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

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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?

Voting records

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Obama was a great senator, too. He voted along with his public stance.

He also participated in contributing to the 2nd draft of the Patriot Act.
Ron Paul is completely against it, Obama was never against it.

Originally posted by Praetorius
Fair point, and I think we were all disappointed - but how exactly could Ron have 'stood' against what was happening in the primaries and caucuses?

I was hoping he would run as an Independent. I would likely have voted for him if he had. And I know he had a lot of followers who changed their vote to Obama or McCain because "Paul wasn't running".

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Voting records

But Obama's voting records were in line with his stated opinions, too. His history isn't as long as Paul's by a long shot, but overall, I LIKED Obama's voting record. (Certainly not the Patriot Act support, though.)

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
He also participated in contributing to the 2nd draft of the Patriot Act.
Ron Paul is completely against it, Obama was never against it.

And Ron Paul thinks abortion is murder and would define life at conception. VERY unconstitutional, IMO. And I don't like his environmental stance. I am not a single-issue voter.

We can pick out issues that we disagree with on any politician. I LOVE Ron Paul's stance on most issues. Like I said, I supported him till he dropped out. I don't know what people are expected to do when their candidate drops out. Vote for them anyway? That's a real question. Not an assumption.

Originally posted by Janky Red

"I am a capitalist. I believe in capitalism. I do not want to tell the corporations what to do at all as long as they do not commit fraud and live up to their promises..." - Ron Paul, U.S. House of Representatives,May 1, 2002

It's the last sentence that gets me... I believe corporatism is what is destroying the world, From Monsanto, to
BOFA, the goal is control. Pauls ideas give a direct path to a world where individuals are controlled by private law
and governance by the people, who have billions of dollars... I think government cannot be curtailed until
you end this relationship and the ultimate control of the government which is ALREADY PRIVATE IN NATURE.

The politician does not fund the corporation into power -

Paul has the equation off, I enjoy his stances on freedom of the body and belief. I also enjoy he anti military
stance too... But I think he does not see how his beliefs help create what he believes he is fighting against,
this contradiction is substantial.

Thanks for the Article

Precisely!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And Ron Paul thinks abortion is murder and would define life at conception. VERY unconstitutional, IMO.

How is that unconstitutional?
Don't forget he delivered alot of babies, that kinda gives someone a different perspective

But don't forget, he would never make abortion illegal, he would leave it up to the states
If you truly believe in a democracy isn't that the best approach?

One thing that I can say about RP and politics is that there is very little choice during the presidential run
All the front-runners are horrible choices and the best always get the least questions in debates
And amidst all this tornado of non-choices there's one guy who's an open book

liberal or conservative, whatever, he's it!
And if you look at my thread history I often showed support for Kucinich and in the short begining Grayson until he became an idiot

So our views are quite similar just different on issues with little importance except for healthcare

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by Janky Red
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.

Let me give you an analogy for what you are saying here

John and Stella have a family with 10 kids and a credit card
they allow all 10 kids to use these credit cards
when these 10 kids have their own kids they will be passing the same credit card down

those 10 kids, like your parents, experienced what good it did for them
But the kids of these 10 kids now have massive debts to pay and because of them later generations will be in such a horrible condition
That credit card now seems like a curse to later generations

Sky is not the limit and money does not grow on trees

I understand this, but your analogy would need to examine the lender's (CC companies) behavior too (even that misses dynamics and variables)

Did you ever examine the debt load prior to 1980???
See, this generational debt did not exist... both social programs were in place, this nation was fine fiscally speaking.

What did change was the policies and attitudes, namely the idea that the wealth of the privately wealthy should be the priority of governments care. Do you recall what the focus was at that time?

specifically... look at the focus, certainly not the majority of people benefit. This focus created the largest debt in history up to that period.

Militarize
Cut down Barriers for the corporate world
Reduce tax for the elite brackets and corporate world
Assist in killing organized labor (for benefit of the corporate world)

I say the new GOP's focus on corporatism has been disastrous, it is not budget friendly, it hurts that economy, it grows government (who buys the politicians??? shapes their policy???) and has murdered any hope of a self regulating free market.

Do you know how much of out current debt load is interest and principle from this period???

Could you imagine if you did not pay your IRS bill for 25 years?

So my point is, it is screwed up now because the focus has been woefully wrong... If government is going to
do anything it should be for the benefit of the majority of people. I blame the policies that put corporatism as the
prime concern of AMERICA and life itself.

Originally posted by Janky Red

So my point is, it is screwed up now because the focus has been woefully wrong... If government is going to
do anything it should be for the benefit of the majority of people. I blame the policies that put corporatism as the
prime concern of AMERICA and life itself.

Its the flaw in democracy. Democracy doesnt have to focus on whats good for the majority. It assumes that people will make rational, informed decisions about what is in their best interests, and that THEY will choose that for themselves.

Unfortunately, people are not rational,they are emotional for the most part, and they are easily manipulated via those emotions into choosing things that informed reason would tell them are NOT in their best interests. To compound that, the corporate consolidation of media outlets allows these same corporations an extraordinary amount of control of information. They can easily spread the opinions they want people to hold, and they can mock, belittle or ignore information they want people to discount.

Its no wonder corporatists want to spread "democracy" around the world now that media and communications technology is so tightly held by so few. It allows people the illusion that they are choosing, the illusion that they are free, but not the information and lack of disinformation they would need to actually be making free choices. Combined with skillful manipulation of their emotions, real democracy has not got a prayer.

Nothing makes a stronger prison than the illusion of freedom. People who can see how they are bound will struggle against those bonds. But if you can manage to make people feel it is their free choice to be there, you can keep them prisoner forever.

I would like to say something about this thread
Despite my thread title I did not mean to insult Liberals, but for the sake of the discussion of anti-war sentiment and morality, which I know is very existent within liberals, lies in a particular intersection in today's political climate that this article can speak to.

Just thought I'd mention that
Partisan bickering was in all honesty not my intent

Thanks

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Unfortunately, people are not rational,they are emotional for the most part, and they are easily manipulated via those emotions into choosing things that informed reason would tell them are NOT in their best interests. To compound that, the corporate consolidation of media outlets allows these same corporations an extraordinary amount of control of information. They can easily spread the opinions they want people to hold, and they can mock, belittle or ignore information they want people to discount.

Its no wonder corporatists want to spread "democracy" around the world...

Well as observers it is really hard to know what is what, do any of us really have the capacity to "See" and truly comprehend the impact of policy through and through? I don't think it is possible to understand the actually complexity which is the flow of money. But what I do see is a trend and I do see that the name of the game is control all the way around. Again, sorry to repeat myself but, it is like the world is stacking the benefit multipliers
for people who already retain the control by virtue of the virtue of money itself. For me, as a human, it is very to
understand why people would want to consolidate this consolidation of power??? I really think the solution is to
focus on the benefit of the individuals of the voter base when anything is done by the government. Ironically the
theory of promoting individualism seems to work best at promoting specific individuals. I don't think Paul's ideas
are intended to work this way, but they seem to work this way, again by power of capital.

Just look at the market benefit of rate of return

the difference between $10,000 and $1,000,000 (depending on where you invest)

can be %1000 better

Just parking your $10,000 might earn you $100 in a year

While parking $1,000,000 dollars will often earn an investor a 10% yield, of $100,000

And this is just the way it works, the market it self already benefits...

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I would like to say something about this thread
Despite my thread title I did not mean to insult Liberals, but for the sake of the discussion of anti-war sentiment and morality, which I know is very existent within liberals, lies in a particular intersection in today's political climate that this article can speak to.

Just thought I'd mention that
Partisan bickering was in all honesty not my intent

Thanks

Well in my experience, this thread has been atypical in a good way... I think the debate has been quality, IMO

Originally posted by Janky Red

Well as observers it is really hard to know what is what, do any of us really have the capacity to "See" and truly comprehend the impact of policy through and through? I don't think it is possible to understand the actually complexity which is the flow of money.

Im not sure what you mean by this. I would agree if what you are saying is that as human beings it is difficult to predict the long term impacts of all of our actions. (ie we dont know what long term impact wiping out one species might be, because we do not fully understand the interactions of that species and all the bacteria, viruses, etc that populate it with every other thing. )

But Im not sue the same thing can be said about the flow of money. I dont know, however, specifically how you mean that. Its true we are not always clear what will incentivize people. (ie recent studies show bonuses do NOT motivate people to work harder in most cases) But there are some (Plato) who did such a good job of tracking motivation, incentive, human behavior in the body politic, that he accurately predicted a couple thousand years ago pretty much what is going on in the US today.

Its not really beyond us to build a better system. He also prescribed a very workable (with some adaptation to modern technology) system as a solution to the problem of how money influences politics. The problem is, and he even knew it then, that the best system for humanity doesnt appeal to the desires of humanity. What would be best for us, and what would make us happy and prosperous, as a whole, is different from what we THINK will make us happy and prosperous.

What seems to be beyond us, and Plato acknowledged this problem, is convincing people to let go of their beliefs about what will make them happy in order to try something different that really will.

Originally posted by Janky Red
But what I do see is a trend and I do see that the name of the game is control all the way around. Again, sorry to repeat myself but, it is like the world is stacking the benefit multipliers
for people who already retain the control by virtue of the virtue of money itself.

Well of course it is. But that is not a new or unique understanding, from Plato to Smith there have been people who have acknowledged and elabortated ways around that issue. The problem is always the same. The system is always set up wrong from the get go by people who like the idea of having the things a just and rational society can provide, but they skew it just a little to ensure it will be MORE just for them. And over time, those small imbalances increase and compound.

But again, its not that we dont know HOW to fix it. We do. Its that the vast majority at the bottom of their little greedy heart doesnt really WANT a just and rational society. They all want it just a little in their favor.

Originally posted by Janky Red
For me, as a human, it is very to understand why people would want to consolidate this consolidation of power???

Well, its not really complicated. Its because they hope someday to benefit from the injustice of it. Its greed on the part of the masses being manipulated and exploited by the people who really ARE benefiting from the injustice of it. Why do you think politicians promise people the things they want/need even though a rational mind can look and see that there is no way that will be the outcome of the policy they are promoting?

There was never any possibility that globalization would do anything other than what it is for the little people of America. It is totally rational for the third world to want it. And for corporations to want it. It is utterly IRRATIONAL for Americans to want it. There was nothing else it could do besides drag the average standard of living down in the US. One might argue that is global justice. And it may be, but it was irrational for Americans to allow it. It was never in their best interests.

Originally posted by Janky Red
I really think the solution is to focus on the benefit of the individuals of the voter base when anything is done by the government.

The solution is to build a system based on natural selection that allows the best to rise to the top, and those not best to fall. Adam Smith had it right. His free market is based on a strategy proven by billions of years of life on Earth to work. Natural selection. He just preceded Charles Darwin, (though he was a contemporary of Erasmus Darwin, not coincidentally, at Edinburgh) and so his elaboration of the theory while very good, and very recognizable to anyone who knows both it and who is well versed in evolutionary theory, lacked a few crucial specifics.

Add to that the fact that in his system you had a "governor" of the system who was relatively unreliant on the system. A King. A free market does not work as well in a democracy, because you have no regulator who is not dependent upon the participants for their position. Nature, in natural selection is this impassive and immovable regulator, the Philosopher King, in Platos theory is this impassive and immovable regulator, a hereditary Monarch was Smiths imperfect attempt at this necessity, but..................because people didnt really understand Smiths principles thoroughly, (in part because he did not himself) when the system was applied in the US absolutely NO impassive regulator existed.

And that began the rapid downward slide of the Republic. Its a longer story. Of ups and downs as the first attempt at globalization failed and ended in the Depression, which prompted a return to nationalism, which spawned a recovery, to a slow move back towards globalization, which again has caused an economic collapse, only this time..............the Republic itself has degraded to the point that there may be no return to nationalism and hence no real recovery.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Rockdisjoint

 

Yes, here it is again.

www.ronpaul.com...

Thanks! Idk. He didn't really explain himself well. He says he's a libertarian & capitalist, but corporations/corporate personhood are incompatible with capitalism and libertarian ideals. So I still don't know.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


Honestly? My opinion is that HE doesnt know.

He isnt demonstrating that he has a very clear understand of the issue at all. Which I find hopeful. If he just doesnt understand it, there remains the possibility that with more education on the topic, he might realize that corporate personhood is NOT Constitutional.

Of course there remains the possibility that his own personal biases will prevent him from wanting to understand it better too.

Time will tell.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia


See this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever
Corporations cannot dictate private law, they are not legislators
Secondly how can corporations assume the role of govt. through lobbying(as they do so efficiently now) when there's no govt. body to lobby?

It is you sir who is clearly missing the logic
The only way corporations can lobby under his system is in the free market
and the only way to lobby free market is making good products and services at competitive prices.

Originally posted by Janky Red
How can you expect to be more free, when you strive to privatize everything, therefore making everything exclusive???

That doesn't even make any sense
you cannot privatize everything, it's impossible and isn't even what he is proposing

It doesn't make sense because I suppose you are looking at the world through an innocent lens. The shear complexity and sophistication of the corpor-political world is clearly beyond your experience.
Corporations make policy all the time through their agents AKA the politicians they help fund and promote into office. They justify this policy with the media they own and the DEM GOP battles over social issues and welfare.

when there's no govt. body to lobby?

Are you attempting to be dramatic, just exaggerating or trying to tell me that Ron Paul will eliminate positions in the house and senate, consolidating presidential power??? no...

I think you are trying to propose a fake argument here...

Ron Paul will not curtail the lobby and he will not eliminate the revolving door in Washington. IMO he will give them much more power to shape policy which is big business in itself, he will remain passive and probably proactive in some ways too.

Paul is a friend to big business because of what he believes, this is what you are missing... He named his son
Rand for cripes sake;

not to mention the SCOTUS (big business's BEST friend) and the two houses.

The only thing you cannot privatize so far is the ocean, space, air and the sun, one day though, keep hoping...

Ron Paul is about to be in the Fox News channel televised debate. His site www.ronpaul2012.com... has another money bomb for today and he is close to clearing $1 million before the end of the day. I had hoped it would go over the million mark before the debate even started but it is not looking like he will break over $800,000 before the start of the debate in about 5 minutes.