SEC=UGA Posted May 31, 2012 Author Share Posted May 31, 2012 That thread wasn't getting any traffic. :oldunsure: They never do... they never do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Yea, that's kind of the bad thing with Ron Paul. There are times when he seems like the only reasonable voice in the crowd on serious subjects. But he just can't f-ing help himself when it comes to some of the more looney chit. It's good he has influenced some discussions the way he has, but he also hurts his own cause with the weirdo tangents. "This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City. Offshoots would connect the main artery to the west coast, Florida, and northeast. Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside... The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union -- complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether." Ummmm...yea. I can see why he attracts the lizard overlord conspiracy crowd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted May 31, 2012 Author Share Posted May 31, 2012 I, for one, am in favor of a borderless society where all the dirty people can mate with the clean people to create a super master race of liberal-fascists who will feast off the blood of the capitalists; leaving them running and screaming that the sky is falling while we plunder their houses and bugger their wives who are awash in the filthy lucre they stole from the working man. yes, that makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I cant remember. Did he say Hope and change? Hows that workin for ya? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Just found this really informative piece about Obama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 1, 2012 Author Share Posted June 1, 2012 Just found this really informative piece about Obama. Am I not supposed to laugh at that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 which obviously is to make money. This is it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Recently watched a good doc on the Netflix called Ethos. Despite that it was narrated by Woody Harrelson and went off on some wild tangents, there was a core truth that made a lot of sense -- that basically we all swallow whatever the media feeds us, and they feed us what is in their own interest, which obviously is to make money. They present the two parties as being so different but they are actually the same on a vast array of issues, and the public is not given a true "choice". Any candidate who would change the status quo in any substantive way is not going to get any traction via the usual channels, thus they can never garner enough votes. So, get used to the hugh and increasing national debt and massive spending, it's not going anywhere regardless of who we elect. Very true, the only big differences between the parties seems to be on wedge issues to drive people into two camps and preserve the two party system that they have a stranglehold on. Hugh shocker that the Trayvon case and Gay Marriage amendments are dominating the news-cycle in an election year... Also, many people don't seem to recognize just how many conflicts of interests the media has too, to preserve the establishment on both sides as well, not only because these are multi-billion dollar mega-conglomerates, some of which like GE who owns NBC that have a hugh interest in the military-industrial-complex, but also things like only getting access by going along with the "official story" (which itself is often nothing more than a game of telephone started with primary outlets like the AP, and then repeated ad nauseum and twisted into absolute truth). And no Bushie, I don't care to be trolled into your mischaracterizations and gotchas, but have fun supporting politicans and parties that don't give a damn about your interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 A lot of us see Paul as someone who spices up the presidential race and has some good things to say; however, he is bat chit looney tunes on a lot of issues. There are reasons most economists think Ron Paul's proposed economic policies would would delibitate our nation, and it's not because they are "Keynesian," it's because they are right. I'm not attempting to troll, I'm stating an accurate opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 have fun supporting politicans and parties that don't give a damn about your interests. This is the grass is always greener on the other side argument. I feel like I am pretty in-touch with what my interests are so who or what am I missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 In 1969, Congress was so up in arms about a mere 155 individuals who earned more than $200,000 and paid no income tax that it passed the Alternative Minimum Tax, which aims to prevent wealthy people from claiming too many tax exemptions and deductions. More than 40 years after the AMT went into effect, the number of wealthy, income-tax-free individuals has ballooned to 133 times as many as the 155 that inspired the new tax........ And as for the 21,000 wealthy Americans who currently pay no income tax, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 and that describes our govt yup. too bad ron paul can't get elected. I'm actually not very knowledgeable about Paul, but I suspect that he'd be a lot better than Obama or Romney. And this describes our electorate. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 (edited) I feel like I am pretty in-touch with what my interests are so who or what am I missing? Well, are your interests the same as the bong-smoking nun in the picture? Or more importantly, do you understand the consequences of creating a black market and enabling violent criminals, while arresting thousands of non-violent users? Is it in your interest or in the interest of big spam, oil, alcohol, etc., etc., etc., that we can't even utilize a product like hemp that would be huge boom to our economy? Is it in your interest or the politician's interests the way they use their positions to line theirs and their cronies pockets? If you've had to deal with a foreclosure or trouble paying your mortgage, have you had any relief from the housing crisis bailouts, since the mortagees were collectively just as "too big too fail" as were the ones even more irresponsible who got bailout. I could go on all day, but I guess there's no convincing a partisan that it's not just the party you oppose who's not looking out for your interests. Neither of them are unless it benefits them. Edited June 1, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 A lot of us see Paul as someone who spices up the presidential race and has some good things to say; however, he is bat chit looney tunes on a lot of issues. There are reasons most economists think Ron Paul's proposed economic policies would would delibitate our nation, and it's not because they are "Keynesian," it's because they are right. I'm not attempting to troll, I'm stating an accurate opinion. Right, people who really want to have a legitimate debate always go first to a cheapshot about a guy being a closet racist. Would you care to find me 1, just 1 statement from Dr. Paul, not some newsletter that was written as he was practicing medicine, that implies that he's racist? (And no, his belief that the changing opinions of the people, and not government force were what allowed for civil rights is not racist. You may disagree, but it's an honest opinion to believe that it's counterproductive to assume that the government should force anyone to do anything, outside of enforcing basic human rights. That does little to end racism and has led to much resentment). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Well, are your interests the same as the bong-smoking nun in the picture? Or more importantly, do you understand the consequences of creating a black market and enabling violent criminals, while arresting thousands of non-violent users? Is it in your interest or in the interest of big spam, oil, alcohol, etc., etc., etc., that we can't even utilize a product like hemp that would be huge boom to our economy? Is it in your interest or the politician's interests the way they use their positions to line theirs and their cronies pockets? If you've had to deal with a foreclosure or trouble paying your mortgage, have you had any relief from the housing crisis bailouts, since the mortagees were collectively just as "too big too fail" as were the ones even more irresponsible who got bailout. I could go on all day, but I guess there's no convincing a partisan that it's not just the party you oppose who's not looking out for your interests. Neither of them are unless it benefits them. That's a list of things. But you left out the most important part, who is going to save us? Your position seems to be that person is out there and Republicans and Democrats are too busy bickering to realize it. Do everyone a favor and tell us who that person is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 (edited) That's a list of things. But you left out the most important part, who is going to save us? Your position seems to be that person is out there and Republicans and Democrats are too busy bickering to realize it. Do everyone a favor and tell us who that person is. Seriously? I could get a team of political scientists and experts on that and not be able to answer that question... I'm not really sure what that has to do with my point that politicians aren't looking out for your interests, so you seem to be conveniently twisting the argument, but I guess I'll bite... For one thing, agree or disagree with Dr. Paul, the one thing that the establishment knows is that he can't be bought off. This is the first thing that you should strive for, to support politicians who clearly aren't taking money from the big interests with a track record to prove it. In that regard there might not be another like him with a track record you can truly trust for a long time... Second, there are already efforts underway to kick the establishment to the curb locally, and successfully in several states, most notably Maine where liberty-minded folks have completely taken over. If you think it's just because rebpublicrats are "too busy bickering about it", that's simply not the case. Their goal is to maintain power, and despite the media not reporting it, they've done some ultra nasty things in disenfranchising and cheating delegate majorities to make sure they do. My friend was one of them and there's ample video evidence to prove it (fortunately in his case, they did have a small victory, however, of getting the whole slate that should have been theirs thrown out). Of course you're going to need more honest people in congress too, and this is where I wouldn't expect big gains to be had any time soon, but I'll be damned if we aren't gonna try. Just because I don't have all the answers does not mean that that the stakes aren't so high that we have no chocie but to try to take this country back. I hope that more "democrats" can look past our partisan differences and their preconceptions about the messenger to see the important things we should agree on. Here is an excellent read about how the liberty movement is beginning to transcend party lines. (Oh and BTW, don't be too surprised when things get really interesting at the RNC convention. If you think Romney has this thing locked up, think again. Their private actions suggest that they're alot more worried about him not having the numbers of delegates than they and the media are letting on. You'll hear from the media that he's secured the nomination, but there's likely going to be a follow-up to that story. The media isn't reporting it, but there's plenty still going on with Dr. Paul's delegates) Edited June 1, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I disagree with Ron Paul on many things but I consider him trustworthy, guided by principle and probably more worthy of being president that whoever will eventually be chosen. But I'm not voting for him. Trustworthy , guided by principle and most worthy to be president...but wont vote for him why ? just curious Because he doesn't agree with him, of course. Paul probably is all those things but if you think his policies stink, why would you vote for him? The 2012 version is less appealing than the 2007 version but, in general, I will stand by what I said 5 years ago so spare me the Ron freaking Paul lectures. You want to write his name in over Romney, go for it that would be really principled of you but Ron Paul does not represent MY interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 (edited) The 2012 version is less appealing than the 2007 version but, in general, I will stand by what I said 5 years ago so spare me the Ron freaking Paul lectures. You want to write his name in over Romney, go for it that would be really principled of you but Ron Paul does not represent MY interests. Geezus, how many ways can you twist this argument. My original point is that the establishment supports no one's interests but their own (unless of course you simply want to place superficial interests over what's best for the country I guess). Second, read back on what I said if you think that was just about Dr. Paul. You don't have to agree with him personally, but I'm actually glad that you recognize that we need more honest principled folks in office like him. That was the entire point of what I was saying, that putting principled people who can't be bought into all levels of government is what folks from all political stripes should be striving for. I have absolutely no interest in trying to push my political views in this thread. I jsut want people to realize that we don't jsut have to sit down and accept the CHIPS AHOY! sandwiches they force us to choose between. Edited June 1, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Right, people who really want to have a legitimate debate always go first to a cheapshot about a guy being a closet racist. You're right. The first step for a legitimate debate is to tell people that they don't know what is their best interest, but you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I jsut want people to realize that we don't jsut have to sit down and accept the CHIPS AHOY! sandwiches they force us to choose between. Sounds great, and I do plan to vote for someone other than Romney or Obama in November. Unfortunately one of those CHIPS AHOY! sandwiches will still win though, so it will feel like a pointless exercise. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Sounds great, and I do plan to vote for someone other than Romney or Obama in November. Unfortunately one of those CHIPS AHOY! sandwiches will still win though, so it will feel like a pointless exercise. It's a pointless exercise for the entire populations of about 36 states. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I have completely given up on the system. I used to get upset, but there's no point. I only hope that state Governors try to wrench a little power away from the Feds for their individual states. Like CO is somewhat liberal on gun ownership, Josh Gordon, and such. It's not perfect, but it's much better than some other states. I feel bad for those in NY who are being challenged by their state daily for stupid poop like not being able to buy a big soda. I hear ya - I saw something yesterday where someone mentioned that these same people say a woman should have the choice to have an abortion but want to not give someone a choice to buy a soda. The system is fooked up. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) You can't get more sensible than that! he actually didn't write that, it was an intern....nothing he has ever said outside of that one BS article even shows that he would believe something like that.... good going again Bushy Edited June 2, 2012 by Avernus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) Right, people who really want to have a legitimate debate always go first to a cheapshot about a guy being a closet racist. Would you care to find me 1, just 1 statement from Dr. Paul, not some newsletter that was written as he was practicing medicine, that implies that he's racist? (And no, his belief that the changing opinions of the people, and not government force were what allowed for civil rights is not racist. You may disagree, but it's an honest opinion to believe that it's counterproductive to assume that the government should force anyone to do anything, outside of enforcing basic human rights. That does little to end racism and has led to much resentment). Great article on it. He made a cool $1miilion signing his names to that spew. It is legitimate given the money involved. And LMAO at the notion that somehow, at this point, you think Romney's going to fall short. What, pray tell, do you base this on? I am well aware that Paul's delegates MIGHT be underreported - because the caucauses aren't officially over - but if you think Romney is going to scramble to keep the nomination you are koo koo for cocoa puffs. Paul might get a 5% bounce when all is said and done but I doubt even that. Edited June 2, 2012 by Pope Flick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Great article on it. He made a cool $1miilion signing his names to that spew. It is legitimate given the money involved. And LMAO at the notion that somehow, at this point, you think Romney's going to fall short. What, pray tell, do you base this on? I am well aware that Paul's delegates MIGHT be underreported - because the caucauses aren't officially over - but if you think Romney is going to scramble to keep the nomination you are koo koo for cocoa puffs. Paul might get a 5% bounce when all is said and done but I doubt even that. like I said earlier in this thread I think....Ron Paul is a hop and a step away from endorsing Romney just like his son did after meeting with Romney behind closed doors... it doesn't matter to me...I am not even voting because I don't like the options and nobody can right the ship anyways....the free market will right the ship after it gets as bad as it can....not some over-hyped president who doesn't even make decisions without congress approving them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.