Money bomb
butterjam
Posts: 215
I have never donated to a politician until now as I believe I will get a good return if Dr. Paul is elected president. But more importantly, is that his message of liberty and freedom is spread. At the very least, his talk of auditing the federal reserve will lead us to a more sound monetary policy.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
He's polling far better right now than in 2008, too. Good luck to the good Doctor.
it is that kind of thinking that keeps us having only two parties.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Same in the UK
This part: "I believe I will get a good return" basically sums up how self-serving so called Libertarians can be. Ask yourself why Ron Paul appeals to so many cranky white guys. I might agree with him on certain cuts and law changes, but overall the guys a joke.
can you specifically name some of his joke policies so we can discuss them?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
1. He thinks the Dept. of Education is "indoctrinating" our children and forcing them to take psychotropic drugs. This is called is called fear-mongering and minimal use of his brain.
2. He wants the federal government to be like it was in the 1800. No thanks.
More to come....
Where in the Constitution does the Dept of Education derive its power from? Can you please source your drug remark?
I take exception to the "self-serving cranky white guy" remark. I believe I am entitled to my own liberty and freedom and I do not want that usurped by our gov't.
It is might right to choose to help someone or not. It is not the government's right to take from one and give to another as they see fit. Personally, as a Christian, it is my duty to help my fellow person. But that is might right to do so, not someone else's right to force me to do so.
He will get a lot of criticism because he does have "radical" ideas, but it follows the Constitution. I don't entirely agree with how far he wants to reduce our gov't, but its definitely a step in the right direction.
What baffles me is all these anti-war liberals who bashed Bush, and rightfully so, for getting us into two wars. But Obama expands our war in Afghanistan, has ordered more drone attacks in Pakistan, and got us involved in Libya, and there is hardly a peep.
1. his words summerized..
First, the Constitution does not authorize the Department of Education, and the founders never envisioned the federal government dictating those education policies.
Second, it is a huge bureaucracy that squanders our money. We send billions of dollars to Washington and get back less than we sent. The money would be much better off left in states and local communities rather than being squandered in Washington.
Finally, I think that the smallest level of government possible best performs education. Teachers, parents, and local community leaders should be making decisions about exactly how our children should be taught, not Washington bureaucrats.
The Department of Education has given us No Child Left Behind, massive unfunded mandates, indoctrination, and in come cases, forced medication of our children with psychotropic drugs. We should get rid of all of that and get those choices back in the hands of the people.”
your chracterization was kind of misleading.
2. wants the federal government to abide by the constitution...there I fixed it for you....if that wasn't what you meant can you expound on the idea that he wants the federal government to return to the 1800's?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Source please on the "indoctrination" comment. While some of his followers may believe this to be the case, (including myself) THEY will vocalize it, but I don't know that I have ever heard him actually use this word. I could be wrong. Even still, let's not pretend like there aren't levels of indoctrination-- it's not all equivalent to Hitler-youth type "indoctrination." Paul is a seasoned speaker, and has strong philosophical grounds for what he believes. When he comes out against the DoE Paul always cites lack of Constitutional authority and overall inefficiency of a Federal Dept of Education when stating why he would eliminate it. Others will justify its existence under very broad definitions of the commerce clause, or the general welfare clause. He keeps his reading of the Constitution to be pretty literal. He doesn't have to take it to the Glen Beck level, and of all the interviews I've watched / listened to / read of his, he sure doesn't make "indoctrination" his main reason for abolishment. I will admit, that some of his supporters are incredibly passionate, sometimes a little crazy just like anyone else's-- Obama's supporters, Trump's supporters, Bush's supporters, etc... the loudmouths are usually given the biggest mouthpiece, and the people who THEY represent can be smeared very easily based on a handful of very vocal supporters who represent them poorly. You can't blame us for our passion though, since there is a very concious attempt to keep this guy out of the debates, and out of the mainstream. He's gotta be doing something right
As far as shrinking the Federal Government back to 1800 levels, again that goes back to a literal reading of the Constitution and what Congress and the President are authorized to do, which does not include creating agency after agency containing unelected bureaucrats that write their own rules. Who ends up running these agencies but former CEOs and industry insiders with massive conflicts of interest? Liberals argue that businesses can't police themselves. That may very well be true. But letting former tycoons become appointed to powerful government agencies allows these people to regulate their competition out of business, and make their own rules! Forget about policing big business, they have been granted POLICE POWERS through this current system. I believe we would be better off being governed locally. It's not that he's 100% against a Department of Education in the states themselves-- he may personally not want to have government run his schooling, but he's not going to tell the states to decide what they can and can't decide for themselves.
But hey... the guy wants to shrink government, is a veteran, a medical doctor, and he may have thrown around the word "indoctrination" when referring to public schooling a few times. Let's definitely vote for a president who has proven to be a warmongerer, endorses torture, assassination of AMERICAN citizens, voted to bail out banks and major corporations, subsidize big business, believes in no transparency of the Fed, has voted for and to renew the Patriot Act, and doesn't think you have the presence of mind of whether or not you can smoke a plant.
Its ironic that Bush passed the prescription drug benefit plan which was a precursor to Obamacare and not much a peep from the Republicans. Obama is expanding our war effort and not much a peep from the anti-war Democrats.
Heck, look at how both parties voted for and against raising the debt ceiling, it just depended on who was in office and who controlled Congress. Do a little research and see what Senator Obama said about raising the debt ceiling in 2006.
Ron Paul is consistent with his message ever since he came into Congress.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Here's a dirty secret that most people don't understand. It's not Democrats or Republicans that decide elections, its the independents. Look at our recent election history. Dems will vote for Dems and vice versa.
You can call it what you want, but I like to have my own liberty and freedom and not have someone dictate what I should do. Democrats are all for social liberty, but not economic liberty and vice versa.
The idea that he is a Randist / Objectivist is completely misunderstood by everyone who does not follow this guy closely, and truthfully a lot of the media and liberals turned off by his ideas of limited government automatically paint him that way. He is NOT an Objectivist, and has stated so repeatedly. He admits to reading her writings and being influenced by her somewhat. While he likes Ayn Rand's ideas about Free Markets, he does not agree with her callousness. What he doesn't want is FORCE to be used to distribute rescources from one person or group to another. This is an idea that liberals should naturally understand and like. Unfortunately, the guy never has more than 5 minutes to talk during any TV or radio appearance, and never gets to talk about voluntarism, austrian economics, or classical liberalism which is at the heart of his beliefs. We should be free to do as we choose, but should understand that charity and serving your fellow man IS part of your duty as a human being. What we don't believe is forcing this idea down someone's throat at gunpoint, which is what government actually does. Coercion. Progress should come naturally, not through the force of authority. Maybe we're not advanced enough for this yet? Who knows? But, the system is not working all that great as it is-- there are more government programs dedicated to helping the poor, and more military intervention dedicated to "freeing people" and "spreading democracy" than ever before. Where's the freedom? Where's the peace? Where is the decreasing gap in wealth among classes?
You want closer representations of Paul's beliefs through who he has read? Check the index of any of his books. Ludwig Von Mises and FA Hayek would rank a lot higher than Ayn Rand, and they came before her. The guy believes deeply in charity, and often recalls a time where hospitals were run by churches, no one was turned away, and he as a doctor worked for one of these hospitals and made a lot less money and didn't complain about it. Now we have to mandate more insurance, because mandating insurance years ago allowed these companies to gain a stranglehold on just about everything.
If you like the guy at all, or agree with him on any level, or AT LEAST think he may be more in line with your beliefs than our current president (lesser of 2 evils), the worst thing you can do is call him unelectable. He WAS unelectable in 2008. Despite all odds against him, he's gained some serious steam and actually has a shot. So if not him on the Republican side, than WHO? Trump? Romney? Say what you like, but by ruling the guy out you also rule out any chance we have of keeping Obama honest in 2012. Paul is the biggest challenger to Barack philosophically, and most true liberals who believe that progress is possible without it being forced on the population need to get behind this guy. He is the best hope this country has.
And who voted for the Bush bailouts? President Obama. And what about TARP? If you wanna talk about helping the rich, that's what he did.
So are you suggesting that we have more federal involvement in our economic life? Because the libertarian policy is to reduce it. Where has the federal government done a good job with this?
Are you blaming all of these ills on the libertarian concept? Please explain how.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=685
I guess he won't get your vote. He IS running Republican. He HAS run as a Libertarian back in 1988. Since Perot, 3rd parties have hardly cracked 3% in this country in a national election. Part of the reason for this is that the league of women's voters used to get to choose who was in the televised debates, and has since been replaced by a committee made up of strictly Republicans and Democrats. I can't remember the acronym they use, but I'm pretty sure there's an R and a D in there, and they're not hiding the fact that THEY choose who gets to debate. Ideally, Dr. Paul would love for there to be more competition in elections, but there are very powerful forces from keeping this from happening as I just mentioned. Since he returned to Congress, he has decided to work within the system. Technically, according to the orginal Republican platform, he's one of the few true Republicans actually left-- why should he change his party when everyone else desecrated the meaning and name of being a Republican ?
Jean, I'm like you. I never vote for either of the 2 parties because I feel that they are ultimately the problem. They only compromise to screw us all. They'll fight and fight and fight, talk aboug cutting each other's programs, and then compromise on spending us into oblivion by spending more on each-- all thanks to the never-ending money tree, The Federal Reserve, as they will always be there to write the checks (until our money becomes useless). This guy has my vote. I've followed him closely since late '07, and he's easily the most consistent and honest person I've ever seen in politics. If people could ignore the (R) in his name, and actually READ his ideas, I think most people will find that he's not an evil anarcho-capitalist as so many paint him to be.
I just re-read the article I posted above. Check that out. It gives a pretty concise plan of what his first term as president would look like-- and I don't think people will be all that afraid of him being a "radical" based on what he has written there.
I just re-read my post. It reminds me of Michael Bolton from Office Space, in reference to Michael Bolton the singer...
Samir: "Why don't you just go by Mike?"
Michael Bolton: "Why should I change my name? He's the one who sucks!"
I don't know their histories, but if they had central banks, and government issued fiat currencies, they sure weren't Free Market or "Austrian Free Market" as Dr. Paul endorses.
He has gotten a lot more facetime on TV as of late because the man predicted the financial crisis. They laughed in his and Peter Schiff's face a few years ago, and now are turning to them for their advice and opinions.
If you're suggesting that we have free market capitalism, you are way off. The free market doesn't have gov't bailiouts. It doesn't have the gov't pick which banks and companies are "too big to fail"We have a crony corporatist capitalism.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
tell that to the 10.5 million households in the USA that are millionaries.
projected to be 20 million in 2020.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/bus ... 75023.html
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."