Originally posted by sealing
reply to post by Praetorius
The reason I say that he is the best anti-establishment candidate I know is not
very obvious but is becauseif Ron Paul is president,the mega-corporations
(establishment) are going to love that man.
No regulations to burden them in any form .
Only white people need apply? Check. Poison water air? With the EPA
gone,check. Child labor? Why not? Check. The list goes on and on,
The market won't correct Crap.
Valid concerns, but applied inappropriately from what I can see. The mega-corporations already LOVE Obama, and along with the mega-banks donate much
more heavily to him than they do to Paul (I'd have to look, but I don't recall seeing the big banks on the list of Paul's donors at all, and no PAC
money).
As far as regulations, have you ever stopped to ask yourself why there's a revolving door policy between big business and the regulatory agencies?
Why they swap so many execs and employees? Why the regulations seem crafted more as insulation than anything else, to buffer big business by choking
out small competition while either crafting the regulations to their liking, or setting the fines high enough that only they can afford to pay and
ignore the regulations they violate? Why the regulatory agencies delete investigatory records on big business?
Wrong on the EPA - Paul's a very strong advocate of private property rights (and the president can't get rid of the EPA anyway, nor is such in Paul's
proposed budget), meaning NO one is allowed to pollute anyone else's property even indirectly via water cycles. As well, I would assume most states
already have Departments of Environmental Quality (like Oklahoma does), or the like. Non-issue.
Child labor? You're kidding me. Do you think people in the states are going to approve that? You've got a much sadder view of the american people
than even I do, in that case, and I would assume there are likely already plenty of state and federal laws in place for such a thing. And again -
what does that have to do with the office of the president? The president can VETO legislation - he can't undo it.
Come on, pay attention to your civics lessons. Looks like you've already been bamboozled into thinking they haven't set things up just the way they
want them. What do their profits look like, again? Cleaning the stifling regulatory climate and UNprotecting these jerks from actual new competition
is the only real way to start setting things right.
Your misunderstandings are understandable, though - this is the narrative they sell you to keep their schemes up. Follow the money...who gets it:
Paul...or Obama?
edit on 1/3/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)
