not there for the reasons that they claim to but they exist because they are tools of the criminal network. Our schools don’t teach us how to think, but what to think, our military is not there to make us safe, but to invade and steal the possessions of other countries for this criminal network.

Ron Paul articulates positions that, if put into effect, would eventually undermine this criminal network. Once we can remove the shackles of this cabal we will come to understand how much wealth we really have. When that moment comes a lot of our current unsolvable problems will become solvable.

It is beyond imagination to even begin to realize how much of the world’s wealth has been stolen by this criminal network. They have perverted everything, distorting our economies, our cultures, our values, and our spiritual beliefs. They have contaminated everything. It is only through the dissolution of this network can we truly discover what we have and who we are.

Ron Paul understands this perfectly. He is outlining exactly the path that we must collectively take in order to set things right.

Now the divisions will appear. We will soon see who is for getting rid of the criminal cabal and who is for keeping it. Because of the Internet and Ron Paul it will become apparent who really understands what is going on and who does not have a clue. Those people who refuse to join the new media, those people who insist on staying spoon fed by the criminal corporate media will find themselves on the wrong side of history.

At this point Arthur Schopenhauer famous quote on the way ideas progress through a culture needs to be reviewed:

“All truth passes through three stages:
First it is ridiculed;
Second it is violently opposed;
Third, it is accepted as self evident.”


In 2008 the media ridiculed Ron Paul and his positions. Fox News wouldn’t allow him to appear at their Republican Debate resulting in a rain of snowballs coming down on Sean Hannity as he tried to get into the building housing the debate. Fox News reasoned that Ron Paul wasn’t a serious candidate, that he was a joke. Four years later we can see that actually Fox News is an arm of the criminal network and they saw what Ron Paul was doing and it scared them. That is the real reason he was not invited to the debate.

If 2008 was the year of ridicule, 2012 will be the year of violent opposition. The same media that ridiculed Ron Paul also let Barrack Obama have a free ride to the White House. As soon as he got into office Obama, not really understanding the cultural swing, tried to implement old and failed ideas. Even though he ran as the wave of the future he was really just an agent of the past. Obama’s Presidency proved that this criminal network controlled everyone at the top. How else to explain his actions? That realization also fueled Ron Paul’s ascendance.

It is 2012 now and we are moving to phase two of Schopenhauer’s progression of ideas. Now we can see that the corporate criminal class is working overtime to hold power.

Obama invades Libya without a squawk from the formerly ‘anti-war’ Left. Obama signs legislation giving the President the power to assassinate American citizens and no one in the criminal media says a word.

Now they are coming after the Internet. The ‘violently opposed’ segment is now upon us. 2012 is the most dangerous time because a cornered mad dog is the most dangerous. And we are cornering this dog. The establishment, both left and right, would not be so unified in their condemnation of Paul if he and his ideas did not represent a very real threat.

But here’s the thing: Ron Paul has already won. Though they will try to impose a police state on us to stop him, though they will invade other countries without a peep of protest, though they will assassinate and destroy all who oppose them, we should all realize that phase three of Schopenhauer’s progression is still waiting to occur.

When the corporate criminal network and their control of the entire planet become self evident, and that is happening right now, the ideas that Ron Paul is espousing will begin to take hold. As we wake up and see what is really happening, we will also see that there is only one way out of this trap. Then Ron Paul and his ideas will begin to become self-evident.

In four years these ideas will go mainstream. That is a guarantee. Soon it will be vogue to discuss the criminal network and how to get rid of them. They cannot stop what is happening and furthermore - they know it. Their behavior is going to become increasingly bizarre as they are exposed.

Psychopaths think that they are invisible, that no one sees what they are really doing. But the Internet is ripping that curtain back as the entire psychopathic criminal network can be seen in all of its vast ugliness.

We need to get rid of it as fast as possible. It is killing all of us.

http://www.jayweidner.com/RonPaulWillWin.html (http://www.jayweidner.com/RonPaulWillWin.html)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 02, 2012, 11:12:21 pm
What is happening is another Shay's Rebellion..... Paul's rebellion

This was a rebellion 1786-7, (not long after the War of Independence) that happened when the Boston monied class was oppressing the poor with debtor's prison etc and the poor rose up and rebelled. They didn't ultimately win although they came close, but they prevailed ultimately because Washington was dragged out of retirement to come and supervise a proper setting up of government and a Constitution.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 02, 2012, 11:21:27 pm
No idea if this is accurate, but interesting

Land of The Freebies, Home of the Enslaved (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSYy3ZYOfgQ#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 03, 2012, 02:15:40 am
“All truth passes through three stages:
First it is ridiculed;
Second it is violently opposed;
Third, it is accepted as self evident.”
--Arthur Schopenhauer
Schopenhauer apparently never said that (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer#Disputed (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer#Disputed)). This appears to be the original source, and the quote has morphed into multiple versions over the years:

"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you." --General Executive Board Report and Proceedings, Biennial Convention, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (1914)

A union executive board is of course much less impressive and memorable than a famous philosopher, which is probably why the quote was misattributed to Schopenhauer. This was a later modified version of it in the course of the quote's evolution towards the current version:

"First, it is ridiculed; second, it is subject to argument: third, it is accepted." --Earl B. Morgan, in "The Accident Prevention Problem in the Small Shop" in Safety Engineering Vol. 33 (1950), p. 366

Ron Paul is currently in the stage where the critics start taking him seriously and begin arguing/attacking.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 03, 2012, 10:30:23 am
A bit difficult to hear the interviewer..

Ron Paul uncensored on $9 trillion Fed bailout (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAYvv2xT8yI#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 03, 2012, 11:21:43 am
Raw-al and Tyler,
Do you think Canada and UK are puppet regimes of the US?  Both participated in most of the US-led invasions and bombing raids.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on January 03, 2012, 09:17:23 pm
Ron Paul: Iowa Vote Fraud (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrE15QfbnHA#)

Ron Paul: Iowa Vote Fraud (continued) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWZ09BLq-8E#)

Ron Paul: Iowa Vote Fraud

Uploaded by ravenise00 on Dec 28, 2011

Click "Show More" to see what you can do! Iowa Caucus: How to be a vote Monitor, stop secrecy BS: Iowa Caucus How to be a vote Monitor, stop secrecy BS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmYKvEKg8Ug#)

If Ron Paul has Iowa stolen from him, then violent revolution has become inevitable, as John F. Kennedy warned.

Iowa GOP moving vote-count to 'undisclosed location': to prevent a Ron Paul victory. http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/iowa-gop-moving-vote-count-to-undisclosed-lo... (http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/iowa-gop-moving-vote-count-to-undisclosed-lo...)

Threats to disrupt the Iowa Republican caucuses next week have prompted state GOP officials to move the vote tabulation to an "undisclosed location," POLITICO has learned.

to prevent a Ron Paul victory?

IOWA GOP CONTACTS

Republican Party of Iowa
621 E. 9th St.
Des Moines, IA 50309
515-282-8105 (Office)
515-282-9019 (Fax)

Chad Olsen
Executive Director

Vonna Hall
Office Manager
vhall@iowagop.org

Casey Mills
Communications
cmills@iowagop.org

Ryan Gough
rgough@iowagop.org

Patrick Stewart
pstewart@iowagop.org

Threats to disrupt the Iowa Republican caucuses next week have prompted state GOP officials to move the vote tabulation to an "undisclosed location," POLITICO has learned.

The state party has not yet told the campaigns exactly where the returns will be added up, only that it will be off-site from the Iowa GOP's Des Moines headquarters. The 2008 caucus results were tabulated at the state party offices, which sit just a few blocks from the state capitol.

Activist groups including the Occupy movement have indicated that they'll attempt to interrupt rallies in the closing days before next Tuesday's caucuses. MORE

(TLS)- None of the counting is done by networked PC's they ARE DONE BY HAND AND CALCULATOR!! Totally a good reason to move the vote count to a secret location to avoid internet hackers...WTF?! do they think we are small children that they can just fool? Looks like they are planning to steal the vote guys.

Joseph Stalin said "He who votes decides nothing; he who counts the votes decides everything." How true.

Ron Paul Says Watch The Vote
http://youtu.be/5kDzoNyxo8c (http://youtu.be/5kDzoNyxo8c)

Watch the Vote 2012 - Iowa Caucus
http://youtu.be/GeggPSL3gQs (http://youtu.be/GeggPSL3gQs)

We need people at the 1000+ sites with cameras documenting everything. It would be good to hear the campaign has an office of people on Caucasus night working on this with lawyers ready.

--------------------------------------------

US: Outraged Popular Movement Occupies Iowa Caucus
http://www.plenglish.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46... (http://www.plenglish.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46...)
Washington, Dec 27 (Prensa Latina) The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement on Tuesday will begin in Iowa a popular election assembly, a week before the first GOP primaries.

--------------------------------------------

The Israeli Defense Firm That Tallies The Iowa Caucus -- Christopher Bollyn
http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/12/israeli-defense-firm-that-talli... (http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/12/israeli-defense-firm-that-talli...)

(Rense) -- The Iowa caucus is only a few days away and the nation's attention will be directed to the results, which signify the beginning of the U.S. presidential race. But does anyone watch who tallies the results of the Iowa caucus?

The Iowa caucus results were tallied in 2004 by a company that is headed by a man whose company was bought by Elron Electronics, the Israeli defense firm. I suspect that it will be the same this year. Don't expect to see any grassroots political activists doing the tally in Iowa. The Israeli defense establishment takes care of that part of the American "democratic" election process.

Michael Rivero of http://www.whatreallyhappened.com (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com)
Watch entire 2011-12-27 broadcast here: Michaelrivero on Justin.tv (http://www.justin.tv/michaelrivero)
Youtube Link: http://youtu.be/KrE15QfbnHA (http://youtu.be/KrE15QfbnHA)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on January 03, 2012, 11:01:04 pm
Raw-al and Tyler,
Do you think Canada and UK are puppet regimes of the US?  Both participated in most of the US-led invasions and bombing raids.
No  idea re Canada, not my country. The problem with the UK is that its own nuclear deterrent is wholly dependent on the US, so the UK government more or less has to lick the US's arse and help the US's war efforts overseas if they want to keep their ability to nuke other countries in defence, even if it is not in the UK's national interest. If Ron Paul won, we would be freed from this warmongering nonsense. As it is, the UK Foreign Office has  had  strong  links for many, many years with the Arab nations, so for the UK to side with Israel is so against the UK's  national interests. Again if Ron Paul won, we could condemn Israel, rather than copying Tony Blair's sick support for Israel's mass-murder of Lebanese civilians in the 2006 bombings.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on January 04, 2012, 12:53:07 am
Tuesday has arrived.....Iowa caucuses are today. We'll know by the end of the day how things turn out. The pols have Paul, Romney, & Santorum in a dead heat.

Santorum is claiming Tea Party support has put him in the front running, but I find it difficult to believe that TPers would support a guy with such a record of spending. HUGE spending.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 04, 2012, 01:59:07 am
Raw-al and Tyler,
Do you think Canada and UK are puppet regimes of the US?  Both participated in most of the US-led invasions and bombing raids.
The short answer is no.

The long answer is that it depends on which leader you are talking about.
Here's a link.
http://www.cbc.ca/canadaus/pms_presidents1.html (http://www.cbc.ca/canadaus/pms_presidents1.html)
First of all  The US apparently spends approximately 50% and change of the total military budget of this planet. Canada spends about 1/1000 of 1% of the world's total military budget. We have roughly 6 Indians, 5 Eskimos and 15 or 16 honkies, 2 tanks (water), 3 Twin Otters (affectionately known as Twotters) and a 30' motor launch, and 2 Newfy dories...  ;D ;) OK I'm exaggerating, but not by much :) You'all have 10 times as many people living on a smaller tract of land. So you have 10 times as many peaceniks and war mongers etc.

Our current Chief is a Conservative Steve Harper. He is as close as you can get to a neo-con in Canada. He's just missing Dubya's charisma. He's just more polite about it and doesn't have the military behind him to beat his chest. I met him years ago and he looks like the main character in "Steppenwolf", the depressing guy who compared himself to the lone wolf on the Russian Steppes. He has "ME first" written all over him. His handlers even tried a makeover with him by sending him to charm school, forcing him to do the barbecue circuit to melt the iceberg that kept showing up in pictures of him.

He is as close as you can get to a US puppet, but still not really.

Before him was Paul Martin Liberal. Not sure of his status but probably not a US puppet. He was a centrist. He took over when Jean Chretian resigned.

Before him was Jean Chretian, (Liberal) a Quebecer (Francophone) who was (I think) the gentlest, fairest, elder statesman, with a kind heart who basically told Dubya "thanks but no thanks". He was diplomatically telling him to fornicate off. He was more like the elder Bush, a gentleman first.

Before him was Kim Campbell (Progressive Conservative) who served out Mulrooney's term when he resigned. She was a feminist idiot who lasted from June to November 1993. (132 days too long) She orchestrated a "Corvette election". She succeeded in totally destroying the Conservatives taking them from a majority position down to a "two seater". The worst defeat in Canadian history for a reigning party. She also had a pretty hot tongue ie telling people to "F#@k off". Nobody knows or cares whether she was a puppet to anyone.

Before her was unquestionably the sleaziest, slipperiest, slimiest (is that a word) sleeveen that ever slithered the steps of Parliament. He won because the prior government had served 3 terms and had gotten rotten and took a long time to rebuild from basically a one man show. (P.E.T.) He was as close to a US puppet as we have ever been blessed with. He partied till he dropped with Reagan. He resigned essentially in disgrace.

Prior to him John Turner Liberal took over when PET resigned after 3 terms. I flew him around once and he was one of the nicest politicians I have ever met. Unfortunately he was a lovable loser and Trudeau his predecessor had given out a whole bunch of patronage appointments just before he left which made John look really bad so he went down in flames after serving June to November. It is very unlikely he was a puppet to the US.

Before him was probably the most significant politician in my lifetime. Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Started as a Socialist and then softened to become a liberal. In power 16 years with a brief interruption in the middle, of a year.

Although a very short man (five foot, frig all) he was a giant among men. He was uber charismatic, intelligent, feisty, a cool, almost hippie type-a-guy that women swooned over. In his fifties when prime minister he got his black belt in Tae Kwon Do from the guy that I briefly trained with, Master Tae Eun Lae, married (first and only wife) a girl in her early twenties, who thanks to her newborn celebrity started hangin with the Stones. (Margaret Trudeau) then she started to have emotional/depression issues and they were divorced.

Reporters were terrified of Trudeau because he was a street scrapper, literally and he was not afraid and very adept mentally to take on anybody, a little like Ron Paul except that Trudeau understood the power of the F-word and he apparently learned about the private lives of reporters so he could attack back.

Liberal but not afraid to use his power. When some radicals in his province of Quebec kidnapped a British politician and then murdered him and another Brit ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau)) (October Crisis), he said in public when asked how far he would go to stop the madness "Just watch me".

Once when he was in some bleachers with a bunch of other politicos watching a parade (St. Jean Baptiste Day Parade) some Quebec separatists started taunting and threatening Trudeau. All the other politicos disappeared leaving feisty little, black belted, Pierre there and he just walked towards the separatists and said "come on ya little ###### I'll take ya on".

re: Nixon
Quote "When it was revealed that President Richard Nixon called Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau "an asshole" in his private tapes, Trudeau responded with, "I've been called worse things by better people."

Here is the Wackipedia version of his affect on
"World affairs
Trudeau was the first world leader to meet John Lennon and his wife Yoko Ono on their 'tour for world peace'. Lennon said, after talking with Trudeau for 50 minutes, that Trudeau was "a beautiful person" and that "if all politicians were like Pierre Trudeau, there would be world peace."[32]
In foreign affairs, Trudeau kept Canada firmly in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), but often pursued an independent path in international relations. He established Canadian diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, before the United States did, and went on an official visit to Beijing. He was known as a friend of Fidel Castro, the leader of Cuba. A mobster said that in 1974 he was hired by New York State mafia members to kill Trudeau, hoping to lure Castro to a funeral, where they would kill him. The plan was apparently later rejected.["


He also met Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

He was a true statesman, but after 16 years he owed too many favours and he gutted his party by giving out patronage big time. He also was uber-unpopular in western Canada.

It's a dynamic in the Canadian political scheme of things. East VS west VS French Canada.

LOOOONG answer but I figure that most Americans know diddly about Canada. Probably just like most Canucks know diddle abou"Mareka"

Enjoy the new year
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 04, 2012, 02:31:38 am
Quote
The problem with the UK is that its own nuclear deterrent is wholly dependent on the US

Please elaborate why is there dependence on the US?  Isn't UK having its own stockpile of nuclear warheads and delivery system?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 04, 2012, 02:34:53 am
Quote
Our current Chief is a Conservative Steve Harper. He is as close as you can get to a neo-con in Canada.

So what are your plans to replace this Harper guy with Canadian version of Ron Paul?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on January 04, 2012, 03:06:35 am
Please elaborate why is there dependence on the US?  Isn't UK having its own stockpile of nuclear warheads and delivery system?
Nope. It has to buy everything from the US:-

http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/nuclear-weapons/deterrent-dependent.htm (http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/nuclear-weapons/deterrent-dependent.htm)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 04, 2012, 04:08:33 am
So what are your plans to replace this Harper guy with Canadian version of Ron Paul?

I am too peaceful to consider assassination.  ;) It's not the Canadian way,  plus I don't think he is so bad as to warrant that consideration. I also do not follow day to day politics to know who is a replacement contender. I am too busy reading about and trying to grasp your politics... From my vantage point there is a decided lack of good choices. I most definitely am not on that list.

Unfortunately right now the only thing that we have going for us is that we are closer to Santa Claus.

Alas, but if you go way back in this thread you will notice that I said something along the lines of I wish RP were here. I even sent him (his campaign people) a letter of support. That is not a usual thing for me to do.

We don't really have the issues here such as over-militarism, and encroachment on civil liberties as you guys have, (We have our own issues) but that said Ron Paul is a one in 307.006550 million kind of guy.

There is a Libertarian Party here at least in my riding I discovered on election day, but I haven't looked into it. Too busy posting here I suspect ;)

I went to one political meeting in my life, a Green Party election night get together to watch the polls come in. I had a fascinating talk with a guy about a system of elections in which the electorate decides which party they wish to vote for and then all the votes are tabulated and the party gets as many seats as they won as a percentage of the total seats. Ie if they won 10% of the national vote they get 10% of the votes. I forget the name of the system but I suspect that would solve a lot of the problems with our current winner take all system. I believe it is play in some European countries.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 04, 2012, 06:00:22 am
Quote
Nope. It has to buy everything from the US:-

Ahh, this Morrison guy is talking about the results of the Special Relationship.

quote from Wiki
"In May 2010, another poll conducted in the UK by YouGov revealed that 66% of those surveyed held a favourable view of the USA and 62% agreed with the assertion that the USA is Britain's most important ally. However, the survey also revealed that 85% of British citizens believe that the UK has little or no influence on American policies, and that 62% think that America does not consider British interests."

So US can spin UK anyway it wants.  That's what friends do.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on January 04, 2012, 08:04:06 am
YouGov is a notoriously biased agency which merely produces the results the people who pay for the polls want, regardless of the actual truth:-

http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2005/11/07/yougov-poll-biased-questions-o.html (http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2005/11/07/yougov-poll-biased-questions-o.html)

 In actual fact, when one asks UK people such questions in everyday life, the vast majority(80% plus)  mention that they loathe the foreign invasions the US has forced them into(Tony Blair is one of the most hated British people because of his slavish support for the US and Israel re Iraq/Lebanon etc.), despise the grossly unfair extradition treaty that the US forced on the UK, and generally despise the US for its odious foreign policy. So, no, the US is NOT viewed as a friend over here.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on January 04, 2012, 10:30:14 am
US is a "friend" with a gun pointed at our heads.

People nowadays are aware that USA government is different from the individual people.
It's an if you can't beat em, join em thing... so people migrate to the USA to get the benefits of empire wealth.
Although some Filipinos are realizing that UK, New Zealand, Australia seems to be more comfy to immigrate to.  Canada if you can stand the cold.  France if you can speak the language.

Maybe if the USA foreign policy is directed by Ron Paul, we can talk about really being friends and get that freaking loaded gun away from our heads.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 04, 2012, 10:37:31 am
Quote
So, no, the US is NOT viewed as a friend over here.

I know, I was being sarcastic.  As I said before US does not have any friends.  Only pals to boss around and throw few dollars at them as a reward.  No one in the establishment (both republican and democratic) will allow Paul to change that.

He wants to abolish CIA.  That's so utopian.  Can't anyone see that?

If you remember this past summer Wisconsin governor Walker squeezed government union just a bit to save taxpayers money.  That generated humongous backlash that resulted in recall of two republican Senators.  And Walker's recall is under way as well.

Even domestic policy is totally utopian for such large and diverse country as US.  Paul's plans are thousand times more potent and will generate backlashes thousand times more.

Bloated government can't be fixed by radical ideas but rather slowly and methodically.  For that reason Paul does not have a chance as I said before.  Let's see if Paul can prove me wrong.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 04, 2012, 12:09:35 pm
Paul finished 3rd, behind Romney and Santorum.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 04, 2012, 12:24:49 pm
Unsurprising. Ron Paul actually did better than nearly anyone other than supporters predicted just months ago. The Neocon establishment finally woke up and used all means necessary to try to maintain their grip on power. Now it seems to be the Theocons' turn to take a crack at the chameleon, though Santorum doesn't seem to be much of a leader to coalesce around and the next stop is Romney's home territory of New England--an automatic win with Iowa momentum behind him. The real test for Romney now will be the South, particularly the theocon state of South Carolina. He'll have to convince the Southerners that he has "gotten religion" and is a true religious conservative and overcome the Mormon liability that has turned off many Southern Baptists.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 04, 2012, 01:07:12 pm
That's very true, religion is pretty big issue down south.  I don't think Paul played religion card that much.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on January 04, 2012, 05:20:37 pm
Sorry guys, but given the results, my general estimation of the average IQ of the US population has just sunk to a dismal low. I mean, how can anyone but a village idiot still believe in the NeoCon notions of slaughtering people abroad any old where even if it doesn't actually serve their own national interests, and how can anyone but a village idiot  still believe in the absurdity of religion re Creationism etc.?

*Sorry, I'm just annoyed at all this as I expected more from the US voters. After all, I am also well aware that any nation that could elect Tony Blair to power can't be too bright, either, as a whole. Why can't we just go back to the Athenian or 17th-18th century English ideal of democracy where only a few in every population were allowed to vote? Perhaps one could force people to do a general knowledge test re the history of their nation and that of others, basic geography tests (that I passed aged 8!) etc. etc., and only allowing those who scored 85%-plus in the tests to vote or to stand as a political candidate. Plus, perhaps we could also have lie-detector tests to prevent odious but clever, corrupt slime like Tony Blair from getting voted in. Using all those methods,  we could prevent retards like Cain, Santorum, Romney, Gingrich, Giuliani and Bachman from embarassing themselves in public re spouting historically-false information etc. I mean,  have a look at those youtube videos of the other candidates humiliating themselves and you'll see what I mean.

Ah well, there was a good sign, though in the Daily Telegraph. I read one or two articles attacking Ron Paul and bewailing the "death" of NeoConservatism - they'd obviously been paid to write their articles by the US government.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on January 04, 2012, 06:10:43 pm
Seems the old people there don't do internet.

Or the counting was rigged.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on January 04, 2012, 09:50:14 pm
I called it wrong.

Santorum's timing for his peak was perfect. Gotta give credit where it's due (even if I can't stand the guy). Perfect enough he took my prediction of Romney & Paul and pushed Paul down a notch (& almost pushed Romney down a notch, too).

Was glad to see Gingrich's slide. Hoping it continues.

Wondering if Bachmann (especially after her ego-laden prediction) will have the good sense to bail, though it doesn't look likely....wondering how long Santorum can ride his wave (given he doesn't have much organization in NH & beyond), though assuming it will be carbon-copy of Huckabee 4 years ago....wondering why Perry suspended his campaign (thought he'd hang on to see if he could pass Gingrich and get up to a solid 4th place nationally, but looks like yet another Perry blunder that will open the door to a Bachmann or Gingrich recovery).

Of interest....Paul had 48% of the youth vote (30 & under he took 1st place with 2nd place holding under half that) but only a drip of the 65 & over crowd (5th place).

Things could get exciting in NH & SC....
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 04, 2012, 09:54:42 pm
That's very true, religion is pretty big issue down south.  I don't think Paul played religion card that much.

Just watched an interesting DVD set on "The Ten Days That Changed American history. I recommend it. There was a section on the Scopes trial, which was about the trial of the teacher that taught evolution in a high school. The whole thing was an orchestrated circus, quite amusing.

PaleoPhil,
I love it - Theocons :)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 04, 2012, 09:58:37 pm
Of interest....Paul had 48% of the youth vote (30 & under he took 1st place with 2nd place holding under half that) but only a drip of the 65 & over crowd (5th place).

Things could get exciting in NH & SC....
In that case, everyday Paul's support increases. (old folks cack)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on January 04, 2012, 10:16:13 pm
Addendum to my post above...looks like Bachmann will drop out after all. She's called a press conference for this morning and advance notice says she's going to announce her retirement from the campaign.

With only Romney, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich, & Huntsman left, this may be the opening Huntsman has been looking for. He's counting on NH (though Paul & Romney have a good ground game already set there).
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on January 04, 2012, 11:01:16 pm
What I thought was that the more candidates there were who supported the same views Ron Paul is dead-set against, the more split their votes would be between them, thus lowering each of their own individual numbers of votes and thereby allowing Ron Paul to have a greater chance of winning the nomination.

Admittedly, with Bachmann wisely standing down, those who voted for her may well vote for Ron Paul instead in future States, given that he is the "godfather" of the Tea Party movement, if not a NeoCon moron like Bachmann. Then again, so few voted for her in Iowa, that I doubt it....
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on January 05, 2012, 01:25:29 am
Ron Paul has been proven right yet again. Because of the EU's retarded kowtowing to the US re imposing sanctions on Iran, the price of oil has gone up in response:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/debt-crisis-live/8991315/Debt-crisis-Live.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/debt-crisis-live/8991315/Debt-crisis-Live.html)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on January 05, 2012, 01:44:17 am
If Paul had gotten Bachmans votes he would of won In Iowa.

Also if you put any one candidate up aginst Paul, Paul would most likely win.

Is it plausible that factions of the Gop, by supporting people like Bachmann and Santorum in the primary elections , when its obvious that they are not real contenders, are not engaged in some type of political primary Gerrymandering in order to keep Paul from winning the early primaries. Then after Paul is out of the way the Gop will turn on the the other alternative candidates who stole Ron Paul's votes, and then give total support for a Romney or Gingrich type establishment Toady.

It a bit of a conspiracy theory, but I don't put anything past the Gop's top ranking and their trickery.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Eric on January 05, 2012, 01:54:35 am
It was deeply fulfilling to see a true radical like Ron Paul make such a solid showing at the GOP Iowa Caucus. This is fixing to be the most exciting election in decades, as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: cherimoya_kid on January 05, 2012, 03:02:11 am
He'll have to convince the Southerners that he has "gotten religion" and is a true religious conservative and overcome the Mormon liability that has turned off many Southern Baptists.

Hell will freeze over before Southern Baptists will elect a Mormon.  Those people are taught on Mother's knee and in Sunday School that Mormons are part of a cult.  I know, I was raised Southern Baptist.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on January 05, 2012, 03:17:45 am
The following article has its flaws, but supports RP's ideas:-

http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/united-kingdom/1023-this-sabre-rattling-against-iran-is-beyond-stupid (http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/united-kingdom/1023-this-sabre-rattling-against-iran-is-beyond-stupid)

It points out some salient facts. Unfortunately, despite the Guardian writer being leftwing, he quotes from Rudyard Kipling's poem "The Gods of the Copybook Headings" which is actually a heavily rightwing-leaning poem. The writer is also ignorant of history in that he seems unaware that the US threatened(and used) nuclear weapons on Japan in WW2(the only country ever to have done so).
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 05, 2012, 07:34:50 am
PaleoPhil,
I love it - Theocons :)
;D Thanks, though I didn't coin it and Wordspy dates its use to as early as 1979 (http://www.wordspy.com/words/theocon.asp (http://www.wordspy.com/words/theocon.asp)).

However, I believe I was the second person with a Google-recorded use of the term "theofascist" (by which I meant the real extremists like Al Quaida and those people I've encountered on the Internet who want to bring back stoning of gays, "voluntary slavery," replacing the Constitution with the Ten Commandments and so forth, justifying these goals in part with the Bible or Koran--and some of them immorally tried to co-opt the libertarian Free State movement, failing miserably, unsurprisingly) in an Internet forum or blog. I started using the term on the Internet in 2003 and I nerdily later wondered if anyone else had used it, so I Googled it and the only other Google hit on the term that popped up back in 2005 other than my libertarian forum posts was by a blogger who used it a bit earlier in 2003. I think I might have used it even earlier in a forum that unfortunately got deleted, so I can't prove it. Now Google produces 15,900 hits on the term, which I like to think I contributed to.  ;D
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 05, 2012, 07:48:43 am
Hell will freeze over before Southern Baptists will elect a Mormon.  Those people are taught on Mother's knee and in Sunday School that Mormons are part of a cult.  I know, I was raised Southern Baptist.
Indeed, I've seen some Southern Baptists claim they will never vote for a Mormon and I have an orthodox Roman Catholic relative who claims, like Southern Baptists, that Mormons are cultists, not Christians (I'll stay out of that argument), but it will be interesting to see if their votes match their rhetoric. People tend to say one thing and do another in the secret ballot.

I do suspect that Romney will have a tougher time in the old South, though he should do reasonably well in Florida. Romney is helped by the fact that the theocons are still somewhat split between Santorum and Perry.

"this-sabre-rattling-against-iran-is-beyond-stupid"

Agreed. It's self-destructive. It will seem particularly stupid years from now when the US is good friends with Iran, just like the xenophobic "Jap-bashing" newsreels and nuking of Japanese civilians during WWII now are embarrassing to many Americans, now that we are good friends with Japan. War hysteria has a way of making reasonable people unreasonable. It's disgusting to see most of the Republican candidates try to ride a wave of war hysteria and xenophobia into office.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on January 05, 2012, 11:11:22 pm
Seems Perry is back in the running.

Not as stupid as I thought. That may well close the only opening Huntsman was likely to get, and he'll likely pick up Bachmann's vacated votes. If he can rally, he'll be in the running to split Santorum's votes when people realize how fiscally UN-consrevative he is. Could put him back in the running.

Paul's 3rd place was actually, numbers-wise, where they thought they'd be (according to several reporters who were "embedded" with the campaign). They thought the votes for Santorum, Bachmann, & Perry would be more evenly distributed, which would have had RP in 2nd right behind Romney.

As an aside, the Iowa caucus is non-binding, so no one actually won anything yet....meaning Santorum could fall hard.

Looks good for RP going into NH next week. It's possible Santorum could ride that wave, but he'll likely come under heavy fire before then. His religious extremism & big spending won;t fare well with those who just wan to beat Obama. Nor will his spending record fare well with the hard-right.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on January 05, 2012, 11:20:07 pm
One last thought....

Ron Paul will likely do better in states with open (rather than closed) primaries. Those states include South Caroline (the 3rd primary), Georgia, & Texas (2nd only to California for number of delegates).

If he capitalizes on the mobilizing the youth vote & slamming the open primaries, he may actually give Romney a real run for his money.

One critique: Given that conservatives & republican's primary concern with Paul is his foreign policy, I don't understand why he doesn't make a bigger deal out of the fact that he pulls in 60-70% of the money donated by active military personnel. He takes in more than all other republicans combined...and he pulls in far more than Obama.

If he doesn't push that stat harder, he may be shooting himself in the foot.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: magnetic on January 05, 2012, 11:39:08 pm
If he doesn't push that stat harder, he may be shooting himself in the foot.

If you watch his latest interviews, he does mention it a few times. See:

http://www.dailypaul.com/199953/ron-paul-will-be-on-the-kudlaw-report-tonight-wed-01-04-12-at-7-pm-et (http://www.dailypaul.com/199953/ron-paul-will-be-on-the-kudlaw-report-tonight-wed-01-04-12-at-7-pm-et)

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 06, 2012, 12:49:46 pm
Quote
Sorry guys, but given the results, my general estimation of the average IQ of the US population has just sunk to a dismal low. I mean, how can anyone but a village idiot still believe in the NeoCon notions of slaughtering people abroad any old where even if it doesn't actually serve their own national interests, and how can anyone but a village idiot  still believe in the absurdity of religion re Creationism etc.?

*Sorry, I'm just annoyed at all this as I expected more from the US voters.

Here is some perspective on possible President Paul

What he can't do:
He cannot eliminate aid to other countries (Israel and such)
He cannot shut down American bases overseas
He cannot pull the U.S. out of the United Nations and similar
He cannot end various treaties
He cannot eliminate CIA
These and many other of his policies require congressional approval and he probably won't get it.

What he can do:
He can order to stop using drones to kill Al-qaeda or any other terrorists in general
He can order troops to disengage all current involvements and go home.

Anything else I missed?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on January 06, 2012, 03:36:33 pm
He will shut down / take over the current FEDeral Reserve Bank.  (the 3rd US central bank and PRIVATE bank)

He will then replace it with the 4th US Central Bank which in the hands of the US people.  Something like what Andrew Jackson did.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on January 06, 2012, 04:34:32 pm
The US President has far more executive power than before. Plus, if Ron Paul can bring the troops home(I think he said he would use them to patrol US borders to stop illegal immigration?) then there would be no one to man the US bases abroad, which would mean that they would be a vast, unnecessary expense to the point where Congressmen would have to vote for the removal of those bases or face a serious voter backlash.

As regards treaties, plenty of European countries, such as France and Germany, have blithely ignored numerous EU laws which they personally didn't like  which the British have stupidly adhered to as blindly as possible. So, President Paul, simply by ignoring treaties and laws imposed by foreign organisations, refusing to pay for their upkeep etc.(re US payments to NATO and the UN) can carry on as he wants.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on January 06, 2012, 05:42:48 pm
http://www.RonPaul.com (http://www.RonPaul.com) - Please like, share, subscribe & comment!

01/05/2012

Ron Paul is America's leading voice for limited, constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, sound money, and a pro-America foreign policy.

To spread the message, visit and promote the following websites:

http://www.RonPaul.com (http://www.RonPaul.com)
http://Store.RonPaul.com (http://Store.RonPaul.com)
http://www.RonPaul2012.com (http://www.RonPaul2012.com)
http://www.WhyRonPaul.com (http://www.WhyRonPaul.com)
http://www.RonPaulCountry.com (http://www.RonPaulCountry.com)
http://www.house.gov/paul (http://www.house.gov/paul)
http://www.DailyPaul.com (http://www.DailyPaul.com)
http://www.RonPaulForums.com (http://www.RonPaulForums.com)
http://www.RonPaulFlix.com (http://www.RonPaulFlix.com)

Phil Donahue on Ron Paul & Foreign Policy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks7VdvPFrlo#)

America is a warrior nation.  Creates wars, wars and more wars.
Do Americans know that they are the evil empire as is described in the Star Wars movies?
How many wars do you want to experience in your life time?
Stop starting all these wars.
Stop bombing other nations.
Can we have peace for a change?

Please vote Ron Paul for peace!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 07, 2012, 02:20:41 am
Quote
The US President has far more executive power than before.

Not really.  Or is there something I don't know?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on January 07, 2012, 03:00:40 am
Not really.  Or is there something I don't know?
  It is mentioned frequently that, ever since Roosevelt expanded the office of President re extra powers, that the US President has become more powerful than in previous times. The only exception was the US Congress making it more difficult for the US President to start wars(obviously a failure) and a law to stop US presidents from manipulating one type of budget, enacted because Nixon abused this power.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 07, 2012, 05:03:14 am

Quote
The only exception was the US Congress making it more difficult for the US President to start wars(obviously a failure)

Are you talking about Libyan involvement?  Yes, President does not need Congress approval to order bombing raids.  Only when ground troops get involved.  Full-scale war in other words.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on January 07, 2012, 06:24:31 am
Are you talking about Libyan involvement?  Yes, President does not need Congress approval to order bombing raids.  Only when ground troops get involved.  Full-scale war in other words.
  No, the Congress acted after the Vietnam War to prevent the President from going to war.

As I recall, Obama did use ground troops in Libya to hunt Gadhafi:-

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=9032 (http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=9032)

The whole point is, though, that the US President can easily manipulate Congress into giving him the authority after he has already declared war:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States)

FDR managed to trick the United States into WWII despite a strong isolationist movement there, so if he could do it, so can any other President.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 07, 2012, 06:50:23 am
  It is mentioned frequently that, ever since Roosevelt expanded the office of President re extra powers, that the US President has become more powerful than in previous times. The only exception was the US Congress making it more difficult for the US President to start wars(obviously a failure) and a law to stop US presidents from manipulating one type of budget, enacted because Nixon abused this power.
Correct, and politicians like GW Bush and many congressmen wishing to appear "patriotic" have contributed to increasing the power of the executive office by pushing measures like the Patriot Act and re-interpreting executive power more aggressively (such as with Bush's policy of pre-emptive warfare without Congressional approval). The Democratic presidents mostly go right along with the power grab (going all the way back to FDR, as you rightly mentioned), in part because once they're in power they can't resist power either, and they also don't want to appear "unpatriotic" or "weak".

Obama pulled the same trick that FDR did--running as a dove during the campaign and then becoming a hawk once elected. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the plan all along. Obama made a lot of talk about reigning back in the imperial presidency and bringing the troops home, but once in office he instead increased troop levels and added yet another war to the endless stream, basically continuing Bush Neocon foreign policy and the imperial presidency (Obama Extends Bush's Legacy of an Imperial Presidency (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2009/apr/12/martin12_20090410-213603-ar-46580)). The leftists who protested war under Bush disappeared from the streets, revealing themselves to be more upset about having a Republican in office than with wars.

The latest example of this is Gingrich and Santorum promising to greatly weaken the power of the judicial branch, and thus further expand the power of the executive branch, with Santorum even vowing to abolish parts of the judiciary. Why is Ron Paul considered unrealistic for wanting to  abolish the Fed but Santorum is not for wanting to gut the judiciary? It seems like the usual political hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 07, 2012, 11:51:01 am
Quote
Why is Ron Paul considered unrealistic for wanting to  abolish the Fed but Santorum is not for wanting to gut the judiciary?

Seems unrealistic to me as well.  That's why I think Santorum is not going anywhere.

Quote
Obama made a lot of talk about reigning back in the imperial presidency and bringing the troops home, but once in office he instead increased troop levels and added yet another war to the endless stream.

We are out of Iraq, finally. Libya raids are over.  Taliban is willing to talk.  And Obama is talking about reduction in military spending.  I think you should be happy.

The only other conflict on the horizon is Israel bombing Iran.  Even though Obama and Netanyahu can't stand each other, Obama will support Israel.  But that may not happen because Iran may implode from within.  Ah-my-dinner-jacket and ayatollahs hate each others guts and are fighting for power grabs.

Also,
Syria's regime will fall.  Iraq will explode spectacularly 3-way:kurds-sunni-shiite.  So buy gold and oil. Pakistan could also see another military coup.  The usual practice there.

Quote
FDR managed to trick the United States into WWII despite
Tyler, as always you are the expert in history.  Japan attacked US because??  To liberate Philippines? or was it something else missing from wiki? 
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on January 07, 2012, 06:33:25 pm
It's amusing that NeoCon idiots have been pathetically trying to portray the "Arab Spring" as a success. In actual fact, in Tunisia and elsewhere, the ones who are winning are the decidedly undemocratic Islamic extremist parties. if Syria goes down due to Al-Quaeda operating there, the Christians  and Shiites there will be slaughtered.

As regards the Taliban being "willing to talk", that means bugger all. I mean, some of the Afghans have always sided with their invaders for a (short) time, given past history re British and Russian conquests. The trouble is that Afghanistan is a fractured nation  so that for every allied tribe there will be another hostile one, and alliances are always temporary.

It is fairly obvious to me that the US just wants to pull out of Afghanistan as soon as possible, while still pretending that they hadn't lost.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on January 07, 2012, 06:40:06 pm
Tyler, as always you are the expert in history.  Japan attacked US because??  To liberate Philippines? or was it something else missing from wiki? 

There's a lot of official documents, pointing out how FDR provoked Japan into declaring war so that he could go to war with Germany which was allied with Japan:-

http://rationalrevolution.net/war/fdr_provoked_the_japanese_attack.htm (http://rationalrevolution.net/war/fdr_provoked_the_japanese_attack.htm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_memo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_memo)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 08, 2012, 09:09:09 am
Seems unrealistic to me as well.  That's why I think Santorum is not going anywhere.
Who do you think is going to win the Republican primary and general election? Forgive me if you stated it before, I don't recall.

Quote
We are out of Iraq, finally. Libya raids are over.  Taliban is willing to talk.  And Obama is talking about reduction in military spending.  I think you should be happy. ...

... Iraq will explode spectacularly 3-way:kurds-sunni-shiite.
You just answered why I'm not celebrating more enthusiastically quite yet. I am happy that our troops are out of Iraq now, sure, I just suspect that Obama's surge wasn't worth the lives and resources and I hope they aren't sent back in, as I've said before. I also wish they had never been given the nation-building task to begin with. Of course, I do hope that things turn out for the best.

Quote
The only other conflict on the horizon is Israel bombing Iran.
Wars are not always unexpected. Besides, some of the Republican candidates are engaging in war hysteria re: Iran. They don't seem content to let Israel handle it.

Quote
Iran may implode from within.
Yes, and let's hope that happens before anyone can get us into a war with them.

Quote
So buy gold and oil.
So do you expect that gold will go up in value relative to the US dollar (and thus the US dollar will decline relative to gold)?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 09, 2012, 03:30:04 am
Wow, the Neocons are tearing each other apart. They can't blame this on Ron Paul.
Quote
Republican rivals round on Romney
By James Politi in Concord, New Hampshire
January 8, 2012 6:56 pm
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/52df0cd0-3a1f-11e1-a8dc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1iteKNVjf (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/52df0cd0-3a1f-11e1-a8dc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1iteKNVjf)
(requires free registration to access)

Mitt Romney was on Sunday ferociously attacked by his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination, who accused him of lacking authenticity and a sufficiently conservative record and failing to disavow dishonest advertisements by his supporters in the quest for the US presidency.

In the second of back-to-back debates leading up to Tuesday’s crucial New Hampshire primary, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman took a much more aggressive stance towards Mr Romney than they had the previous night, when they battled each other more than they rattled the frontrunner. ....
Romney is sinking his ship further with respect to the Theocons:
Quote
Romney was asked about a quote he gave years ago to a gay publication in Massachusetts: "I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican party," he said at the time. ....

Asked when was the last time he spoke out for gay rights, Romney said, "Right now."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57354670-503544/santorum-romney-challenged-on-gay-rights-in-debate/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57354670-503544/santorum-romney-challenged-on-gay-rights-in-debate/)
Maybe he figures the Theocons will vote for Santorum or Perry anyway?

Devastating attack on Romney by Santorum, revealing Romney's liberal past that will turn off conservatives:
Quote
"Governor Romney lost by almost 20 points. Why? Because at the end of that campaign he wouldn't stand up for conservative principles, he ran from Ronald Reagan, and he said he was going to be to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights, on abortion, a whole host of other issues."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZvRMDVETl8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZvRMDVETl8)
Romney didn't deny it. Instead, he tried to change the subject to politicians' desire to run. A wimpy response. If Romney is the Republican nominee, Obama will clean his clock. My gosh, it's painful to watch Romney. How can ANY Republican support him for one second? Disgusting.

Gingrich hit Romney with another powerful shot after Romney's wimpy, lying answer. I think the Republicans would do better with Gingrich than Romney, as at least Gingrich is a far better debater than Romney, and I don't think most people care that much whether a male politician cheats on his wife.

Do you see now what I've been talking about regarding this chameleon? Anyone but Romney, ANYONE but Romney!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 09, 2012, 11:39:34 am
Quote
Who do you think is going to win the Republican primary and general election?
I think it'll be Romney.  But primaries got a long way to go so anything can change.  1150 delegates is the magic number.

Quote
So do you expect that gold will go up in value relative to the US dollar (and thus the US dollar will decline relative to gold)?

Every time there is an event such as major Middle East escalations gold tend to rise not just relative to dollar but relative to ALL currencies.  The funds are usually taken out of stocks and put into gold.  I would be tempted to put some money into gold when it gets around 1500.  But again it is all speculation.

Oil will have much bigger impact because Middle East is the source of it. Specifically Iraqi oil.  Right now it is flowing so nicely it even ignores OPEC quotas.  But the Kurds are sitting on the huge reserves and they will not give it so easily to governing Shiites.  US, until the pullout, was the mediator keeping all three groups in check.  Now that the US is out Iraq may detonate awesomely.

I said in the previous posts that Earth is way too crowded and violent conflicts are inevitable.  Iraq is the classic example.  If Iraq will spiral out of control expect other interested parties to get involved.  From one side it'll be Iran supporting Shiites, from the other - Saudi Arabia/US supporting Sunnis.  Kurds will be left by themselves as usual.

Experts predict 2012 will be a very volatile year.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 09, 2012, 11:51:12 am
Quote
Romney is sinking his ship further with respect to the Theocons:

Let's wait for NH and SC to see if it is sinking or not.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 09, 2012, 12:05:58 pm
I said in the previous posts that Earth is way too crowded and violent conflicts are inevitable.  Iraq is the classic example.  If Iraq will spiral out of control expect other interested parties to get involved.

Experts predict 2012 will be a very volatile year.

Bacteria propagate till they get swamped by their own wastes. That is in effect what antibiotics are. We are no different.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: zbr5 on January 09, 2012, 06:53:55 pm
This game is unfair :((

(http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/115/1325758934416.png)

(http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/9303/1325762886005.png)

And predictions of Paul's ten years ago:

Ron Paul Was Right (2002) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meFjza6BpEA#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 09, 2012, 08:08:02 pm
Let's wait for NH and SC to see if it is sinking or not.
To be clear, I only said and meant with respect to the Theocons, not overall, so that probably wouldn't hurt him a lot in NH. Unfortunately, Romney appears to currently have the best shot of winning the nomination, more by default rather than by enthusiastic support.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 09, 2012, 11:40:31 pm
Quote
This game is unfair :((

Life is unfair too!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 10, 2012, 04:38:39 am
Life is unfair too!
No it isn't, It's all just Karma.

Karma is the results of your actions or the results of everyone's actions. You can only control your own Karma, much to everyone's dismay, but then that's the secret to Maya.

And it's all just Maya. Maya is the Vedic word that means a huge play that Brahma (God, Yehwa) set up for his amusement. We all have a part to play and have certain tendencies and are affected by everyone else in a negative or positive or neutral way depending on how we chose to see them.

You get to get the he*l out of here when you step back and realize this and prove it by not reacting to all the BS that goes on in this world.

Seeing it but not being affected by it. That's my story and um stickin to it.  ;)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on January 10, 2012, 11:54:00 pm
NH voting has begun.

Most polls have Romney far in the lead with Paul & Huntsman fighting for 2nd....and Parry all but gone, gone, gone.

Of course Santorum was a huge surprise last time around, and Gingrich is coming off 2 back-to-back debates (where his numbers always surge). Romney is slipping slightly but looks like he;'ll still win, but the big surprise may be in 2nd & 3rd slots.

Paul's backing throughout this process will likely remain constant (15-20%, +/- about 3%) regardless of where he places, so the clincher is (especially as candidates drop out) how many candidates can place above his core?

Early exit polls have Romney in the lead, with Huntsman & Paul in a dead heat, just as the polls predicted.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on January 11, 2012, 02:00:40 am
As an aside (for RP supporters), RP's numbers in SC & FL (the next 2 stops) are not good. Holding roughly 4th place behind Romney, Gingrich, & Santorum....for whatever that's worth.

Paul better score BIG in NH today, and he & Huntsman have to bury Gingrich and Santorum,. Yep - they have to not only generate momentum, but stop the Santorum momentum (& the love of Gingrich in the older & hard-core right-wing voters).

If Paul can score a 2 or VERY close 3 today (plus stop Santorum cold), he may be able to stay in the game for the next two states. If not, I suspect he's done.

Holding my breath...........
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 11, 2012, 02:56:47 am
Where are the women for RP? (besides Kelly Clarkson)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/9/pauls-campaign-finds-big-gender-gap-to-bridge/?page=1 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/9/pauls-campaign-finds-big-gender-gap-to-bridge/?page=1)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 11, 2012, 05:45:14 am
Why Ron Paul is Mitt Romney’s best friend, part two

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-ron-paul-is-mitt-romneys-best-friend-part-two/2012/01/10/gIQArPN7nP_blog.html?wprss=the-fix (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-ron-paul-is-mitt-romneys-best-friend-part-two/2012/01/10/gIQArPN7nP_blog.html?wprss=the-fix)

Tonight we'll see how true this is.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on January 11, 2012, 08:34:33 am
World domination- George Carlin [HD] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMvGtx-kHdo#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on January 11, 2012, 08:47:44 pm
Bombing brown people is necessary for homeland security, don't you understand. If the US/Nato forces do not bomb brown people on a regular basis then the terrorist win.

This is the main talking point used against Ron Paul, and the sick thing is that it actually works. Which means that a good portion of the American population supports United States Imperial Operations. National security is a means used to justify any invasion, or murder. It somehow makes it OK to kill innocent people as long as the media can convince the hypnotized that they could harbor potential terrorist. Even if that terrorist is a 14 year old boy thousands of miles away who is armed only with a rifle and a homemade pipe bomb, we still need to spend 100,000 dollars on a bomb to destroy him and his family.

When people like Paul try to step outside the farce and try to speak realistically about the unnecessary and unsustainable war on brown people, then they are ridiculed for such dangerous thinking.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on January 11, 2012, 10:15:35 pm
I don;t know about anyone else, but I was pretty happy with the NH results. RP in 2nd place with over 20%, HUntsman at 17%, and Gingrich & Santorum at 10%.

This looks good to me. Perry essentially skipped NH to get a head start in SC, where he is not likely to take away RP votes, but will duke it out with Gingrich & Santorum for the "anti-Romney" vote. While RP (not to mention Huntsman) is less likely to do as well in either state (older voters with a tradition of ultra-conservatism & SC is a closed primary, though he might do a bit better in FL due to its open primary), he has established his strong "20%" base. This allows him to maintain his position for the long haul. A few bad showings might kill Perry or Gingrich or Santorum or even Huntsman (Perry has a LOT of money, but may well be spending at a rapid pace...Gingrich & Santorum, following their surges, may have raked in a lot more cash - but we won't know for sure until the next disclosure)....but not Ron Paul.

All the way to Super Tuesday (March 6), then we'll get a real idea of how things are gonna go down.

Hoping Santorum is gone long before then. And Gingrich.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on January 11, 2012, 10:56:43 pm
I got a huge laugh out of this statement just released by the Paul campaign:

Rep. Ron Paul's campaign called on the rest of the Republican field to drop out of the race and unite behind him in order to defeat Mitt Romney.

“We urge Ron Paul’s opponents who have been unsuccessfully trying to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney to unite by getting out of the race and uniting behind Paul’s candidacy,” campaign chair Jesse Benton said in a statement."


http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/ron-paul-to-everyone-but-mitt-drop-out (http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/ron-paul-to-everyone-but-mitt-drop-out)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 11, 2012, 11:12:11 pm
Quote
Rep. Ron Paul's campaign called on the rest of the Republican field to drop out of the race and unite behind him in order to defeat Mitt Romney.

Yeah, not going to happen.  3-way battle is here to stay:  Romney, non-Romneys, and Paul.
Also not going to happen non-Romneys asking Paul to drop out to beat Romney.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on January 12, 2012, 01:16:15 am
Hahaha! Yeah, I don't think anyone in the Paul camp thought anyone of the non-Romney's would actually drop. More designed to charge up his supporters, get a little press time, and dishearten his rivals.

Paul is here for the long haul. My interest now is two-fold:

1) Who else can be forced out of the race, and

2) How effectively he shifts the tone of his message (from educational to "sound-bite").

I think he needs to do a better job getting certain messages out. Namely:

Abolish federal income tax,
end war on drugs,
power back to the states & the people,
ending corporate welfare.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 12, 2012, 04:21:07 am
Quote
1) Who else can be forced out of the race, and

Does not really matter, the longer they all stay the quicker Romney gets the nomination.
I'd think Perry would be next.


Quote
2) How effectively he shifts the tone of his message (from educational to "sound-bite")
He polls very low in the South - around 10%.  Even worse in Florida.
The whole message is the problem.  The government is like an obese person and Paul wants to do a gastric bypass.   
There are better and less radical ways to fix it that would appeal to much broader electorate.
He could have said:
 'I plan to decrease funding to these bloated programs.'
 'I plan to reduce financial support to these countries.'
  and similar, using gradual and steady approach.

Instead he is wielding an axe and not many people are liking that.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 12, 2012, 09:20:28 am
Does not really matter, the longer they all stay the quicker Romney gets the nomination.
I'd think Perry would be next.
If Romney wins the nomination, it will ensure Obama's victory. Ron Paul has the best chance of defeating Obama.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 12, 2012, 01:10:45 pm
Quote
If Romney wins the nomination, it will ensure Obama's victory.

Romney can win easily if price of gas stays around 4.50 a gallon by fall.

Quote
Ron Paul has the best chance of defeating Obama.

Highly unlikely.  He has not won anything besides his little congressional district of mostly white people.  If he was a governor or at least a senator then he would have higher chance.  Congressmen don't win presidential elections these days.  That's the reality.

It's still too early in the primary.  Like SD said after Super Tuesday it'll be very clear.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on January 12, 2012, 11:09:45 pm
He could have said:
 'I plan to decrease funding to these bloated programs.'
 'I plan to reduce financial support to these countries.'
  and similar, using gradual and steady approach.

That, however, would be dishonest. His honesty for 30 years is exactly why he has such an ardent base.

Quote
Instead he is wielding an axe and not many people are liking that.

You are mistaken. slightly better than 1 of 5 people in Iowa liked it, and 1 in 4 liked it in New Hampshire.

I think his support from here out will only grow. If he clears his message up as I mentioned above (pound on about no federal income tax, bringing troops home, power to people & states, ending the welfare state [individual & corporate], and ending the war on drugs...keeping it SIMPLE instead of "educational"), I think he's going to be gaining ground fast. By Super Tuesday, he'll be polling closer to 30%.

I think Perry may be set for a comeback. If Gingrich slips any further (I think he will) and if people realize Santorum is both a BIG spender and that his religious zealotry won't play well with moderates in a general election (I think they will), those who dislike both Romney & Paul will have to choose between Huntsman & Perry. That spells Perry comeback (which I find somewhat unfortunate. I like Huntsman).

I won't be surprised to see Gingrich or Santorum drop next if Perry pushes his numbers up in SC and especially FL (they like Perry in FL).
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 12, 2012, 11:40:27 pm
SD,
You are an astute observer.

Some excellent comments from everybody. I like when someone shoots down someone's theory because of course everything is just theory.

I have to admit that the whole US political system is a bit baffling to me. Super Tuesday is a good example. I Googled it but Wiki just made it more confusing.

Does anyone have a good link for "The US Political system with explanations on how elections occur right from close to ground level." Not a textbook as reading that will not happen, but a Youtube or something, cause um just a simple guy with a simple song...Simple Song: Lyle Lovett, John Hiatt and Joe Ely (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q91W6fHInIU#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 13, 2012, 12:15:44 am
Quote
You are mistaken. slightly better than 1 of 5 people in Iowa liked it, and 1 in 4 liked it in New Hampshire.

20% in Iowa and 25% in NH out of mostly Republicans.  Those are not good numbers.  If you take all voters those numbers will be in single digits.

Quote
I think Perry may be set for a comeback.  I won't be surprised to see Gingrich or Santorum drop next if Perry pushes his numbers up in SC and especially FL (they like Perry in FL).

I'm curious where you get your info.  I looked at several polls and Perry is getting 2-5% in both SC and Florida.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on January 13, 2012, 01:31:01 am
Raw-al: Unfortunately, the game is always changing, so there is no simple explanation (hahaha!). Super Tuesday, however, is the first Tuesday in March when a bunch of states hold primaries. This year, it's March 6, which sees primaries/caucuses by 10 states. Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Mass, ND, OH, OK, Tennessee, Vermont, & Virginia.

YS:  Actually, those ARE good numbers. Fabulous numbers this early on. Also worth noting that NH is a semi-closed primary (meaning it isn't just republicans, but also includes those not registered as dem or rep).

With regard to SC & FL - the polls say one thing NOW, but remember those folks LOVED him early on (and FL especially due to his connection to Bush). If Santorum & Gingrich lose ground before the polls open, those votes will be split between Huntsman, Paul, & Perry. This sets the stage for a Perry return...if he plays his cards right.

Remember, the hard-right won;t vote for Paul or Romney or Huntsman. They have to go somewhere, and without Gingrich or Santorum, there is only one other choice.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on January 13, 2012, 01:59:08 am
http://www.businessinsider.com/young-voters-ron-paul-2012-1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/young-voters-ron-paul-2012-1)

HALF, baby!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 13, 2012, 02:28:41 am
I guess some of us are: online chat-board trolls in tin-foil hats?  ;D

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 13, 2012, 03:49:57 am
Quote
HALF, baby!

you are overly enthusiastic :)  just don't be surprised if Paul is not going anywhere with those HALF numbers.  But if I'm wrong I'll be the first to admit.

Again, you don't see the whole picture.  Half is the number of under 30 who voted which is a very small fraction of all voters in NH.  Considering that NH is mostly democratic that HALF becomes a single digit if you count all voters in NH.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 13, 2012, 09:29:08 am
The grumpy prophet (aren't they all) Frank Zappa on America's Move Towards a Fascist Theocracy
Frank Zappa America's Moving Towards a Fascist Theocracy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2aD8gc2kew#)If only Ron Paul could defeat the Theocrats.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on January 13, 2012, 03:12:05 pm
I admit I don't know the US very well, but it does seem a bit strange if there is a religious revival in the US. I mean, in many countries, religious belief is dropping pretty quickly. Here in the UK, for example, religion   is dead, with nowhere near enough Catholic priests, many Church of England Churches being sold off due to no local congregation being sizeable enough etc. The various Churches do compensate by going in for mass conversions of people in the 3rd world, but there's a limit to what they can do.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 14, 2012, 12:07:53 am
Same here in Canada and particularly in Quebec which used to be the bastion of RCism and the bastion of profligate procreation. It now has a paucity of procreation with the government even giving tax breaks to procure procreation.

You can get churches and monasteries for a song. Lots of them are converted into everything from condos to law offices.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: svrn on January 14, 2012, 12:47:54 am
you are overly enthusiastic :)  just don't be surprised if Paul is not going anywhere with those HALF numbers.  But if I'm wrong I'll be the first to admit.

Again, you don't see the whole picture.  Half is the number of under 30 who voted which is a very small fraction of all voters in NH.  Considering that NH is mostly democratic that HALF becomes a single digit if you count all voters in NH.

The way I see it Ron Paul cant "not go anywhere" at this point. I remember supporting and campaigning for him back in 08 and the difference between this election and that election is like night and day. The way things stand right now, whether or not he gets the nomination, I believe hes already won due to how much he has been able to spread the message of liberty this time to the point that he cant be ignored anymore and all the smears they try to put on him backfire because people with half a brain can now see through it.

I think the momentum for patriots this campaign has created is great victory for freedom minded people in and of itself. I never expected Ron Paul to be in the position he is now and I feel as though im dreaming sometimes. We should all be thankful for him getting this far.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 14, 2012, 08:38:02 am
The way things stand right now, whether or not he gets the nomination, I believe hes already won due to how much he has been able to spread the message of liberty this time to the point that he cant be ignored anymore and all the smears they try to put on him backfire because people with half a brain can now see through it.

I think the momentum for patriots this campaign has created is great victory for freedom minded people in and of itself. I never expected Ron Paul to be in the position he is now and I feel as though im dreaming sometimes. We should all be thankful for him getting this far.
Yes, America as a whole has won, thanks to Ron Paul.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 14, 2012, 05:16:29 pm
Hocum I have only seen one female poster on this thread?

Is that because women don't enjoy politics or is because of the candidate or ....... ?
Title: Re: Expect the unexpected: The Assassination of Ron Paul
Post by: goodsamaritan on January 14, 2012, 10:05:41 pm
Expect the unexpected: The Assassination of Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYKbKTPZHBo#ws)

and

Bush/Cheney strategist "We Could Never Influence (Buy) Ron Paul" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1pY7oSfcmc#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Aaaaaa on January 15, 2012, 09:45:41 am
Hocum I have only seen one female poster on this thread?

Is that because women don't enjoy politics or is because of the candidate or ....... ?

I am a big fan of Ron Paul!  And I know for sure that one other woman that I work with is as well.  So there's two of us for sure haha!!
I'm not sure why the % of people that support him are mostly men...?  Could just be lack of interest in politics (that used to be me) or like someone else mentioned, counting on depending on the government eventually.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on January 15, 2012, 12:46:02 pm
you are overly enthusiastic

I don;t think so. He pulled in almost 25% of the vote to place 2nd in NH.

His polling was at 10% in SC, placing him at 5th. Numbers released TODAY now have him surging....Romney at 29%, Gingrich at 25%, Paul in 3rd at 20%....ALL others at sub-10%. Santorum is history. Perry's only hope is Florida.

If word gets out now that Gingrich's film is BS (it mostly is), he will lose not only his transient numbers, but a large part of his base (as he should - the movie he produced striking Romney is blatant mis-information).

Unless Perry makes a comeback, you're potentially looking at a Romney vs Paul race.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 16, 2012, 12:16:33 am
I am a big fan of Ron Paul!  And I know for sure that one other woman that I work with is as well.  So there's two of us for sure haha!!
I'm not sure why the % of people that support him are mostly men...?  Could just be lack of interest in politics (that used to be me) or like someone else mentioned, counting on depending on the government eventually.

I showed my GF his youtubes etc and she has read two of his books and is now a rabid supporter of Paul's also.

Funnily enough, if women in general knew about Paul's anti-war, (men's largest weakness) pro-family bias, and and clear unvarnished honesty, they would flock to him in totally off the chart numbers. He would need security guards, just like the Beatles or Elvis. It would be called "Paulmania".

The media is doing a great job of keeping him off the charts because they're truly scared. What if he shows us as wrong???????? We like being sleazy and passing out money to Israel.

Women in general, I suspect, are not as interested in politics, and they tend to like Democrats because they always seem to be tirelessly working for women's this and that, the poor, etc. It's easy to just make a blanket decision on politics rather than digging for facts. This is not a condemnation of women, just a possible explanation of why women typically vote Democratic (in the US).
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 16, 2012, 01:01:34 am
Here is a commentary from a rare bird: A Canadian who has heard of an American politician:

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1115775--ron-paul-2012-witnessing-the-rise-of-a-guru-to-the-downwardly-mobile?bn=1 (http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1115775--ron-paul-2012-witnessing-the-rise-of-a-guru-to-the-downwardly-mobile?bn=1)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 16, 2012, 10:39:14 am
Breaking news:  Huntsman Says He’s Quitting G.O.P. Race, will endorse Romney.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/huntsman-says-hes-quitting-g-o-p-race/?ref=politics (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/huntsman-says-hes-quitting-g-o-p-race/?ref=politics)

Game over?

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on January 16, 2012, 09:51:56 pm
Breaking news:  Huntsman Says He’s Quitting G.O.P. Race, will endorse Romney.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/huntsman-says-hes-quitting-g-o-p-race/?ref=politics (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/huntsman-says-hes-quitting-g-o-p-race/?ref=politics)

Game over?



Just heard this. Stunned that he'd endorse Romney.

Game over? Hardly. He was polling LOW in SC.  I suspect his core supporters (a mix of libertarians & moderates) will be split between Romney & Paul.

I'm still awaiting the Perry comeback.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on January 16, 2012, 10:34:35 pm
Just curious, SD, is one of the reasons why you are so keen on Ron Paul because he would benefit your particular vocation directly, not just in a general economic sense?

*On a side-note, I consider it somewhat embarassing that we in the UK have no Libertarian equivalent. I mean, our anti-war movement mostly consists of "Looney Left" pro-Communist types mixed with radical, rightwing Muslim Fundamentalists. The Conservatives stupidly no longer believe in Milton Friedman's libertarian ideas, and so on and on....*
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 16, 2012, 11:54:21 pm
Quote
Game over? Hardly. He was polling LOW in SC.  I suspect his core supporters (a mix of libertarians & moderates) will be split between Romney & Paul.

My understanding is it is over.  Notice how both Romney and Paul are not very critical of each other compared to the rest of non-Romneys.  As if Romney and Paul had a secret arrangement of Romney getting 1st place and Paul getting 2nd.  Which is exactly what both wants according to some experts.

Romney wants the nomination.  And he will probably get it.

And Paul's goal is to get 2nd place (or as many delegates) so he can have some floor time during the convention.  He himself admitted that the odds of him landing presidency is one in a million (or something like that, don't remember exact words).
He'll be happy to make his name popular for his son who has a lot more chances later on because:
- He is already a Senator
- His views are much more moderate than his father's

So to me it looks like it is all been settled.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on January 17, 2012, 12:35:09 am
Just curious, SD, is one of the reasons why you are so keen on Ron Paul because he would benefit your particular vocation directly, not just in a general economic sense?

How would Ron Paul benefit my vocation? I play guitar for a living. Far as I know, RP doesn't have any plans to subsidize self-employed musicians (hahaha!).

No, I support RP because he is the most libertarian-leaning candidate. I don't see eye-to-eye with RP on everything (I'm so libertarian that I piss off libertarians), but he has worked tirelessly for his entire life in the cause of liberty. That gets not only my respect, but my vote.

YS said:
Quote
As if Romney and Paul had a secret arrangement ...So to me it looks like it is all been settled....

Bah-humbug.

There is no doubting that RP is a politician. He is no angel and he is not perfect. That said, I don;t swallow the idea of a secret arrangement. Paul has always been about education, but he is also about changing the republican party and changing America. The best way to spread ideas, as he has often said, "is to win elections".
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 17, 2012, 12:54:11 am
Quote
The best way to spread ideas, as he has often said, "is to win elections".

Yes, that's true.  But the thing is Paul has never won anything besides his congressional district.  So he'll be pretty happy to have some floor time at the convention.  I predict he will drop out as soon as he has enough delegates to guarantee him floor time.

Update:
As I was typing I found this one.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/us/politics/ron-pauls-campaign-plots-path-focused-on-delegate-math.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/us/politics/ron-pauls-campaign-plots-path-focused-on-delegate-math.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all)

Ron Paul says he has by no means given up on winning the Republican presidential nomination, but he acknowledges that he might not make it.  “The odds are right now that Romney, he pulls it off,” Mr. Paul, a Texas congressman, said in an interview here.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: CitrusHigh on January 17, 2012, 01:11:59 am
Because I have a friend who is part of the RP election campaign I have a wee bit of insight on this part about the delegate math.

It kind of confused me when he explained it but it was something to the effect that ron paul supporters would be getting to know eachother ahead of time so when it's time to vote for delegates they can vote only for other ron paul people, and not waste votes on supporters of other candidates. I don't really get how all that works, but yes, they are in fact taking measures to give RP an edge in that department. Not sure if the supporters of other candidates are doing the same thing though. When I asked my friend, he didn't know either. I would think everyone would be trying to do that unless it's illegal, which to the best of my knowledge it's not.

Oh wait, actually at first he said he didn't know, but then he said that some candidates didn't even have a base in our state.

I have more or less checked out of politics for the last couple years other than to spread as much info as I could about RP, so you'll have to forgive my lack of savvy regarding the pertinent terms.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 17, 2012, 09:40:16 am
Just heard this. Stunned that he'd endorse Romney.
Is that an ironic joke?  ;) Mormon 2 endorses Mormon 1 (apologies to Mormon folk, I actually like Huntsman, it's the faux-Mormon chameleon, Romney, I can't stand).

Quote
I'm still awaiting the Perry comeback.
Yeah, it's a testament to his incompetence that he hasn't been able to capitalize and quickly rebound. Let's see how he does in the actual vote in SC.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on January 18, 2012, 01:31:46 am
Is that an ironic joke?  ;) Mormon 2 endorses Mormon 1

Nah. I really thought he'd stay in longer, but more surprised that the 5th most libertarian governor in the nation (according to Cato) and the guy who was taking HUGE shots at Romney would turn around and endorse him rather than Paul or Perry.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on January 18, 2012, 01:39:20 am
Nah. I really thought he'd stay in longer, but more surprised that the 5th most libertarian governor in the nation (according to Cato) and the guy who was taking HUGE shots at Romney would turn around and endorse him rather than Paul or Perry.
Maybe he was bribed.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 18, 2012, 01:46:17 am
I thought Perry would go first.
I say Perry will be next.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA: Neil Cavuto: Ron Paul is Obama's Toughest
Post by: goodsamaritan on January 19, 2012, 12:32:24 pm
Neil Cavuto: Ron Paul is Obama's Toughest Competitor

Neil Cavuto: Ron Paul is Obama's Toughest Competitor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqZx6gMF2lM#ws)

Lol, i love it. "76 year old dude, treated like a rock star"

Ron Paul is the best contender in this race that could Defeat Obama. Mainly because of his ability to "draw the President's Crowds" to Ron Paul rallies.

Neil Cavuto is speaking truth to power. it's what everyone is thinking but they'er too afraid of the power that the truth has, to say it aloud.

------------

WOW! Ron Paul Exposes the NEOCONS and Their Global Agenda - HE NAMES NAMES!!!

Ron Paul Exposes the NEOCONS and Their Global Agenda - (DROPS NAMES) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmD_UE-GHno#)

This speech was not done while he was running for President. July 10, 2003
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 19, 2012, 10:56:02 pm
Ok, Perry is finally out.  Now it'll be a long drag (maybe not that long) between Gingrich and Santorum.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on January 20, 2012, 12:29:51 am
Ok, Perry is finally out.  Now it'll be a long drag (maybe not that long) between Gingrich and Santorum.

Bizarre. He was starting to move up in the polls. I wonder what prompted his jump BEFORE the SC primary this Saturday?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 20, 2012, 02:19:34 am
Quote
Bizarre. He was starting to move up in the polls. I wonder what prompted his jump BEFORE the SC primary this Saturday?

I think it was yesterday's Rasmussen poll giving him 2%.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on January 20, 2012, 02:38:29 am
I was a bit disappointed to see Cain and Perry et al resigning so soon. I was hoping they would stay on and split the vote that would otherwise go to Romney. Well, I suppose I can always hope for a last-minute revelation about Romney having an affair with a gay man or some such. The other scumbags just don't have a chance against Ron Paul.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 20, 2012, 07:08:58 am
One phenomenon that's interesting is that the Neocons and Theocons rarely refute anything Ron Paul says. Instead, they tend to just get angry and red faced and denounce RP, his followers and libertarians in general as kooks. That tells me that what Ron is saying is probably largely on target. People tend to be upset more by truths they don't like than by lies.

I haven't seen the sort of enthusiasm among the youth that Ron Paul has generated since Ronald Reagan's first successful run for president. The fact that the Republican establishment has decided to dismiss and discourage this enthusiasm is suicidal. I've never seen anything like it in politics anywhere in the world. It spells defeat for the GOP in the general election.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Aaaaaa on January 20, 2012, 08:31:35 am
One phenomenon that's interesting is that the Neocons and Theocons rarely refute anything Ron Paul says. Instead, they tend to just get angry and red faced and denounce RP, his followers and libertarians in general as kooks. That tells me that what Ron is saying is probably largely on target. People tend to be upset more by truths they don't like than by lies.
/quote]

haha that is SO true, PaleoPhil!  It annoys me so much when the other candidates do that during debates...and its so obvious that someone like me, who sometimes doesn't pick up on things like that, can totally tell!!
It is just so refreshing how he has a stance on things that makes sense, and he just sticks to it.  I reaaaaaally hope he makes it!!!! :-)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 20, 2012, 08:41:51 am
I was a bit disappointed to see Cain and Perry et al resigning so soon. I was hoping they would stay on and split the vote that would otherwise go to Romney. Well, I suppose I can always hope for a last-minute revelation about Romney having an affair with a gay man or some such. The other scumbags just don't have a chance against Ron Paul.
Start one : )
Gayboat him out.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 20, 2012, 10:23:12 am
Quote
The fact that the Republican establishment has decided to dismiss and discourage this enthusiasm is suicidal.

Repub establishment is not as radical.  Even his son is closer to the establishment than to him.

Why on earth would establishment cheer up for Paul when he does not have many friends in Congress?

And he does say nonsense periodically.  For example in one recent debate he asked why didn't US do to Bin Laden the same thing they did to Saddam?  That's one of the reasons why he supports complete disengagement because he has no clue what's going on overseas.

He does have very strong support from younger voters.  The issue is only small fraction of young people vote during elections.  I remember my college days.  Very few of us cared about politics.  Girls and beer were top priority.  Second priority was not to fail classes.  Everything else did not matter.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on January 20, 2012, 11:13:36 am
I'm afraid YOU have no clue as regards foreign policy. Ron Paul made a very good point, that the constant Predator-aircraft attacks on Pakistani territory as well as the assassination of Osama Bin Laden would just inflame anti-American feeling in the entire region and lead to ever greater recruitment for Al-Quaeda. He also makes a further point in that if you behave just like your opponents, then you are no better, morally-speaking, than your opponents.

In actual fact, as Scheuer and Osama pointed out before, Al-Quaeda doesn't need to win by bombing us. All they need to do is have the West exhaust itself economically etc.  in endless foreign wars, and we'll do the rest on their behalf.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on January 20, 2012, 11:20:14 am
One thing I find so suspicious re the Osama murder was that it took so long. I got the distinct impression that the US knew all along where he was, and only then killed him when it was politically necessary to do so in order for the Obama administration to gain some credibility.

Whatever the case, the Taliban did, at one point, to stop the bombing,  offer to hand over Osama to a 3rd country so that he could have a fair trial, but President Bush refused. So, Ron Paul made a reasonable point.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 20, 2012, 03:19:55 pm
One thing I find so suspicious re the Osama murder was that it took so long. I got the distinct impression that the US knew all along where he was, and only then killed him when it was politically necessary to do so in order for the Obama administration to gain some credibility.

Whatever the case, the Taliban did, at one point, to stop the bombing,  offer to hand over Osama to a 3rd country so that he could have a fair trial, but President Bush refused. So, Ron Paul made a reasonable point.
I suspect that you are assigning far too much intelligence to the US intelligence and or military and or presidency, bearing in mind that the Presidency at one point was willing to damage one of it's covert operatives Valerie Plame Wilson (risking other covert operations and who knows how many lives) in order to exact political revenge or should I say deflect the blame for the uber-ridiculous Iraq war. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4356718n (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4356718n)

They did go after OBL near the border with Pakistan but even guns/bombs and the almighty dollar being practically dropped off from helicopters (“Helicopter Ben.”) to the locals, produced nothing but a slightly richer and slightly deader populace.

The US military is somewhat like the Maginot Line in France. A waste of money. It's a huge, unwieldy, cumbersome, staggeringly expensive ridiculous joke designed to fight the last biggy ... WWII, probably the only bright spot in (US military) history and even that one they jumped in after it was practically over but for the crying.

All it seems really good at is inflicting collateral damage.

If you fly over even the smallest military airbase in the US you see a virtual sea of airplanes parked there. What the He## purpose is that? It's just that some politician has an airplane factory in their district and since he said "yessiree" to the President for some ridiculous plan/scheme, (to help the Prez. get re-elected) his district was awarded contracts to build a ga-zillion airplanes there so he got re-elected and got some scratch for his/her efforts

It's so funny to hear people talk about "other" banana republics..

The populace just thinks it's better defended.

What the heck good is it to have  medium sized floating cities encircling the globe??? Whilst the country is swimming in debt.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 20, 2012, 03:36:27 pm
One thing I find so suspicious re the Osama murder was that it took so long. I got the distinct impression that the US knew all along where he was, and only then killed him when it was politically necessary to do so in order for the Obama administration to gain some credibility.

Whatever the case, the Taliban did, at one point, to stop the bombing,  offer to hand over Osama to a 3rd country so that he could have a fair trial, but President Bush refused. So, Ron Paul made a reasonable point.

The reason that OBL was not brought to "justice", if indeed that option was ever on the table, was that The US would have found out (in their Saddam Hussein kangaroo court) how inept they truly were in locating one man in one of the poorest countries in the world *and* maybe some of the real reasons why OBL was in the driver's seat in the first place would come to the fore. It's easier to kill someone than to talk with them.

For essentially all the reasons that that Ron Paul has been saying all along, that all the countries in the world (other than the US) want the US to mind their own ******* business. "Go home Yankee" to be polite.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on January 20, 2012, 03:53:28 pm
Fair trial Ha ha.

Old Bin knew too much for US intelligence to ever allow him to speak in his own defense before a fair and impartial jury.

Basically, I view Osama as a CIA run creation of some secretive element of the military industrial complex. Terrorism as it is portrayed by the mainstream media is mostly fabricated or exaggerated, in order to serve an agenda.

During the cold war the entire world was basically terrorized by threat of mutually assured destruction. M.A.D was used for justification to give ungodly amounts of the peoples resources to the military industrial complex. It allowed for an insane waste of resources and consolidation of power; and made it all seem necessary for national security. After the soviet union became bankrupt , and could no longer maintain its role in this global terrorism madness. The western establishment had to invent a surrogate threat in order to keep up business as usual.

The constant  but elusive threat of extreme radical Muslim boogie men was custom made to replace the red terror of the previous generation. Anyone who tries to mention the truth in such matters to the masses will have their access to the mainstream media strictly limited.  To speak against the propaganda will get you ridiculed.

It seems obvious that Ron Paul tempers his own views on the issue of state run terror in order to maintain " credibility" so that he doesn't get blacklisted from the debates as well as completely slandered out of the race by the talking head media whores.   


Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 20, 2012, 06:09:57 pm
Quote
I'm afraid YOU have no clue as regards foreign policy.
:)  You are surely entitled to your opinion.  But every other expert, domestic or foreign, agree that Paul's foreign policy is a little too late by about 120 years.  His views are like music to the ears of every other country.

As much as you wish Paul being the president and abolish CIA and such, it is likely not going to happen.  For one single reason - reserve currency status of the dollar.  It pays for everything and there is no alternative to the dollar by a mile.  I remember Russian Prime Minister Putin getting all green with envy when talking about dollar being so special. 

You have no idea how powerful dollar is.  It can easily absorb such blunders as Iraq and Afghanistan and some more.  It can be abused for a very very long time before it'll crash and burn.  US has to learn not to abuse it that often and don't take it for granted and it'll pay for SuperPower plays indefinitely.  And Paul has no idea as well.  Talking about going back to the gold standard is an absurdity.

You can say all you want that I'm wrong.  Facts and reality speak for themselves.



Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Ferocious on January 20, 2012, 06:52:44 pm
One thing I find so suspicious re the Osama murder was that it took so long. I got the distinct impression that the US knew all along where he was, and only then killed him when it was politically necessary to do so in order for the Obama administration to gain some credibility.

Whatever the case, the Taliban did, at one point, to stop the bombing,  offer to hand over Osama to a 3rd country so that he could have a fair trial, but President Bush refused. So, Ron Paul made a reasonable point.
Yeah, you should be suspicious because Osama died in late 2001 of lung complications. Here is an article from 2001 about his death: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html)

The US just used him as an excuse and yet another way to control and brainwash their "livestock".
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on January 20, 2012, 06:52:54 pm
I'd say China increasingly has the whip-hand economically-speaking. I confidently expect the dollar to be superseded by the yuan and one or two other currencies within a few more decades.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on January 20, 2012, 11:26:56 pm
The MSM is ignoring Ron Paul and supporting Mitt because his company owns all the conservative talk shows

Quote
Romney’s private equity firm, Bain Capital, owns Clear Channel Communications, one of America’s largest media conglomerates. Clear Channel broadcasts conservative luminaries such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and many others.

It’s amazing how much you can overlook if your paycheck depends on it. Clear Channel essentially owns the conservative talk radio industry.

And now you know why Mitt is the ``favorite``.

http://www.irishcentral.com/story/ent/manhattan_diary/mitt-romney-is-the-epitome-of-corporate-greed-137663463.html#ixzz1juezBbz1 (http://www.irishcentral.com/story/ent/manhattan_diary/mitt-romney-is-the-epitome-of-corporate-greed-137663463.html#ixzz1juezBbz1)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 21, 2012, 01:07:40 am
Here is some more on Mint Romney. Read right to the end...

But some political organizations criticized Romney for having some of his money in the Caymans.

“Taking advantage of those types of tax havens has cost the country over $100 million in revenues,’’ said Lauren Weiner of Americans United For Change, a labor-backed group that has been critical of Romney.

Weiner said the Romney campaign could dispel suspicions that the candidate is using the funds to avoid taxes by releasing his tax returns, something Romney has said he plans to do only in April.

“We could have a lot of answers if he just released his tax returns,’’ Weiner said.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2012/01/20/mitt-not-alone-investment-funds-often-have-second-home-cayman-islands/3oTW7uOIru8EeHVia2HPtM/story.html (http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2012/01/20/mitt-not-alone-investment-funds-often-have-second-home-cayman-islands/3oTW7uOIru8EeHVia2HPtM/story.html)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 21, 2012, 04:28:49 am
Even The Troops Are Waking Up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-CpCUOygqU#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 21, 2012, 05:42:32 am
Quote
Romney’s private equity firm, Bain Capital, owns Clear Channel Communications, one of America’s largest media conglomerates. Clear Channel broadcasts conservative luminaries such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and many others.

For the record, Bain donated more to Democrats than to Republicans.

Quote
I'd say China increasingly has the whip-hand economically-speaking. I confidently expect the dollar to be superseded by the yuan and one or two other currencies within a few more decades.

Maybe few decades after they let yuan free float.  Before that not a chance.  And chances of free floating yuan are slim to none.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 21, 2012, 08:42:34 am
For the record, Bain donated more to Democrats than to Republicans.
OK I'll bite, where's the record?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 21, 2012, 09:02:36 am
For the record, Bain donated more to Democrats than to Republicans.
Doesn't that anger you and reveal to you the sort of crowd Romney associated with? You don't think that donating to Democrats is a good thing, do you?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 21, 2012, 10:12:19 am
If one of the establishment candidates, Romney or Obama, are elected, it will be more of the same, which will add to horror of the inevitable eventual catastrophe:

Nassim Taleb - 'The Banks Have Hijacked the Government' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkT8dFA1xNE#ws)
The establishment have transformed the entire global economy into a gigantic Ponzi scheme. Heaven help those who are alive when it collapses.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 21, 2012, 12:24:05 pm
Quote
OK I'll bite, where's the record?

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/19/bain-execs-contributed-more-to-democrats-than-republicans-in-last-6-years/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/19/bain-execs-contributed-more-to-democrats-than-republicans-in-last-6-years/)

Quote
Doesn't that anger you and reveal to you the sort of crowd Romney associated with? You don't think that donating to Democrats is a good thing, do you?

Nope, it's all about money.  When you are an executive, your primary objective is to make money for shareholders, not exercising your personal beliefs.  Corporate donations are nothing more than legalized bribes.

Phil, stop dreaming about utopian presidents such as Ron Paul, they don't exist in nature.   Back in the days Clinton had very ambitious lefty agenda.  He quickly dropped that agenda and moved all the way to the center when Republicans took control of the Congress.  The same thing happened to Obama.  He quickly abandoned all his promises as soon as Republicans took control of the House.  That's how politics work and there is no other ways around it for the foreseeable future.

Paul does not and will not play that game and if elected he'd be a lame duck president.  Remember, he does not have many friends among congressional Republicans.  He'd veto almost every bill and Congress would overwrite many of his vetoes.  And if they get tired of it they'd impeach him for not cooperating.  For that reason establishment is not considering him as a serious contender and don't pay much attention to him.  Non-Romneys are going after Romney and pretty much ignoring Paul as if he is not running.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on January 21, 2012, 12:27:03 pm
That's a nice observation, ys.
Seems the USA will be ripe for a revolution in the near future.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 21, 2012, 12:33:51 pm
Quote
If one of the establishment candidates, Romney or Obama, are elected, it will be more of the same, which will add to horror of the inevitable eventual catastrophe:

The catastrophe will surely come one day.  It's inevitable, get used to it.  It happens all the time.  It is very true we have a Ponzi scheme and it is not fixable anymore.  The good news it may take very very long time for it to collapse.  The pyramid has been built on very solid foundation and so far lasted over 200 years.  It may last another 200 or more.  So use your time wisely to prepare for such day and don't take elections too personal.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 21, 2012, 12:39:39 pm
Quote
Seems the USA will be ripe for a revolution in the near future.

I'm sorry to disappoint you.  The triggers and charges to detonate revolutions are nowhere to be found in the US.  There won't be any in the near future nor far future.  You will see that for yourself after the Republican primary and after the Presidential elections.  Be patient.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on January 21, 2012, 02:02:35 pm
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/19/bain-execs-contributed-more-to-democrats-than-republicans-in-last-6-years/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/19/bain-execs-contributed-more-to-democrats-than-republicans-in-last-6-years/)


Paul does not and will not play that game and if elected he'd be a lame duck president.  Remember, he does not have many friends among congressional Republicans.  He'd veto almost every bill and Congress would overwrite many of his vetoes.  And if they get tired of it they'd impeach him for not cooperating.  For that reason establishment is not considering him as a serious contender and don't pay much attention to him.  Non-Romneys are going after Romney and pretty much ignoring Paul as if he is not running.



Its a real cynical view, but perhaps it is what it is, and there is an unyielding chain of causality which makes it inevitable that you have to be a complete tool of mammon to be president. The spirit of democracy has been usurped and there needs to be a "We are the 99% " revolution, to restore faith in the system.

I often liken the office of president of the united states to the great whore of Babylon foretold in revelation.

Still conditions are ripe for popular pragmatical solutions, enacted by an independent Executive branch of government. Four years of Ron Paul vetoing the Bejezzus out of  tyrannical bills such as the Obama/romeycare racketeering schemes being pushed down our throats, as well as putting an end to the bailouts that cover up mass corruption without changing the conditions that allow for such corruption; could be a be a good thing. I hearken back to the days when Andrew Jackson came to Washington and single handedly removed the vultures and vipers from the bureaucratic, while also reigning in the money men of his day. 

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 21, 2012, 11:19:43 pm
I'm sorry to disappoint you.  The triggers and charges to detonate revolutions are nowhere to be found in the US.  There won't be any in the near future nor far future.  You will see that for yourself after the Republican primary and after the Presidential elections.  Be patient.
You are talking about business as usual and that is likely what will happen as people tend to be generally like sheep, but there is one fly in the ointment...

Ron Paul is starting a Shay's Revolution.

The thing is that Shay didn't actually win anything. His followers were ex-military people to a large degree, but they had some bad luck in their execution of a planned takeover of a large storehouse of munitions. In losing they were tried and sentenced, but I believe only one was actually hanged and the rest were let off. Shay died the way he started out, a poor shepherd, but he embarrassed those in power, to the point where Washington was called back in to do what was needed to clean up the plutocrats in Boston. So really he won.

And Ron Paul will win also. Why? Because he is not like the sheep.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on January 22, 2012, 11:54:58 am
564 delegates to be split between Paul and Romney

The strategy the campaign is implementing is on track to collect a boatload of delegates.

This is a two man race between Romney and Paul. Santorum and Gingrich are not on the ballot for 500 delegates worth of states. They are not, and will not be on the ballot in other states besides just Virginia. They have no grassroots support and virtually "zero" ground game. They cannot win the nomination.

Period.

All this MSM Propaganda pushing either Santorum or Gingrich is a joke. Anyway you work the numbers, they are out.

We are in this for the long haul! Go RP2012!!!

Doug Weade on MSNBC w/ Alex Witt 01/21/12 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxKpRctPHyc#ws)

Keep an eye out for how much better we do in both caucus states and states that use paper ballots :)

http://www.dailypaul.com/206919/500-delegates-to-be-split-between-paul-and-romney (http://www.dailypaul.com/206919/500-delegates-to-be-split-between-paul-and-romney)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 22, 2012, 01:31:29 pm
Quote
Ron Paul is starting a Shay's Revolution.

First of all, that was not a revolution, it was a small rebellion.

Secondly, Paul is not starting anything.  Here is the reality.  As long as masses can afford pizza and beer when watching football or nascar, Ron Paul does not matter.  When you take away pizza, beer, and football, then it'll be a revolution.

Ron Paul is somewhat polarizing figure.  When he retires in 2013 there is no one to fill his shoes.  The little movement he generated will quickly dissipate after he is gone.  Then what?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on January 22, 2012, 05:00:32 pm
Actually, there are other Libertarians who are much younger than Ron Paul. As regards beer, pizza and football, there are plenty of other things that people need to be able to afford such as mortgages etc.

As regards Shay etc., it is irrelevant whether it was a small rebellion or a revolution. I mean, look at the French Revolution and Napoleon,  they both failed in the end, but their ideas lived on and the monarchy was eventually replaced by most of their ideals. And there are plenty of minor, failed revolts in European history which forced the rulers to concede eventually to all or most of the demands the former rebels had demanded, just in order to prevent further problems.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 22, 2012, 09:22:14 pm
Gallup chief: Romney support 'collapsing'
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/01/gallup-chief-romney-support-collapsing/1 (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/01/gallup-chief-romney-support-collapsing/1)

Mitt Romney: A "Glass Jaw" Candidate
Mitt Romney: A "Glass Jaw" Candidate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piuWvnEWs7Y#ws) Minor note: Staples was actually founded before Office Depot, but that doesn't change the point he made when discussing these companies.

A Mitt Romney Nomination Will Guarantee a GOP Schism
A Mitt Romney Nomination will guarantee a GOP schism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy8yqkmIxQg#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 22, 2012, 09:33:47 pm
First of all, that was not a revolution, it was a small rebellion.

Secondly, Paul is not starting anything.  Here is the reality.  As long as masses can afford pizza and beer when watching football or nascar, Ron Paul does not matter.  When you take away pizza, beer, and football, then it'll be a revolution.

Ron Paul is somewhat polarizing figure.  When he retires in 2013 there is no one to fill his shoes.  The little movement he generated will quickly dissipate after he is gone.  Then what?
Excuse my enthusiasm, you're right it was a rebellion. Even as I typed it didn't look right, but I continued.

The resultant Philadelphia Convention and the United States Constitution were hardly a "small" thing.

Here is a Wackipedia quote:

"In the aftermath, fear spread that the American Revolution's democratic impulse had gotten out of hand. This fear, combined with the lack of institutional response to the uprising, energized calls to reevaluate the Articles of Confederation and gave strong impetus to the Philadelphia Convention which began on May 17, 1787, which created the United States Constitution."

As regards Paul/Shay, whether he lives or dies or retires matters not, as The Monkeees said so sagely, so long ago:

"The seeds of doubt you planted
have started to grow wild
and I feel that I must yield
Before the wisdom of a child"

Paul is not going to die, because the seeds he planted have been with the young, not with old goofballs like the other candidates. The young will always usher in the new. It's an eternal law.

As I said Paul is just the lightning rod for now. He is charismatic in his own way. He speaks with passion which is not easy for someone his age. The others speak with the passion for power. That comes across to the plebs.

In Shay's day people were being locked up in Debtor's Prison at the slightest  cause, which is hardly useful as then the debtor is useless to society as well as being miserable.

The current tide of layoffs and failed mortgages is more or less the same thing.

TD says the rest much more eloquently than I.

YS, It's good that you are "Devil's Advocate" as you fan the flames of the young. You speak for the older, entrenched and semi-asleep. There is truth in what you say.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on January 22, 2012, 11:06:25 pm
YS is reality check. 
You are very much appreciated.

Ron Paul is the dream. 
And sometimes, dreams and revolutions do come true.
It's social media versus mainstream media 2012.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 23, 2012, 04:19:53 am
Quote
YS, It's good that you are "Devil's Advocate" as you fan the flames of the young. You speak for the older, entrenched and semi-asleep. There is truth in what you say.

:) I don't speak for anyone.  I'm in my 30s so not that old.  I only speak what I see.  And I see no flame in younger people.  Most of college people like myself cared about women and beer and that did not change today.  There will always be hippies, communists, and libertarians of all flavors among college kids but those are not mainstream.

Quote
people need to be able to afford such as mortgages etc.

Mortgage is one of the least of peoples concerns.  Most houses that are being foreclosed were either purchased with nothing down or got hefty cash out.  So walking away from the house is not difficult at all.

In addition to pizza, beer, and football I forgot to add cell phones.  The rest does not matter much.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 23, 2012, 04:22:03 am
Quote
Ron Paul is the dream.

I completely agree with you.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on January 23, 2012, 03:54:28 pm
God, I am so angry right now. Here is a copy of Aajonus' most recent e-mail about the corruption of the US government officials and his endorsement of Ron Paul. This is why I like enlightened despots so much, as there is always the possibility of hanging corrupt government officials in such regimes:-

To aajonus
From:   aajonus (optimal@earthlink.net)
Sent:   23 January 2012 06:51:27
To:    aajonus (optimal@earthlink.net)
Dear health-food lovers,
    A lot of pressure was put on Senator Dale Shultz and Assemblyman Edward Brooks by your calls. People reported to me that both claimed to have supported the raw milk bills that passed both Wisconsin Senate and Assembly but could do nothing regarding the case against the farmer. Both statements were false. Shultz only supported the raw milk bill in the final day of the final vote and Brooks was against it and voted consistently against it. Both of them could have called the prosecution and ASKED them to retract the charges but they did not.
    We are at a time in history where treason to the Constitution established by our forefathers to protect people from any type of tyrannical and communistic government is at a critical point. Treason stretches from Obama to most government officials, including the courts. The latest and greatest single treasonous act was the passing in the US Senate and House of the bills that ended our Bill of Rights. The combined bills were signed into law by Obama in January. They are all traitors to the US Constitution and the people. Why? The traitorous SB 1867, the latest $662 billion military defense bill, declared the entire USA to be a "battleground" upon which U.S. military forces can operate with impunity, overriding Posse Comitatus and granting the military the unchecked power to arrest, detain, interrogate/torture and assassinate U.S. citizens with impunity, without any 4th Amendment rights. Obama has consistently outlawed certain types of weapons which would be necessary to fight a high tech military and police force.
    Several senators say it does not apply to American citizens but University of Texas' Robert Chesney (non-partisan authority on military detention) concluded, “U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority.” Although throughout the bill it states the rules do not apply to American citizens, the clause that contradicts that is at the end of the bill to where politicians are confident we will not read. They never read an entire bill unless it is 2 paragraphs, they hope you will be as negligent, stupid and treasonous as they are.
    American soil is now the same as it was in Nazi Germany of 1936. Why Nazi Germany? Because the greatest hold the Nazis gained on Germans was when they took away the people's right to bear arms to defend themselves and controlled the food. Within a few years, the Nazis declared what food could be grown, who gets the food and how much. After that, Germans allowed anything and everything. Will we? Our governments are working hard to eliminate arms for defense of citizens and our right to choose our food.
    The case against farmers Vernon and Erma Hershberger and their 9 children is following the same treasonous movement by US and States' governments. In the initial hearing on January 11th, in which Vernon was charged with farming without dairy license and permit, and refusing to let God-given good food spoil and rot was an extension of the laws recently made to make the US a fascist government wherein government controls every thing. With the corporate take over of everything in the US government, we have moved beyond fascism and into communism wherein the government owns and controls every thing. Are we going to standby as the German people did with the Nazis and let it happen?
    Wisconsin's Senator Schultz and Assemblyman Brooks reported that some people were angry and insolent when talking about the case against the farmer. They stated that that worked against the farmer rather than for the farmer. Okay, tell me how that works? They both stated that they could not do anything about the case but said that it worked against the farmers' case. Does government speak with forked tongue? Doesn't every politician except Representative Ron Paul? Ron Paul is the only politician who truly works against government control? He was immediately in favor of writing a raw milk bill for us when I lobbied his office in 2007. Together, we wrote a raw milk bill in 2007 and submitted another in 2011, HR1830.  This online petition will send a fax to your U.S. Representative, Senators, and local newspaper, in support of Ron Paul's raw milk bill.
    During the initial hearing of Vernon and family, Judge James Evenson was supposed to discuss and rule on several motions, the primary motion by Vernon was a motion for continuance so that he could properly address the lack of jurisdiction of Wisconsin;s department of agriculture (DATCP) and the courts, plus have time to secure proper representation. In ALL criminal prosecutions, it is the rule to allow time to acquire proper counsel, and secondarily jurisdictional challenges. Judge Evenson completely steamrolled Vernon right through to a Pretrial Conference. First he said he could not rule on the jurisdictional challenges which includes proper probable cause then a few minutes later stated the State and court had probable cause.
    The prosecution presented every contorted falsehood they could on the court for over 5 minutes. The judge listened and ruled that Vernon and his family had to stop farming raw milk or Vernon would be put in jail. He was coerced with deadly force to either sign a bond stipulation that stated he would not farm dairy products or allow anyone else to unless he gained permits and license. He signed it under protest.
    I had written my suggested Jurisdiction Challenged document for him in case the court violated normal procedure, which it did, making up its own rules as it desired. Because many of you do not want attachments, I will not attach the document hereto but allow you to read it at www.WeWant2Live.com (http://www.WeWant2Live.com) by Tuesday. In the Jurisdiction Challenged, Vernon states that he is not a commercial farmer and co-owns the farm with many other people, and since the requirements of food production are opposed to State regulations, they are not in the jurisdiction of DATCP. Vernon immediately filed the document following his arrest and release on bond. The filing forced a hearing which will occur on January 27th, 3 days prior to the scheduled Pretrial Conference. The court did demand a plea or enter one for Vernon. You cannot have a trial without a crime being established and a plea entered. Judge Stevenson violated many procedures of law.
    The state has planned another way to avoid personal responsibility of public officials, they are changing the judge. An unjust judge has been assigned to advance the case, Judge Guy Reynolds. He was the judge that gave a 1 million dollar default judgement against Vernon because a drunken group claimed that a wondering cow caused them to crash their vehicle. The sheriff said there was no indication that a wondering cow caused the accident but found the groups liquor bottles on Vernon's land.
    I ask you to inundate the Secretary of Agriculture, Governor, Attorney General, Judge, and prosecutor this time with calls and faxes. We went to the lawmakers for help and they refused and were annoyed with us. That is the mentality of tyrants not public servants. They think that they are beyond our reproach. Are they? Is it up to each of us to do something?
    I request that you make multiple calls and faxes daily to the individuals below until this is over. Without pressure that could be as long as end of March. Tell them you are a co-owner of the farm, a member Right To Choose Healthy Food, and you have the right to produce and drink your own milk even if you do not live at the farm. Tell them that you have the right to choose healthy food that is not provided by Wisconsin licenses or permits. Tell them that you, your farm and your food are out of their jurisdiction, and that none of the food is sold, period, or distributed to non-owners. Tell them that there will be a reckoning if they keep trying to deprive us of our healthy food. Tell them that that is how the Nazis started. Take their time because they are trying to take your food rights. Be heard and make them listen.
    I am beyond the Mr. Nice-guy attitude toward tyrannical government agents, so if it is your demeanor to try gently persuade them, wonderful. If it is your outrage that moves you, express it.

Ben Brancel, Secretary of Wisconsin Dept of Ag.
Office Phone: 608-224-5012
Office Fax: 608-224-5045

Scott Walker, Wisconsin Governor
(608) 266-1212
govgeneral@wisconsin.gov  Will not give fax number; if anyone can get it please notify me.

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen
(608) 266-1221
Will not give fax number; if anyone can get it please notify me.

Eric DeFort, Asst. Attorney General
WI DOJ, Special Prosecutor for the County of Sauk
(608)266-8514

Judge Guy Reynolds
(608) 355-3222

Judge James Evenson
(608) 355-3218"




 
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 23, 2012, 07:54:38 pm
:) I don't speak for anyone.  I'm in my 30s so not that old.  I only speak what I see.  And I see no flame in younger people.  Most of college people like myself cared about women and beer and that did not change today.  There will always be hippies, communists, and libertarians of all flavors among college kids but those are not mainstream.

Mortgage is one of the least of peoples concerns.  Most houses that are being foreclosed were either purchased with nothing down or got hefty cash out.  So walking away from the house is not difficult at all.

In addition to pizza, beer, and football I forgot to add cell phones.  The rest does not matter much.

I didn't say you were old. Possibly I could worded it more clearly. I inferred that what you were saying was the same that would be said by an older, defeated electorate. Someone who says "WTF who cares. Life's a bitch and then you die.

There is always a flame in a certain amount of young people. Some youth are idealistic as in the Occupy Movement. That doesn't necessarily make them bright or right, just idealistic.

Bear in mind that Hitler was idealistic. Look up idealistic. Someone who sees the world according to a pure ideal.

The youth didn't dream up RP's ideas, they heard him talk about them and once they understood them (which a number of generations of their forefathers had not) they realized the gravity of the situation. It even took awhile for the numbers of the youth to hear and understand the ideas, as they are a bit more complicated than beer and girls (hmmmmm beer maybe) as is witnessed by the fact that it took him awhile to gain traction.

There will always be fringe people as you said, but you will find that fringe people all become mainstream eventually, but some don't forget the prize even through their maturation, especially if the prize makes sense. Their idealism is tempered by realism but not forgotten.

Re: mortgages, you speak so loosely because as a 30 something you have not spent your life toiling in the trenches going through a few layoffs, paying down a mortgage on a place that is worthless now thanks to government policies.

Governments that were Republican and Democrat. In Canada we have the same problem, ie. conservatives are really liberals and vice versa, whatever will get them elected.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on January 23, 2012, 09:36:17 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=92OV3RbU3ek# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=92OV3RbU3ek#)!

Cut $1 trillion year one.

Predicted housing market collapse when no one else saw it coming.

Gets more support than ALL other candidates combined.

Cuts across age, party, gender lines.

Wants to eliminate income tax.

Takes no government pension. Never took gov money (even if he had to work for free) when he was a practicing doctor.

Wants smaller federal government and power back to people & states.

What the hell are YOU waiting for?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 24, 2012, 05:53:19 am
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/video/video-ron-paul-not-slowed-down-by-fourth-place-finish/article2310672/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/video/video-ron-paul-not-slowed-down-by-fourth-place-finish/article2310672/)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: cherimoya_kid on January 24, 2012, 11:50:13 am
Romney lost South Carolina to Gingrich.

I believe I mentioned that a Mormon will never carry the redneck South.

I really don't know who they hate worse, blacks or Mormons.  I'm guessing they'd vote for the Mormon before Obama, but I'm still skeptical that you can win the Republican nomination without the rural South.

Go, Newt, Go!!! ROFL
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Raw Kyle on January 24, 2012, 12:15:37 pm
I just don't think it's going to happen. Seems like the mainstream media still has enough lock-down on "public opinion" to prevent critical mass for a sea change like a Ron Paul presidency.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: cherimoya_kid on January 24, 2012, 03:32:19 pm
I say Newt is trolling. He knows he can't beat Obama in the general election, and he knows that Romney's the one with the best chance, so he's staying in the race to keep Romney from getting the nomination.

I mean seriously, why else would he be in the race?  He has treated his wives terribly, and flip-flops on issues worse than Romney.  Given those facts, I'd say his chances are ridiculously slim, against Obama. Remember, Newt used to be way more liberal, way back. He switched sides to win elections. His conservatism is skin-deep.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 24, 2012, 08:10:42 pm
Quote
Quote
Romney is sinking his ship further with respect to the Theocons /quote

ys wrote: "Let's wait for NH and SC to see if it is sinking or not."
NH was a given for Romney and not a Theocon state, so SC was a truer test and Mitt failed that one. Looks like the (non-Mormon) Theocons are not much enamored of him, as I expected. The old South looks like infertile soil for him. He could still win it in the other states. Ron Paul's campaign manager said he thinks it will come down to Romney and Ron Paul, since Gingrich and Santorum aren't even on the ballot in multiple states, according to him.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on January 25, 2012, 12:05:26 am
Ron Paul's campaign manager said he thinks it will come down to Romney and Ron Paul, since Gingrich and Santorum aren't even on the ballot in multiple states, according to him.

He is correct, though he overstates the case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2012_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2012_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Eric on January 25, 2012, 01:59:18 am
I found it entertaining that Romney finally released his tax returns. 13.9 percent on $20+ million in income. Am I wrong to vomit explosively upon seeing that figure?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 25, 2012, 05:49:37 am
Quote
13.9 percent on $20+ million in income. Am I wrong to vomit explosively upon seeing that figure?

I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.  That's a perfect example of a success.  I also pay 15% on my long term capital gains.  I wish I had more of them capital gains.  What we need now is lower income tax to 15% as well.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on January 25, 2012, 06:09:55 am
Quote
Re: mortgages, you speak so loosely because as a 30 something you have not spent your life toiling in the trenches going through a few layoffs, paying down a mortgage on a place that is worthless now thanks to government policies.

I completely disagree with you.  If someone is toiling that's their problem.  I do not toil, I enjoy my job.  I've been through many layoffs and reorgs and always have Plan B.  The first thing I did is allocate enough funds to last few years in case of layoffs.  If someone did not do the same and got themselves an expensive mortgage that's their problem.  No one should be getting a mortgage that costs more than 25% of their income.

My house did go down in value like many others.  But that's completely irrelevant to me because I do not plan to sell it.  If I had to sell it now then I would be concerned.

The whole housing problem was caused by:
- Too many people who purchased houses they could not afford
- Banks lending money to people who cannot afford housing
- Government to force banks to lend money to people who cannot afford it

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on January 25, 2012, 06:36:02 am
I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.  That's a perfect example of a success.  I also pay 15% on my long term capital gains.  I wish I had more of them capital gains.  What we need now is lower income tax to 15% as well.
Only Ron Paul will do that. Indeed he wants it down to 0%.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 25, 2012, 07:59:22 am
Yeah, Romney should vote for Ron Paul, as Ron will work to get Romney's taxes down to zero. LOL
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 25, 2012, 08:31:45 am
I completely disagree with you.  If someone is toiling that's their problem.  I do not toil, I enjoy my job.  I've been through many layoffs and reorgs and always have Plan B.  The first thing I did is allocate enough funds to last few years in case of layoffs.  If someone did not do the same and got themselves an expensive mortgage that's their problem.  No one should be getting a mortgage that costs more than 25% of their income.

My house did go down in value like many others.  But that's completely irrelevant to me because I do not plan to sell it.  If I had to sell it now then I would be concerned.

The whole housing problem was caused by:
- Too many people who purchased houses they could not afford
- Banks lending money to people who cannot afford housing
- Government to force banks to lend money to people who cannot afford it

YS, You are playing with words. (toiling) In another 30 years when you are ready to leave the workplace, if you are an average person, toil will probably be a bit closer description. Ah "youth is wasted on the young" (GB Shaw) (or so a Google pointed out, I thought it was Ben Franklin)

The rest of your argument points squarely at why this thread has been in favour of Ron Paul.

As you said;

"-Government to force banks to lend money to people who cannot afford it."

Ron Paul wouldn't allow that.

Canada BTW had no housing crisis.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 25, 2012, 08:35:07 am
I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.  That's a perfect example of a success.  I also pay 15% on my long term capital gains.  I wish I had more of them capital gains.  What we need now is lower income tax to 15% as well.

So in your country what income tax would be paid on earned income? As in a wage earner?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 25, 2012, 08:50:51 am
That's interesting, I looked it up and it varies from 10 to 35%.

So essentially the middle class guy gets his socks knocked off to pay for wars, highways, police etc. Makes perfect sense. Guys like M Romney get into power and lower the rate of taxation on what turns out to be the bulk of his income, (investments) while people in the lower brackets who actually do the work that powers the economy, pay the max rate.That is basically what everyone including Ron Paul says.

That's why they want to get into power. To keep it that way. Why do you think that they got rich in the first place? This isn't a socialist rant, it's just the facts.

I don't know your immediate situation YS, but if you work for someone else you are getting screwed by the income tax system. It's not a question of whether some are successful and more power to them, it's simple math and the M. Romneys want to keep it that way.

Either have a completely level playing field where everyone pays the same tax on everything they earn or have no income tax. There was a time when there was no income tax. It was a temporary measure when it was instituted.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on January 25, 2012, 09:10:15 pm
Here is a revelation that seems relevant.

Billionaires pick the president, so of course they will choose someone who is for tax breaks for the wealthy, while keeping the middle classes burdened down with higher rates.

There are super committees that are funded by the billionaires that run the campaigns of the top tier candidates. They pay off the media for favorable support, while using their influence to deny equal access to the candidates with less money. Without the uber wealthy pulling the strings no candidate well be able to get through the primary process.

This is why Gingrich is still in the race, he is totally supported by the super wealthy.

Obama is also supported by the super wealthy, perhaps by billionaires with a slightly different view, but still both camps often work together against the best interest of the average person, so I criticize the leaders of both parties equally as being bought off by the wealthy.

So we end up after the primaries, being forced to choose between two millionaires who are under the control of billionaires. The whole process is rigged.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 25, 2012, 09:23:36 pm
Not only what I said above, also the Romneys of the world have arranged it so that they buy their toys, houses, restaurant tabs, vacation trips, private jets, German cars, you-name-it, etc. with pre-tax money, so in reality 13.9% is a lot more than what they actually pay (percentage-wise) than the average Joe. That's 13.9% of their income after they bought their toys/vehicles/food/vacation/lodging, etc..

Even the infrastructure that they use for their commercial interests and pleasure is funded by the lower & middle class folks. The highways and airports and federal agencies for restricting commerce to improve their income is paid for by guess who.

Read "Rich Dad Poor Dad" by Robert Kiyosaki http://www.richdad.com/ (http://www.richdad.com/) for a better explanation.

Robert has written some very good books on the subject and has an interesting board game. http://store.richdad.com/Rich-Dad-CASHFLOW-101/dp/B00313NCB2 (http://store.richdad.com/Rich-Dad-CASHFLOW-101/dp/B00313NCB2)

I was blown away on how accurate the results of the board game were. After playing it a number of times with my wife, I figured out what we were doing wrong with our financial lives. It dawned on me, what it was about our financial IQ, that was an obstacle. I could see the patterns as the outcome of the game (winner/loser) was always the same. I figured out which one of us took better financial risks and how to determine what a better financial risk looks like. The game is not cheap, but very worthwhile. It is a masterpiece of engineering.

His books also tell you the reality of money and how to do an honest "real" financial audit on yourself that is mind expanding. This stuff should be taught in schools, it's too important to leave to chance.

I am intuitively money-wise and successful, but this brought it to another level.

It's no accident that lawyers and business people are politicians.

Sabertooth and I may sound like conspiracy theorists but it's like the old expression "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't following you".

Income tax was introduced by politicians to pay for wars. Initially po folks cheered because it meant that rich folks would pay more, but it wasn't long before rich figured that one out (remember they didn't get rich by being stupid) and introduced "tax breaks", "incentives for investing" and other BS ways around the "issue".
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 25, 2012, 10:26:59 pm
Ron Paul explains in his books about the business people who started trooping into his office, looking for special "favours" after he was elected. These people helped him get elected and they expected favours. They were willing to pay handsomely for it.

After he got elected he basically kicked them to hell out.

Unfortunately there are precious few politicians who are honest like this.

Federal agencies are routinely run by people who are politically connected or who are people who worked for, or about to work for the same places they are supposed to regulate. The fox guarding the hen house.

Even an Allopathic doctor like Ron Paul who is very vested in allopathy (allo means trauma and so modern doctors are trauma doctors) freely says that the FDA is basically a front for "big pharma" and the American Medical Association. He freely admits that the allopathic community has gone to great lengths to protect itself, annihilate other medical systems and make themselves above the law by being self-regulated.

The first one they did it to back in the mid 19th century was homeopathy. They have been doing it to all the other systems with impunity because of political pressure. Allopathy back then was less effective, than a prayer circle. Basically a doctor was a philosopher with a little college degree. They would just come and chat with a patient and make them feel better about the inevitable. Patent medicines were useless or just old folk remedies.

The same kind of stuff goes on in the financial community.

All this to say that regulatory agencies are pure unadulterated BS. They don't regulate anything. They tend to restrict trade if anything.

In the hang gliding community, the manufacturers all got together and determined how to make the gliders safer, then they made rules/engineering guidelines and enforced them on the individual manufacturers. If someone dicked with the rules they were out. No government department of hang gliders, just people with a financial and moral obligation to make safe gliders so people would buy more.

But in the FDA's case, (which really should be called the Federal Allopathic/Germ Theory/Surgical Food and Drug Schutzstaffel [German Nazi SS] ), they have governmental power and so can decree that other systems are unlawful and raw food eating is unlawful. It goes way beyond science, science is used as an excuse.

If you don't believe raw food is unlawful, just go into a restaurant and order some (beside the precious few items that have been grandfathered in.)

Instead of the drug/surgery/allopathic manufacturers/practitioners paying for their own association, all tax payers and specifically the lower and middle class ones as I showed before, pay the tab.

These clowns get unbelievable amounts of money doled out to them for research into their drugs and modalities, which is then used by big pharma to make even more money. Then you pay through the nose for the products (if you use these modalities) after you already paid for it in taxes.

If you chose not to use the drugs and surgery and do not subscribe to the germ theory you still foot the tab.

Basically the Romneys out there are enforcing socialism on all Americans, while calling it something else which it isn't.. !!!!!!!!!! Then they use the armed forces to force it on the world.

THAT IS WHAT RON PAUL IS SAYING!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 26, 2012, 12:40:27 am
This is the kind of thing Ron Paul is talking about:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/defending-civil-liberties/can-the-government-make-entrepreneurs-do-useless-things-for-no-reason-.html (http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/defending-civil-liberties/can-the-government-make-entrepreneurs-do-useless-things-for-no-reason-.html)

He talks about the sugar import duties as an example of political wrangling by a small influential business person somewhere, a long time ago, that has had a dramatic effect on the population, as it has caused a shift to using corn for one heck of a lot of (sweetening etc) products that shouldn't be. Some of these products are very harmful such as HFCS.

Some clown paid off politicians somewhere to slap import duties on sugar to protect a very minute part of the American economy which caused a dramatic and skewed shift in the economy.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Aaaaaa on January 26, 2012, 09:53:42 am
THANK YOU AL!!  Love it! ;-)
I'm going to check out that "Rich Dad" book...I've actually been meaning to for awhile because I've heard good things about it.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 27, 2012, 08:49:54 am
New poll: Obama takes 48%-40% lead over Romney among Michigan votersDetroit Free Press
http://www.freep.com/article/20120126/NEWS15/120126046/New-poll-Obama-takes-48-40-lead-over-Romney-in-Michigan?odyssey=nav%7Chead (http://www.freep.com/article/20120126/NEWS15/120126046/New-poll-Obama-takes-48-40-lead-over-Romney-in-Michigan?odyssey=nav%7Chead)

As I've said before, Romney cannot beat Obama. Obama would clean his clock. Obama is polling well above Romney in the state Romney was born and raised in for Pete's sake! A Romney victory spells guaranteed defeat for the Republicans.  The Republicans desperately need someone who will inspire people, someone like Ron Paul.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 28, 2012, 01:29:34 am
To continue on with my rant re: income tax.

Let's picture you are transported back to the time of Jesus and you were going to the castle to pay your taxes to the King.

You made a $ 100,000. this year and the guy in front of you in line is Mint Romney who funnily enough made the exact same amount of money. You are a little confused because he only has a small envelope to carry his taxes while you had to bring your roll-along Samsonite luggage to carry yours. Good grief you look like the friggan local bag-lady.

So Mint goes first. Taxman says "how much did you make?" He says "Well it's a bit complicated see, because I didn't really make this money, I mean it's really just "investment income" so therefore, it's hardly worth anything. So my good buddy G. Bush and Barrack who also live off this kind of income, decided that 'we' should be taxed at a muuuch lower rate". (See how handy it is to be making up the rules.)

"OK" the taxman says "so fork over the $ 15,000." Then Mint says "Well actually in order to make that money, I had to have a car, you know 'the Benz', which naturally needs gas and insurance and maintenance and a house and food and my wife 'n kids and I, who are all on the board of directors, had to fly to Fiji and to Africa and to Orlando's Disneyland to have the tri-annual Board of Director's meetings, and then I had to entertain clients in order to make that business run properly, so here are my restaurant tabs and er... well.. ah.. here are the receipts for the boxes at the opera and the baseball and football games where I entertain er ah my, um 'clients' and here is the receipts for the private jet lease and the gas, got to pay for it all you know, airplanes aren't cheap these days".

"Clicketty click, tappety tap, hmmm well Mr. Romney looks like your tax tab comes to $ 2000."

So then you are up to the bat.  "OK" the taxman says "so you made $ 100,000. so fork over the $ 35,000.".

And what is your reply "Yessirree".

So looks like successful in the USA means 'successful at paying less income taxes'. So now Mint has an extra $ 33,000. to invest next year or upgrade his jet to a super mid-size to get to his clients place 20 minutes earlier and of course to do that 4000 mile leg to the Board of Director's meeting, without that pesky refuelling stop. Remember.... the miracle of 'compound-interest'.

Now that is the real tax system that Ron Paul is trying to disassemble and the Mint R's of the world are up in arms about. Can't blame 'em. No wonder they keep such a straight face up on the podium. They are worried.

If you don't believe me, you really ought to learn how to read. Take an accounting course.

Wake up and smell the Romneys.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 28, 2012, 01:57:54 am
And don't get me started on why these characters like wars. It has nothing to do with protecting anyone or protecting business interests. That's referred to as rhetoric.

To cut to the chase, it's because their own and their business friend's "Investment Income" needs the munitions/helicopters/tanks/vehicles/etc. orders, and the contracts to feed armies etc. to bring up the bottom line, cause they are 'bottom feeders' making money off brown people's misery.

The dead soldiers, well that's just good old fashioned collateral damage, "Hey they signed up" as Cheney told his soldiers when they complained about decisions.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 29, 2012, 10:49:58 pm
Ron Paul Doctrine - Foreign Policy - Saviour of America
Ron Paul's Foreign Policy - Saviour of America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5fGVt6BbS0#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 30, 2012, 05:47:57 am
Ron Paul Doctrine - Foreign Policy - Saviour of America
Ron Paul's Foreign Policy - Saviour of America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5fGVt6BbS0#ws)
Absolutely, I mean, you never know, America might be attacked by some kagaroos ee-gads or wallabees sheesh! or maybe the dreaded Tasmanian Devil. Yikes!!!
Merrie Melodies - Bedevilled Rabbit (1957) (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3os78)

I'd say if ya foll'erd that decision back to it's s'arce, you'd end up in somebody's pocket. Wonder who? hmmmmmmmmmm what's up Doc. Gotta keep that Investment income rollin in cause it's so unworthwhile.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 31, 2012, 01:12:53 am
Here's more on money in the present system.

http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/money/how-money-is-created-ben-dyson-explainsthe-debt-crisis.html (http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/money/how-money-is-created-ben-dyson-explainsthe-debt-crisis.html)

A British pound is about 1.57 USD.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on January 31, 2012, 10:00:51 am
Interesting!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 31, 2012, 11:32:04 am
Romney is using his money, connections, wicked cunning and prevarication to mercilessly flail poor Newt into a bloody corpse. I hope the conservatives now finally see what I've been talking about when it comes to Romney. Romney's contempt for conservatives is palpable.

Romney hits 'flailing' Gingrich on eve of Florida primary
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/30/politics/campaign-wrap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/30/politics/campaign-wrap/index.html)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 06, 2012, 12:07:33 am
Can we help? LOL
http://youtu.be/9AOYdVL695s (http://youtu.be/9AOYdVL695s)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on February 06, 2012, 12:36:42 am
I loved that bit in the video where he says that Canada has the same problem as the US as regards illiterate foreigners coming in via the southern border to steal peoples' jobs.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 06, 2012, 04:44:47 am
http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/conspiracy/gingrich-bohemian-grove-observers-live-fantasy-lives.html (http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/conspiracy/gingrich-bohemian-grove-observers-live-fantasy-lives.html)

I have no idea of the accuracy, a friend sent it to me and he is a die hard Republican.

The note with the link goes:


"Presented with the taped comments of former
Presidents Clinton and Nixon about nudism and
unusual behavior at the infamous redwoods retreat,
as well as the inflammatory allegations of a male
prostitute in The New York Post, presidential candidate
and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich dismissed
questions about the secretive Bohemian Club by
claiming that the observations were products of
those living "fantasy lives." "
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 06, 2012, 05:22:50 am
I have no idea of the accuracy, a friend sent it to me and he is a die hard Republican.
If you have no idea of the accuracy, is it a good idea to post it?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: balancing-act on February 06, 2012, 05:37:26 am
The Bohemian Club is very real; it's a northern California spot where U.S. political elites go and engage in bizarre occult rituals. They certainly believe in this creepy stuff, whether we do or not. Maybe Newt hasn't gotten an invite yet.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 06, 2012, 05:47:04 am
Yes, the Bohemian Club is real, but does it make sense to accuse Gingrich of membership without first checking into the facts? I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but I'd rather not stoop to the sorts of innuendo tactics that have been used against Ron.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: balancing-act on February 06, 2012, 05:56:19 am
Oh, no, I guess I missed the context. Gingrich is not a Bohemian Club attendee; he's just an idiot.

But re: Ron Paul- I agree wholeheartedly about ending U.S. imperialism and the Drug War. But massively slashing social services domestically would be totally devastating to poor people. Some of you don't seem to have an actual class consciousness. The secret truth of the western world is that the vast majority of wealth comes through inheritance. And when you're born poor it's very hard bordering impossible to get out of it. The "American dream" is a lie, and I think we all know it. It's not really funny to slash the hell out of social service programs. Nor is it cool to support environmentally destructive projects such as what the Keystone Pipeline would have been, and to threaten to abolish the EPA. These are all libertarian aims, as well as disempowering unions. It sounds nice to put 100% faith in "the market," but here in reality unchecked corporate power is actually *the problem,* not the solution. We should regulate corporations and banks and provide social services to poor and middle-income people and building up infrastructure; that's what government *should* be doing. What it shouldn't be doing is waging wars all over the world and a phony Drug War at home. We should tax huge corporations (GE paid no taxes this year) and the Mitt Romneys of the world.
I like Ron Paul to a degree, but someone like Dennis Kucinich is much on point overall.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 06, 2012, 09:39:32 am
Stopping the rich from getting richer is not going to happen, ever, no matter who is running the shop.

Getting GE/Romney to pay taxes is never going to happen.

What is being suggested is making it so we don't pay taxes also. That way we have more money to spend as we choose, rather than shipping it off to people in endless government black holes to spend how they want.

Very little of that money actually makes it out into social programs. It just makes government agencies like Freddie and Fanny more powerful so they can screw up in a more spectacular way.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: cherimoya_kid on February 06, 2012, 10:54:33 am
Stopping the rich from getting richer is not going to happen, ever, no matter who is running the shop.

Getting GE/Romney to pay taxes is never going to happen.



Taxes on the rich in the US were much, much higher in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.  Why couldn't it happen again?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 06, 2012, 11:28:27 am
Taxes on the rich in the US were much, much higher in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.  Why couldn't it happen again?
Because they aren't dumb. That's how they got rich.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 06, 2012, 12:25:01 pm
If you have no idea of the accuracy, is it a good idea to post it?
Do you have certainty on the accuracy of all of your statements?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 06, 2012, 08:32:29 pm
Quote
Quote from: PaleoPhil on Yesterday at 04:22:50 pm
If you have no idea of the accuracy, is it a good idea to post it?

Do you have certainty on the accuracy of all of your statements?
What does that have to do with my question? Do you have an answer to my yes or no question? If the situation were reversed and Ron Paul was the one being criticized with an Internet rumor by someone who said they have no idea of its accuracy, would you be so understanding? After all, isn't integrity a good thing and the greatest strength of Ron Paul that attracts many people to him?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 06, 2012, 10:21:29 pm
"Here’s a worrisome marker for the former Massachusetts governor [Mitt Romney]: Fifty-two percent of those polled said the more they hear about Romney the less they like him." http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/romney-takes-nevada-but-obama-takes-the-lead-the-note/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/romney-takes-nevada-but-obama-takes-the-lead-the-note/)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 06, 2012, 11:40:33 pm
I loved that bit in the video where he says that Canada has the same problem as the US as regards illiterate foreigners coming in via the southern border to steal peoples' jobs.
LOL,
Of course it was all very tongue in cheek, because that stuff goes on both ways. Canadians and Americans get along pretty well. There was quite a bit of concern when they almost beat us in hockey a couple of years ago. That would have been a national disgrace!  : )
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on February 07, 2012, 02:13:14 am
I just came across another Ron Paul interview with Piers Morgan, one of our dumbest exports from the UK:-

Ron Paul Interview On Piers Morgan Part Two 02/03/12 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqPmTYUEby4#)

For once, PM, near the end of the interview, asks Ron Paul an intelligent question about abortion in the case of rape. Ron Paul did state that he would suggest preventing conception in that case, unlike Rick Santorum, though RP wasn't, unfortunately, seemingly in favour of abortion at a later stage. I mean, women who've been raped are often ashamed/disgusted so sometimes don't report it,  and they usually only find out about being pregnant some  weeks afterwards. One would think that RP would allow for that, but, hey, maybe he needs votes from the pro-life crowd.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 07, 2012, 04:42:43 am
I had to stop watching that video. It was disgusting. Piers Morgan employed the Sean Hannity brand of interview in which the interviewer gives his opinions, misrepresents the interviewees positions and ridicules them, repeats Neocon lies, and then interrupts and ignores the truths that the interviewee shares. Once again the lie about Ahmadinejad saying that Israel should be wiped out was repeated and when Ron Paul pointed out that that's a lie it didn't seem to phase Morgan in the slightest and Morgan then went on to suggest that pointing out the lie of the war-mongering Neocons is akin to defending Ahmadinejad. It's sickening to think that thousands of Americans may die because of this lie, and so soon after thousands of Americans died because of a lie about WMD in Iraq.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 07, 2012, 06:52:46 am
After his outbursts were over, PM settled into some better interviewing techniques as opposed to his giving of opinions in the first part.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 07, 2012, 07:41:21 am
I watched the rest and it was disappointing. It seemed like Ron contradicted himself on abortion and was almost arguing against himself. Overall it seemed like a befuddling cop out. Uncharacteristic for Ron, though it's somewhat understandable as it's an incredibly difficult issue.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on February 08, 2012, 09:44:46 pm
Santorum? A fucking 3 state sweep for Santorum? Are you kidding me?

I'm going to shoot myself in the face.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 09, 2012, 12:48:48 am
What does that have to do with my question? Do you have an answer to my yes or no question? If the situation were reversed and Ron Paul was the one being criticized with an Internet rumor by someone who said they have no idea of its accuracy, would you be so understanding? After all, isn't integrity a good thing and the greatest strength of Ron Paul that attracts many people to him?
Looks like we are both even, I did not answer your presumably rhetorical question and you did likewise.

This whole thread contains lots of statements by the authors and their links that are simply opinions, observations,  conspiracy theories, wild unsubstantiated guesses. I think you could go so far as to say that all interactions between human beings are that.

I posted that because I thought that someone might know something about it and clarify what it meant or how it would pan out. Generally on this discussion some very literate and knowledgeable people hang out and clarify things.

Politicians including RP live and die on their past life regardless of whether it is fair or not. NG has had his private life dredged up and discussed on the thread previously.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 09, 2012, 09:32:10 am
Quote
I posted that because I thought that someone might know something about it and clarify what it meant or how it would pan out. Generally on this discussion some very literate and knowledgeable people hang out and clarify things.
I appreciate your good intentions, and I don't mean to disparage them. I do wish to explain that I've generally found that it doesn't pay to get deeper into publicly discussing conspiracy theories, as it only tends to give them more attention and credence than they deserve and I'm usually not interested in the theory anyway, including in this case. As a moderator in this forum, albeit for the moribund carnivore section, my interest is in promoting the habit of asking questions and in trying to help this forum stay above the level of the usual Internet muck. I think we're capable of better.

If you're interested in investigating the "truthiness" ;) of the claim, one avenue is to check out the credibility of the source. Conspiracy theories like that one are typically spread by sources with low credibility that can generally be safely ignored to save precious time, though every now and then even eccentric people can be right, or at least, entertaining. If it seems like the source could potentially be right, then you look for evidence, confirmation, logic, reason, etc. supporting it and especially check out the opinions of those who disagree. If those who disagree lean more on opinions, wild speculation and personal attacks than the ones promoting the theory, then that could suggest that there's something to it. Look for the sources who stick mainly to facts, who ask questions, who challenge their own assumptions and who present solid evidence. Beware of sources that rely solely or mainly on opinions, wild speculations, innuendo or rumor.

Quote
Politicians including RP live and die on their past life regardless of whether it is fair or not.
Plenty of people have defended RP when he has been unfairly attacked and as I already mentioned, the single biggest factor that sets Ron apart from all the other candidates of both parties is integrity (which is also wrapped into commitment and consistency). I'm not going to completely abandon one of the values Ron Paul promotes just because other politicians have little use for it. Don't worry, I don't have the slightest naive notion that we will ever be rid of hypocrisy, I'm just not going to embrace it.

Good luck and remember to vote for Ron Paul.  :D

It does look like the Theocons may finally be settling on a candidate (Santorum), though perhaps too soon to tell for sure.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on February 09, 2012, 09:38:02 am



Politicians including RP live and die on their past life regardless of whether it is fair or not. NG has had his private life dredged up and discussed on the thread previously.

So I guess I can never be president, oh well.

Perhaps Barrack won the democratic primary over Hillary because of Hillarys past baggage. Hilary had Establishment rank over Mr. Soetoro, she was far more experienced. Its not fair, she would have read the same scripts as were written for Obama ,but  her past made her credibility questionable so the bilderbergers decided the time was right to unveil their creation. Obama was a manufactured political creature. Its hard to find any real dirt on him.

When he speaks of hope and change , there isn't the image of Bill fornicating recklessly, or Hilary having her lover executed at the whitehouse, to distract the hypnotized from the regularly scheduled propaganda. 

Obama was carefully cultivated by his handlers, and most of his transgressions have been disregarded by the media. We have very little to go on other than rumors about his true identity. Is he bi sexual, did he smoke crack, is his wife a political prop, what was he doing for that year in Pakistan etc.

 A multitude of Conspiratorial delusions persist in my mind, Forgive me, I just can't help it.

Was John McCain just a ringer run against Obama in the same way that Dole was run against Clinton? Is the lack of a unified voice of opposition going to guarantee that Obama will get reelected despite his terrible record and possible treasonous activities?

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 09, 2012, 09:45:36 am
If only conspiracy candidates win and we want Ron Paul to win, does that mean we want him to be the conspiracy candidate?  :o ???
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 09, 2012, 12:29:09 pm
Obama was carefully cultivated by his handlers, and most of his transgressions have been disregarded by the media. We have very little to go on other than rumors about his true identity. Is he bi sexual, did he smoke crack, is his wife a political prop, what was he doing for that year in Pakistan etc.

I don't follow day to day stuff about politicians, (newspapers) so I don't know why the furor over Obama, but he certainly did bare his soul in his books. There is no secrets whatsoever. He did inhale and he did have dark nights of the soul.

Basically he was refreshingly honest and after years of WMD, etc. he was a shoe-in.

He scraped around the bottom, but he admitted and explained it, so no digging for dirt there. That's why I think he won.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 09, 2012, 12:30:50 pm
Now once Obama got the crown, well that's another story...
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on February 09, 2012, 09:04:17 pm
Bearing ones soul is not the same as being honest when it comes to the political arena. He covers for the transgressions of the men who put him into power. Perhaps he has been somehow compartmentalized to such an extent he is unaware, but I highly doubt it.

I concur with the late Gatewood Galbraith who said, "They are all a bunch of pussies"(regarding most politicians in general). They haven't the courage to stand for true convictions. Certain things will not be covered by the politics of today, there is a CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE, regarding real issues that never get brought up.

What does Obama have to say about 911, or the accusations of treason by financial journalist like Max Keiser? (nothing of relevance) Obama chooses to ignore conspiracy talk completely. Then proceeds to wag the dog with trivial partisan political quibbles over minor differences of policy, all the while progressing a hidden agenda of more federal control, and business as usual.

So much for hope and change.

Anyone else agree that there is a conspiracy of silence, perpetrated by the top ranking political leaders, in concert with mainstream media?

Even Ron Paul plays it carefully when speaking about certain issues on the network TV programs.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on February 09, 2012, 10:21:53 pm
Hmmmm.....RP as VP? Interesting thought.

GOP Strategist: Ron Paul Will Be on GOP Ticket (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StQr-dlxaBM#ws)

OK...maybe I won;t shoot myself in the face after all. But I'm still pissed off about Santorum.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on February 10, 2012, 12:58:27 am
RP has already expressed doubts that he would want to be VP to any of the others given their odious stances on almost every policy. Only if Romney were to give iron-clad massive compromises would RP ever stand as VP.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 10, 2012, 10:20:56 am
RP would only be an effective VP to Romney if he clubbed Romney over the head and thus performed a coup d'etat, benefiting humanity greatly. None of the establishment politicians will choose Ron as VP, guaranteed. Ron is anathema to them. However, if one should surprise everyone and do so, it will be a masterstroke and their only chance for defeating Obama. Otherwise, Obama is assured victory bar some major catastrophe (especially if Romney is the Republican's chosen warrior, a candidate who is absolutely guaranteed to lose against Obama--the more people learn about him, the more they despise him), unless some dramatic catastrophe occurs before the general election.

Ron Paul and his enthusiastic youthful cohort is the greatest thing to happen to the Republican Party since Reagan. The fact that establishment Republicans don't get this only reveals the likelihood of their demise. It's looking like we'll have to wait at least one more election cycle before the decaying, gray-haired Grand Old Party of grumpy old men and women realizes this and stops ridiculing their only hope of salvation. It may require the passing of the older generation, a changing of the guard, which is odd because the older generation doesn't tend to be coke-addled, but for some reason they don't seem to realize that Ron Paul is reviving the ancient spirit of values, integrity, wisdom, tradition and simple common sense, which of course is uncommon. Bless Ron Paul for at least trying to wake up America.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: svrn on February 11, 2012, 04:39:02 am
Historically, vice president has often held more sway than the president in my opinion. (dick cheney for example).
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 12, 2012, 11:25:26 pm
Obama thinks he owns the future. Ron Paul begs to differ.
By: Daniel McCarthy, senior editor of The American Conservative
http://www.yaliberty.org/yar/the-battle-for-americas-youth (http://www.yaliberty.org/yar/the-battle-for-americas-youth)

"Barack Obama won something bigger than the presidential election last November. By laying claim to the hopes as well as the votes of millions of young Americans, he also won the future. Just as Ronald Reagan’s 20-point victory in the 1984 youth vote presaged the Republican takeover of Congress a decade later, Obama’s success among young voters foretells a Democratic wave to come. If Republicans are to have any hope of turning back that tide, they must heed the man who excited more students and young people than any other candidate for the GOP nomination—Ron Paul."
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 12, 2012, 11:42:05 pm
Is there any books etc that have examined how the transition to a gold (or similar) standard would pan out or affect the world?

I haven't read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" (by G. Edward Griffin)  yet because it is such a tome, but I suspect the answer is there.

The Creature From Jekyll Island (by G. Edward Griffin) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_VqX6J93k#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 13, 2012, 03:26:25 am
If you want to see how well the blueprint works in action in limited form, check out Singapore, which has already put the plan partially into action. It's somewhat complicated; they back their currency with mostly a basket of foreign currencies from the nations they trade with, but also with some gold reserves and "other reserve assets," such as Asian bonds (Monetary Authority of Singapore, http://www.mas.gov.sg/data_room/reserves_statistics/Intl_Reserves_FC_Liquidity_Nov_2011.html (http://www.mas.gov.sg/data_room/reserves_statistics/Intl_Reserves_FC_Liquidity_Nov_2011.html)).

It's apparently the only currency in the world that is not largely backed by little or nothing more than government promises, though a global economic collapse would still undercut their currency. Perhaps more importantly, instead of a central bank they have a currency board with limited powers (Currency Convertibility: A Self Blueprint for the Commonwealth of Independent States, by Steve H. Hanke and Kurt Schuler, http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-017.html (http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-017.html)). Thus, it's reportedly more difficult in Singapore to "print money," than in the USA.

How well has it worked? Well, it's one of the most productive nations in the world, reportedly has one of the best healthcare systems, and...
Quote
Singapore had a current account surplus of about 14 percent of GDP in 1995, the highest in the world, and much of this was used to acquire reserves (which stood at some $67 billion in September 1995, for less than 3 million people) http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=280 (http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=280)
Singapore's current account surplus remains positive and their foreign reserves continue to "pile up."
(http://www.haver.com/comment/071119d.JPG) (http://www.haver.com/comment/comment.html?c=071119x.html)
Is it any wonder that Jim Rogers, an advocate of hard currency (and Ron Paul) moved there (it was Roger's move to Singapore that sparked my curiosity about their currency)?

It hasn't been a panacea, however. You might get the impression from Griffin that most or all income inequality comes from Central Banks with fully-fiat currencies, but Singapore has some of the highest income and wealth inequality in the world (Income Inequality in Singapore: Causes, Consequences and Policy Options http://www.mas.gov.sg/resource/eco_research/eco_education/Esss2007/uni_%201st_%20Ishita.pdf (http://www.mas.gov.sg/resource/eco_research/eco_education/Esss2007/uni_%201st_%20Ishita.pdf)), and the percentage of people living in poverty there increased recently (Singapore's economic boom widens income gap, http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/11/09/us-singapore-economy-inequality-idUSSIN20069020071109 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/11/09/us-singapore-economy-inequality-idUSSIN20069020071109)).

It's looking to me like the first major step toward monetary reform is to replace the central bank with a national currency board, a la Singapore. There are also some other small nations with currency boards (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?123915-Abolishing-central-banks (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?123915-Abolishing-central-banks)) It's not a panacea, but it does look like a good step in the right direction.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 13, 2012, 03:52:07 am
Thanks Phil for the thoughtful post.

I was wondering more about the actual transition, as if RP became President tomorrow and did as SkinnyDevil proposed, completely changed the system re: government dramatically reduced, gold standard (or similar) reintroduced, military brought home, etc. before lunch and then had a nap in the afternoon....  ;D

The whole promissory note system of money would fall down like a house of cards, since the US owes such a ton of money to the world, things could be.... interesting, to say the least.

The system of funding endless wars would fold up, so money would be saved there, people would be put back to productive employment which would benefit all.

There would be massive unemployment, as those disgorged from government employment would have to re-enlist in the real world job market. Business would have to readjust to no more free money and Gov't contracts. People on public dole would be put on notice. It would be a financial tsunami.

Interesting times.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 13, 2012, 09:15:57 am
Yeah, the establishment won't allow rapid dramatic change and the people wouldn't put up with the shocks. So you make a few important changes, reap the benefits, get re-elected and make some more changes. In other words, Popperian tinkering undergirded with sound political philosophy.

One change that would be quite dramatic and perhaps not produce huge shocks is the Cato Institute's suggestion of converting the central bank into a currency board with much less power. That would lay the groundwork for additional monetary reform, such as gradually building up reserves to back the currency and in the process restoring confidence in the currency.

I would also recommend inviting leaders and analysts who have demonstrated success and knowledge about how to fix the problems, especially the global economic Ponzi scheme, bank failures to properly protect themselves from risk, fiat currencies, and runaway government spending and borrowing, to Washington to teach the politicians and the people in general, such as Lee Kuan Yew, Nassim Taleb, Nouriel Roubini, Jim Rogers, Warren Buffett, Charlie Munger, Peter Schiff (and if Ron Paul isn't elected, then Ron Paul--the most prophetic presidential candidate of my lifetime) and others--and actually putting some of their ideas into action, not just paying them lip service.

When what we're doing isn't working, it's time to look to others who have succeeded or have new creative ideas that might work, especially those who predicted the problems we have gotten ourselves into, not the ding dongs like Bernanke and Greenspan who didn't see it coming and claimed all was well. Heck, maybe even Newt Gingrich has some useful ideas--at least he tries to come up with ideas instead of just parroting what his handlers tell him like Romney.

As others have said, Ron Paul already achieved a great victory in this election. He moved the discussion away from the "six pack mom" nonsense of Sarah Palin and into balancing budgets, the soundness of our currency, foreign policy, and ending the status quo. Heck, some Americans have even learned what Austrian economics is! What a dramatic improvement over the usual nonsense in election campaigns. Thank you Ron Paul!

Quote
Ron Paul on the Economy and Foreign Policy – CNN – June 5th 2011
http://ronpaulflix.com/2011/06/ron-paul-on-the-economy-and-foreign-policy-cnn-june-5th-2011/#show-transcript (http://ronpaulflix.com/2011/06/ron-paul-on-the-economy-and-foreign-policy-cnn-june-5th-2011/#show-transcript)

"I came into the Congress a good many years ago and my goal was to shrink the size of government, balance the budget, pay the bills, have sound money, and live within our means and mind our own business.....

(A)fter 30 or 40 years of having no restraint on spending and printing money, you don’t click a switch and correct that.  So yes, interest rates may go up.  But you want the market to work.  You don’t want central economic planning.  That’s our problem, because the central economic planners that get to fix the interest rates also monetize all the debt.  So people need to realize that if we’re serious about this, interest rates may go up, but maybe we’ll go back to work too.

(O)ne thing is that’s very encouraging is, I see a fantastic movement at the grassroots.  You hear from supporters that the whole country is moving.  The attitude toward the endless, undeclared, silly wars that we fight that are bankrupting us.  The silliness of the Federal Reserve printing money when we need so-called wealth.  The deficits that are uncontrolled.  So mainstream is now thinking about these things.  Before, mainstream was deficits don’t matter, print money when you need it, endless wars, and personal privacy didn’t mean anything.  But believe me: mainstream is moving in the direction that I have been talking about for a long time, and therefore no one knows what the outcome will be in this election.

During the last campaign, I knew what was happening.  You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy.  No more!  No more!  The people are coming over here.  So I would say whatever happens, it’s going to be good because the people have woke up. .... They’re sick of the status quo!"
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 13, 2012, 09:27:19 am
I am currently ploughing my way through "Black Swan" audiobook Nassim Taleb. It's a toughie. You have to pay attention. Tried to listen to "Fooled by Randomness" and almost finished but had to rest.

Good listen though.

I think it was you who suggested NT
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 13, 2012, 09:51:09 am
I am currently ploughing my way through "Black Swan" audiobook Nassim Taleb. It's a toughie.  You have to pay attention.
Yes, he made it that way intentionally, mixing it up. I think the idea was in part to make people pay attention and really think.

Quote
I think it was you who suggested NT
Quite possible. One thing that tipped me off that NNT was really on to something was, when I checked out his critics' responses, I found that they completely focused on personal attacks on NNT and didn't even try to refute his major points. Still no one has succeeded in doing so. They typically complain about his arrogance, lack of deference to academics, and so forth. Plus, first they said that his points were ridiculous (without refuting them), then they started saying that they were obvious and everyone already knew them (a clear clue that someone is right and is hitting the big points).
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on February 13, 2012, 10:07:43 am
I have serious doubts about how any significant monetary reform could be established within the framework of our current system through incremental changes.

There seems to be a force behind mammon that is outside of the reach of law makers to control. If the people of the U.S. take on the monetary crisis alone, it will be attacked on all sides by our former currency allies. The force will regroup off shore and proceed to devise new strategic schemes to continue the plundering of the people of the world.

There are people like  Lyndon Larouche who believe that reenacting glass  steagall, and putting back the safeguard measures that had been taken away by special interest' would be the place to start. Without these basic reforms no other policy will be effective. As long as the financial piracy continues unpunished faith in the system will continue to die.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 13, 2012, 10:22:50 am
I am still in the middle of both books, so he seems to building up the data for a big bang hopefully.

He does seem to take some pretty big slices out of people he dislikes and I get there are a lot of people he dislikes. He's probably not a wildly popular guy on the cocktail party circuit. LOL
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 13, 2012, 10:24:19 am
reenacting glass  steagall, and putting back the safeguard measures that had been taken away by special interest' would be the place to start.
Excellent suggestion. I agree that that's another good place to start. It would be an even less dramatic change--just a roll back to where things were not long ago--and it's also something I support.

Quote
He does seem to take some pretty big slices out of people he dislikes and I get there are a lot of people he dislikes. He's probably not a wildly popular guy on the cocktail party circuit. LOL
Exactly, LOL. Some people cannot stand him and it's not my preferred style, but he treats little people, including me, with respect, he somehow pulls off his arrogant and insulting moments by balancing them with a loveable curmudgeon sort of personality, he saves his insults for the people who are both arrogant, close minded and destructive, and he's generally on target with his main points, so he gets a pass from me.  Plus, it's actually a good sign for a prophet to be hated intensely by elites. Ron Paul is another good example. They tend to be hated in large measure because they're right most of the time and tell us truths we don't want to hear.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 13, 2012, 10:37:53 am
He reminds me of a close friend of mine who I like very much, but who is sick as a dog right now. Unfortunately raw paleo ain't gonna happen with him.

He used to be attacked by his detractors in his younger years.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 14, 2012, 12:59:35 am
http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/corporatism/george-soros-on-obama-vs-romney.html (http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/corporatism/george-soros-on-obama-vs-romney.html)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on February 14, 2012, 03:05:55 am
George Soros can hardly be seen as anything but a crook. This odious man demolished the British currency in the 90s and helped usher in our current crisis indirectly through extensive hedge-fund manipulations etc. I loved it when he fouled up in Russia and especially in Hong Kong. The latter government was the only one which had the backbone to draw upon their reserves and shore up their currency in defiance of his attacks, resulting in really huge losses for Soros.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 14, 2012, 08:14:58 am
Soros did make this interesting quote:

"If it's between Obama and Romney there isn't all that much difference...except for the crowd that they bring with them."
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 14, 2012, 09:44:21 am
"The Only Candidate I Trust is Ron Paul" -Nassim N. Taleb,
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10150522482998375&id=13012333374 (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10150522482998375&id=13012333374)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on February 15, 2012, 10:06:23 am
Nassim has many agreeable points of view. I liked the theme of the black swan, and his ideas of how the improbability of events in the world leaves little to be certain about.

He considers much of the future to be extremely variable and the outcomes so innumerable that the average fool can be just as valid a prophet as the erudites of academia. A very universally agreeable concept among commoners. 

My interpretation of the "impact of the highly improbable" was perhaps a bit warped, by me having read it right after watching the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. So every time Taleb would talk about improbability, I would conjure up the image of the intergalactic  hitchhikers thumbing a ride through space and how the Infinite improbability drive guided their journey.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Infinite%20Improbability%20Drive (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Infinite%20Improbability%20Drive)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: zbr5 on February 15, 2012, 07:59:34 pm
Nassim Taleb seems to have huge ego but the fact is that "Fooled by randomness"is one of the best books I ever read. Highly recommended.
I am very glad he supports Ron Paul.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 17, 2012, 01:00:03 am
I guess Rombo is opening up a chapter of PUTA.  ;D

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/treatment-of-family-dog-comes-back-to-haunt-romney/article2340362/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/treatment-of-family-dog-comes-back-to-haunt-romney/article2340362/)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 17, 2012, 01:38:09 am
Only Ron Paul will do that. Indeed he wants it down to 0%.

Seems as if some know how to play the game well enough to accomplish that with government help:

http://www.realecontv.com/videos/social-costs/the-war-on-wages-part-3.html (http://www.realecontv.com/videos/social-costs/the-war-on-wages-part-3.html)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 18, 2012, 08:39:24 am
One of the rats is fleeing Romney's sinking ship:
Quote
Romney backer DeWine switches to Santorum
USA TODAY - ?8 minutes ago?
By Catalina Camia, USA TODAY
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/02/rick-santorum-mike-dewine-endorsement-mitt-romney-/1?csp=34news (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/02/rick-santorum-mike-dewine-endorsement-mitt-romney-/1?csp=34news)

Former Ohio senator Mike DeWine switched his support to Rick Santorum today, saying he could no longer back Mitt Romney because of his "astounding inability" to give people a reason to vote for him.
Watch for Romney and his henchmen to get nasty and try to destroy Santorum like they did the other candidates. Romney and his lieutenants are a wrecking crew, ripping the Republican party to shreds. The Democrats have been gleeful about it. It makes me wonder if Romney is an Obama plant. I'm surprised the rank and file haven't responded with more outrage and disgust, though the grumblings definitely are increasing.
Title: Re: Republican Election in MAINE total FRAUD Exposed in MSM
Post by: goodsamaritan on February 18, 2012, 08:48:51 am
USA Republican elections show it is now a banana republic. UN observers should be sent in to observe USA electoral fraud. Now exposed wholesale.

Maddow: Proof Ron Paul Was Robbed In Maine. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pngwcQQW5bA#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on February 18, 2012, 09:12:48 am
Being a gay liberal, it's no wonder she's attacking the Republicans. But the Democrats have also been notorious for voter-fraud over the centuries. Chicago and New York have a particularly notorious history, but voter-fraud has always been endemic in American life(and everywhere else for that matter).

This is why I am no fan of democracy. As Stalin said," it's not the voters  who have the power, but those who count the votes". I would far rather either be ruled by a benevolent, "enlightened despot" like the old King of Bhutan was, or, even better, be part of a dog-eat-dog/chaos-type social anarchy where individuals'  rights count but where groups/organisations have no power or authority to deny the freedoms of individuals(not leftwing anarchy which is really just a benevolent form of Communism, not genuine anarchy).
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 18, 2012, 09:20:07 am
It's not just the US.

In Quebec during the Referendum (never-endum) on separation which was essentially a ploy to get more provincial power and money from the rest of the country, you had to be a member of the party in power (rabid separatist) to get a job at the election booths and therefore naturally you were a certified vote counter.

There was investigations into the voter fraud and it was officially put at 10% but really it was a lot more. Business as usual.

As Draconian as what you are saying sounds Tyler, it's true. May as well set up a King again.

As I mentioned previously there are more people in US jails than there was in Stalin's.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 18, 2012, 11:43:20 am
Tyler, I think I would have to become terribly drunk to fully understand your melding of sympathy for libertarianism with even more enthusiastically professed sympathy for benevolent dictatorship, but oddly enough I think I have a small inkling of what you intend and at least you picked one of the better dictators in the King of Bhutan. I believe you mean King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, yes? At least he placed happiness above money in the hierarchy of values. The USA is still a young nation, enamored of everything new, with money unfortunately still viewed as the ultimate objective and yardstick. Wangchuck at least had the sense to realize that there are more important things than money, fancy clothes, and newfangled junk to clutter one's home.

Here's a classic example of a modern liberal--he tries to keep morality completely out of his movies, is proud of it, proclaims it to the world and clearly looks down upon anyone who disagrees, and his liberal interviewer is impressed:
Quentin Tarantino: Keeping Morality Out of the Question (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jakMHGv2yE#ws)

The public embrace of evil by today's liberals is refreshingly honest and forthright.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on February 18, 2012, 06:45:39 pm
Well, the old King of Bhutan was perhaps a bad choice. He was a fine ruler up until the point where he very stupidly changed Bhutan's government towards more democratic lines, plus I believe the death penalty has been recently abolished which is a disaster. This will inevitably pave the way for massive corruption, just like in neighbouring democracies, Nepal and India. Plus, when you have a weakened king who has to get a "yes" from parliamentarians and special interests before being allowed to do anything, then very little ever gets done, and the usual compromises between so many groups of people often don't really benefit anyone in the long-term. I should have noted Peter the Great or Charles V or Maria Theresia as being better examples(Peter the Great even killed his eldest son in order to carry out his dream, now that's integrity!). Whatever the case, I have noted that  Prince Charles' ideas are usually far more in line with what the majority of British people want than any parliamentarians.

As for  extreme anarchism-libertarianism, with no laws curbing personal behaviour, and enlightened despotism, I am actually far more in favour of the former, for obvious reasons, and have made that clear previously. I just don't think it's as likely to come about as the latter type of government. The real problem today is that we have people elected for only a few years, and who try to make as much money as possible either during or after their terms. Having one ruler who genuinely cares for his people(and who doesn't need to deal in backfighting and treachery to get to the top because he already is at the top, anyway) is so much more effective, since, as he's there for life, he can take a much longer-term view than others. Now, granted, one has to avoid inbreeding of royal lines(eg:- Habsburg Lip etc.) but that's solved by the Imperial Japanese custom of never marrying aristocracy, and one has to ensure that there are capable royal advisers, and not automatically have the eldest ascend the throne, in case he/she turns out to be incompetent as a ruler, but these are simple to implement.



Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 18, 2012, 10:21:00 pm
As for  extreme anarchism-libertarianism, with no laws curbing personal behaviour, and enlightened despotism, I am actually far more in favour of the former, for obvious reasons, and have made that clear previously.
Yes, as clear as mud.  ;D At any rate, the mix-mash makes for interesting reading.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on February 18, 2012, 10:44:15 pm
The people of the United States tried to establish a modern progressive constitutional monarchy through the Kennedy family( John and Bobby,  and much later Jr.) Who were brutally killed by the powers that be .

Many in America would love to have a benevolent governing class that could not be bought off and would not sell out the people, but the  special interest in control would not allow for such a monarchy to rise up and take hold of the seat of of power.

Kennedy vowed to rid our government of the secretive rulers by his second term, and given the chance he would of. Then with the love of the people behind him he could of handed the presidency over to his brother or someone else who would of continued building a better America.

Instead we got LBJ the biggest crook in Washington. Who ushered in the era of pointless war, debt, and servitude to the military industrial complex.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/11/us/how-johnson-won-election-he-d-lost.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm (http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/11/us/how-johnson-won-election-he-d-lost.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)






Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 18, 2012, 11:05:50 pm
I should have noted Peter the Great
BTW, you may be disturbed to learn that I'm also something of a fan of Peter, though like the old King of Bhutan, some of his modernization reforms had unintended negative consequences. Perhaps there is some sort of third way that will incorporate the best aspects of both anarchism and libertarianism with those of values-oriented authoritarian rule. One problem with chiefs is they tend to want to become lords, and lords to become kings, and kings to become emperors, and emperors to become rulers of the world for life. Some check and balance seems necessary to counter that tendency.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on February 18, 2012, 11:10:49 pm
I see the two sides as completely separate, it being a choice of either one not both.  If I have to be ordered around, I would only like someone who had my best interests at heart, regardless of whether it was benevolent or not in the short-term. Otherwise, I would far rather just be left alone to do whatever I want.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 18, 2012, 11:19:05 pm
What about a decentralized tribal pastoral-type society with local or regional chiefs? It's nearly anarchic, with very little oversight, but there is a ruler or rulers who could obtain his/her/their position(s) in a way of your choosing. Not very realistic in today's modern urbanized societies, but maybe there's some way of creating a sort of modern version of it? Some way of re-instilling traditional values and long-term thinking into society without absolute despotisms that inevitably become horrible when a benign dictator either goes sour or is succeeded by a malevolent one?

Your checks and balances of never marrying aristocracy, and somehow requiring that there are capable and presumably powerful royal advisers, are a start, though I don't know how one prevents a despot from getting rid of capable advisers he doesn't care for, and thus ignoring good advice.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on February 18, 2012, 11:37:02 pm
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9127 (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9127)

By Brad Friedman on 2/17/2012 2:49pm 

The ongoing fraud in MAINE by an independent reporter.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 19, 2012, 12:01:41 am
As for  extreme anarchism-libertarianism, with no laws curbing personal behaviour, and enlightened despotism, I am actually far more in favour of the former, for obvious reasons, and have made that clear previously. I just don't think it's as likely to come about as the latter type of government. The real problem today is that we have people elected for only a few years, and who try to make as much money as possible either during or after their terms. Having one ruler who genuinely cares for his people(and who doesn't need to deal in backfighting and treachery to get to the top because he already is at the top, anyway) is so much more effective, since, as he's there for life, he can take a much longer-term view than others. Now, granted, one has to avoid inbreeding of royal lines(eg:- Habsburg Lip etc.) but that's solved by the Imperial Japanese custom of never marrying aristocracy, and one has to ensure that there are capable royal advisers, and not automatically have the eldest ascend the throne, in case he/she turns out to be incompetent as a ruler, but these are simple to implement.
Funnily enough I remember a speech long ago, by the Indian Yogi, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi where he said roughly what you said about the monarchy being superior.

It is of course fashionable to dump on the monarchy, but I kind of wonder if a certain amount of that is jealousy.

A monarchy represents stability which is missing when ruthless or greedy people get elected to further their ego/pocketbook aims.

Well said PP and ST also
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on February 19, 2012, 01:05:34 am
PP, I loathe the noble savage theory, and am fully aware of its limitations. I think a sizeable population needs/requires a different kind of government, one in which either enlightened despotism or anarcho-libertarianism exists.

I think it's easy for to prevent a king/emperor from banning capable advisors. All one has to do is enact laws allowing only the best of the electorate to vote to elect the relevant advisors, ie not the worst like ex-fraudsters/muggers etc., and to prevent the king/emperor from firing those advisors.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 19, 2012, 01:47:03 am
PP, I loathe the noble savage theory, and am fully aware of its limitations. I think a sizeable population needs/requires a different kind of government, one in which either enlightened despotism or anarcho-libertarianism exists.
I wasn't trying to imply that you like a noble savage theory. After all, I thought you explained that the noble savage idea was fictional, based on the nostalgic utopian assumptions of Weston Price (and perhaps others?) and not actually based on the reality of past societies? Plus, I already pointed out that it isn't practical to return to even the actual way that things were due to the population (urbanized) factor (among others). The past reality (not the noble savage myth you've talked about) was merely what you've been describing reminded me of.

Quote
I think it's easy for to prevent a king/emperor from banning capable advisors. All one has to do is enact laws allowing only the best of the electorate to vote to elect the relevant advisors, ie not the worst like ex-fraudsters/muggers etc., and to prevent the king/emperor from firing those advisors.
OK, so you're adding the semi-democratic element of advisors directly elected by an elite? So presumably those advisors would campaign and they would effectively be like the Roman Senate? Who would be "the best of the electorate"?

I don't have any answers myself beyond that certain libertarian and libertarian-oriented politicians seem the least loathesome of our US politicians and the least likely to cause long-term harm. There seem to be downsides to every approach. In other words, no utopias.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: cherimoya_kid on February 19, 2012, 03:08:59 am
I actually agree with the elected advisors + monarch idea.  There are several countries with a system like that, IIRC.

The problem with monarchies, especially the more traditional monarchic systems, comes with the fact that the NEXT monarch may be a very bad one, even if the existing one is good.  Elected officials are usually not in power long enough, nor have enough power, to do either as much good or bad as a monarch. It's a middle-of-the-road approach.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 19, 2012, 03:36:38 am
I actually agree with the elected advisors + monarch idea.  There are several countries with a system like that, IIRC.
Which ones are you thinking of?

Quote
The problem with monarchies, especially the more traditional monarchic systems, comes with the fact that the NEXT monarch may be a very bad one, even if the existing one is good.
Is there an echo in here?  :P
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: cherimoya_kid on February 19, 2012, 07:42:42 am
Which ones are you thinking of?


I want to say a couple of Southeast Asian countries, but it's been a while since I studied any of that.

the UK had a system very much like that, prior to the monarchs just becoming figureheads.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 19, 2012, 08:14:22 am
Are you thinking of Thailand or perhaps Singapore, though not a monarchy?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on February 19, 2012, 01:41:52 pm
Even if the monarch is a bad one, if his advisors are good, then it doesn't matter. There are endless examples where an advisor deftly managed to outwit a less competent ruler - Bismarck is  a case in point. Now, if the voters can only vote if they are above a certain IQ and have minimum social mores etc.(ie are not conmen or bank-robbers or whatever), and if the elected officials/politicians are also forced to maintain a similiar high standard in order to be eligible to stand, then things are fine. A monarchy can also be stable provided there are enough royals to choose from(perhaps royals could be forced to become polygamists?) - then the right royal could be elected(like in the Holy Roman Empire).

The real problem is that few human societies have ever instituted a genuine meritocracy. I mean, we now have ultra-rich people who only became rich via skulduggery of various kinds, not through hard work or brilliance. I was truly appalled when the governments bailed out the banks.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: cherimoya_kid on February 19, 2012, 02:32:20 pm
Are you thinking of Thailand or perhaps Singapore, though not a monarchy?

I think I was thinking of Thailand, but I think there's another, maybe even one in the Middle East.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on February 19, 2012, 03:46:28 pm
I think I was thinking of Thailand, but I think there's another, maybe even one in the Middle East.


The Thai King is, sadly, just a figurehead. The Saudi king seems to be the one you are thinking of, or perhaps the Moroccan one?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on February 19, 2012, 03:49:47 pm
I just read an article in the Daily Telegraph which emphasises the hypocrisy(and the monumental stupidity) of the West in that it is siding with Al-Quaeda as regards Syria, and Libya etc. before that. Ron Paul is right, we need to get out of the Middle-East:-

"Sunday 19 February 2012

Syria's crisis is leading us to unlikely bedfellows
David Cameron and William Hague are at risk of over-simplifying a dangerous and complex situation.
Protesters in Egypt chant slogans calling for the expulsion of the Syrian ambassador - Syria's crisis is leading us to unlikely bedfellows
Protesters in Egypt chant slogans calling for the expulsion of the Syrian ambassador  Photo: AFP/GETTY

By Peter Oborne

9:00PM GMT 18 Feb 2012

When two car bombings killed nearly 50 people in the heart of the Syrian capital of Damascus just before Christmas, we in the West were quick to challenge claims made on state TV that the atrocities had been carried out by al-Qaeda. We were inclined to award more credibility to the Syrian rebels, who denied that the terror group was involved at all, and insisted that the attacks had been cynically staged by the government, perhaps as a bid for international sympathy.

However, all doubt ended last week when James Clapper, director of US national intelligence, informed the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Damascus bombings “had all the earmarks of an al-Qaeda attack”. Mr Clapper added that “we believe al-Qaeda in Iraq is extending its reach into Syria”. So, it’s official. Al-Qaeda is acknowledged as an ally of Britain and America in our desire to overturn the Syrian government.

Think about it. Ten years ago, in the wake of the destruction of the Twin Towers, we invaded Afghanistan to eliminate al-Qaeda. Now the world’s most notorious terror organisation wants to join a new “coalition of the willing” in Syria (not just al-Qaeda: yesterday the Muslim group Hizb ut-Tahrir staged a march through west London in support of their Syrian brothers and the establishment of the Khilafah state).

This may be the most profound turnaround in global politics since the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939 converted Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany from bitter enemies into allies – and it is important to understand that the affinity of interests between al-Qaeda and the West extends far beyond Syria. Britain, the United States and al-Qaeda also have a deep, structural hostility to President Assad’s biggest sponsor, Iran.

Like al-Qaeda, we are interested in undermining Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in the Lebanon. In Libya, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy threw their weight behind the destruction of Gaddafi’s government and its replacement by a new regime which reportedly embraces al-Qaeda-connected figures. We and the terror group have come to share the same hostility to the Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, and for very much the same reason: we both agree that he takes his orders from Tehran.

Of course, it remains the case that we have different methods and contrasting ideals. But we share unnervingly similar short-term objectives. Although it is unlikely that Britain and America have significant direct dealings with al-Qaeda, it may be that some of our allies do.

Let’s consider for a moment one of the most glaring hypocrisies of American foreign policy: the differential treatment between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Washington never ceases to complain about the connection between the Pakistani intelligence services and the Taliban. But we never hear a whisper of concerns about the connection between Saudi intelligence and Salafi movements across the Middle East, of which al-Qaeda is the best known offshoot.

For months, the region has been alive with rumours that al-Qaeda and other Sunni fighters have been sneaking into Syria through Lebanon and Turkey. Many of these extremist Sunni infiltrators fought with al-Qaeda in Iraq before being driven out and taking refuge in the Lebanon. It is likely that they are backed with money and arms by Saudi interests, and inconceivable that they could act without the knowledge, and perhaps the assistance, of Saudi intelligence.

So what has brought al-Qaeda in from the cold? The answer lies in the Arab Spring. Certainly the revolutions in Libya, Tunisia and elsewhere started out as popular uprisings; many of the rebels in Syria continue to fight, and often die, for human rights and democracy. But, as time has gone by, other agendas are coming into play, and other interests have sought to assert themselves. The statecraft of Saudi Arabia demonstrates how complex the situation has become. The gerontocracy which governs that desert kingdom will never countenance internal opposition. Indeed, Saudi troops marched into Bahrain to suppress the democracy movement there. On the other hand, the Saudis backed the Libyan rebels and are reportedly active in the destabilisation of President Assad.

This deeply reactionary monarchy remains Britain and America’s closest ally in the Middle East. As the Arab Spring has unfolded, we have encouraged the Saudis to develop a makeshift alliance that embraces Qatar, Jordan, the Israelis, al-Qaeda and, it would seem, elements of the Muslim Brotherhood, who have very strong historical reasons for wishing to dislodge the Assad regime, in the light of its brutal crushing of the Brotherhood-inspired revolt in Hama 30 years ago. All members of this alliance would agree that they want the Shiite-Allawi regime in Syria to be replaced by some form of majority Sunni rule. Britain and America hope this would be democratic; doubtless al-Qaeda and its Saudi allies have something else in mind. Ranged on the other side are Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and Iraq’s al-Maliki government. In Iraq, many of the Awakening Councils (the militia set up by the US six years ago to defeat al-Qaeda) now feel betrayed and are said to have joined forces again with their Sunni brethren.

The situation could hardly be more dangerous or more complex. Yet, in recent public pronouncements David Cameron has repeatedly spoken of the conflict in Syria as a struggle between an illegal and autocratic regime at war with what he likes to call “the people”. Either he is poorly briefed, or he is coming dangerously close to a calculated deception of the British public. For the situation is far more complicated than he has admitted. It is far from obvious, for example, even that a majority of Syrians are opposed to the Assad regime. Russia calculates that perhaps two thirds of Syrians are still broadly supportive, and it is worth recalling that Russia was a more accurate source of information in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq than either Britain or the US.

Foreign policy is perhaps the area where David Cameron’s Government has copied New Labour most closely. Mr Cameron shares much of Tony Blair’s slavish adherence to American foreign policy aims, especially in the Middle East. Like Mr Blair, he wilfully simplifies intractable foreign policy decisions and has shown a fondness for overseas adventures. In Syria, British rhetoric may raise expectations among the opposition which we can never satisfy.

Meanwhile, in Libya there are menacing signs that last year’s Anglo-French intervention is starting to go wrong. The toppling of the Gaddafi regime has not brought an end to the killing. If anything, the fighting appears to be getting worse, as the country breaks into hostile armed fractions – a fertile hunting ground for al-Qaeda, our latest collaborator in the war on terror. I hope that the Prime Minister and his Foreign Secretary, William Hague, know what they are doing as they allow Britain to be dragged closer towards further intervention in the Middle East. But judging from their public remarks they may be playing a game whose rules they do not fully understand.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on February 19, 2012, 04:00:05 pm
I just found out that Santorum is a Catholic. Oh, the shame! It was always a comfort to me, previously,  that the US evangelicals/Protestants  more commonly exhibited the more loony attitudes of the Religious Right. Now, I have come to realise that even RCs can be just as bad. I mean, this sicko Santorum is in favour of banning abortion even in the case of rape or incest.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 19, 2012, 11:39:18 pm
if the voters can only vote if they are above a certain IQ and have minimum social mores etc.(ie are not conmen or bank-robbers or whatever), and if the elected officials/politicians are also forced to maintain a similiar high standard in order to be eligible to stand, then things are fine. A monarchy can also be stable provided there are enough royals to choose from(perhaps royals could be forced to become polygamists?) - then the right royal could be elected(like in the Holy Roman Empire).
OK, so one of your voting requirements is IQ level. So all who want to vote would be given IQ tests and you would presumably need a new government agency to administer the tests, or perhaps add it as another responsibility of the public high school education system or other existing government agency. There would also need to be government agents of some sort to investigate corruption to prevent the testing authorities from selling passing IQ scores, either a new government position or a new task for the FBI, perhaps.

In the USA voting rights are a states rights issue and it's already the case that incarcerated con artists and bank robbers cannot vote in any state but two and fourteen states ban anyone with a felony conviction from voting for life, even after they have served their sentence. So what if any other measures would you add to ensure minimal "social mores" among voters? Would you federalize the requirements?

Is the Holy Roman Empire the closest historical thing to your idea of a good government and Charles V the sort of leader you desire?

Quote
"We and the terror group have come to share the same hostility to the Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, and for very much the same reason: we both agree that he takes his orders from Tehran. ....

Meanwhile, in Libya there are menacing signs that last year’s Anglo-French intervention is starting to go wrong. The toppling of the Gaddafi regime has not brought an end to the killing. If anything, the fighting appears to be getting worse, as the country breaks into hostile armed fractions – a fertile hunting ground for al-Qaeda, our latest collaborator in the war on terror." --Peter Oborne
This is one of the problems with foreign interventions--unintended consequences. How ironic that the US government is now at odds with the dude we helped bring to power, who is allied with the newest target of the Neocons--Iran. The Neocons have been as self destructive as a committed fifth column designed to destroy the USA, what with their getting us to drain our treasury, demoralize our military and create enemies around the world, including enemies we help install. 

Now, I have come to realise that even RCs can be just as bad. I mean, this sicko Santorum is in favour of banning abortion even in the case of rape or incest.
The Vatican has been vehemently opposed to allowing abortion in any circumstance since before you were born. Many of the laity ignore the vatican on this, but there has been a resurgence of right-wing Catholicism in this country, via such movements as "Catholic traditionalism" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_Catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_Catholic) and Catholic monarchism, and via such organizations as Opus Dei and the Society of St Pius X and with a prominent promoter in Mel Gibson, some of whom believe that even the pope is not sufficiently orthodox per their standards. Santorum even sent two of his sons to an Opus Dei-affiliated school (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/01/opus-dei/47349/ (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/01/opus-dei/47349/)) and he has praised Opus Dei as part of a "new evangelization" (http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/2012/01/08/rick-santorum-opus-dei/ (http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/2012/01/08/rick-santorum-opus-dei/)).
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on February 20, 2012, 12:21:04 am
The pro-life movement within the RC Church only got started somewhere in the 19th century. It is not necessarily an essential part of RC doctrine.

For my own part, I absolutely despise the post-Vatican-II RC Church. They are so blatantly leftist that they make me puke. I mean, these psychotic retards invented the "Marxist Liberation Theology" which has ruined South America for decades. I'd rather have had Lefebvre as Pope, if he'd still been alive.

No, I don't view the HRE as a desirable entity as it had too little power. But Peter the Great, Catherine the Great etc. are wonderful examples of what I mean.....

As regards IQ tests, we would obviously need morality tests and competence tests as well. No doubt, we would need a Federal department for monitoring that, but the increase in individuality caused by all these reforms would mean less government bureaucracy overall.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 20, 2012, 12:35:39 am
http://www.youtube.com/embed/KV-RqPtT2PU (http://www.youtube.com/embed/KV-RqPtT2PU)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 20, 2012, 02:28:03 am
The pro-life movement within the RC Church only got started somewhere in the 19th century. It is not necessarily an essential part of RC doctrine.
Unless you're super-old, the 19th century is before you were born, like I said. :) Opposition to all abortion is an official position of the Vatican and all traditionalist Catholic groups I'm familiar with, so I'm still puzzled why you're surprised that a conservative Catholic like Santorum would promote it. I could understand that with a liberal Catholic Democratic politician like when Geraldine Ferraro ran for vice president, but a conservative Republican candidate like Santorum who's trying to get the support of Theocons, both traditionalist Catholics and evangelical Protestants?

Quote
No, I don't view the HRE as a desirable entity as it had too little power. But Peter the Great, Catherine the Great etc. are wonderful examples of what I mean.....
So the most effective Tsarist regimes are your favorite historical examples of good government? You could do worse, but playing Devil's Advocate, what about the fact that they were eventually followed by Nicholas II and then the Communists? It's the same problem that Cherimoya_kid and I pointed out before--benevolent and effective dictators are often eventually followed by loathesome regimes, whom the people have no nonviolent way of removing.

You do also seem somewhat favorably inclined toward the HRE and Charles V, just not as much as toward the premier Tsars, correct?

Quote
As regards IQ tests, we would obviously need morality tests and competence tests as well. No doubt, we would need a Federal department for monitoring that, but the increase in individuality caused by all these reforms would mean less government bureaucracy overall.
What would the morality and competence tests be composed of? Has there ever been a government-created morality test? How would the reduction in bureaucracy come about? Do you think these tests would result in a more libertarian electorate? How would you get the Libertarians to support these tests and the new bureaucracy to manage them? What if this new elite should vote for leaders you despise?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 20, 2012, 06:47:07 am
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/money-madness/25-craziest-things-the-us-government-spends-money-on-.html (http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/money-madness/25-craziest-things-the-us-government-spends-money-on-.html)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on February 20, 2012, 08:12:49 am
PP, in an anarcho-libertarian society, the leaders would have almost no power, anyway, so this is irrelevant. Granted, in an authoritarian society with enlightened despots, we would need further safeguards, like the ones I already mentioned. For example, if a particular royal family had, say, 150 people eligible for the throne, at least one out of those, the best one, could be elected to power by those eligible to vote(only the best being allowed to vote, of course). Plus, if we had a system whereby royals who turned out, unfortunately, to be incompetent, were removed, then Nicholas II etc. would never happen. Bear in mind that it took a very long time for the Russian Revolution to happen, so measures taken well beforehand would have sorted things out.

And, no, I am no particular fan of the Tsars, it's just that there are several examples of enlightened despots among them. Nor am I a fan of HRE, I just cited them as the emperor of the HRE   got himself elected to power, not just gaining the throne by right of birth.

As regards testing politicians, that's not a problem. If one had private investigators checking all aspects of a politician's life, skulduggery would be difficult to keep hidden. Plus, in an anarcho-libertarian society, the individual would have most of the control, so that bureaucracy would be unnecessary. This is going to be much easier as technology advances. Take for example the fact that bacteria are being produced which feed on sewage. Imagine a future in which one can buy bacteria dirt-cheap which can break down any rubbish, even metal. Then one wouldn't need council rubbish-collectors any more, and so on and on.....
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 20, 2012, 09:55:30 am
PP, in an anarcho-libertarian society, the leaders would have almost no power, anyway, so this is irrelevant.
Except that I was under the impression that we were talking about your other alternative of enlightened despots, who would have lots of power. After all, didn't you say the problem with the Holy Roman Empire was that the monarchs didn't have enough power? I'm so confused.  ???

Quote
Granted, in an authoritarian society with enlightened despots, we would need further safeguards, like the ones I already mentioned. For example, if a particular royal family had, say, 150 people eligible for the throne, at least one out of those, the best one, could be elected to power by those eligible to vote(only the best being allowed to vote, of course).
Right, and what would the morals and competency exams test? I can imagine the competency exams might be about reading ability and IQ, but the morals test is more of a mystery to me.

Quote
Plus, if we had a system whereby royals who turned out, unfortunately, to be incompetent, were removed, then Nicholas II etc. would never happen. Bear in mind that it took a very long time for the Russian Revolution to happen, so measures taken well beforehand would have sorted things out.
What measures?

Quote
And, no, I am no particular fan of the Tsars, it's just that there are several examples of enlightened despots among them. Nor am I a fan of HRE, I just cited them as the emperor of the HRE   got himself elected to power, not just gaining the throne by right of birth.
What is your favorite, or least loathed government in history, if you can think of any? It's a difficult question and I haven't really thought through or researched myself. Granted, what's good for one nation or region may not be good for another, so I guess I mean is what current or past government would you prefer to live under and assume that it would work as well wherever you choose to live as it does in that government's home territory?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on February 20, 2012, 10:07:14 am
I suppose certain healthier periods in Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece or Ancient Persia would be my favourites.

As regards measures, it would be simple to have a regulatory body of people(all selected to be the best) to vet the king every few years.

A morals test would be simple, just have PIs check the past life of any royal or royal advisor/official and get rid of those who weren't of the highest calibre.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 20, 2012, 10:11:59 am
I suppose certain healthier periods in Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece or Ancient Persia would be my favourites.
OK, that makes sense, given your preference for a voting elite similar to the voting restrictions in Rome to male citizens who were property owners, etc.

Quote
As regards measures, it would be simple to have a regulatory body of people(all selected to be the best) to vet the king every few years.
OK, so they would have the power to remove the king, yes? How would they be selected?

Quote
A morals test would be simple, just have PIs check the past life of any royal or royal advisor/official and get rid of those who weren't of the highest calibre.
I meant the morals test for the voters.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on February 20, 2012, 04:14:45 pm
Well, I am not in favour of allowing only male citizens to vote if they own a property. But I do think that society as a whole would benefit considerably if only those who were well-educated, reasonably intelligent and reasonably moral were allowed to vote or be elected.


As regards  selection of officials, I already mentioned the use of PIs to investigate peoples' backgrounds as being a possibility. One could also enforce laws so that it becomes almost impossible for politicians to gain money via corruption of any kind. For example, in order to become Minister of Defence a person would have to not only have full financial transparency to prevent bribes(plus PIs checking his standard of living etc.), plus they would have to accept that they could never work for companies within the arms-industry, and would not be allowed to have had prior experience in such companies either.

As for the voters, an IQ test,  an education test and a morals test would suffice. The morals test would involve a financial background check, plus perhaps a check on marital infidelity(I think if someone cheats on his wife, he is far more likely to deceive others in other matters) - oh, and full integrity might be required for one's field of expertise(for example, someone like Jared Diamond, who was accused of fraud, would not be eligible).
If there was a public referendum regarding the economy, then people who were ever in debt for more than a very short period would be rightfully excluded from voting in that one instance, and so on.

Just the education test alone would suffice to exclude the majority of the world's population. I was disgusted to find that most of the American politicians had no clue as to simple geography, yet were willing to go invade countries with guns blasting, for no good reason. So simple questions such as "what is the Iraqi PM's name?" or "what is the sea called, north of Turkey?" would be sufficient. To get the best, though, would require perhaps knowledge/education up to postgraduate standard. I mean if a referendum is being considered which mainly affects the field of archaeology(say a restriction on the sale of certain ancient objects), then only those involved directly or indirectly with archaeology would be allowed to vote.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 20, 2012, 09:25:05 pm
Tyler,

I never know when to take you seriously. I think you are serious and then I read the above speech and then I think you are just carrying on.

It's hilarious because it is so Politically Incorrect. I feel very strongly that being PI should be encouraged and proliferated. I feel being PC is the scourge of society that must be eradicated whenever it rears it's ugly post pubescent female head.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on February 20, 2012, 10:32:28 pm
I am quite serious, though I suppose I was being a bit too overly  optimistic re some of the extreme methods I suggested as regards morals. I mean banning people from voting or being elected due to their marital infidelity is, admittedly, overdoing it.

That said, my points re a need for education and a lack of corruption are perfectly valid. I mean, if someone wants to become Foreign Policy Minister, say, then they should prove, via tests, that they, at the very least, have a good grasp of world geography plus some grasp of world history, in particular their own country's history. And so on and on.

The Chinese Empire, as I recall, was one of the first to introduce exams that its bureaucrats had to pass in order to get promoted. Seems quite reasonable a system to me.

I guess what I am saying is that the true evil of today's world is the concept of entitlement. I would far rather people earned their rights rather than getting them for free, as the latter option just means that people routinely take advantage and abuse the system constantly. I believe in a meritocracy.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 21, 2012, 02:24:08 am
Using a test to discover if someone is a cheat is like screwing a woman to see if she is a virgin.

Tests invite cheating. People who lie can easily pass tests. I read of one guy who hired an actor to apply for a job as a very high level financial officer. Then he coached him in some clever things to say and how to dress and act. The guy was offered the job.

I used to fly with this guy at one time who was a very new co-pilot. He was an incredibly cool guy, very collected, dressed well, really looked the part. One day we were doing an approach into an airport in a valley, in cloud, (very treacherous spot).

At one point I took my eyes off the gauges for a very brief period to look at an approach plate and when I looked back up everything looked weird. I had to take a second to figure out that this clown had flown through the approach path and we were close to a mountain so I pulled up (vigorously.) I had a brief glance at some rock just under us as we climbed out.

Governments are full of airheads who look the part ie distinguished/fatherly/well-spoken who are crooked as the rest of us. LOL

People are inherently greedy. Ron Paul is arguably greedy as his desire is to keep all of his money. At least he is consistant and seems to be fair and hasn't changed his tune. He also spells out exactly what he believes and then sticks to his guns. Obama lied AFAIAC.

You can argue for and against everyone in the world.

The current system allows a group of people to vet the leader. That's what is going on in the US now.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on February 21, 2012, 03:44:35 am
Just because people lie does not mean one cannot come up with reliable tests that people will find very difficult to get round. I seriously doubt someone willing to get elected could withstand the intense scrutiny of some government agency like the Secret Service.  Sure, some might be able to bribe the necessary agents here and there and get away with it temporarily, but it would be difficult to keep up the charade for long.  I noticed, for example, that numerous US politicians got caught out when they were asked random questions about the  world  by the media; Rick Perry couldn't remember the 3rd department he wanted to  cut, I vaguely recall that George Bush couldn't remember the Iraqi PM's name when asked by a journalist, and so on...

So, what I mean is that random testing to see whether a person has some basic knowledge of geography or history or whatever would catch out most cheats.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 21, 2012, 04:38:45 am
Just because people lie does not mean one cannot come up with reliable tests that people will find very difficult to get round. I seriously doubt someone willing to get elected could withstand the intense scrutiny of some government agency like the Secret Service.  Sure, some might be able to bribe the necessary agents here and there and get away with it temporarily, but it would be difficult to keep up the charade for long.  I noticed, for example, that numerous US politicians got caught out when they were asked random questions about the  world  by the media; Rick Perry couldn't remember the 3rd department he wanted to  cut, I vaguely recall that George Bush couldn't remember the Iraqi PM's name when asked by a journalist, and so on...

So, what I mean is that random testing to see whether a person has some basic knowledge of geography or history or whatever would catch out most cheats.

I know what you are saying and I know it makes sense but who gets to run the secret service? What random tests would be administered? It gets bogged down in the details of administering of these ideas.
If the secret service do not like a politician they are sunk. Suddenly the SS has all the power. So would Ron Paul be selected by the same SS that he wants to dismantle... and who gets to choose the SS? Some politically correct idiot in an employment agency who can barely count and is more interested in the colour of the carpet in their office?
I remember one interview I went to where the lifer in the Human Resources department asked me why I wanted to work for the company. At that point the person who ended up being my boss jumped in and said : that's a retarded question, come on let's be serious, then the lifer later asked how long I planned to stay with the company to which my to be boss jumped in and said what kind of a question is that... who knows?

Nowadays HR people all  come from the same school where they are taught to ask the same inane questions..

Why do you want to work for us... Because I am hungry, the children and wife are screaming and I need money you idiot.

What do you see as the challenges for our corp....... Putting up with dildos like you...

What is your worst habit........ sociopathic malcontent

OK so I am on a rant..... sosumi (That's actually the name of one of the sounds in your computer, Tyler.
Apple Logo/System Preferences/Sound, look down list of alert sounds built in.  ;D
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on February 21, 2012, 06:25:11 am
If everyone, including the Secret Service, gets vetted and has to do those tests, then all is well...Plus, like I said, random testing every few months or so would get round careful, prepared cheating. I mean, if a politician didn't know the name of Germany's Chancellor and so on, if asked randomly, they could get fired etc.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 21, 2012, 08:22:35 am
I mean, if a politician didn't know the name of Germany's Chancellor and so on, if asked randomly, they could get fired etc.
LOL
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 21, 2012, 08:24:39 am
someone like Jared Diamond, who was accused of fraud, would not be eligible).
Don't forget the crime of promoting narrative fallacies. ;)

Quote
I was disgusted to find that most of the American politicians had no clue as to simple geography, yet were willing to go invade countries with guns blasting, for no good reason.
Yeah, it was extremely embarassing when Rick Perry said that one of the USA's longtime allies and helper in the "war on terror" and provider of airbase use for our regional operations and even some of our nukes, Turkey, is ruled by Islamic terrorists! Anyone that ignorant should not be allowed anywhere near the presidency. Luckily, even American voters were able to perceive his ignorance and ineptitude. On the other hand, if he attracted intelligent advisers it might not matter much.

To the Turkish government's credit, they knew Perry better than he knew Turkey and they brushed off the insult from an unimportant ignoramus and in return expressed nothing but positive sentiments about the USA.

Quote
So simple questions such as "what is the Iraqi PM's name?" or "what is the sea called, north of Turkey?" would be sufficient.
Yeah, and they shouldn't be allowed to butcher the names of prominent foreign leaders any more despite journalists and foreign leaders correctly pronouncing the names correctly to them. It makes the US government an international embarrassment.

Ignorance is unfortunately embraced by many as a virtue in this nation--it seems to be seen as a sort of angelic innocence, as though ignoramuses must have good hearts. Reminds me of the past Republican political slogan, "You know in your HEART he's right" (but in your brain you know he's wrong, so don't use your brain).

I am quite serious, though I suppose I was being a bit too overly  optimistic re some of the extreme methods I suggested as regards morals. I mean banning people from voting or being elected due to their marital infidelity is, admittedly, overdoing it.
Indeed, trying to track every potential voter's marital fidelity, if it were to be more than hand waving, would require a domestic spy service more massive than the KGB.
 
Quote
The Chinese Empire, as I recall, was one of the first to introduce exams that its bureaucrats had to pass in order to get promoted. Seems quite reasonable a system to me.
Yeah, it does seem to have its merits. It produced a rather well educated culture.

Quote
I guess what I am saying is that the true evil of today's world is the concept of entitlement. I would far rather people earned their rights rather than getting them for free, as the latter option just means that people routinely take advantage and abuse the system constantly. I believe in a meritocracy.
OK, thanks for the explanation.

If everyone, including the Secret Service, gets vetted and has to do those tests, then all is well...
LOL Rather Panglossian. And then everyone held hands and lived happily ever after. ;)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 21, 2012, 08:29:37 am
This is a simple mathematical exercise that can identify your favorite movie.
Don't know how it works, but it works every time!
Don't look at the movie list below till you have done the math!
This math quiz can likely predict which of 18 movies you would enjoy the most..

Movie Quiz:
1. Pick a number from 1-9.
2. Multiply by 3.
3. Add 3.
4. Multiply by 3 again.
5. Now add the two digits of your answer together to find out your favorite movie in the list of 18 movies below:






Movie

  List:
1. Gone With the Wind
2. E.T.
3. Blazing Saddles
4. Star Wars
5. Forrest Gump
6. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
7. Jaws
8. Grease
9. The Ron Paul Presidential Inauguration Speech 2012
10. Casablanca
11. Jurassic Park
12. Shrek
13. Pirates of the Caribbean
14. Titanic
15. Raiders of the Lost Ark
16. Home Alone
17. Mrs. Doubtfire
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 21, 2012, 08:35:48 am
Quote
The Chinese Empire, as I recall, was one of the first to introduce exams that its bureaucrats had to pass in order to get promoted. Seems quite reasonable a system to me.
[/quote]
"Yeah, it does seem to have its merits. It produced a rather well educated culture.

Also a culture of woozes who had very little entrepreneurial spirit to the point where they were becoming world travellers with their navigational and ship building prowess when the Emperor shut down the whole works and destroyed the shipyards etc. They had an incredible technology developed in a wide range of things but no one did anything with it.

The rest of the world made something of the inventions. (Then destroyed the rest of the world with conquests.)
Title: Re: Napolitano doing a Ron Paul... Got FIRED! See Video.
Post by: goodsamaritan on February 21, 2012, 12:04:57 pm
BREAKING NEWS - Judge Napolitano fired from fox news for speaking out ABOUT THIS! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqrV2OX4eWk#ws)

Napolitano doing a Ron Paul... Got FIRED! See Video.
Oh man, this guy got infected by TRUTH, and got fired.
This is the problem with truth realizations, you can't help but say it straight from the heart.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on February 21, 2012, 02:50:47 pm
LOL Rather Panglossian. And then everyone held hands and lived happily ever after. ;)
I actually view this world as being "the worst of all possible worlds", not the best. As a result, I am not  a foolish believer in the supposed innate "goodness" of human nature, and would therefore like to enact laws which automatically assume that humans will usually be corrupt when in power or assume that most humans are too stupid to be capable of voting  in a way that is beneficial for the population as a whole.

I really don't see why a politician shouldn't be able to be fired if they demonstrate that they are too ignorant or too incompetent to do their job. I mean, people in other kinds of jobs can be fired. There's no need to wait several years for the voters to finally ditch their politicians.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 21, 2012, 09:10:23 pm
I was just referring to the statement that "If everyone, including the Secret Service, gets vetted and has to do those tests, then all is well..." Perhaps better wording would be overly optimistic. It didn't seem to fit with your usual attitude, exemplified by your "worst of all possible worlds" comment.
Title: Long live Napolitano!!!!!!
Post by: CitrusHigh on February 21, 2012, 09:34:22 pm
Oh my fucking lord GS, thanks for posting this. Napolitano fucking nailed it so concisely!!!!!! And on that piece of shit fox news no less!!!! How did this make it on the air?!?!?!!

That motherfucker ate the RED PILL!!! Viva Napolitano!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on February 21, 2012, 10:36:25 pm
I was just referring to the statement that "If everyone, including the Secret Service, gets vetted and has to do those tests, then all is well..." Perhaps better wording would be overly optimistic. It didn't seem to fit with your usual attitude, exemplified by your "worst of all possible worlds" comment.
  I was assuming that all humans were corruptible so that everyone needed to be vetted. Certain simple random tests such as educational ones based on world geography would get rid of so many useless people that more stringent tests wouldn't really be needed.We may live in the worst of all possible worlds, but there's no reason not to protect ourselves against that.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 22, 2012, 04:47:34 am
Establishment Pundit Left Speechless by Ron Paul Smackdown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15mBXCMvAuA#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 22, 2012, 09:06:33 am
  I was assuming that all humans were corruptible ...
Sure, but that's not what I was referring to. I was referring to "then all is well...", but no matter.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on February 25, 2012, 04:35:25 am
LOGIC 101
 
An interesting  letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine
this week, which I  quote:
 
"If you consider that there has been an average of  160,000
troops in the Iraq Theater of operations during the past  22
months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm
death rate of  60 per 100,000 soldiers.
 
The firearm death rate in Washington , DC is  80.6 per
100,000 for the same period.
 
That means you are about 25 per  cent more likely to be shot
and killed in the US capital, which has some of  the strictest
gun  control laws in the U.S. , than you are in  Iraq."
Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington .
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on February 25, 2012, 06:19:41 am
The UK's Daily Telegraph newspaper is bizarrely pro-US, pro-NeoCon in its outlook, despite the fact that most of its readership loathe war etc. In a recent article, though, they admit that neither Santorum or Romney have the slightest chance against Obama and that the GOP are considering a 3rd candidate. Needless to say, no one mentions Ron Paul in the article:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9102031/US-election-2012-GOP-hunt-for-mystery-third-man-who-could-beat-Obama.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9102031/US-election-2012-GOP-hunt-for-mystery-third-man-who-could-beat-Obama.html)

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 25, 2012, 07:38:39 am
...they admit that neither Santorum or Romney have the slightest chance against Obama and that the GOP are considering a 3rd candidate.
How refreshing to see some honesty for a change.

Quote
Needless to say, no one mentions Ron Paul in the article:-
Of course, the one candidate who could inspire zeal is the one they refuse to consider, because he would try to cut off the politicians and lobbyists from the feeding trough.

Quote
Names frequently proposed include Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor and brother of President George W., Chris Christie, the New Jersey governor, and Sarah Palin, the 2008 Vice-Presidential nominee. All have previously ruled themselves out of this year’s contest.
Egads, NOT PALIN! She's the only Republican who makes Romney look good. Do they take Americans to be blithering idiots?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on February 25, 2012, 07:49:52 am
Palin's grasp of world geography and foreign policy was as bad as Cain's.


As regards the above various comments:-

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
    H. L. Mencken
    US editor (1880 - 1956) " paraphrased from:-

“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”

No wonder I'm against modern democracy(though not ancient democracy).
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on February 25, 2012, 10:05:39 pm
See how the 2012 presidential candidates vote on real important issues.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on February 25, 2012, 10:23:18 pm
Ron Paul on CNN 2/9/12 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXnl42XTnN0#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: svrn on February 26, 2012, 03:29:04 am
See how the 2012 presidential candidates vote on real important issues.

did you make this graphic?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on March 01, 2012, 08:44:54 am
Ron Paul - Three of a Kind (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSVi45vfA6o#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on March 11, 2012, 03:28:54 am
Nassim Taleb will do a bit of campaigning for Ron Paul, though unfortunately probably too late to have much impact:
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10150626681963375&id=13012333374 (http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10150626681963375&id=13012333374)

Ron Paul earned a decent second place showing in my state of Vermont, but it seems to be time for some realistic appraisal. Unfortunately, his lack of a single outright victory seems to be causing interest to decline in his campaign and he hasn't accumulated enough delegates to be an influence at the convention. Even his polling among the youth has reportedly started to decline (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-201203081144usnewsusnwr201203070307whisper3mar08,0,3090503.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-201203081144usnewsusnwr201203070307whisper3mar08,0,3090503.story)).

The frightening long-term problem for Republicans is that at this late point in the primary, none of their candidates is drawing much youth support. The GOP more and more seems to be becoming a party of old white men, which admittedly is a longtime caricature of the party, but it seems to be becoming even more the case than usual.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on March 22, 2012, 09:38:02 am
The Romney "Etch-A-Sketch" campaign:
Quote
Senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom gave Romney rivals Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich grist for criticism in his reply to a question during a CNN interview on whether Romney has had to tack so far to the right it could hurt him in a general election match-up against Democratic President Barack Obama.

Fehrnstrom said Romney's situation is much like an Etch A Sketch, a popular children's toy used for drawing that can simply be shaken to erase the image scrolled onto it.

"Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again," Fehrnstrom said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-romneybre82k1mg-20120321,0,626524.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-romneybre82k1mg-20120321,0,626524.story)
Such honesty from a political operative. Quite refreshing, and on-target.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: bonita on March 22, 2012, 10:16:18 am
I support Ron Paul! He's a smart man.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: zaidi on March 23, 2012, 09:57:40 pm
New Ron Paul ad-DESTROYS Obama and Romney.mp4

New Ron Paul ad-DESTROYS Obama and Romney.mp4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68yGJMUwd5k#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on March 24, 2012, 06:10:12 am
"they have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world...." --Rick Santorum
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: jessica on March 24, 2012, 07:10:23 am
honestly you guys are blowing me away by thinking that any of these politricks are valid
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on March 24, 2012, 07:13:35 am
I believe that most politricks is bogus and wicked, but Ron Paul is less unvalid than most politicians. Do you not see that? Do you vote or participate actively in the process in some other way?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: svrn on March 26, 2012, 08:18:37 pm
Ron Paul has a proven record of strict constitutionality and has never been caught in a lie as far as I know. This is good enough for me.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on March 26, 2012, 08:54:56 pm
Jessica,

I completely understand your cynicism, given the track record of politics in general, but if you read his books and look at his record, you will see he is one in a million. An actual honest politician.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on March 27, 2012, 05:23:15 am
Yeah, it's rather refreshing that a politician should be seemingly as honest and consistent as Ron Paul. I actually expect politicians to lie and flip flop--it's basically part of their job, though Romney has taken it to a new level, to the point where even his campaign staff think of him as an Etch-a-Sketch, and the Republican Party rank and file is finally figuring that out too late and shifting to Santorum, who some wise folks here say is little or no better, unfortunately. It's so frustrating, because I knew this was coming but was basically helpless to warn Republicans about Romney, as I'm a nobody that no one's going to listen to. Republicans unfortunately had to find out the hard way. Romney is like the sirens that drew sailors to their deaths. He looks and sounds good, but watch out, he'll bring everyone down.

If it weren't for the libertarians I might become even more cynical myself and be tempted not to vote, except the local elections would probably keep me voting.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on March 27, 2012, 06:32:48 am
Cynicism has lead me into all types of delusional beliefs and conspiracy theory's to try to explain why we elect such horrible politicians.

My current theory is that Obama represents the American front of the New World Order. He is their man and the establishment republican candidate is just a ringer, as McCain was.

He will pass anything the money men want him to no matter how devistating or overreaching. Bailouts, Healthcare enslavement act, austerity measures, phony environmental fascism bills. He basically has guaranteed that the cost of energy will skyrocket, and our standard of living will decline, if all goes to his plan. Yet he still maintains credibility with much of the controlled media, and the fools who still believe in hope and change.

Obama personally told the Russia president that he would be re-elected, when he thought the microphone was off.

Either he is being cocky and arrogant, or he knows the fix is in.

You decide

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/30759723/detail.html (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/30759723/detail.html)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: zeno on March 27, 2012, 10:16:57 pm
Either he is being cocky and arrogant, or he knows the fix is in.

You decide

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/30759723/detail.html (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/30759723/detail.html)

Ha-ha! That is insane!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on April 05, 2012, 09:36:17 am
Eternal Disgrace: US politicians display gross ignorance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMlXVpUAwAA#)

AMERICA IS GONE!! Listen to this... It is over! WAKE UP PLEASE!!!. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeCpLcjxOq4#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on April 08, 2012, 03:11:33 am
Wow!

What a contrast!

Go Ronny go!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on April 11, 2012, 02:15:20 am
Santorum is out.  Game over.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Eric on April 11, 2012, 06:22:37 am
There is precedent for a candidate who bows out requests that his delegates support another candidate. I wonder if Santorum will make such a request of his delegates, and if so who he'll give them to? If he gives them to Gingrich or Paul, the game might not be over.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on April 13, 2012, 08:59:06 pm
Ron Paul is right... as usual

http://mises.org/daily/1547 (http://mises.org/daily/1547)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/medical.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/medical.html)

http://www.whale.to/a/ama-robbery.html (http://www.whale.to/a/ama-robbery.html)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: gc on April 14, 2012, 04:52:44 am
I'm actually hoping Romney gets elected. The reason? He's gonna drive this shindig into a hole so deep it'll come out the other side all brown and sticky. There will be a handful of rich people and 300 million poor. Then maybe a few more of us will understand that money + politics = fuckover, every single time.

Seriously, why does anyone think any of these dickheads would spend MILLIONS (arguably, millions that aren't theirs) on a job that only pays about $500k a year? These guys get that much for playing with themselves for ten minutes.

It's all about control. That's why I just can't fathom even bothering to vote.

I think Einstein's definition of stupidity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, sums it up nicely.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: CitrusHigh on April 14, 2012, 05:51:42 am
lol I thought that was his definition of insanity? But I concur on all points, including romney, if we can't have Paul. If it's got to get worse to get better, then let's get it over with, I'm excited to rebuild!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on April 14, 2012, 06:07:11 am
I'm actually hoping Romney gets elected. The reason? He's gonna drive this shindig into a hole so deep it'll come out the other side all brown and sticky. There will be a handful of rich people and 300 million poor. Then maybe a few more of us will understand that money + politics = fuckover, every single time.

Seriously, why does anyone think any of these dickheads would spend MILLIONS (arguably, millions that aren't theirs) on a job that only pays about $500k a year? These guys get that much for playing with themselves for ten minutes.

It's all about control. That's why I just can't fathom even bothering to vote.

I think Einstein's definition of stupidity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, sums it up nicely.


Look at India. They have had a long time to perfect government. Result.... nobody works poverty is widespread.

There is an even smaller group of uber rich at the top. Someone to meet you at the door with your slippers and pipe... etc.

That is what governments do, get bigger and make those at the top fatter.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on April 14, 2012, 06:09:04 am
I got a kick out of the Obama campaign's anti-Romney ad where they tried to paint the chameleon Romney as a conservative. LMFAO 

I've already made a small wager with a pessimistic bleeding heart liberal that Obama is going to win (unfortunately). I was right and she was wrong in our predictions for the last election and she hasn't learned her lesson. It would take some major problem like a big economic downturn or a major scandal for Romney to beat the incumbent. The election was already decided before it began.

The corporations don't care--most of them will be happy with either Obama or Romney, as both of them are in their pocket. The just want to make sure the gravy train keeps rollin'. Ron Paul was a threat to their gravy train, so they made sure the media first ignored and then hammered away at Ron.

I'll be voting for Ron Paul this year on principal if he's on the ballot, or whichever libertarian is on there. I'm sick of these damn Republocrats. Of course, the Republicans will whine and complain that we libertarian-leaning folks are wasting our votes. If you want our votes, then work to nominate someone who hasn't been bought and paid for, someone with libertarian-oriented principles.

There's still a chance that Romney could embrace a libertianish platform, but after many years of watching this dude in action, I do not trust him. He'll do whatever he thinks will be best for HIM, not the nation, and he'll keep his ear pricked to what the latest polls say.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: CitrusHigh on April 14, 2012, 06:14:27 am
Look at India. They have had a long time to perfect government. Result.... nobody works poverty is widespread.

There is an even smaller group of uber rich at the top. Someone to meet you at the door with your slippers and pipe... etc.

That is what governments do, get bigger and make those at the top fatter.

Yes, but most of India has always been poor. American's know what it's like to be comfortable and well off, by and large.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: gc on April 14, 2012, 01:21:29 pm
lol I thought that was his definition of insanity?

Haha oops, yeah. I stand corrected.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on April 15, 2012, 06:58:41 am

The election was already decided before it began.


I concur.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: gc on April 15, 2012, 08:39:31 am
It would take some major problem like a big economic downturn or a major scandal for Romney to beat the incumbent. The election was already decided before it began.

The second part I'm sure of, but the first I dunno. I've heard stories that $5 gas will be here this summer. How high that goes will probably tell us who's been picked. We'll see, I suppose.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: CitrusHigh on April 15, 2012, 09:35:47 am
Yeah totally, has anyone else noticed that, like clockwork, gas prices seem to plummet leading up to elections?!?!

I know they're doing it, but I'd like to know by what mechanism. Supposedly the main factor in prices at the pump is inflation, so how does that work?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on April 15, 2012, 12:36:22 pm
If you have the time this movie/documentary is worth the watch. It's free

http://www.thrivemovement.com/home (http://www.thrivemovement.com/home)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on April 15, 2012, 07:57:32 pm
I didn't mean that some secret small elite conspiracy group has chosen Obama over Romney (I don't like the lazy, magical thinking that conspiracy theories often involve, and agree with Tyler about being skeptical of them), I meant a combination of other factors: the power of the incumbency is difficult to overcome, especially when people don't perceive that the economy is declining, and most of the politically active corporations would be relatively happy with either Obama or Romney and would be most upset with a victory by Ron Paul, who would try to cut off the gravy train, and thus Obama and Romney had the most money and party organization supporting their campaigns from the start. Thus Obama and Romney were the likely victors from the start and Obama has a significant edge over Romney.

Obama and Romney are two sides of the same coin (Robama?)--the false mirage of "choice" that big corporations and big government give us to make us feel like we have democracy. Big corporations, big politics, big gov't and big academia don't even need to conspire, because they have the same basic interest in not derailing the gravy train. I still intend to vote and encourage other Ron Paul supporters to do so, because one thing the establishment wants us to do is drop out and become total nonfactors.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on April 15, 2012, 08:29:00 pm

Obama and Romney are two sides of the same coin (Robama?)--
Obamney : )
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on April 16, 2012, 01:59:06 am
the power of the incumbency is difficult to overcome, especially when people don't perceive that the economy is declining, and most of the politically active corporations would be relatively happy with either Obama or Romney and would be most upset with a victory by Ron Paul, who would try to cut off the gravy train, and thus Obama and Romney had the most money and party organization supporting their campaigns from the start. Thus Obama and Romney were the likely victors from the start and Obama has a significant edge over Romney.


I concur with this as well.

It seems that if Obama can maintain the perception of a stabilizing economy (contrary to the reality) until the election, then he will win easily. Then once he has his second term the smoke screen will be lifted and we will be ushered into a new age of austerity .


Also, I hardly think its fanciful thinking to believe that the power elite don't favor Obama.

Since the times of the roman republic this type of favoritism existed. Romney is their number two choice.

Its up to the people to call out heads or tails.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on April 16, 2012, 06:08:30 am
Some campaign slogans of Barack Obama (from http://www.afriprov.org/index.php/news-archive/443-campaign-slogans-of-barrack-obama-in-the-us.html (http://www.afriprov.org/index.php/news-archive/443-campaign-slogans-of-barrack-obama-in-the-us.html)):

2. “Change” versus “More of the Same”
3. "Vote for Change"
4. "Change We Can Believe In"
5. "Our Time for Change"
6. "It's about Time. It's about Change"
7. "Stand for Change"
8. "Organize for Change"
9. “We are the change we’ve been looking for. Change can’t happen without you.”
10. "I’m asking you to believe.  Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington. I'm asking you to believe in yours."
11. "A leader who can deliver change"
12. "Change in America doesn't start from the top down. It starts from the bottom up."
16. "A New Beginning"
20. " America , we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone."
21. "We must pledge once more to walk into the future."

"Neomania - Excessive liking for Change/Newness" (http://pmohanchandran.wordpress.com/2008/07/27/manias (http://pmohanchandran.wordpress.com/2008/07/27/manias))

"Our species suffers from a widespread condition that one might call neomania, the absurd fascination with new things and the belief that every innovation will completely transform the world." - John Bedell, http://www.bensozia.com/benideas/lewontin.html (http://www.bensozia.com/benideas/lewontin.html)

Change/newness is so beloved in modern culture that the term neomania is almost unknown. Thanks to Nassim Taleb, I learned of it. I was unaware of it myself and had been looking for a term to describe this phenomenon. As with Nassim's coined term "antifragility," neomania describes a common phenomenon that is rarely if ever spoken of or even recognized. The Obama campaign has successfully exploited America's obsession with the allegedly "new and improved."

Another example of neomania in action was the early hype regarding the Segway:
Quote
“Segway will be to the car what the car was to the horse and buggy.” — Dean Kamen, quoted in Time on December 2, 2001

“If enough people see the machine you won’t have to convince them to architect cities around it. It’ll just happen.” — Steve Jobs, quoted in a book proposal

"IT, also code-named Ginger, is an invention developed by 49-year-old scientist Dean Kamen, and the subject of a planned book by journalist Steve Kemper. According to Kemper's proposal, IT will change the world, and is so extraordinary that it has drawn the attention of technology visionaries Jeff Bezos and Steve Jobs and the investment dollars of pre-eminent Silicon Valley venture capitalist John Doerr, among others."
IT - G.I.N.G.E.R - Architects Will Build Cities Around it - What Is 'IT'? by PJ Mark (original source: Inside.com) http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/secret_projects/project282.htm (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/secret_projects/project282.htm)

"British police said Monday that the owner of the company that makes the Segway (James Heselden) was found dead after falling off a cliff … on a Segway."
From Hype to Disaster: Segway’s Timeline (http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/09/27/from-hype-to-disaster-segways-timeline), September 27, 2010, 1:15 PM
Title: Re: Ron Paul wins IOWA and MINESSOTA... msm reports...
Post by: goodsamaritan on April 24, 2012, 11:42:02 pm
RON PAUL just won IOWA after fraudulent vote counting were finally certified!
RON PAUL also wins MINNESOTA!
Hey, it is mainstream media reporting this. (msnbc)
Ron Paul 2012. Ron Paul for World Peace!

"I Think Ron Paul Just Won Iowa!" Rachel Maddow April 23, 2012 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfS1x5RnZZQ#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on April 25, 2012, 12:03:39 am
won't make any difference anyway.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on April 28, 2012, 09:41:14 am
End the Neocons' hegemonic designs and dreams of endless war. Vote Ron Paul even if you must vote 3rd party to do so. Raise your middle finger to Robama.

Israel's Deputy PM admits Iran DIDN'T threaten to wipe Israel out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZmffEQmKr8#ws)

Warmongers who sold you the Iraq war are pushing for a war with Iran. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akWdJh7auVA#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on April 28, 2012, 12:23:39 pm
Let's close this thread and wish Paul a happy retirement.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on April 28, 2012, 11:51:36 pm
Let's close this thread and wish Paul a happy retirement.

Ron Paul Wins 152 Delegates in Missouri after "they" tried to CHEAT him out of the caucus. Admirable. This is the fabled American democracy at work. Ron Paul is unbeatable in a transparent electoral process.

Ron Paul Picks Up Missouri Delegates After Caucus Chairman Arrested For Strong Arm Tactics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhMLhfjTxms#ws)

Title: Re: Ron Paul wins IOWA, MINNESOTA and WASHINGTON
Post by: goodsamaritan on April 28, 2012, 11:56:46 pm
FOX News Admits Ron Paul Is Headed To Tampa Convention!

FOX News Admits Ron Paul Is Headed To Tampa Convention! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJrU97VBI8g#ws)

Ron Paul 2012 Wins Majority Of Washington Delegates To Convention, Other States Expected To Follow

Washington is now the third state, after Iowa and Minnesota, in which Ron Paul has locked up at least half of the state's nominating delegates. In order to be officially entered in nomination at the Tampa, Fla., convention, he needs to secure half or more of the delegates in five states, and as of Thursday, he looks poised to grab a majority of delegates in other states like North Dakota and Maine in coming weeks.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/333906/20120426/ron-paul-2012-delegates-news-romney-convention.htm (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/333906/20120426/ron-paul-2012-delegates-news-romney-convention.htm)

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on April 29, 2012, 01:27:17 am
Ron Paul rallies much bigger than the establishment candidate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BpL6eQyXDs# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BpL6eQyXDs#)!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on April 29, 2012, 02:30:54 am
And the enthusiasm for Ron Paul is enormously greater than that for Mitt Romney. Most folks who voted for Romney reported they did so because they thought he had the best chance to win, rather than because they were enthusiastic about him.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on April 29, 2012, 03:42:50 am
Quote
FOX News Admits Ron Paul Is Headed To Tampa Convention!

he is going nowhere but retirement.  if you don't see that then you are totally blind.  give it another two months or even less and you'll see for yourself.

second, i suggest stopping countless youtube posts, it is nothing but preaching to the choir.  it looks like i'm the only one who sees Paul as a joke.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on April 29, 2012, 03:44:16 am
he is going nowhere but retirement.  if you don't see that then you are totally blind.  give it another two months or even less and you'll see for yourself.

second, i suggest stopping countless youtube posts, it is nothing but preaching to the choir.  it looks like i'm the only one who sees Paul as a joke.
You are such a cheerless, little Philistine!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on April 29, 2012, 05:56:46 am
You are such a cheerless, little Philistine!
Well said Tyler!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: CitrusHigh on April 29, 2012, 06:26:36 am
Oh, the people have spoken, maybe you should retire from this thread ys? Your broken record is spent, we get it, why are you here?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on April 29, 2012, 11:30:45 am
Quote
Oh, the people have spoken, maybe you should retire from this thread ys? Your broken record is spent, we get it, why are you here?

one of my first comments in this thread was Paul has no chance to get nominated.  it will be confirmed sometime in June or even late May.  so I'm not sure what broken record you are talking about.  if i'm wrong i'll be the first to admit.

i am here because i thought i might be debating with reasonable people.  but i think that might not be the case.

i will retire from this thread if you admit you are not willing to see the reality.  and the reality is candidates with radical ideas do not win presidential elections, ever.  just like a communist will never get elected.  that little buzz that Paul generated will be dissipated when he goes away.  you would think the movement would continue to grow.  but with no one as polarizing as Paul to fill his shoes all the hype will be totally gone.  it took him decades to be where he is right now.  he has no replacement to continue leading his movement.  so far his son does not publicly share most of his views.

just tell me you want to keep preaching to the choir and i will leave this thread alone.  reasonable people do not preach to themselves.

Quote
You are such a cheerless, little Philistine!
i'm not sure who is little Philistine.  but cheerless, yes.  i will never cheer for a politician.  i might like some of them better than others.  but cheering? no.  let utopian fanatics do the cheering.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on April 29, 2012, 12:47:02 pm
Come on guys... I appreciate YS the REALIST.

Yes the powers that be... the system has it all rigged in favor of their chosen Republican Stooge to battle with their equally Democrat Stooge so whoever wins whether Romney or Obama... it's more of the same.

But this time there is a chance with alternative internet news media and social networking vs MSM of TV and Radio and Newspapers.

A chance to break free from the establishment, for real change.

So first Ron Paul needs to win against all the cheating and the MSM blackout.

And if he wins... will he survive assassination before he is able to institute any real change?

---------

From my point of view in the Philippine Islands... we experienced change in 1986 when the our dictator Marcos was finally replaced.

The instruments were political rallies on the ground, word of mouth, guerrilla mobile radio stations, battle for TV control, independent newspapers, convincing the MILITARY that we have had enough of the dictatorship.

If the USA military will step up to the plate... we will see a conclusion of the American spring!

If a nationwide USA uprising happens, will American soldiers open fire at their own people?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on April 29, 2012, 04:38:21 pm
Is it really freer in the Phillipines since Marcos?
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on April 29, 2012, 06:01:20 pm
Is it really freer in the Phillipines since Marcos?

Yes. We are in fact much freer than Americans and Brits.

We don't have government social safety nets like EBT cards or unemployment benefits... so we are also free to starve to death as well.  But yes we are very very much free.

Our neighboring countries call us Demo-Crazy.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on April 29, 2012, 06:04:24 pm
Except that I note that the Phillipines is listed as being the most corrupt nation, among East Asian nations.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on April 29, 2012, 06:12:02 pm
Except that I note that the Phillipines is listed as being the most corrupt nation, among East Asian nations.

That's part of freedom too.

Government worker salaries are very low.  It's not possible to live on such a salary without extra monetary sources.

An example of corruption is with customs.  They may call a regular package importer.  Calculate the actual duties.  Then give you a big discount.  You pay in cash.  They don't give you a receipt.  You get your package.  You get a discount something like $20 discount.  Petty stuff.

It's the big stuff that the watchdog media hound.  Not even the president and his or her minions are above the public inquiries.  We booted out Pres Joseph Estrada and jailed him for massive corruption.  Being on the take of illegal gambling... and manipulating social security funds to invest in non blue chip stocks of his friend.

I've visited Indonesia.  And know Filipinos who worked in Indonesia.  The amount of corruption is lots lots more than the Philippines.

There's more corruption in the powers that be in the USA with the military industrial complex, their pharma crap, AMA / medical crap, FDA, GMO stuff, their banking system, the petro-dollar scheme. Tons more money there.  Makes me wish how to tap into such large scale corruption, just a small piece please.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on April 29, 2012, 09:13:38 pm
That's part of freedom too.

Government worker salaries are very low.  It's not possible to live on such a salary without extra monetary sources.

An example of corruption is with customs.  They may call a regular package importer.  Calculate the actual duties.  Then give you a big discount.  You pay in cash.  They don't give you a receipt.  You get your package.  You get a discount something like $20 discount.  Petty stuff.

It's the big stuff that the watchdog media hound.  Not even the president and his or her minions are above the public inquiries.  We booted out Pres Joseph Estrada and jailed him for massive corruption.  Being on the take of illegal gambling... and manipulating social security funds to invest in non blue chip stocks of his friend.

I've visited Indonesia.  And know Filipinos who worked in Indonesia.  The amount of corruption is lots lots more than the Philippines.

There's more corruption in the powers that be in the USA with the military industrial complex, their pharma crap, AMA / medical crap, FDA, GMO stuff, their banking system, the petro-dollar scheme. Tons more money there.  Makes me wish how to tap into such large scale corruption, just a small piece please.
I have never studied the situation in your country, but I cannot imagine it being any worse than the US.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: CitrusHigh on April 29, 2012, 09:28:34 pm
You are not debating though ys, you're just repeating yourself over and over. Debating is cool, redundancy not as much, at all.

I'd also have to agree with GS about countries like his being freer. But the catch 22 is that it's hard to make a decent living in those countries. However if you were to make money in a country like the US with (decreasingly all the time) better opportunities financially, then you could move to one of these other countries that are politically freer and get the best of both worlds. That's actually kinda my plan, unless the US crumbles before I can get out of here, in which case I guess I'll have to stay and fight.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on April 29, 2012, 10:13:12 pm
GS,

Here in Canada as in the US, corruption is legalized through institutions like Health Canada (FDA equivalent and FDA rubber stamp), Bank of Canada (Federal Reserve equivalent and FR rubber stamp) etc.

The only difference is that the US agencies make up the corruption first and then the  Canadian agencies rewrite the BS and put the Queen's name at the top of the document, so as to justify the government's existence and federal employees jobs here in Ottawa.

Only a corrupt government would prevent a harmless herbal mixture coming from India from smoothly arriving at my doorstep, in one continuous arc. Instead it is warehoused for almost exactly one month in Toronto, while it is verified as being a non-dangerous substance,  l) every time.

Yet if I pay an extra 20 dollars for a courier company like the Germany courier DHL, it gets straight to my house with no stopping at the jailhose for 30 days.

So GS, the corruption is just at a higher level. I pay an extra 20 dollars, but I pay it to a company who somehow knows the game of corruption a bit better. I have complained to my Member of Parliament about this a number of times and he seems to be powerless to stop it.

So why, you ask, would someone want to prevent or slow me down from getting these herbal mixtures?

The pharmaceutical industry has taken many swipes at the herbal industry as they see it as a major threat. Every couple of  years they try to illegalize the purchase of any herbs. They gradually succeed and have worn down people and prevented the promulgation of many things that people find useful because it cuts down on their trafficking of drugs.

So sorry Tyler but the corruption in the Philippines is no different than in first world countries, at least not in Canada and the US.

It is just codified here. Same S*^t different toilet.

A while back I got a Youtube of a guy (Naturopath) in British Columbia (Canadian province) who had his civil rights suspended while Health Canada broke in forced his family to remain in the living room all day (12 hours) while they searched for herbs. Nobody could make this stuff up. Except the folks at Big Pharma.

PART 1 - Naturopathic Doctor Raided by Health Canada and RCMP (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBCHlTxUqNM#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on April 29, 2012, 10:42:01 pm
one of my first comments in this thread was Paul has no chance to get nominated.
YS, you appear to be rehashing your same standard point that also is the standard Republican establishment argument, that people should hold their noses and support the candidate who has the best chance to win, whereas supporting Ron Paul and the policies he is promoting is a waste of time because RP cannot win the nomination, regardless of whether Paul's views and policies would actually be better for the country. I already countered that early in the thread:
Even if Ron Paul doesn't win the presidency or the primary, if he gets significant support from the people, the Republican Party will have to start taking Libertarian voters and libertarian views seriously. Both money and votes talk. Don't be afraid to vote your conscience. http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/ron-paul-for-president-of-the-usa/msg75872/#msg75872 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/ron-paul-for-president-of-the-usa/msg75872/#msg75872)
And why has Romney had the best chance to win from the start? Because he has the financial and network support of the Republican establishment, of course. So voting for him because he has the best chance amounts to rubber-stamping the choice of the establishment; a coronation of a king. If we abandon our principles to support the best-funded candidate, then the establishment will be able to ignore our principles even more and we will deserve what we get. Revolutions don't often win quick, easy victories. They usually take many years to build and establish.

---*---

Nassim Taleb posted his main political principles that led him to work to support the Ron Paul campaign:
Quote
My PRINCIPLES 1. skin in the game 2. anti-interventionism by Fragilistas, 3. anti-militarism, 4. Decentralization (size effects), 5. Avoiding bureaucrats and empty suits having too much power over citizens, 6. anti-deficits (coming from bureaucrats), 7. some SCRUTINY of the Fed and its ability to play with money for the benefit of bankers, 8. Liberty.
IN SHORT: an anti-fragile system.

~ Nassim Taleb, http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nassim-Nicholas-Taleb/13012333374 (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nassim-Nicholas-Taleb/13012333374)
Taleb's views on defense seem to be basically in favor of defending the nation (such as the homeland of the USA) or city-state and against foreign interventionism, nation building and supporting dictators "for the sake of stability." He warns against a bias toward intervention in general (http://aeroculus.blogspot.com/2011/07/intervention-bias-from-nassim-taleb.html (http://aeroculus.blogspot.com/2011/07/intervention-bias-from-nassim-taleb.html)).

These principles tie into Frederic Bastiat's warnings about the seen and the unseen and the related warnings of Henry Hazlitt, Karl Popper and others about unintended consequences.
Quote
"The discussion of the seen and the unseen by Bastiat and Hazlitt was part of a broader set of fallacies that fails to distinguish short-run effects from long-run effects, the effects on one part of the economy vs. the whole economy, and the unintended consequences of an action as well as the intended consequences. These concepts are critical to clear thinking about alternatives in economics and in life. In fact, I think a good definition of economics might be the study of unintended consequences." ~ Bob McTeer, http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/the-seen-and-the-unseen-and-fed-policy/ (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/the-seen-and-the-unseen-and-fed-policy/)
Quote
In his essay "What We See and What We Don't See," Bastiat offered the following idea; we can see what governments do, and therefore sing their praises - but we do not see the alternative.  But there is an alternative; it is less obvious and remains unseen. 

Recall the confirmation fallacy: governments are great at telling you what they did, but not what they did not do.  In fact, they engage in what could be labeled as phony "philanthropy", the activity of helping people in a visible and sensational way without taking into account the unseen cemetery of invisible consequences. ~ Nassim Taleb, The Black Swan
Quote
government interventions are laden with unintended—and unforeseen—consequences, particularly in complex systems, so humans must work with nature by tolerating systems that absorb human imperfections rather than seek to change them. ~ Nassim Taleb, The Black Swan of Cairo, http://fooledbyrandomness.com/ForeignAffairs.pdf (http://fooledbyrandomness.com/ForeignAffairs.pdf)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on April 29, 2012, 10:46:40 pm
To continue with my rant  ;D Here are other links in that series;
PART 1 - Naturopathic Doctor Raided by Health Canada and RCMP (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBCHlTxUqNM#ws)
9:17 Watch Later Error PART 2 - Naturopathic Doctor, Eldon Dahl, Raided by Health Canada and RCMPby media109 7,227 views
PART 1 Restricting Our Freedoms - Shawn Buckley About Bill C-6 (Now Bill C-36) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7_0HlCwb8A#ws)
PART 2 Restricting Our Freedoms - Shawn Buckley about Bill C-6 (Now Bill C-36) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud4bYJXIrAE#ws)
PART 3 - Naturopathic Doctor, Eldon Dahl, Raided by Health Canada and RCMP (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i75LovKvKVk#ws)
PART 4 - Naturopathic Doctor, Eldon Dahl, Raided by Health Canada and RCMP (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THt0ClMp7FQ#ws)
Author Jeffrey Smith about GMOs - Risks and Solutions (excerpts) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYOhJE-8U0#ws)
Shawn Buckley speaks about Eldon Dahl's Raid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xn6hBWZGgE#ws)
Shawn Buckley speaks about Eldon Dahl's Raid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xn6hBWZGgE#ws)
Dr. Robert Verkerk, GMO's GAMBLING WITH OUR FOOD and FUTURE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nz-PSbupK0#ws)
4. Can We Speed Up the Process to Legislate the Charter of Health Freedom? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63vP0-U9U7o#ws)
3. Protecting your Health Treatment Options (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saH3VJsSwsk#ws)
2. Are the Natural Health Product Restrictions Intentional? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX4_IAmrH68#ws)
FoodMattersTrailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bEWBOyMjq0#ws)
1. The Charter of Health Freedom Project (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT-sXcCyeCk#ws)
HELP OUR (CANADIAN) SENATORS STOP BILL C 6 (C-36) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVjD6sv6yqk#ws)
Shawn Buckley comment about the presentation to the Senate Standing Committee Social Affairs, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fziDmnMDCT8#ws)
Do We Need More Food?- Dr. Shiv Chopra (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCXlRujYD6E#ws)
Shawn Buckley on Inspectors (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KGnQqtogjo#ws)
Our Common Roots - Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXia3JXei1Q#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: CitrusHigh on April 29, 2012, 10:54:34 pm
Holy shite Al, I kept scrolling down expecting the next video to be the last and it kept on going....! lol that was a lot o' linkage.

What do you use herbs for? You don't feel like RVAF eating gives you what you need or? Have you tried to grow any? I'd love to grow exotic herbs and I'm thinking about a potted fig tree for outside here during the summer and then bring inside during the winter. Would probably do the same with exotic herbs, nothing like growing your own!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on April 29, 2012, 11:08:39 pm
Holy shite Al, I kept scrolling down expecting the next video to be the last and it kept on going....! lol that was a lot o' linkage.

What do you use herbs for? You don't feel like RVAF eating gives you what you need or? Have you tried to grow any? I'd love to grow exotic herbs and I'm thinking about a potted fig tree for outside here during the summer and then bring inside during the winter. Would probably do the same with exotic herbs, nothing like growing your own!
LOL, excellent reply!!!

My point was that Canada ain't no hotbed of freedom and 'power to the people'.

I used to be a herbalist type-a-guy, but I've seen the raw light. 
Om Namaha raw diet,
Om Namaha raw foods.... LOL

I do have one vestige of cooked foods which is a herbal mixture that is very good. I will not say it's name as I am not interested in selling it or promoting anything. But I know that it does a great job of providing me with nutrition that is useful, because when I stop consuming it, my immunity seems to very gradually go down a peg or two. It has been extensively studied in a  book by an Allopathic/Ayurvedic physician.

I agree that growing your own is the penultimate.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: CitrusHigh on April 29, 2012, 11:25:22 pm
I totally agree with you, I nibble on wild herbs out in the field while shepherding the cows and seems like even that small bit of bitters and different wild phytochemical magic has a noticeable effect.
__________________________
What concerns me is if Paul did win but then turned out to be no different than business as usual. You expect it from every single other candidate, but if Paul were to get in you'd expect some real. swift. sweeping. changes. If that didn't happen it would probably be the last straw for me and I'd just be waiting for the revolution,....or start it myself.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: LePatron7 on April 30, 2012, 12:11:29 am
This election has been rediculous. With the media completely ignoring ron paul. Varirous presidents flip flopping on issues. It's rediculous.

I'm all for Ron Paul. He makes sense. The constitution really is awesome, and he supports it 100%.

Personally, I don't think Ron Paul would get assassinated. That would cause the most massive revolution here in America.

People are already pissed off as it is.

Students can't get jobs. "Anonomous" is doing all kinds of stuff (last I checked, I haven't been watching the news).

Military is fed up too. No one wants to keep fighting.

I'd love to see the military protest fighting. Literally just say they refuse to fight and abandon America's mission to make one global government that likely abandons the constitution all together.

The fact is it's clear what America's doing. Putting bases everywhere. Mettling in everyone's affairs. Personally I think the reasoning is to eventually get one world government. It's some New World Order conspiracy, but it seems like it.

What's really interesting is that Ron Paul has called what will happen for the last say 30 years.

Last election they mocked him. Now he has what seems like the most supporters.

Hed have more if the news would actually cover the guy. But they mainly flat out ignore him.

I'd hate to have another 4 years of Obama. Or any other candidate. They're war monglers, they just invade places and send our citizens to fight pointless battles.

The middle class really is getting a lot poorer here. My older brother can't even get a job with his degree, and he's stuck paying thousands of dollars in loans.

Ron Paul, even if not elected. Has shed light on issues most people weren't even aware of. He's already changed Americans point of view on a lot of topics.

I'm all for a Ron Paul presidency. But it's obvious those in power are totally against it cause it'll take away control from big government.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Rawr on April 30, 2012, 01:04:40 am
My older brother can't even get a job with his degree, and he's stuck paying thousands of dollars in loans.

Does he still live with your parents? If he doesn't officially own anything "big" he might be able to get rid of the loan through declaring a bankruptcy.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: LePatron7 on April 30, 2012, 01:22:58 am
Thanks for the advice.

No he lives somewhere else, and has a decent job. Just not with the degree he has.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: gc on April 30, 2012, 08:08:23 am
Does he still live with your parents? If he doesn't officially own anything "big" he might be able to get rid of the loan through declaring a bankruptcy.

Gubmint-backed student loans (Sallie Mae) are exempt from bankruptcy proceedings. You can't bankrupt them away, no matter what you do or don't own. I'm in the hole almost $40k and I don't even have a degree to show for it.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President in LOUISIANA !
Post by: goodsamaritan on April 30, 2012, 09:03:53 am
LOUISIANA

Ron Paul is on a roll! Ron Paul for President of the USA.

At the Saturday District Convention, Ron Paul 111 of the 150 delegates who will go to the State Convention. He won 61 of the 72 alternates.

This guarantees a majority of Ron Paul delegates from Louisiana in Tampa. Mark another state for RP.

FFw/JB (4/28/2012): Ron Paul wins Louisiana Caucus! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNpAekL8O-0#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President ALASKA delegates boo
Post by: goodsamaritan on April 30, 2012, 09:41:47 am
Wanna know what happens when a senator endorses Romney at the Alaska State Convention? [HD] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNcDCaFFlw8#ws)

April 27, 2012. Alaskan Delegates show it's time for state senator to get with the program after he says ".....I have endorsed and will continue to work for the election of Mitt Romney for President of the United States."

------

"As people have seen me say for months .. start booing all these people whenever and wherever they appear. Booing is one of the most powerful ways of letting them and others know how you feel and that they can join in too. Boo them off every stage they show up on. Boo them at every sporting event they appear. Keep booing them and others will see that they are the crooks, criminals and liars."
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on April 30, 2012, 10:29:27 am
Quote
I'd also have to agree with GS about countries like his being freer.

you have to go there and see for yourself.  i've been there twice and i'll tell you freedom is a very relative term.  it appears to be more free.  but in reality if you lift the crust it is all rotten underneath.  the ONLY reason why they don't have services and regulations is because they CANNOT AFFORD IT.  they cannot afford to regulate a simple auto exhaust emissions and as a result breathing black and blue fumes around the clock. in a village it is not that apparent but in a city it stinks big time.

and the corruption is through the roof especially in the provinces. and i'm not even talking about Mindanao province where they behead foreigners and locals.  the so called freedom in Philippines is so bad millions of them ditching this freedom every year.

Philippines is a typical third world country.  if you have enough money you can have a very decent living in a good place surrounded with maids and then some.  but for most of the locals it just sucks.  most don't give a rat's ass about freedom because quality of life stinks.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on April 30, 2012, 11:07:21 am
Quote
You are not debating though ys, you're just repeating yourself over and over. Debating is cool, redundancy not as much, at all.

ha, you know, i can say that same thing about redundancy.  i see 'Hail Ron Paul' non stop as if no one is aware what is coming.  and if all of you are passionate about libertarian ideas why don't you debate how to reasonably achieve them.  Ron Paul said this, Ron Paul said that, to you he may sound nice and all but without delivering any of his ideas he is just an empty talk.

if you look back at the last 3 presidential elections you'll see that most voters are somewhat evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.  most voters are Independents who lean either way depending on the state of the economy.  there is simply no room for radicals, no matter who they are, libertarian, green, communist, etc.

if you want libertarian ideas move forward it has to start from the ground up.  a county or a state with a proven record.  there must be a libertarian success story to build upon.

Quote
S, you appear to be rehashing your same standard point that also is the standard Republican establishment argument, that people should hold their noses and support the candidate who has the best chance to win, whereas supporting Ron Paul and the policies he is promoting is a waste of time because RP cannot win the nomination, regardless of whether Paul's views and policies would actually be better for the country. I already countered that early in the thread:

the establishment will continue to ignore Paul because his hype has not materialized into significant amount of votes.  in other words he does not matter.  and what do you think will happen after he is gone? who will pick up the load?

for the record i do not like any of the candidates.  from the lineup my preference would be Cain, then Santorum.  i would like for Wisconsin's Walker to run someday or Jindal.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: CitrusHigh on April 30, 2012, 12:37:11 pm
Lol, the thread is about Ron Paul, where the hell else would we go to say 'ron paul said this' or 'this is what ron paul's up to'

Just admit it, you're trolling because you're trolling.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on April 30, 2012, 06:47:58 pm
(http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/ob1splash2.jpg)

found on Rense.com
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on April 30, 2012, 07:17:49 pm
ha, you know, i can say that same thing about redundancy.  i see 'Hail Ron Paul' non stop as if no one is aware what is coming.
That's a non sequitur. Just because people hail Ron Paul doesn't necessarily mean they aren't aware that he is not likely to win. I am well aware that he isn't likely to win. I'll base my votes on the principles and policies the candidates espouse rather than the betting odds or joining the bandwagon. The odds are stacked against Romney too and the incumbent, Obama, is the most likely overall victor unless the economy takes a major turn for the worse before the election, but that doesn't mean I should vote for him.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: LePatron7 on May 01, 2012, 12:17:52 am
I would have the best orgasm if Ron Paul were elected.

As would I lol
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: CitrusHigh on May 01, 2012, 12:30:12 am
As would I lol

Lol wtf? Actually me too, ughhhmerica! ROFL
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on May 01, 2012, 12:42:07 am
BREAKING NEWS: Ron Paul Winning Nomination (Either Way)! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU2AvSwzuok#)

www.JoshTolley.com (http://www.JoshTolley.com) Ron Paul is destroying Mitt Romney's GOP and this will lead to either a) Ron Paul GOP Nomination b) Ron Paul Third Party Run c) Mitt Romney beaten by President Obama.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on May 01, 2012, 01:21:43 am
Quote Klowcarb - I would have the best orgasm if Ron Paul were elected.

As would I lol
Hey, maybe you two should get together.

It would be a shame to have it alone.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: LePatron7 on May 01, 2012, 01:33:02 am
Interesting reads on ron paul.

http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/ron_paul.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/ron_paul.htm)

http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/296/ (http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/296/)

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/18/16-ron-paul-quotes-that-prove-he-is-not-a-liberal/ (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/18/16-ron-paul-quotes-that-prove-he-is-not-a-liberal/)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on May 01, 2012, 01:54:28 am
Jerry Doyle, the actor who played Garibaldi in the SF TV series Babylon 5, and who is now a Libertarian-Conservative radio host, endorses Ron Paul:-

Ron Paul Endorsed by Nationally Syndicated Radio Talk Show Host Jerry Doyle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_nuMvImQ9o#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: ys on May 01, 2012, 03:18:52 am
Quote
That's a non sequitur. Just because people hail Ron Paul doesn't necessarily mean they aren't aware that he is not likely to win. I am well aware that he isn't likely to win. I'll base my votes on the principles and policies the candidates espouse rather than the betting odds or joining the bandwagon. The odds are stacked against Romney too and the incumbent, Obama, is the most likely overall victor unless the economy takes a major turn for the worse before the election, but that doesn't mean I should vote for him.

not sure what non sequitur is. i'm not asking you to vote for anybody.  you are free to vote for whoever you like.  if Paul is not on the ballot feel free to write him in.

this is not about Romney or Obama.  this is about Paul.  as a presidential candidate he does not matter.  just like Nader did not matter in the past elections (besides helping Bush in 2000).  Paul should have started as a mayor then moving to governor.  he would have a record to show for where he could have materialized libertarian ideas.  as congressman he is nothing but empty talk.  he is simply saying what you like to hear.  nothing more.

but if it makes all of you feel any better keep posting pro-Paul youtubes and links.  i won't bring up inconvenient reality anymore.  enjoy your fantasy.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on May 01, 2012, 03:28:22 am
but if it makes all of you feel any better keep posting pro-Paul youtubes and links.  i won't bring up inconvenient reality anymore.  enjoy your fantasy.
Is that a promise or a threat?  ;D

Tis a free country or at least somewhat and you are free to type and we are free to listen or dismiss. It's easier to listen if you say something clever. You have said many clever things and it behooves people to listen as you are the voice of the naysayer.

If there is no dull and determined effort,
There will be no brilliant achievement.
Hsun-Tzu
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on May 01, 2012, 03:31:13 am
not sure what non sequitur is.

Wackipedia-

Non sequitur ( /n?n?s?kw?t?r/) is Latin for "it does not follow." It is most often used as a noun to describe illogical statements.
Non sequitur may refer to:
Non sequitur (literary device), an irrelevant, often humorous comment to a preceding topic or statement.
Non sequitur (logic), a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise.
Non Sequitur (comic strip), a comic strip by Wiley Miller
Non Sequitur (Star Trek: Voyager), an episode of Star Trek: Voyager
Sequitur may refer to:
Sequitur algorithm
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 01, 2012, 05:41:27 am
Thanks Raw-Al, you saved me having to write the explanation.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on May 01, 2012, 07:28:57 am
I had to look it up myself anyways. LOL

I really liked the one Tyler came out with earlier:

"You are such a cheerless, little Philistine!"

Hadn't heard it in a while. Have to remember that one.  ;D
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on May 01, 2012, 10:11:45 am
I'm a realist like YS, but I'm the hopeful type.

The Powers That Be do not always win.... they sometimes lose!

For example:

- Lincoln won the war by printing greenbacks

- Andrew Jackson ended the 1st US Central bank which was private just like this 3rd Central Bank

Who knows, maybe Ron Paul and the awake movement will succeed in 2012.

Anyone watch Thrive the movie?

(Official Movie) THRIVE: What On Earth Will It Take? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEV5AFFcZ-s#ws)

A Ron Paul win is a step in the right direction.
Ron Paul supporters are aware of the problem as described in Thrive the movie.

People in 2012 are waking UP!
It is as the Mayan Calendar had predicted.
We humans have reached a new political consciousness, a new monetary creation consciousness.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: gc on May 03, 2012, 12:19:54 am

- Lincoln won the war by printing greenbacks


I've heard that this is the real reason why he was assassinated. I'd believe it. There is a small but powerful minority hell-bent on keeping control over the currency out of public hands.

I have the movie saved but I haven't had enough time by myself to watch it yet.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: sabertooth on May 03, 2012, 07:26:50 pm
Honest Abe was taken out for wanting to keep the green back, just as Kennedy was taken out for wanting to return to it.

The real story is that Booth was a hired assassin working for European bankers who would lose real big if America kept using green backs. There is evidence that Booth actually got away, and that there was a cover up by the Military who shot a prisoner and claimed it to be Booth.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 04, 2012, 09:22:27 am
Quote
Win or lose, Rep. Ron Paul has succeeded in changing the dialogue in America.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ron-paul-biography-republican-2012-presidential-candidates/story?id=14563821#.T6MtKauXR0q (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ron-paul-biography-republican-2012-presidential-candidates/story?id=14563821#.T6MtKauXR0q)
Quote
Forget the Nomination, Ron Paul Revolution Taking Over the Entire Republican Party
http://www.dailypaul.com/230321/forget-the-nomination-ron-paul-revolution-taking-over-the-entire-republican-party (http://www.dailypaul.com/230321/forget-the-nomination-ron-paul-revolution-taking-over-the-entire-republican-party)
Quote
(S)ome Republicans said [Ron Paul] has already succeeded in pushing the Republican Party so far to the right on fiscal and budgetary matters that it has paid tangible dividends at the legislative level.

"There are a lot of establishment Republicans who need to thank Ron Paul for injecting a certain amount of courage to do what people always said needed to be done but where they also said, 'How do we do that?'" Iowa state Rep. Erik Helland said.

Helland said that in 2011, the legislature "deappropriated" $500 million over three years from programs such as state-mandated pre-school, government employee benefits and other programs that usually cause an outcry. Helland, who is the majority whip, said that on the Monday after they announced the spending cuts, he got back to Des Moines and "braced" himself for news of outrage from other state representatives who had spent the weekend meeting with constituents.

"They came back and said, 'We talked to our voters, they want to cut more,'" Helland said. "It was paradigm shifting. The voters started actually saying, 'cut.'"

Helland said he gives credit to Paul, who has spent a lot of time in Iowa over the past several years, for changing the political culture.

"Paul staked out such an aggressive dialogue on cutting government that some of the steps we've taken in the legislature and at the federal level are possible because Ron Paul talked about it to the extent that it became politically palatable," Helland said.

"Ron Paul is the most successful presidential candidate in the last couple decades, even though he hasn't won the election," he continued. "He has shaped the dialogue."

Ron Paul Racks Up Delegates, Putting GOP Establishment On Edge
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/ron-paul-delegates_n_1473035.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/ron-paul-delegates_n_1473035.html)
(Granted, not the best source)
Title: Re: Ron Paul QUALIFIED in TAMPA Convention
Post by: goodsamaritan on May 04, 2012, 05:38:53 pm
Seems the USA revolution / spring is chugging along.

Ron Paul has qualified for nomination in the Tampa convention.

Ron Paul Qualifies for the Convention in Tampa (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlCZh5b0PFU#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on May 06, 2012, 07:09:05 am
Got this in an email. Looks a little suspect but looks like a great idea. Canada could use this as a template also.

'Subject: Fw: Warren Buffet: "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes,"
 
Warren Buffet: "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC.
Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure.

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011--or 2012:

1. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 1/1/13. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.

Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message. Don't you think it's time?

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!

If you agree, pass it on. If not, delete.
You are one of my 20+ - Please keep it going, and thanks'
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 07, 2012, 10:30:55 am
Europe in turmoil as France and Greece reject austerity
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/05/06/f-vp-murray-europe-austerity.html (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/05/06/f-vp-murray-europe-austerity.html)

The facade of global stability and prosperity appears to be crumbling. The great ponzi scheme revealed. God help us all.

Quote
"I think he's being very careful because he knows how important the Ron Paul voters are – they obviously represent a very different dynamic," Mike Dennehy, a former top aide to Republican John McCain's 2008 campaign, told the AP. "They are the most passionate and the most frustrated of any voters heading to the polls. And many of them are independents."

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/how-ron-paul-won-maine-and-nevada-and-why-mitt-romney-should-worry (http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/how-ron-paul-won-maine-and-nevada-and-why-mitt-romney-should-worry)
Well, well, well. At long last Romney is starting to treat Ron Paul and his supporters with some respect, which they forced him to do with their commitment, and by not listening to the people who said we should abandon Ron. Once again Ron Paul has succeeded.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: cherimoya_kid on May 07, 2012, 11:56:40 am
Raw-al, I like it.  I think it's a hoax, but I like it. I think we should add quite a few more people to Congress, though, to avoid the possibility of bribes, etc..
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on May 07, 2012, 06:09:13 pm
Err, I saw previous videos of past debates many months ago, and Mitt Romney always referred to Ron Paul in respectful ways, referring to RP as being an expert on the Constitution etc.. I also once saw a Ron Paul video interview in which Ron said that he and Mitt Romney were friends, even if they did not necessarily coincide in their views. Plus, there were accusations levelled in the media at both campaigns that they were not sufficiently targetting each other's candidate and only deriding the other candidates. So MR is not suddenly changing his tune.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on May 07, 2012, 06:28:49 pm
Ron Paul got Majority of Nevada delegates: 22 out of 25.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/may/06/ron-paul-supporters-capture-majority-nevadas-natio/ (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/may/06/ron-paul-supporters-capture-majority-nevadas-natio/)

Looks like Ron Paul has a real shot.

The reason I'm interested in the republican nomination is that the only real opposition to the US establishment is Ron Paul. Mr. Romney = Mr. Obama are both the establishment candidates. Only Ron Paul stands for real change, real challenge of the status quo. It is only with Ron Paul where we will have a chance at the abolition of the FED, stop the US WAR economy from seeing war as an engine of growth and profit... see PEACE as an engine of profit instead.

Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 08, 2012, 08:12:46 am
Err, I saw previous videos of past debates many months ago, and Mitt Romney always referred to Ron Paul in respectful ways, referring to RP as being an expert on the Constitution etc..
I was focused more on celebrating Ron Paul's success in promoting and gaining some influence for the Ron Paul Revolution, the libertarian orientation in general, and specific policy views like deficit reduction (partly in response to the claims in this thread that Ron Paul has failed), than on Romney. Besides, Ron and Rand Paul said that the hype from Santorum and the media over a Paul/Romney alliance conspiracy was overblown:
Quote
Ron Paul: Santorum an ‘addict of conspiracies,’ alliance with Romney pure fiction
Submitted by bobbyw24 on Thu, 03/01/2012
http://www.dailypaul.com/217533/ron-paul-santorum-an-addict-of-conspiracies-alliance-with-romney-pure-fiction (http://www.dailypaul.com/217533/ron-paul-santorum-an-addict-of-conspiracies-alliance-with-romney-pure-fiction)

“VP” RAND PAUL AND THE IMAGINARY ROMNEY/PAUL CONNECTION
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/02/24/vp-rand-paul-and-the-imaginary-romneypaul-connection/ (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/02/24/vp-rand-paul-and-the-imaginary-romneypaul-connection/)
... Over the past week or so, Texas Rep. Ron Paul has been widely accused of being in cahoots with fellow Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. But Paul and his campaign say that charge simply isn’t true.

After primary polls closed in Arizona and Michigan on Tuesday, Paul suggested on CNN that Rick Santorum was an “addict of conspiracies” for alleging an alliance. “Some people are much more into conspiracies than others,” Paul said.

“There is no such ‘alliance’,” campaign spokesman Gary Howard told The Daily Caller. “Dr. Paul has on numerous occasions pointed out Gov. Romney’s bad record as he has for each of the candidates.”
Re: respect I meant politically more than personal friendliness or politeness. Romney is a smart guy and I figured there was a good chance he would start to make more substantive overtures to libertarian oriented voters at some point, and it sounds like he may be on the verge of doing that. If so, it has taken longer than I expected. Even if he does it, given his past record of flip flopping that the Ron Paul campaign has pointed out, I'm wary of putting too much stock into Romney's promises.
Support Ron Paul: Mitt Romney's Flip Flops - Serial Hypocrisy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvXVNrBe-xM#ws)

Now that Romney's nomination has been bascially assured for some time, I expect we'll soon see more along the lines of political overtures, but, like GS, I've been unimpressed so far. While I like the fact that Romney has been personally polite to Ron Paul, up to now Romney's rhetoric hasn't been especially impressive regarding political and policy matters. For example:
Quote
“One of the people running for president thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” Romney told voters here at Elly’s Tea and Coffee Shop, where a line stretched to the door to see him. “I don’t, I don’t trust ayatollahs ... I don’t trust those who back Hamas and Hezbollah.”
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2011/12/mitt-romney-criticizes-ron-paul-stance-iran/yiRZHOVELYpmcCUHzpjGGL/index.html (http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2011/12/mitt-romney-criticizes-ron-paul-stance-iran/yiRZHOVELYpmcCUHzpjGGL/index.html)
 
“I totally disagree with Ron Paul’s position on Iran and a whole series of other issues. I don’t believe he will become our nominee. I’m working harder than anyone I know to make sure he’s not our nominee.” http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nx80q/mitt_romney_on_ron_paul_im_working_harder_than/ (http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nx80q/mitt_romney_on_ron_paul_im_working_harder_than/)

Since the theocons and other strong conservatives don't seem enthusiastic about Romney (as pointed out in the videos below), I think it's possible that he might try moving in a more libertarian direction on some issues, particularly those that Paleoconservatives also favor, to try to harness some of their enthusiasm and support.
Will Conservatives Rally Around Mitt Romney? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkbt_zJhfu0#ws)
Just How Damaged Is Mitt Romney? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY5gda2LwAo#)
Ann Coulter: Romney Will Lose In 2012 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okjIK0HrhXM#)(She has since changed her tune, but she was clearly not enthusiastic about Romney.)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on May 08, 2012, 01:00:33 pm
It is possible for a politician to lie, you know. Here's an excerpt from one of your links above:-"Paul’s straightforward denunciation of talk of an “alliance” with Romney might not put to rest the theorizing. On Monday ThinkProgress published an analysis of 20 debates and found that Paul hadn’t directly attacked Romney in any of them — despite attacking other rivals a total of 39 times."

Before you claim that RP never lies, I would like to point out that, on certain issues, such as gay marriage, RP has shown on video an obvious attempt to obfuscate his real position - in Conservative circles it is anathema to be openly in favour of gays, and RP is clearly pro-gay given his Libertarian beliefs, so he had to spout rubbish about letting the States decide things.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 09, 2012, 05:17:39 am
I wouldn't claim that any politician never lies. Are you claiming that Ron Paul lied in this case and do you think that his longtime views on states rights are rubbish?

At any rate, my point was to celebrate the successful impact that Ron Paul has already achieved, not to debate whether there's a conspiracy plan between him and Mitt Romney to work together. I'll actually be happy if Mitt moves in a more libertarian direction (of course, it likely still wouldn't nearly be as libertarian as RP's orientation,  and thus still might not garner RP's endorsement, but it would be interesting to see what discussions might produce). There is reportedly a general libertarian tendency among Utah Mormons, so it wouldn't be unthinkable, though of course not all Mormons share the same political views. I would love to see the Neocon and Theocon squirming and shrieking that a Romney embrace of Ron Paul and his followers would cause. IIRC, Sean Hannity even went so far as to say that Ron Paul was the only Republican candidate he would oppose. And I think such an alliance might frighten the Obama campaign, as it would add a wild card and the youthful enthusiasm, technology and fund-raising savvy, and boots on the ground of the libertarian movement to the Republican campaign. However, my guess is that Romney won't go too far in that direction, to avoid upsetting the Neocons, Theocons, and Fox News.

Ron Paul on states rights/governing in 2007:
Ron Paul is Pro Life and for States Rights (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNFF614YyFA#)
In 2011:
Ron Paul on States Rights and the Nullification of Unproductive Laws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucM0bXU60c8#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on May 09, 2012, 05:38:09 am
I think his real policy is to leave all power to the individual. He rightfully hates leaving power to the State.

* I'm, incidentally, currently reading the work of Max Stirner"The Ego and its Own". It's even more extreme than RP's ideas, and suggests that we should not bow down to any authority at all, and view ourselves as our own masters.*

One other thing, PP:- You correctly criticised me on 2 occasions for citing a quotation that was quite different from its original one. I recently saw some appalling quotations supposedly from Ayatollah Khomeini which I was going to put in my signature, but now I'm not sure if they weren't invented by an anti-Islamist faction. Do you know of any website which checks the veracity of quotations? I used to use thinkexist.com until I saw that several of the quotations supposedly made by Dan Quayle there were actually fraudulent ones invented by Democrats.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 09, 2012, 05:50:24 am
I think his real policy is to leave all power to the individual. He rightfully hates leaving power to the State.
He does rightfully seem to favor individual liberties over states rights to a reasonable extent, though it's a matter of controversy, but he also favors states rights over federal perogative absent clear Constitutional support:
Quote
States' rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution. Most of the worst excesses of big government can be traced to a disregard for states' rights, which means a disregard for the Ninth and Tenth amendments. ~ Ron Paul, 2002
You're right to warn about the potential abuses of the states rights concept, as some use it to try to promote mini fiefdoms in the USA, and some supporters of such have even tried to hijack the libertarian movement.

Quote
One other thing, PP:- You correctly criticised me on 2 occasions for citing a quotation that was quite different from its original one. I recently saw some appalling quotations supposedly from Ayatollah Khomeini which I was going to put in my signature, but now I'm not sure if they weren't invented by an anti-Islamist faction. Do you know of any website which checks the veracity of quotations? I used to use thinkexist.com until I saw that several of the quotations supposedly made by Dan Quayle there were actually fraudulent ones invented by Democrats.
Well, I didn't mean them as criticisms so much as a heads up. Snopes.com and http://www.bartleby.com (http://www.bartleby.com) are decent resources for checking quotes and there are a few tips here: http://www.quoteland.com/articles/identify.asp. (http://www.quoteland.com/articles/identify.asp.) Plus, if I really want to check a quote out thoroughly, I check multiple sources and add terms like "source", "origin" or "urban legend" to the search, seeking out sources that actually do some research and mythbusting. I look with skepticism upon any quote where the original source isn't cited. It also helps to be aware that some of the most popular and oft repeated quotes are misattributed or misinterpreted or both. I also try to find the original source, if possible. For example, I look for an actual videotape of someone saying the words they were quoted as saying, and check the context, which often gives a completely different picture than what the popular media portrays.

Oh, and it sometimes also helps to check opposing sources. So if a Democrat source says something, it can pay off to check a Republican or Libertarian source, for example, as there's lots of spin by all political parties and movements. Most of them now even have the annoying habit of regurgitating sound bites fed to them by party operatives without having any idea of their veracity, as you're probably aware.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on May 09, 2012, 07:21:45 am
Interesting Thanks Phil.

That's exhausting just reading it.

So if you don't catch me making it up I am safe. LOL
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on May 13, 2012, 04:10:53 am
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/the-911-files/sibel-edmonds-the-classified-woman-finally-tells-her-story.html (http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/the-911-files/sibel-edmonds-the-classified-woman-finally-tells-her-story.html)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on May 14, 2012, 07:18:31 am
Russell Means: Welcome To The Reservation -part 1 of 7- (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GGE62qZHOc#)

Phil posted this on another thread on sheep's milk, but it belongs here also. He talks about the Fed.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 14, 2012, 08:40:52 am
I found the original version that is all in one video, instead of divided into seven:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-LA-S64QY3o#! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-LA-S64QY3o#)

I should probably warn that Russell doesn't tend to get all his facts right, such as historical facts and famous quotes,  but he provides an interesting perspective and is a good speaker. I had never thought of the concept of the USA as a giant reservation until he said it and it does appear to be a good analogy.

Russell ran for nomination of President of the United States under the Libertarian Party in 1987 and came in second to Ron Paul.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: gc on May 15, 2012, 05:41:42 am
Russell ran for nomination of President of the United States under the Libertarian Party in 1987 and came in second to Ron Paul.

Awesome.

Just last year I think he also went with a delegation of a bunch of other tribal / post-AIM leaders to Washington, D.C. and I think abroad drumming up support for a secession of a "Nation of Lakota" carved out of parts of N/S Dakota, Nebraska, and I think part of Montana. They were offering citizenship of Lakota for anyone willing to move there and renounce their US citizenship, genetic native or no.

Ballsy, I like it. If I thought for a second it had a chance I'd likely have taken them up on it.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 17, 2012, 07:28:48 am
Ron Paul Booed by Insane Debate Audience for Endorsing the Golden Rule [of the Jesus Christ they Claim to Worship, but quickly abandon when convenience dictates it]
Ron Paul Booed by Insane Debate Audience for Endorsing the Golden Rule (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v8qtZ3I5AM#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: gc on May 17, 2012, 08:01:14 am
Lol. I imagine the Romney reply won't be anywhere near as good :D
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on May 17, 2012, 11:35:42 am
Ron Paul Booed by Insane Debate Audience for Endorsing the Golden Rule [of the Jesus Christ they Claim to Worship, but quickly abandon when convenience dictates it]
Ron Paul Booed by Insane Debate Audience for Endorsing the Golden Rule (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v8qtZ3I5AM#)

Go Ron go!
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on May 17, 2012, 12:28:32 pm
Yes, I have always been mystified as to why the Christian Right is so psychotic as to support Israel and want to conquer the Middle-East. While the latter might seem logical at first glance,  that action has directly led to the savage persecution of Christians in the Middle-East, forcing many to emigrate.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on May 17, 2012, 12:32:59 pm
Yes, I have always been mystified as to why the Christian Right is so psychotic as to support Israel and want to conquer the Middle-East. While the latter might seem logical at first glance,  that action has directly led to the savage persecution of Christians in the Middle-East, forcing many to emigrate.
I used to wonder until I read the book "The Israel Lobby" where they say that there is a certain fundamentalist faction in the Christian church that believes that what is going on in the middle east is preparing the way for the end times which are close at hand. They feel that by supporting Israel, they will  speed it up. Go figure, they wanna die.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on May 17, 2012, 12:42:15 pm
I used to wonder until I read the book "The Israel Lobby" where they say that there is a certain fundamentalist faction in the Christian church that believes that what is going on in the middle east is preparing the way for the end times which are close at hand. They feel that by supporting Israel, they will  speed it up. Go figure, they wanna die.
Ah, I see! Incidentally, I am currently reading Max Stirner's book "The Ego and Its Own", which is all about how it is far healthier to have no allegiance to anyone or anything except yourself - so he is against anyone supporting a higher authority, whether that authority is in the form of a god, country or, indeed, humanity in general. Plus, unlike Nietzsche, he did not believe in people subjugating others.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on May 17, 2012, 12:49:25 pm
Ah, I see! Incidentally, I am currently reading Max Stirner's book "The Ego and Its Own", which is all about how it is far healthier to have no allegiance to anyone or anything except yourself - so he is against anyone supporting a higher authority, whether that authority is in the form of a god, country or, indeed, humanity in general. Plus, unlike Nietzsche, he did not believe in people subjugating others.
Thanks, the library has it, so I have it on order.

My problem is that I get all these great books, but never read them. Audiobooks allow me to do other things while listening.

However I usually skim them for the main ideas.

Often books are just about a few dozen sentences as you paraphrased, with a lot of words or justifications surrounding them.

I like ideas though. The world becomes less cloudy.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on May 17, 2012, 09:28:19 pm
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1179387--12-year-old-ontario-girl-slams-modern-banking-system-becomes-youtube-star?bn=1 (http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1179387--12-year-old-ontario-girl-slams-modern-banking-system-becomes-youtube-star?bn=1)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: gc on May 19, 2012, 07:17:02 am
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1179387--12-year-old-ontario-girl-slams-modern-banking-system-becomes-youtube-star?bn=1 (http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1179387--12-year-old-ontario-girl-slams-modern-banking-system-becomes-youtube-star?bn=1)

WTG, Victoria. Whether she memorized someone else's speech or not doesn't make it any less true. I wish more adults could understand what she said. Canada's even GOT the bank to get interest-free loans from.. all we got's the Fed.

But I suppose a public bank that can't suck a people dry is too much like socialism for some retards.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on May 30, 2012, 07:12:35 am
Here Ron Paul, in his weekly e-mail update, talks about

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1978:capital-controls-have-no-place-in-a-free-society&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69 (http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1978:capital-controls-have-no-place-in-a-free-society&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69)

how the new anti-Patriot act is all about robbing foreigners of their hard-earned earnings.


Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: CitrusHigh on May 30, 2012, 11:08:03 am
I used to wonder until I read the book "The Israel Lobby" where they say that there is a certain fundamentalist faction in the Christian church that believes that what is going on in the middle east is preparing the way for the end times which are close at hand. They feel that by supporting Israel, they will  speed it up. Go figure, they wanna die.

Or like my well meaning whacko baptist fundamentalist dingbat family that thinks we should purposefully be Israel's bitches because they are 'yahweh's chosen people' and maybe we'll get some table scraps or something, ruff ruff! Fuck yahwheh
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: raw-al on June 01, 2012, 12:03:53 am
Mint's fumble.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/uselection/article/1202852--mitt-romney-iphone-app-stands-for-a-better-amercia-spawns-internet-meme?bn=1 (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/uselection/article/1202852--mitt-romney-iphone-app-stands-for-a-better-amercia-spawns-internet-meme?bn=1)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: SkinnyDevil on June 01, 2012, 08:48:50 pm
Gonna be an interesting time at the RNC this August.........
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: svrn on June 01, 2012, 11:45:15 pm
Source: Bilderberg wants Ron Paul dead (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fesE5HcLC9Y#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 03, 2012, 10:15:42 am
I try to give credit where credit is due. I just came across this--Mitt Romney deserves credit for congratulating Ron Paul in this video, instead of demonizing Ron like Rush Limbaugh and other Neoconmen have done (hat tip to Tyler for that brilliant and oh-so-on-target term): Romney congratulates Santorum, Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a4O_1slRKI#ws)
At least Mitt has the intelligence and sense to recognize that Ron Paul and his supporters are worth courting. I'll probably still vote for Gary Johnson, but Mitt has earned a place on my radar screen now. If Mitt is really sharp, he'll do more to court the young members of the growing libertarian-leaning revolution that the Internet has helped foster. We'll see.

Of course, Mitt's proposed policies still don't come close to taking reality into account, as Ron Paul pointed out here:
Ron Paul (LIKE A BOSS): BODY SLAMS MITT ROMNEY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYgAbkXOAsw#ws)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: svrn on August 06, 2012, 10:16:48 pm
fuck mitt, hes clearly full of shit in his congratulations and is only trying to appear cordial for the voters. i dont buy that crap for one second. romney is 100% scum.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 24, 2012, 08:39:02 pm
Hey Republican Americans. Is this corruption in the Republican Party true? Vote rigging is the American way? Changing the rules in the middle of the game?

Reality Check: RNC Pulling Out All Stops To Keep Ron Paul's Name Out Of Nomination (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQvszfnOSY8#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on August 25, 2012, 01:30:51 am
Vote-rigging has been endemic in the US since its inception. The Mafia used to force  Italian citizens to only vote en bloc  for those political candidates who were in the pay of the organisation etc. etc. This is why democracy needs to be eliminated and some form of individualist anarchist movement comes permanently to power with minimal government.
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: Qodesh on August 25, 2012, 02:07:54 am
I tried to vote for RP in the last election.
 At the polls, my sister in WA State was told he dropped out, my friend in MD said he was actually pencil-crossed off the ballots. I mailed in my change of party affiliation in plenty of time (you have to be Republican in the primary to vote for him then), they corrected the change of address and polling station, but conveniently messed up on the affiliation change and I was told I couldn't vote for him in the primary. When I fought for my "right", they sent in a "corrective paper vote", in which the tracking number was lost.........The news hid his stats and the media didn't invite him to major televised debate.
They hang chads, loose ballots... Florida is famous for our "oooops"

They will do what they want, when they want. This is an illusion of Freedom. We're in the Matrix.......... 

So I enjoy my dream until enough people wake up and really want change......
 Then I guess I'll help with the clean up



Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 28, 2012, 09:00:48 am
Quote
The Republican Party may well have shot itself in the foot with its latest efforts to strong-arm or purge independent-minded voters from its ranks. Principled voters who for too long have been taken for granted are catching on to the party’s insatiable lust for power. Their support can and will be taken elsewhere when the breaking point is reached.

What the GOP establishment fails to recognize is that Ron Paul is not the singular leader of the liberty movement. Though he has been an icon during the past two election cycles, the millions of independent thinkers for whom liberty remains a top priority will not fade away at his retirement. ~ Bryan Hyde, http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2012/08/27/perspectives-what-the-gop-fears-most/ (http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2012/08/27/perspectives-what-the-gop-fears-most/)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: CitrusHigh on September 17, 2012, 10:28:52 pm
Romney Obama the Same? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92d38#)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 19, 2012, 07:18:21 am
Politics makes strange bedfellows:  :)
Quote
Farrakhan praises Ron Paul; blasts frontrunners national debt plans
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/15887541-418/farrakhan-praises-ron-paul-and-blasts-presidential-frontrunners-national-debt-plans.html (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/15887541-418/farrakhan-praises-ron-paul-and-blasts-presidential-frontrunners-national-debt-plans.html)
Title: Re: Ron Paul for President of the USA
Post by: TylerDurden on November 23, 2012, 04:43:12 am
Politics makes strange bedfellows:  :)
I am amused by the fact that white and black supremacists both like Ron Paul. It demonstrates that his stance, if anyone had any sense, appeals to most views all over the political spectrum. Trouble is that most people are  too dumb to grasp this and feel that more order/control/law/tyranny  is always necessary, whereas RP's stance is that chaos/disorder/anarchy/freedom is the way to go. It seems that RP's stance was influenced by Lysander Spooner according to reports, but, imo, he is so much more  like Max Stirner in attitude.