Home› A Moving Train

Barack Obama vs. Ron Paul

VINNY GOOMBAVINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,818
edited April 2010 in A Moving Train
In a hypothetical 2012 presidential election scenario, who would you choose?
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    Would it be a loser leaves town match.. .steel cage match... or perhaps a ladder match?
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:
    In a hypothetical 2012 presidential election scenario, who would you choose?
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • VINNY GOOMBAVINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,818
    FiveB247x wrote:
    Would it be a loser leaves town match.. .steel cage match... or perhaps a ladder match?
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:
    In a hypothetical 2012 presidential election scenario, who would you choose?
    Career-ending match, and it would have to be much more permanent than Ultimate Warrior versus Randy Savage at Wrestlemania 7! :D
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    Snap into it brother! Dig it.
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:
    FiveB247x wrote:
    Would it be a loser leaves town match.. .steel cage match... or perhaps a ladder match?
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:
    In a hypothetical 2012 presidential election scenario, who would you choose?
    Career-ending match, and it would have to be much more permanent than Ultimate Warrior versus Randy Savage at Wrestlemania 7! :D
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • StarfallStarfall Posts: 548
    While I respect Ron Paul for his principled stance against government abuses of power during the Bush years, and even today, I am decidedly not in tune with some of his goofy and even downright abhorrent ideas.

    No brainer for me.
    "It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
  • IndifferenceIndifference Posts: 2,727
    Too close to call!

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... on_paul_41

    SHOW COUNT: (164) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=108, US=118, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
    Mexico=1, Colombia=1 



  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    That is a debate I would pay per view!

    Ron Paul would clean his clock.
  • VINNY GOOMBAVINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,818
    Starfall wrote:
    While I respect Ron Paul for his principled stance against government abuses of power during the Bush years, and even today, I am decidedly not in tune with some of his goofy and even downright abhorrent ideas.

    No brainer for me.

    Yeah, the guy probably should have just stuck to delivering babies instead of also putting out a newsletter, which, the author of your "article" admits that all available forms of the writings are second hand at best:

    "What remains to us today comes almost entirely from secondary sources, such as quasi-samizdat publications and contemporaneous Usenet postings from sources like Google Groups. These few fragments of a much larger body of work—almost all of which have been preserved by Paul's supporters, not his opponents—give us an illuminating and frightening look into his demented, racist worldview."

    Who is to say that some anonymous postings on the internet are truly Paul supporters, and NOT opponents posing to be supporters?

    Anyone who has ever listened to Dr. Paul or read his writings knows he is not a racist, and never has been. True libertarianism favors no group in particular, and protects the rights of every individual-- where in those ideas can racism be permitted to exist?

    Could it be possible that some racists identify with his some of his ideas? Yes. Could it be that everyone has an open-mouth-insert-foot moment from time to time, and it even makes print? Sure. Could it be that the writings in his newsletter were all contributed by others, and the captain was just not at the helm of that ship as much as he needed to be? Definitely. Doesn't every public official at some point in their tenure suffer some guilt by association?

    Even if any of these allegations against Paul are true, as a principled liberal, you wouldn't vote for a guy with a few questionable Michael Richards-moments who WOULD stop our military occupation and fighting around the world, over Barack Obama, who clearly has NO plan of stopping our nation building and violence against humanity abroad?

    I mean, words can hurt. But bullets hurt a lot more.
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    That's the thing. All the libs do is bitch and moan about wars yet they elect a guy who continues them.

    Ron Paul would really end the war in Iraq. Ron Paul is for bringing our troops home. Ron Paul is for America minding its' own business.

    Of course they won't vote for him merely on the fact that he doesn't have a (D) after his name. I'm guessing that if he did they would have no problem getting behind his message.
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056
    unsung wrote:
    That's the thing. All the libs do is bitch and moan about wars yet they elect a guy who continues them.

    Ron Paul would really end the war in Iraq. Ron Paul is for bringing our troops home. Ron Paul is for America minding its' own business.

    Of course they won't vote for him merely on the fact that he doesn't have a (D) after his name. I'm guessing that if he did they would have no problem getting behind his message.
    nah....Kucinich had the (D)...His foreign policy message was similar....and he got nowhere either.

    Fact of the matter is: no one got behind their message because the media told everyone they had no chance...and everyone believed it.
  • VINNY GOOMBAVINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,818
    Alright, who's going to vote? The debate is obviously going to come with this thread too, as will any jokes about the subject looking more like a wrestling match than an election. But here it is, you walk into the booth, and here are your two choices. Who do you pick?

    Starfall has the only official vote so far, with one for Obama.

    I'm official for Paul.

    Pretty sure unsung is for Paul, but I'll let him speak for himself.
  • VINNY GOOMBAVINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,818
    Indifference wrote:
    Too close to call!

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... on_paul_41

    I had heard about this poll the other day. It was part of the inspiration for starting this thread.
  • KDH12KDH12 Posts: 2,096
    Doesn't Ron Paul want to do away with several departments within the federal government like the Dept of Education?
    **CUBS GO ALL THE WAY IN......never **
  • VINNY GOOMBAVINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,818
    KDH12 wrote:
    Doesn't Ron Paul want to do away with several departments within the federal government like the Dept of Education?

    Yes, he would work to phase them out. States already have their own government with regards to education.
  • KDH12KDH12 Posts: 2,096
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:
    KDH12 wrote:
    Doesn't Ron Paul want to do away with several departments within the federal government like the Dept of Education?

    Yes, he would work to phase them out. States already have their own government with regards to education.


    really

    you do realized that the department of ed. funds millions of college educations..... something states do not have anything to do with nor should they

    and with the inclusion in the health care bill they will more or less be the sole provider, however I do not know the specifics

    and with primary education there needs to be national standards, not individual state standards..... if it was up to the states or kids would be even dumber then they are now
    **CUBS GO ALL THE WAY IN......never **
  • VINNY GOOMBAVINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,818
    KDH12 wrote:
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:
    KDH12 wrote:
    Doesn't Ron Paul want to do away with several departments within the federal government like the Dept of Education?

    Yes, he would work to phase them out. States already have their own government with regards to education.


    really

    you do realized that the department of ed. funds millions of college educations..... something states do not have anything to do with nor should they

    and with the inclusion in the health care bill they will more or less be the sole provider, however I do not know the specifics

    and with primary education there needs to be national standards, not individual state standards..... if it was up to the states or kids would be even dumber then they are now

    I do realize that it funds people's college educations. Maybe that's why the cost of an education is so high, seeing as how there is an infinite money machine to pay for the education of "millions," as you put it. Take that away, and schools might not be able to charge as much as they currently charge. Also, within that process of paying for all of those education, wealth is transferred through either taxation or dollar devaluation because of inflation in the money supply.

    And really, states can't decide what's best for themselves? Are all 50 states not capable of thinking on their own without Uncle Sam? Or are you suggesting that maybe there's four or five whole states that can't figure "Education" out on their own? That line of thinking seems a bit elitist to me. Is there still not a vast difference in education between New Jersey and Mississippi even with this ever-important Federal Department of Education in place?

    But not to worry, it wouldn't be the first thing Dr. Paul phased out or eliminated. I would think that eliminating most of the spending on maintaining an overseas empire would be the first focus of his administration.
  • StarfallStarfall Posts: 548
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:
    Starfall wrote:
    While I respect Ron Paul for his principled stance against government abuses of power during the Bush years, and even today, I am decidedly not in tune with some of his goofy and even downright abhorrent ideas.

    No brainer for me.

    Yeah, the guy probably should have just stuck to delivering babies instead of also putting out a newsletter, which, the author of your "article" admits that all available forms of the writings are second hand at best:

    "What remains to us today comes almost entirely from secondary sources, such as quasi-samizdat publications and contemporaneous Usenet postings from sources like Google Groups. These few fragments of a much larger body of work—almost all of which have been preserved by Paul's supporters, not his opponents—give us an illuminating and frightening look into his demented, racist worldview."

    Way to invoke a strawman argument. I never said Paul should've stuck to obstetrics, did I?
    Besides, even if you discount ALL the instances of the Ron Paul Newsletter, it doesn't excuse some of his writings as cited on various white supremacist sites. Especially since:
    The only complete article from the Ron Paul Political Report on the Internet that I am aware of is a 1992 piece titled "LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM," on the subject of the so-called Rodney King riots in South Central Los Angeles in 1991. It is available to us today because it was posted to the talk.politics.misc newsgroup on July 30, 1993 by Dan Gannon, a notorious white supremacist and Holocaust denier, and archived by the Nizkor Project, an anti-revisionism organization that was active in cataloging hate speech on the early public Internet.
    Who is to say that some anonymous postings on the internet are truly Paul supporters, and NOT opponents posing to be supporters?

    The preponderance of sources of Ron Paul's writings doesn't bother you? It's one thing for one lone lefty on the Daily Kos to make such allegations, it's another thing for an established newspaper to cite his writings.
    Anyone who has ever listened to Dr. Paul or read his writings knows he is not a racist, and never has been. True libertarianism favors no group in particular, and protects the rights of every individual-- where in those ideas can racism be permitted to exist?

    I'm not entirely convinced he IS a racist, either, but your argument is flawed. He's perfectly capable of espousing libertarian ideals and yet oppose them in practice -his support of the odious Defense of Marriage Act, which the Libertarian Party opposes, is proof of that.
    Could it be possible that some racists identify with his some of his ideas? Yes. Could it be that everyone has an open-mouth-insert-foot moment from time to time, and it even makes print? Sure. Could it be that the writings in his newsletter were all contributed by others, and the captain was just not at the helm of that ship as much as he needed to be? Definitely. Doesn't every public official at some point in their tenure suffer some guilt by association?

    So either he's a dupe, or he's a racist. Either way, he loses my vote.
    Even if any of these allegations against Paul are true, as a principled liberal, you wouldn't vote for a guy with a few questionable Michael Richards-moments who WOULD stop our military occupation and fighting around the world, over Barack Obama, who clearly has NO plan of stopping our nation building and violence against humanity abroad?

    If that were all that separates him from Barack Obama, then I'd consider voting for Paul. But as we all know, he espouses some horribly radical and extreme ideas - from voting against an override of Bush's veto of the stem cell research bill, repealing birthright citizenship, returning to the gold standard to the outright disbandment of Social Security, Medicare, the IRS, and the Department of Energy.
    Besides, the infamous Klan leader David Duke is against the war too, but I sure as hell ain't voting for him .
    I mean, words can hurt. But bullets hurt a lot more.

    If Paul had his way, he'd destroy all of our social safety nets, and he will seriously damage a lot of Americans too.
    "It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
  • KDH12KDH12 Posts: 2,096
    I don't think the cost of higher ed is out of control because the government offers loans to pay for it....

    it is because they are business with 100% no oversight, especially state universities, which get a large amount of funding from the states unrelated to tuition that goes unregulated.... private universities are mostly not-for-profits that need to be more strictly monitored.... IMO

    in terms of primary schooling, I know that states are capable of making their own decisions (at least some of them are) but I would rather not have 50 states going 50 different directions in terms of their educations

    I believe that most state governments make the feds look like a well oiled machine

    I think that state governments should be either eliminated or significantly scaled down, there is no need for states to have two houses with as many members as they have......IMO
    **CUBS GO ALL THE WAY IN......never **
  • VINNY GOOMBAVINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,818
    Starfall wrote:
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:
    Starfall wrote:
    While I respect Ron Paul for his principled stance against government abuses of power during the Bush years, and even today, I am decidedly not in tune with some of his goofy and even downright abhorrent ideas.

    No brainer for me.

    Yeah, the guy probably should have just stuck to delivering babies instead of also putting out a newsletter, which, the author of your "article" admits that all available forms of the writings are second hand at best:

    "What remains to us today comes almost entirely from secondary sources, such as quasi-samizdat publications and contemporaneous Usenet postings from sources like Google Groups. These few fragments of a much larger body of work—almost all of which have been preserved by Paul's supporters, not his opponents—give us an illuminating and frightening look into his demented, racist worldview."

    Way to invoke a strawman argument. I never said Paul should've stuck to obstetrics, did I?
    Besides, even if you discount ALL the instances of the Ron Paul Newsletter, it doesn't excuse some of his writings as cited on various white supremacist sites. Especially since:
    The only complete article from the Ron Paul Political Report on the Internet that I am aware of is a 1992 piece titled "LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM," on the subject of the so-called Rodney King riots in South Central Los Angeles in 1991. It is available to us today because it was posted to the talk.politics.misc newsgroup on July 30, 1993 by Dan Gannon, a notorious white supremacist and Holocaust denier, and archived by the Nizkor Project, an anti-revisionism organization that was active in cataloging hate speech on the early public Internet.
    Who is to say that some anonymous postings on the internet are truly Paul supporters, and NOT opponents posing to be supporters?

    The preponderance of sources of Ron Paul's writings doesn't bother you? It's one thing for one lone lefty on the Daily Kos to make such allegations, it's another thing for an established newspaper to cite his writings.
    Anyone who has ever listened to Dr. Paul or read his writings knows he is not a racist, and never has been. True libertarianism favors no group in particular, and protects the rights of every individual-- where in those ideas can racism be permitted to exist?

    I'm not entirely convinced he IS a racist, either, but your argument is flawed. He's perfectly capable of espousing libertarian ideals and yet oppose them in practice -his support of the odious Defense of Marriage Act, which the Libertarian Party opposes, is proof of that.
    Could it be possible that some racists identify with his some of his ideas? Yes. Could it be that everyone has an open-mouth-insert-foot moment from time to time, and it even makes print? Sure. Could it be that the writings in his newsletter were all contributed by others, and the captain was just not at the helm of that ship as much as he needed to be? Definitely. Doesn't every public official at some point in their tenure suffer some guilt by association?

    So either he's a dupe, or he's a racist. Either way, he loses my vote.
    Even if any of these allegations against Paul are true, as a principled liberal, you wouldn't vote for a guy with a few questionable Michael Richards-moments who WOULD stop our military occupation and fighting around the world, over Barack Obama, who clearly has NO plan of stopping our nation building and violence against humanity abroad?

    If that were all that separates him from Barack Obama, then I'd consider voting for Paul. But as we all know, he espouses some horribly radical and extreme ideas - from voting against an override of Bush's veto of the stem cell research bill, repealing birthright citizenship, returning to the gold standard to the outright disbandment of Social Security, Medicare, the IRS, and the Department of Energy.
    Besides, the infamous Klan leader David Duke is against the war too, but I sure as hell ain't voting for him .
    I mean, words can hurt. But bullets hurt a lot more.

    If Paul had his way, he'd destroy all of our social safety nets, and he will seriously damage a lot of Americans too.
    And what's wrong with the gold standard? Can't print all the money you want to pay for these safety nets? Sound money is a radical idea? I guess it was for 6,000 years. He's never advocated just pulling the rug out from underneath everyone to accomplish his ideals of limited government, and even if he tried to, you and I both know it wouldn't be that simple. There's an obvious transition from the nanny state to self-sufficiency and it probably wouldn't even be complete if he were elected to two terms.
    Why should social security be mandatory? Why not get rid of the IRS and use a tax system based on consumption, which wouldn't violate the privacy rights of Americans, and does not directly tax our labor? What good is the Department of Energy when the dirtiest forms of energy are still king because of how highly subsidized they are?

    As far as marriage goes, Paul would rather the government not be involved in marrying people at all. It's either a religious / personal function as far as he's concerned.

    Hey, you voted anyway! :D
  • StarfallStarfall Posts: 548
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:
    And what's wrong with the gold standard? Can't print all the money you want to pay for these safety nets? Sound money is a radical idea? I guess it was for 6,000 years.

    Because you can't grow the economy based on gold, or any fixed money supply. Banks wouldn't be able to lend beyond the actual amount of gold they have. It's a great idea for an agricultural society, but not for a capitalist one.
    Unless you're against capitalism? :mrgreen:
    He's never advocated just pulling the rug out from underneath everyone to accomplish his ideals of limited government, and even if he tried to, you and I both know it wouldn't be that simple. There's an obvious transition from the nanny state to self-sufficiency and it probably wouldn't even be complete if he were elected to two terms.

    He'd never be elected, period. Americans like having their social safety nets, ESPECIALLY Social Security and Medicare, and seniors are the most reliable voting bloc there is.
    Why should social security be mandatory?

    So people have a baseline source of income when they retire? One that's not subject to the whims of the stock market?
    Why not get rid of the IRS and use a tax system based on consumption, which wouldn't violate the privacy rights of Americans, and does not directly tax our labor?

    Because a progressive income tax - when properly implemented - can prevent the kind of reckless siphoning off of money from the American middle class to the moneyed class. If people (and corporations) were being taxed at the marginal rate of 90%, like they were under Eisenhower, nobody would have incentive to run their companies into the ground and destroy the economy for the sake of short term profit.
    What good is the Department of Energy when the dirtiest forms of energy are still king because of how highly subsidized they are?

    Getting rid of the Department of Energy is not the problem then, it should be removing the subsidies from fossil fuels and dedicating them to renewable energy.
    As far as marriage goes, Paul would rather the government not be involved in marrying people at all. It's either a religious / personal function as far as he's concerned.

    Marriage isn't just about personal stuff - it establishes various rights from inheritance, visitation, probate, and social recognition. It's also a fundamental right, as the Supreme Court has ruled in Loving vs Virginia(1967).
    As such, the government has a vested interest in protecting basic, fundamental rights.
    Hey, you voted anyway! :D

    Well, true. :mrgreen:
    Not to say that I'm completely against Ron Paul - as with many libertarians I find common ground along civil and social issues, such as opposition to the PATRIOT Act, legalization of marijuana and auditing and maybe even replacing the Federal Reserve.
    "It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
  • VINNY GOOMBAVINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,818
    Starfall wrote:
    Well, true. :mrgreen:
    Not to say that I'm completely against Ron Paul - as with many libertarians I find common ground along civil and social issues, such as opposition to the PATRIOT Act, legalization of marijuana and auditing and maybe even replacing the Federal Reserve.

    I'll argue with you over all of that other stuff another day. Now, I just want to be your friend after reading this.
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    Yes I'm voting for Ron Paul. It doesn't matter who he runs against.
  • WaveCameCrashinWaveCameCrashin Posts: 2,929
    Ron Paul
    all though I don't agree with him on everything he is by far more of a constituionalist than Obama could ever be.
  • gabersgabers Posts: 2,787
    I wish the Republicans had enough balls and brains to nominate Ron Paul. And I wish the Dems had enough balls and brains to nominate Kucinich. Instead, we're left with a bunch of wingnuts and a middle of the road Dem president.
  • yahamitayahamita Posts: 1,514
    I would vote for Ron Paul AGAIN!!! NOBAMA for me..I didn't trust him this last election.
    I knew all the rules, but the rules did not know me...GUARANTEED!

    Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM

    Wishlist Foundation-
    http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
    info@wishlistfoundation.org
  • yahamitayahamita Posts: 1,514
    KDH12 wrote:
    Doesn't Ron Paul want to do away with several departments within the federal government like the Dept of Education?
    He is pushing to have the Federal Reserve audited. Didn't hear anything about education.
    I knew all the rules, but the rules did not know me...GUARANTEED!

    Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM

    Wishlist Foundation-
    http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
    info@wishlistfoundation.org
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    yahamita wrote:
    KDH12 wrote:
    Doesn't Ron Paul want to do away with several departments within the federal government like the Dept of Education?
    He is pushing to have the Federal Reserve audited. Didn't hear anything about education.
    shouldn't you find that out before voting? its kind of important...
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • yahamitayahamita Posts: 1,514
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    yahamita wrote:
    KDH12 wrote:
    Doesn't Ron Paul want to do away with several departments within the federal government like the Dept of Education?
    He is pushing to have the Federal Reserve audited. Didn't hear anything about education.
    shouldn't you find that out before voting? its kind of important...
    I know enough to know I hate Obama and would vote for Krusty the Clown before I put a socialist/non-American, non- Constutionalist into office. My conscience won't allow it to happen.
    I knew all the rules, but the rules did not know me...GUARANTEED!

    Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM

    Wishlist Foundation-
    http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
    info@wishlistfoundation.org
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    The reason there is talk of that is to give states back their own programs and eliminate those programs at the federal level. The Feds have too much power and this balances things out.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    yahamita wrote:
    [
    I know enough to know I hate Obama and would vote for Krusty the Clown before I put a socialist/non-American, non- Constutionalist into office. My conscience won't allow it to happen.
    are you serious? socialist, non american, where is your proof of that?
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • yahamitayahamita Posts: 1,514
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    yahamita wrote:
    [
    I know enough to know I hate Obama and would vote for Krusty the Clown before I put a socialist/non-American, non- Constutionalist into office. My conscience won't allow it to happen.
    are you serious? socialist, non american, where is your proof of that?
    Where is HIS proof that he is American? He should be PROUD to show off his birth certificate if he was actually born here..
    I knew all the rules, but the rules did not know me...GUARANTEED!

    Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM

    Wishlist Foundation-
    http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
    info@wishlistfoundation.org
Sign In or Register to comment.