An Article About Ron Paul That Would Make Any Intelligent Hardcore Liberal Vote Ron Paul 2012!!, page 4

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:04 AM

link

Originally posted by The Old American
Did you watch the video you posted? Starting at 4:15 he says what he would do with SS and Medicare: let people opt out. That is not "eliminating Medicare, Social Security".

yes I did watch the video
and as I already stated an opt out option
will not work. the SS system was designed
to work based upon the contribution of
mass people and the odds of how many
would reach retirement age. Once you
take away the mass input and allow
the opt out version. Bankruptcy happens
faster with the mass exodus.

the opt out version will NOT work.

The Old American

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:11 AM

link

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by The Old American
Did you watch the video you posted? Starting at 4:15 he says what he would do with SS and Medicare: let people opt out. That is not "eliminating Medicare, Social Security".

yes I did watch the video
and as I already stated an opt out option
will not work. the SS system was designed
to work based upon the contribution of
mass people and the odds of how many
would reach retirement age. Once you
take away the mass input and allow
the opt out version. Bankruptcy happens
faster with the mass exodus.

the opt out version will NOT work.

It will work perfectly for the people that want to opt out, won't it? Why should the people that want to opt out not be allowed to? If they want to cease supporting other people with their own hard-earned money, why is that a bad thing?

/TOA

Janky Red

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:11 AM

link

Originally posted by The Old American
But "progressives" will never vote for him because he is for getting the federal government out of our business, smaller government, decreased spending, and living in liberty.

/TOA

this is simply not true

just because it can come out of your mouth does not mean it is gospel truth.

I will not vote for him because he will allow for corporations to dictate private law, through passivity in regards to
handling corporate intent and procurement of governmental prowess.

He will never achieve smaller government because they will assume the role of government and lobby government. There is a huge logic hole you and Paul are missing...

You tell me

How can you expect to be more free, when you strive to privatize everything, therefore making everything exclusive???

This makes the ultimate newspeak situation

"You are free to go to the beach, if you have $50.00, 'cause someone owns the beach, but you are free to
go to the beach"

Do you see the liberty hole you've got going there?

edit on 29-4-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

Janky Red

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:20 AM

link

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by The Old American
Did you watch the video you posted? Starting at 4:15 he says what he would do with SS and Medicare: let people opt out. That is not "eliminating Medicare, Social Security".

yes I did watch the video
and as I already stated an opt out option
will not work. the SS system was designed
to work based upon the contribution of
mass people and the odds of how many
would reach retirement age. Once you
take away the mass input and allow
the opt out version. Bankruptcy happens
faster with the mass exodus.

the opt out version will NOT work.

I don't think so Saint...

I would not opt out, many people I know would stay in there because it serves a purpose in this society.
My Republican grandparents needed that money and they experienced what good that did for them.
We could greatly support it by creating a massive national lottery system to help fund it too.
There are creative things that could be applied, people should be free to opt out and we can figure out a way to keep it going, the power of money pooling is amazing.

The Old American

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:26 AM

link

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by The Old American
But "progressives" will never vote for him because he is for getting the federal government out of our business, smaller government, decreased spending, and living in liberty.

/TOA

this is simply not true

just because it can come out of your mouth does not mean it is gospel truth.

I will not vote for him because he will allow for corporations to dictate private law, through passivity in regards to
handling corporate intent and procurement of governmental prowess.

He will never achieve smaller government because they will assume the role of government and lobby government. There is a huge logic hole you and Paul are missing...

You tell me

How can you expect to be more free, when you strive to privatize everything, therefore making everything exclusive???

This makes the ultimate newspeak situation

"You are free to go to the beach, if you have $50.00, 'cause someone owns the beach, but you are free to
go to the beach"

Do you see the liberty hole you've got going there?

edit on 29-4-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

What makes you think he will let corporations run the country? I'm really confused by what you said there. Unless you're confusing "corporatism" with "capitalism", which have only a fleeting resemblance to each other. Dr. Paul definitely follows capitalist principles economically. He doesn't have much of a track record supporting corporatism.

/TOA

Janky Red

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:07 AM

link

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by The Old American
But "progressives" will never vote for him because he is for getting the federal government out of our business, smaller government, decreased spending, and living in liberty.

/TOA

this is simply not true

just because it can come out of your mouth does not mean it is gospel truth.

I will not vote for him because he will allow for corporations to dictate private law, through passivity in regards to
handling corporate intent and procurement of governmental prowess.

He will never achieve smaller government because they will assume the role of government and lobby government. There is a huge logic hole you and Paul are missing...

You tell me

How can you expect to be more free, when you strive to privatize everything, therefore making everything exclusive???

This makes the ultimate newspeak situation

"You are free to go to the beach, if you have $50.00, 'cause someone owns the beach, but you are free to
go to the beach"

Do you see the liberty hole you've got going there?

edit on 29-4-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

What makes you think he will let corporations run the country? I'm really confused by what you said there. Unless you're confusing "corporatism" with "capitalism", which have only a fleeting resemblance to each other. Dr. Paul definitely follows capitalist principles economically. He doesn't have much of a track record supporting corporatism.

/TOA

All Corporatism needs; agents, representatives to slowly implement their advantage into policy, namely
law and/or precedent established through common law - Stare decisis (Latin: "stand by the decision").

I do not think Paul would intentionally invite corporatism, however, I think his policies would attract it.
Corporations employ politicians who are the constant in the corruption equation, then pair this employee
relationship with a desire to promote the benefactor/s or business and you have the simple equation for corporatism.

Corporations operate through legal channels and are tasked with acquisition correct???

Paul offers -

AN unfettered legal expanse

and

AN unfettered landscape for acquisition too

Where do corporations go to force multiply both???

GOVERNMENT --

which can mean 1st and foremost the legal scape

The transfer of power into private hands is already a goal of Paul's, because that is the process which
weakens the government, they are somewhat proportional in popular theory and practical output.

So I am saying the total passivity of Paul, combined the masterful corporate prowess will not make for a
good environment for individuality. We will be subjugated with the contract, not boots.

there is nothing you can kill, see or even detect, it is a long game and the clock has been ticking for a long spell.

One day, the operations which we now consider free will be prefaced with a large contingency of contractual
underpinnings. As the tangible goods are phased out, conceptual goods will NEED to take place, I fear the by design, complexity of the market of the future will change that notions of freedom. I don't think Paul can grasp
the byproducts of technology...

Watch the Courts, then foresee the best capital advantage which can be garnered by each decision and you shall see the march of corporatism.

boondock-saint

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:17 AM

link

Originally posted by The Old American
It will work perfectly for the people that want to opt out, won't it? Why should the people that want to opt out not be allowed to? If they want to cease supporting other people with their own hard-earned money, why is that a bad thing?

/TOA

because it steals the retirement away
from the folks who have already contributed
for 60 yrs.

The only folks who will want to opt into the program
will be the ones close to retirement. This will cut
off the funding of the program. The opt out will
be the death of SS and Medicare and will kill
millions of people who have no other means
of survival.

The Old American

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 03:54 AM

link

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by The Old American
It will work perfectly for the people that want to opt out, won't it? Why should the people that want to opt out not be allowed to? If they want to cease supporting other people with their own hard-earned money, why is that a bad thing?

/TOA

because it steals the retirement away
from the folks who have already contributed
for 60 yrs.

The only folks who will want to opt into the program
will be the ones close to retirement. This will cut
off the funding of the program. The opt out will
be the death of SS and Medicare and will kill
millions of people who have no other means
of survival.

"Will kill millions of people"? Histrionics much? If SS is such a good thing, then the people that contributed must have all that money just sitting there in an account earning interest ready for them to collect, right? Wrong. They don't because it's a pyramid scheme. The recipients rely on the theft of your money redistributed to them (redistribution of wealth...where have I heard that before?) You should get out what you paid in, like a savings account. Not the guy ahead of you gets what you paid in.

/TOA

The Sword

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 03:58 AM

link

reply to post by The Old American

Do you have grandparents?

Do you know older people who depend on SS?

Do you know just how powerful that voting bloc is?

End of thread/

The Old American

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 04:02 AM

link

Originally posted by Janky Red

All Corporatism needs; agents, representatives to slowly implement their advantage into policy, namely
law and/or precedent established through common law - Stare decisis (Latin: "stand by the decision").

I do not think Paul would intentionally invite corporatism, however, I think his policies would attract it.
Corporations employ politicians who are the constant in the corruption equation, then pair this employee
relationship with a desire to promote the benefactor/s or business and you have the simple equation for corporatism.

Corporations operate through legal channels and are tasked with acquisition correct???

Paul offers -

AN unfettered legal expanse

and

AN unfettered landscape for acquisition too

Where do corporations go to force multiply both???

GOVERNMENT --

which can mean 1st and foremost the legal scape

The transfer of power into private hands is already a goal of Paul's, because that is the process which
weakens the government, they are somewhat proportional in popular theory and practical output.

So I am saying the total passivity of Paul, combined the masterful corporate prowess will not make for a
good environment for individuality. We will be subjugated with the contract, not boots.

there is nothing you can kill, see or even detect, it is a long game and the clock has been ticking for a long spell.

One day, the operations which we now consider free will be prefaced with a large contingency of contractual
underpinnings. As the tangible goods are phased out, conceptual goods will NEED to take place, I fear the by design, complexity of the market of the future will change that notions of freedom. I don't think Paul can grasp
the byproducts of technology...

Watch the Courts, then foresee the best capital advantage which can be garnered by each decision and you shall see the march of corporatism.

I disagree with your stance that Dr. Paul would be passive enough to allow corporatism to foster in his administration. It has and will continue in Congress, but with him at the wheel I think he would be able to reign it in. I don't blindly follow him like some. But his negatives are far less than his positives and he's willing to rip off the band-aide and let it sting a bit to do what needs to be done.

/TOA

The Old American

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by The Old American

Do you have grandparents?

Do you know older people who depend on SS?

Do you know just how powerful that voting bloc is?

End of thread/

It's ironic how you have the names of people that would never have allowed Social Security and Medicare to exist in the first place in your signature.

Unfortunately that voting bloc is large and full of people that can't see past their own entitlements. And oddly enough, when my grandparents and parents were alive, they received SS because there were people paying into it. But they lived on their pensions they got from working for 60 or so years. Pensions are those things they were able to make a choice to pay in to. Choice is good. Theft...not so much.

/TOA

The Sword

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link

reply to post by The Old American

And it's pretty clear that you live in some imaginary world where people know who James Madison was.

I think it's fair to say that our founding fathers did not imagine the corporate fascism that runs America in this day and age.

The Old American

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by The Old American

And it's pretty clear that you live in some imaginary world where people know who James Madison was.

I think it's fair to say that our founding fathers did not imagine the corporate fascism that runs America in this day and age.

That is more than fair to say, and I agree 100%. I think Dr. Paul could and would do something about it. At least I hope he would. My vote will go with my faith that he would.

/TOA

LostMyPassword

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link

Ron Paul is a Free Market supporting fruit. Why would I support him when there's plenty of people with the same anti-war and anti-interventionist message who also hold respectable economic views?

Dennis Kucinich is far superior to Paul.

Hawking

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link

I am a hardcore liberal when it comes to personal rights (and keeping church and state separate) and a hardcore conservative fiscally. I have yet to hear something from Ron Paul that I don't like

Illusionsaregrander

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link

Originally posted by Janky Red

Well thank you for considering my point of view, I think you might be the first person who really gave it a shot

You are welcome. It doesnt always look that way, (because usually I have all my homework done before I open my mouth, and hence do not always change my position) but I actually always consider the other persons point of view thoroughly. Because there is always the possibility, as in this case with you, that there is something I didnt take into account or was unaware of.

Im not interested in being "right" at all costs, I actually care what the truth is.

And in this case, I was making the assumption that Paul would, as a strict Constitutionalist, reject the slow case building for Corporate personhood that has culminated in Citizens United. Because you are correct, the people that make up the corporation all have rights, including the right to do with their money as they please. The issue here is, does a corporation have the same rights as people, and clearly, it should not. Nor, clearly, did the founders intend it to. The Corporate form was not unknown to them, and they took the time to be VERY specific about who did and did not have rights. Even to the detail of making fractional people out of slaves and Native Americans.

It required a Constitutional Amendment to change things for those groups, and its ridiculous to allow Corporations those rights via a slow erosion of common sense via case law.

Originally posted by Janky Red
all kidding aside, we, meaning humanity is going to lose... The gravity of this issue and the implications
can be obscured so easily, it is only a matter of time.

I tend to agree. Logically you are right, that most human beings did not see the gravity of Citizens United at the time it was decided, and even now, because the media is silent on the issue, most people have no idea how absolutely crucial it is that this ruling be overturned. Preferably with a Constitutional Amendment worded carefully to prevent the issue ever raising its ugly head again, (some additional campaign finance reform would be wise also)

Only by keeping elections free, but not allowing messages about candidates to be spread only by the rich, can we have a prayer of regaining control of our country. I never did disagree with you on that point. I just assumed Paul had more knowledge about the issue, and that his strict Constitutionalism would prevent his supporting it, and I was absolutely wrong.

In this case, because I still do not think Paul is a liar, it really appears he is assuming that the rights of the people making up the corporation should be extended to the corporation itself. He seems to be, as you said, over looking the fact that their rights are not the issue here. The issue here is whether an artificial entity can have the same rights as humans.

I myself would like to see the form outlawed. No human being should have the right to profit from actions whose consequences they are not liable for. We would live in a very different world if stockholders could go to jail for crimes committed by their corporations. Or be sued and lose their own money in excess of their stock holdings for damages done. We have incentivized people to not care how money is made since they bear no responsibility for it.
edit on 29-4-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)

Illusionsaregrander

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link

Originally posted by The Old American

I disagree with your stance that Dr. Paul would be passive enough to allow corporatism to foster in his administration. It has and will continue in Congress, but with him at the wheel I think he would be able to reign it in.
/TOA

I suggest you actually listen to the radio interview with him on the issue of Corporate personhood then. Its is a defining issue, and, although I would never have guessed it, he doesnt have a clear understanding and hence he has come down on the wrong side of the Constitution on this one.

There is the possibility that if someone were to explain it to him, completely, he would take a different stand. His argument in the interview in favor of it was based on very mistaken ideas about what it meant. But, I dont know if anyone would be able to actually give him the crash course he would need to have to come up to speed.

It may in fact be why he doesnt speak on it often. He just doesnt understand it. I had a hell of a time finding that one interview, he is generally silent on it. But its such an important issue that I could elect no one who did not understand it, no matter how much I liked and believed in them on other subjects.

We dont have two more terms to stop Citizens United. Obama absolutely betrayed his nation by only making a few mewling sounds when this first came out last year. Anyone who loves America, genuinely, would be opposed to corporations being allowed to buy elections via unlimited campaign advertising. Its already skewed in favor of the rich, Citizens United just makes it impossible for a non corporate sponsored candidate to win in virtually all areas of politics.

edit on 29-4-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)

Chewingonmushrooms

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link

I guess I can be considered radical left judging by people calling Obama a socialist (he's anything but). The democrats or common leftists today would be considered center right in some cases in the past. The closest party that I would associate myself with would be the green party (I love Raph Nader btw). That being said, I am not a mindless follower to any ideology and consider myself a people first type of person. I voted for Ron Paul in 2008 primaries, because the man has said things that most politicans would never dare to say. People like him, Dennis Kucinich, and Jesse Ventura (independant) are what we should strive for when electing politicans. I don't like many of Ron Paul policies, but the man is honest, sincere and has always voted through his integrity. My two problem with him lies with
1) his son; dunno how that apple fell so far from the tree.
2) his endorsement of the tea party. I know many in the tea party follow his mantras, but to me it has become corrupted and from what I know he is against total corporate power.

mayabong

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link

reply to post by boondock-saint

Its better to keep social security,medicare and the economic system we have so granny has to pay 15 dollars for a loaf of bread and 35 dollars for some milk.

Right?

Whereweheaded

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link

First of all, you guys do know that liberal Democrats have never been champions of smaller government. The article depicts the liberals accurately.

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. Bringing the US back to the foundation this country was founded would slowly put things back in order.

The removal of Unconstitutional social welfare programs, cut backs on the military complex, and the like would be a step in the right direction.

As seen here:

www.govtrack.us...

Ron Paul's voting record has always been whats in the best interest for the people.