Quantcast

Ron Paul - 1 Week, 1 Million Dollars

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,698
1,749
chez moi
In short, Ron explains why the FedGov should provide defense, enforce contracts and otherwise leave us the funk alone.
That sounds so nice until you realize that local communites can do horrible things to people they don't like through their governments (minorites, gays, whatever..."State's rights!"), so you need the fed gov to guarantee rights.

And local communities can do things like rape resources and historically/naturally significant places and pollute and all sorts of things that affect us all, so the fed gov should help manage this stuff.

And the fed gov should work to prevent the unadulterated monopolies that would take hold of everyone's lives and prevent the little guy from having an economic chance, which is what happens when a libertarian dream is realized literally. (Not the "people's" anything, as you'd envision...unadulterated libertarianism results in complete and total economic domination by the rich and cultural domination by corporations who wanna sell us stuff.)

So the government does have some other stuff to do...not that I'm unsypathetic to libertarian ideals or principles, but it has to be tempered with reality.

The problem is that once the fed solves certain problems, people want to use it to solve all of them, and you get a creeping effect.
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
That sounds so nice until you realize that local communites can do horrible things to people they don't like through their governments (minorites, gays, whatever..."State's rights!"), so you need the fed gov to guarantee rights.
Um, that's in the video too. Sorry for being too brief.

And local communities can do things like rape resources and historically/naturally significant places and pollute and all sorts of things that affect us all, so the fed gov should help manage this stuff.
Paul also discusses how private property rights can be used to protect the environment in the video.

And the fed gov should work to prevent the unadulterated monopolies that would take hold of everyone's lives and prevent the little guy from having an economic chance, which is what happens when a libertarian dream is realized literally. (Not the "people's" anything, as you'd envision...unadulterated libertarianism results in complete and total economic domination by the rich and cultural domination by corporations who wanna sell us stuff.)
This is a risk of complete market freedom, and yet, right now what we have is even worse. Corporate welfare. The government subsidizes industries at taxpayer expense and this creates an uneven playing field. In the video, Paul discusses how the Department of Energy has done this with ethanol, which probably isn't the best choice. I believe this is leading to higher food prices as corn is diverted from the food supply into the energy supply.

So the government does have some other stuff to do...not that I'm unsympathetic to libertarian ideals or principles, but it has to be tempered with reality.
I think I have figured out why people are so afraid of Ron Paul. After living so long under the principles of the unitary executive under king George's rule, people must think that simply because Ron Paul says he believes something, or that he would like to do something, that it must mean that it WILL happen.

Apparently, America™ has forgotten that we have three separate but equal branches of the federal government. The President cannot simply make new laws by decree. As a matter of fact, the President cannot make any laws at all. This is the job of Congress.

And so, on tempering with reality, I expect this to happen quite a bit under a Paul administration, with the Congress having to protect the interests of their corporate campaign contributors and all.

I believe that our founding fathers suspected that it would be the President that represented special interests and the Congress that represented the people. But now that populations have grown so large that most of us have never met our Representatives or Senators, this branch of government is no longer representing the people, but rather the corporations that finance their campaigns.

Ron Paul's campaign funding has come from the people and I believe that he will represent the interests of the people in the federal government. Someone has to do it.
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,860
1
SoMD
Does he get to keep that money even if he's not elected?

But hey, 6M is saying something. The regular people seem to be voting with their donations...
 

skatetokil

Turbo Monkey
Jan 2, 2005
2,383
-1
DC/Bluemont VA
On the topic of monopolies controlling your life, how many monopolies can you think of that benefit from no subsidies or special protections to maintain their positions? The telecom industry is a perfect example. You get crappier services at higher prices and providers who spy on you at will because of regulations that have been custom tailored by the industry giants (which by the way are all Bells) to make competition difficult.
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,860
1
SoMD
Ron Paul is going to be on Glenn Beck tonight on CNN for a full hour interview. Figure it'd at least be entertaining to see what he has to say in a non-debate enviornment.
 

Dartman

Old Bastard Mike
Feb 26, 2003
3,911
0
Richmond, VA
Just saw him on tv saying "When facism comes to this country it will show up wrapped in a flag carrying a cross."

He's got my vote. :thumb:
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
Ron Paul is going to be on Glenn Beck tonight on CNN for a full hour interview. Figure it'd at least be entertaining to see what he has to say in a non-debate enviornment.
I saw this last night. Sure didn't seem like an hour. It was weird watching Glen Beck saying he wanted to french kiss Ron Paul.

Glen brought up the most inflammatory topics and Ron Paul handled them all gracefully. Then at the end he bullied Paul into saying that this was the best and fairest interview he has had yet. The really sad thing is that it was true.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
I saw this last night. Sure didn't seem like an hour. It was weird watching Glen Beck saying he wanted to french kiss Ron Paul.
wife & i were flippin around & caught the first half of it. my major beef with ob/gyn paul is his lack of proper use of syllogisms. f'rinstance, he'll bring up things about our struggling economy which are true, then say, something like "therefore, we're about to experience economic ruin just like in 1929 [when he was a floor trader?]", or bring up cafta, nafta, hafta & conclude "we're going to lose our sovereignty & be just like teh EU".

here, this is good stuff, worthy of its own thread: "China and the Arabian Peninsula as Market Stabilizers"

i can see where he has appeal to the "newly educated" demographic, but not to anyone who's been paying attention the last decade or so.
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
wife & i were flippin around & caught the first half of it. my major beef with ob/gyn paul is his lack of proper use of syllogisms. f'rinstance, he'll bring up things about our struggling economy which are true, then say, something like "therefore, we're about to experience economic ruin just like in 1929 [when he was a floor trader?]", or bring up cafta, nafta, hafta & conclude "we're going to lose our sovereignty & be just like teh EU".
I don't recall him saying exactly those things in the way you state.
I recall him talking about the risk of these things happening, but not that they definitively will.

here, this is good stuff, worthy of its own thread: "China and the Arabian Peninsula as Market Stabilizers"

i can see where he has appeal to the "newly educated" demographic, but not to anyone who's been paying attention the last decade or so.
I don't understand all those big words in that link or understand the relevance. As a matter of fact, I don't really understand your statement on Ron Paul's appeal. Isn't it much easier to just say that all those people are funking crazy? :crazy:
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,698
1,749
chez moi
Did you just compare black people to Neo-Nazis??

"Hi, I'm Ron Paul, and I'm so popular that even the white supremacists love me!" Great campaign slogan.
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
Did you just compare black people to Neo-Nazis??
Um. No. Other than they are all people, that's pretty much where the similarities end.

When 70% of America™ wants the war to end and there is only one guy running on a platform of immediate withdrawal, ya gotta expect that guy to attract all types. I heard there was a girl with purple hair at one of his Iowa appearances.

I bet neo-nazis drink water and breathe air. We should boycott those foul substances until they change their evil ways.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,698
1,749
chez moi
So if you saw a picture of George Bush talking to some white supremacists, you'd be cool with that. I mean, they're people, too. Interesting.
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
So if you saw a picture of George Bush talking to some white supremacists, you'd be cool with that. I mean, they're people, too. Interesting.
I'm just saying that it is a non-issue, and the fact that people are grasping at straws like this is a sign that Ron Paul doesn't have any real skeletons in his closet.

Just because someone is talking to someone does not necessarily mean that they share the same ideology and habits.

Take this photo of Hillary with known cocaine smuggler and campaign contributor Jorge Cabrera for example.


This doesn't mean that Hillary is a cocaine smuggler.

I had a conversation with my wife last night, and that doesn't make me a woman. (or does it?) :brow:
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,368
7,766
So if you saw a picture of George Bush talking to some white supremacists, you'd be cool with that. I mean, they're people, too. Interesting.
do you think their white supremacist views rub off on him or something? this is an insanely stupid point to harp on, topped only by Trancend's constant "but... he said he'd abolish the IRS?!" mantra.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,698
1,749
chez moi
This doesn't mean that Hillary is a cocaine smuggler.
She's pretty well associated with a number of criminals...

But you're right; I was just stirring ****.

Hell, you forget that I started the first Ron Paul thread around here...
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
do you think their white supremacist views rub off on him or something? this is an insanely stupid point to harp on, topped only by Trancend's constant "but... he said he'd abolish the IRS?!" mantra.
Ok, so making campaign promises that have 0 chance of happening yet having the moron sheeple believe it is a good thing for us politics?

The best part is his campaign website busting out the "it will work because it worked before 1923" reasoning.
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,368
7,766
Ok, so making campaign promises that have 0 chance of happening yet having the moron sheeple believe it is a good thing for us politics?

The best part is his campaign website busting out the "it will work because it worked before 1923" reasoning.
it's his long-term goal, not something he'd immediately enact. this has been explained several times by RenegadeRick. given that it's a goal, to slim govt to the point that income tax could be feasibly replaced or eliminated, it's not insanity, therefore your harping on it is unwarranted.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
it's his long-term goal, not something he'd immediately enact. this has been explained several times by RenegadeRick. given that it's a goal, to slim govt to the point that income tax could be feasibly replaced or eliminated, it's not insanity, therefore your harping on it is unwarranted.
It isn't feasible. Not in the least. Have you looked at the actual income numbers for the US Govt? I have, I posted them in this thread in fact.

Around 50% of the US govt income is from income tax alone. There is no way you can remove 50% of government programs. The military alone spends 532.8 billion dollars. That is 20% of the total us budget of around 2500 billion dollars. ~1200 of this is from income tax.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
Sounds like a good place to start cutting to me. Imagine how much less expensive they would be if they weren't busy fighting illegal wars on the other side of the planet!
Well, I don't think anyone would argue with that. The problem is that the #1 job of any sovereign government, (by definition actually,) is to have a monopoly on the use of power and to defend the nation.

The JSF program alone was around 50 billion I think? Other nations have much better jets than the US now has in service (the typhoon, the raphael, the eurofighter, the newwest mig), so the US must innovate to maintain air superiority. This costs money.

Of course, $200 hammers and invading nations halfway around the world don't help. Also remember, that as the hegemonic power and sole superpower, the US DOES garner some responsibility for global stability. Not saying it should invade at random as Bush has been doing, but it can't be isolationist and stick it's head in the sand.

This 532 billion does NOT include any budget for nuclear weapons research, maintenance or operations btw. This comes under dept. of energy.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
24
SF, CA
I've had the same Ron Paul campaigner lady knock on my door twice. She seems nice. Not much of a saleslady but very nice.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
it's his long-term goal, not something he'd immediately enact. this has been explained several times by RenegadeRick. given that it's a goal, to slim govt to the point that income tax could be feasibly replaced or eliminated, it's not insanity, therefore your harping on it is unwarranted.
It's insanity to not acknowledge that tax rates would be much higher than the people pushing the sales tax plan are willing to acknowledge.

They are pitching a solution that depends on assumptions that are made in a absolute best case scenario (no evasion, no erosion of tax base due to political pandering, etc.) as a reasonable solution. I prefer to deal with the reality of the situation.

I'm surprised that they haven't mentioned that with a national sales tax everyone will get a puppy as well...
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
It's insanity to not acknowledge that tax rates would be much higher than the people pushing the sales tax plan are willing to acknowledge.
Ron isn't pushing a sales tax plan. Ron's plan is to eliminate the IRS and replace it with nothing.

I'm surprised that they haven't mentioned that with a national sales tax everyone will get a puppy as well...
That sure makes me interested though. Puppies are good eatin' :thumb: :twitch:
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
Back on topic...

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Zogby:_Ron_Paul_Will_Surp/2007/12/21/59011.html
Ron Paul: He's going to do better than anyone expects. Look to Paul to climb into the double-digits in Iowa. Why? He's different, he stands out. He's against the war and he has the one in four Republicans who oppose the war all to himself. Libertarianism is hot, especially among free-market Republicans and 20-somethings. And he's an appealing sort of father figure. He's his own brand. All he needs to do is beat a couple of big names in Iowa, then New Hampshire is friendlier territory. After all, the state motto is "Live Free or Die."