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

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Paul actually did vote against the war in Iraq, not just promise to end it and then start two more.

He's not president, though. We can't know what he will do until he does it. How can you compare Ron Paul's presidency to Obama's presidency?

I think it's two different things - to vote in the Senate and speak out in the Senate - and to be the president. Obama was a great senator, too. He voted along with his public stance. When he became president, things changed. Pressure from forces (unknown to us) and the fact that he is now one person instead of part of a large group (the Senate), make it impossible for a person to be true to all their campaign promises. It happens with every president and it would happen with Paul. He's not a god or a king. He's subject to all the forces in Washington, just like any other current day president.

Obama was hand picked to be president to entice liberals into swallowing policies they would have revolted over if a Republican floated them.

You might be right. But I don't see it.

If you are against something when a Republican does it, be against it when your team does it to.

I definitely agree with that. But this isn't a Democrat thing. It's a politics thing. You know how people are with their 'teams' and their team spirit. If Obama was hand-picked, then Ron Paul would be hand-picked, too, right? Why would he be any different?

Because he's a man of honor? Could it be that he has millions of people convinced of that? After all, Obama did.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


With Paul, we have a better reading of what he would do than any other politician in office at the moment and maybe even every other politician in US history. You see, Paul has been perfectly consistent for the past several decades and it only takes looking at his voting record to see. Dr. Paul has always voted in line with the Constitution, in all of his years as a politician, even when he has been chided for doing so. I have literally supported Dr. Paul for decades now and he has been unwavering in his stances for all of that time.


--airspoon

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If Obama was hand-picked, then Ron Paul would be hand-picked, too, right? Why would he be any different?

Oh, Benevolent. I like you, but your logic is headache inducing sometimes. So if I am a mass murderer, than surely you must be too? How does that reasoning work, if you dont mind my asking? Are you saying that everyone who runs for President is handpicked? Are you claiming I said that? (Because I didnt) Even the ones who lose, whom the media undermines like Howard Dean? Im not following you here.

The question I would ask you is why on Earth would you assume they are the same?

The golden child who was lauded as President material before he ever did anything, and the long term politician that the Republicans try to brush off as a nutty uncle or something?

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Oh, Benevolent. I like you, but your logic is headache inducing sometimes.

Well. Thanks for the patronage.

So if I am a mass murderer, than surely you must be too?

Not at all. If Obama was "hand-picked" as you say, then I must assume that someone hand picked him. And maneuvered him into the spotlight and then into the presidency. We didn't have a chance of voting in someone else. Have I got that much right? Now, whatever entity or body hand-picked Obama to be the next president must have a great deal more power than any other political body. And unless they got everything they wanted with Obama's presidency, and are now going to retire in the Bahamas, they're not going to just hand that power back over to the people. So, what makes you think Ron Paul would arrive at the office of the presidency without having been hand-picked by this same body? Are you thinking he can get around them somehow and land himself in the office?

I'm not sure my logic is so bad. But if I've misunderstood something, maybe you can explain it to me... without the patronizing tone, preferably.

The question I would ask you is why on Earth would you assume they are the same?

I'm not assuming they're the SAME. I'm saying that even Ron Paul will not get his agenda passed if he becomes president.

and the long term politician that the Republicans try to brush off as a nutty uncle or something?

I gotta say, he doesn't seem that stable to me. He's childlike and kinda goofy. Nutty uncle isn't too far off.

The problem with your logic is you can only say two things will go the same way is if ALL the variables are the same. And in the case of Ron Paul and Obama, they are clearly NOT all the same.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If Obama was "hand-picked" as you say, then I must assume that someone hand picked him. And maneuvered him into the spotlight and then into the presidency.

Is someone maneuvering Ron Paul into the spotlight from relative obscurity like they did Obama? (or Palin?) Are glowing statements being made comparing him to great Americans in the MSM? Is the media breathlessly going on and on about their potential for being the next President years before its even a possibility? Like they did for both Obama and Palin?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
We didn't have a chance of voting in someone else. Have I got that much right?

No. You dont. We did have a chance to vote for someone else. We could have voted for any of the third party candidates. I even begged people on this board to do just that. But the media hype was like a shiny object, and everyone went "ooooooooo" and totally ignored the other candidates because they were not being hyped by the media. Because they dont as far as we can tell, with the possible exception of Bush in his first run, actually cheat the whole election. They just play off the fact that 'I want my vote to count, so I will vote for the lesser of two evils the media tells me can win." You have other choices. You have other courses of action. But you are being guided to believe you have to choose between this or that only. Your choices are falsely narrowed to 2.

Its called a false dilemma in logic.

en.wikipedia.org...

They use propaganda to steer people to two people, both of whom have been hand picked by corporate interests who then fund and promote them. That one of the two will win, as long as Americans make their decision using the communal brain known as "TV" is a foregone conclusion. So the corporations win either way. But, the one that wins determines which policies on their list they can push through first. Hand picking just means these are the two candidates that will be funded and promoted by corporate interests and the corporate owned media. The fact that this works is on us. WE dont use alternate means to make our decision.

Howard Deans people actually DID use alternate means, and his grass roots campaign was conducted initially almost entirely via the internet. His fund raising, virtually all of it. And he was doing great. And because he wasnt hand selected and cleared for takeoff when they finally HAD to begin reporting him or risk people seriously asking why, they took one ridiculous thing, "the scream heard round the world" and promoted IT as evidence he was a loon and hysterical and a joke. And using the same media with which they promote the chosen ones, they destroyed him. They made it seem as if suddenly he was unelectable. And people, using the communal brain, bought it. And turned towards the two hand picked sell outs.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, what makes you think Ron Paul would arrive at the office of the presidency without having been hand-picked by this same body? Are you thinking he can get around them somehow and land himself in the office?

Because at any time, we the people can stop being idiots and stop letting the media tell us which two people are the only two people who can win. At any time, we can recognize the pattern, the strategy, and simply refuse to fall for it. Ron Paul has been in office and has enough of a fringe fan club and internet support that they cannot utterly ignore him like they do the smaller candidates who have not got cult status like Paul. Odds are, if it looks like he has a chance of winning, they will do something which will make him look highly undesirable to the masses, like the scream heard round the world, or some other scandal or blooper.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not sure my logic is so bad. But if I've misunderstood something, maybe you can explain it to me... without the patronizing tone, preferably.

It is bad logic. Recall the initial statement that if all the variables are not the same in two situations you cannot say that they are the same?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not assuming they're the SAME. I'm saying that even Ron Paul will not get his agenda passed if he becomes president.

No, you werent. Thats a whole other argument than the one you made. You said if Obama was handpicked then Ron Paul must be too. I might even agree with you that even if Ron Paul manages to persuade people to vote for him despite the media, he will have a very hard or impossible time passing his agenda. But that was NOT the argument you made. At all. Very different from claiming that is Obama was handpicked my corporatists Ron Paul must also be.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I gotta say, he doesn't seem that stable to me. He's childlike and kinda goofy. Nutty uncle isn't too far off.

Nothing like a good looking youngish attractive person for President, huh? Its what they have been doing since Clinton. No matter they have no experience, or in the case of Palin and Bush, have no experience and are dumb. Its why the media strategy works so well. People do not look at issues, and voting records, and the experience of a candidate, or their integrity. They make an emotional decision based on how someone looks, or whether or not they talk tough and seem cocksure, or any number of things that have absolutely no bearing on their capability or trustworthiness.

And mind you I am not telling you to vote for him. I dont know if I will. I need the issue of his stand on corporate personhood clarified a good deal before I will know that.

Im just saying what the media does works so well because people make their decisions on irrelevant information or on how well the media plays their emotion, or on the fact that because the media sticks two candidates under their nose they forget that they have more than two to choose from.

Socially I am all for Ron Paul

Fiscally I have disagreements with. I think he is about right in social issues, but in fiscal issues, I see him as a very very fringe radical when it comes to building a country to sustain itself for generations to come

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Socially I am all for Ron Paul

Fiscally I have disagreements with. I think he is about right in social issues, but in fiscal issues, I see him as a very very fringe radical when it comes to building a country to sustain itself for generations to come

Thats pretty interesting, most people are opposite that. I'd like to know what you disagree with him fiscally.

Just wondering. (i'm not being arrogant really would like to hear your argument)

Mike

Socially I also agree with Ron Paul I don't believe in welfare....maybe special cases like handicap but nothing past that. The back and forth between ss and medicare/aid is imo irrelevant when your currency is about to be destroyed. And that is why I would vote Ron Paul and encourage others too he recognizes and may speak on the social welfare and ss but it takes a backseat on priorities to him when it comes to federal reserve and the foreign policy. And he does say he would do away with social welfare only if he could get the american people to rally behind him. I really think at this point American people need to take their eyes off this ss and medicare/aid issue and put all that energy towards the federal reserve and the military complex.

Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by neo96

 

This is what gets me is entitlement programs have nothing to with the overall national debt. Social Security and Medicare should not even be talked of as cut in anyway shape or form. They are seperate and paid for by the citzens of the United States.
People do pay for Medicare; they pay around $160 per month for part A,B,D.
What would cutting these programs do for america? It would contribute to the poverty problem and homeless problem. More people would need generalized welfare which is part of the national debt. By cutting this programs down you will raise the national debt. If a person on Social Security is getting $20 less per month than he or she will get $20 more in EBT or food stamps. Or more in subidized housing help. Frankly I would raise the social security tax and make sure all social security money goes only to social security.
What type of cuts to Social Security and Medicare does Ron Paul propose? Does this also include unemployment or verterans benefits? Anyone talking of cutting any of these type of programs will NEVER get my vote.

Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by DaMod

 

I don't buy that for even one second that there won't be enough money for medicare to exists. First of all we all pay a Medicare tax this is already funded by the citzens. Second of all; all on Medicare pay $160 per month for part A,B and D. Saying there isn't enough money for Medicare too exist is like saying there isn't enough money for Blue Cross and Blue sheilds or Humana to exist. A person can get a health care plan at either of these companies for a little more than Medicare. Sure for the elderly it would probably be $200 these companies don't get help from the tax payers so how do they stay afloat.
I say Ron Paul is full of it!

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

You guys are joking right? You don't actually believe that there's real money sitting in a vault somewhere waiting for you to make a claim in your old age do you?
That $160 dollars you are paying into medicare every month immediately buys government bonds to fund the governments programs and pay off the interest payments on the debt.
Instead of a vault full of money, you have a vault full of government issued IOU's. Government bonds that are losing value almost daily.
dailyreckoning.com...
This article is just one example that talks about this, do some research.

Ron Paul, Donald Trump, Peewee Herman. I gave up following or caring about politics in the 1980's. There is not one thing relevant that has been accomplished to the American peoples need's since then. It's been all about control. What did Barack Obama say that he was going to do, but hasn't? Over 99.1%. Yes, He did bring change, but in whose favor? Why does America even have to worry about who is rich or who is poor. Why must our government separate us into groups?. That is as far as I can go with any sort of politics. The change I see is making the world work with politics. Maybe tomorrow I can scam a new worker at Star Bucks into giving me a larger cup, by telling him and persisting that the cup for the small is supposed to be a large because I know the owner.

Heres another article that explains how the funding of these scams called medicare and social security work. The same applies to all other so called federal trust fund programs.
grove.ufl.edu...

Originally posted by mayabong

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Socially I am all for Ron Paul

Fiscally I have disagreements with. I think he is about right in social issues, but in fiscal issues, I see him as a very very fringe radical when it comes to building a country to sustain itself for generations to come

Thats pretty interesting, most people are opposite that. I'd like to know what you disagree with him fiscally.

Just wondering. (i'm not being arrogant really would like to hear your argument)

Mike

Ending social programs, ending the fed, ending income tax, cutting government down to almost non-functional.
Of course, the programs effected would be things such as fema, nasa (even more), general science industries.
The biggest thing fiscally, due to this outlook, is when he voted NO on more funding for nanotechnology R&D and commercialization
nanotech is the moon landing. no single corporation will be able to produce the miracles that truely lurk at the center of this developing tech.
this was a shot across the bow of "big science"...ultimately, if he was around back when decentralization of government was being considered, he would have probably not had the internet built.
he is very -very- short sighted in regards to science aand what national focus can do for the field.

I am a technologist...a transhumanist...to me, scientific progression (non supressed corporate bullocks) is key to our very existance...and any politician showing themselves to be anti-progression in science to me is auto-fail.

When I said his social issues were cool, I misspoke and generalized...I enjoy some of his social outlooks, such as "legalize it", and his war views...however, there are, upon truely researching his stands, about 10 really horrible views he has to the 1 gem

So, fiscally, he will have the country fall behind china
and socially, he will have the country fall behind europe (often due to his fiscal views).

What he ultimately proposes is that we simply hand over control of everything to corporations

I prefer government over corporations for rule...we can simply fire the government for corruption...a corporation that is corrupt tends to get bonuses.

So ya, not a fan overall.

One thing that sticks out is that he is very corporate friendly (they have to monitor their own pollution levels with no concern from the feds...sure, dump that toxic sludge right in the ocean...meanwhile he does deem it approprate to make pro-life measures...

Anyhow, here ya go, here is the list...and I find myself saying -no- to his views far more than yes
RP Stances

reply to post by SaturnFX


Thanks for the reply.

First and foremost, most humans will fight to get their paycheck to feed their family before anything else. It doesn't matter if its "right" or not, or if its bleeding the country to death or not. Its just human nature.

If Ron Paul's stance is to "get rid" of social security (which isn't the case). And you get a check every month, you're probably not gonna vote for him. If you work for NASA (alot of my friends do) and you get a big paycheck every month and some guy wants to get rid of these things, you're gonna fight till the death to not see him elected.

I'm not gonna argue with you about science or weather its the only thing keeping humanity alive (native americans got along pretty well without it. Modern Science anyways).

If you notice in all of Paul's interviews every subject bleeds into monetary policy and the commentators try to bring him back on subject. But it really does all come down to that, and foreign policy

To me these are the biggest issues effecting the country today.

Its crazy to think that Paul would be able to do 10% of what he says if in office. But at least bringing the troops home and getting rid of the federal reserve is a start. I think he has alot of backing for these things on both sides at least.

He just wants to get the federal government out of people's lives, the states have powers too, or at least they used to.

Personally I think the whole democratic system is screwed right from the get go. Human nature is pretty nasty.

I can't imagine Paul's letting corporations "run amok" being any different than Obamas or Bush's.

I think Paul is out the box really and I'd at least like to see what happens.

I'm all for something different. You? No?

I run a small business myself....what I saw happen during the bailouts was one of the most insulting and atrocious acts that was perpetrated against the American people, especially against small business employees and owners.
SMALL BUSINESS EMPLOYS THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN AMERICA,
But that can soon change with the way the economy is going.
You can't even call it capitalism anymore. It's government sanctioned welfare for the corporate conglomerate. Under who's watch did the bailouts happen? The government is a for-profit entity...don't kid yourself. Democrats and Republicans are one in the same.
Ron Paul, like a few others in congress stood up against the bailouts...Do you know what that means? It means that they wanted these failing banks and corporate conglomerates to fail, as they should under the rule of capitalism, because it paves the way for smaller sized (and hopefully better) businesses to take their place. You need to inform yourself when it comes to who supported the bailouts and who did not. Ron Paul did not, and while I don't think he'll stand a chance in the 2012 elections...I'll be voting for him AGAIN

BTW I'm a hardcore liberal when it comes to social issues. It's just that I've determined him to be the most knowledgeable when it comes the way our economy works (or isn't) and what appears to be the most sincere and honest amongst the rest of the political hacks that are ruining this country.

reply to post by boondock-saint


If you look in to what he says closer You will find besides the changes in corporate laws and EPA rules also he wants to change tort laws . Where we a citizens can file suits against the big coal company for ruining our air or our water . As it stands now a oil company can drill next door have a accident and ruin my land for growing the EPA fines then I get a little out of it and that's the end of it I cant really succeed in proceeding in a legal action since they were EPA fined . Under Pauls ideas we could sue them .

Also the monopolies we are now burdened with are kept and built by rules from the Fed which keep competition non existent in many areas.

Originally posted by pccat

if there was a Republican in the White House, liberals just might start caring about the murder of non-Americans again.

just like Bush eh.. ridiculous..
lets not forget that Obama inherited this mess and ALL of the behind the scenes issues that are relevant..
you just cant stop some things immediately, after they have been initiated..

edit to add.. it is all a moot point anyway.. there is only so much he can do by executive order..
he would still have to deal with a congress..

edit on 28-4-2011 by pccat because: (no reason given)

ok. look. stop with the excuses and apologizing for obama. he hasn't been bamboozled into continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan nor has he been bamboozled into starting another war in Libya. he has been CINC for over two years now and has spent more than all his predecessors. GITMO is still open. TSA is out of control. dollar is completely tanked. he signed the extension of bush tax cuts and the patriot act. etc. so, he is just a new version of bush.

stop with the inherited #. it is really get old and is just another way to cover up the fact that obama is incompetent.

oh. and he can do lot by executive order and he does. just the stuff he does doesn't involve ending wars or stopping torture. he could ABSOLUTELY do those things with a stroke of a pen.

we need someone with real cojones in the WH. not empty platitudes and bold faced lies. Ron Paul is the guy to actually do what obama said he would do but didn't. please get you head out of your partisan posterior and look around and do what is right for the country.

reply to post by txraised254


I'd like to believe that Ron Paul would stick to his word but after watching Obama break promise after promise, I have no desire to vote in another politician.

I don't care who the MSM pushes as the "next great thing". I reserve the right to not vote at all.

reply to post by Tonosama


But he did inherit all of this #. There's no getting around that logic.

The difference is that the puppet masters got to him. Do you really think that TPTB would allow a president to follow his agenda to the fullest?

The last president to try was JFK and look what happened to him.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Socially I am all for Ron Paul

Fiscally I have disagreements with. I think he is about right in social issues, but in fiscal issues, I see him as a very very fringe radical when it comes to building a country to sustain itself for generations to come

Odd that someone who votes in line with the constitution, as our founding fathers who built this great nation intended, is now seen as a "very very fringe radical". What is so radical about only voting for things that the constitution allows for? The framers of the constitution put a lot of work into designing a small government and enabling the people. If you mean that it is very radical to change the current bloated and abusive governmental norms and bring the US back to constitutional values then I would say that is a good thing; wouldn't you?

He’ll get my respect when he stops feeding Israhell. Until then, he is another puppets working undercover.