Watch and dispute, if you can dispute it.
unsung
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
unsung
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
Comments
Abrn Hlls '98 - Clarkston 2 '03 - Grd Rpds '06 - Abrn Hlls '06 - Clvd '10 - PJ20 - Berlin 1+2 '12 - Wrigley '13 - Pitt '13- buff '13- Philly 1+2 '13 - Seattle '13
so i won't be voting for him.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
Be it the Cato Institutue or The Heritage Foundation, it's the same people paying for the research to tell them what they want to hear.
Because they want to privatize Social Security (which is totally solvent and has an surplus of over 3 Trillion dollars) and make money by gambling with your retirement fund.
Ron Paul is just another shill parroting out this lie in an effort to make the Billionaires Boys club richer.
So yes... since his whole argument is based on information bought and paid for by special interests (that are NOT in my own interest at all), I dispute every word that comes out of his mouth.
The country is moving his way? Sounds a bit arrogant and delusional.
He has also stated on numerous occasions that the United States should not be a theocracy. I think the heart of that quote was intended to mean that it should not be strictly forbidden for lawmakers to use their judgement if that judgement is rooted in religious beliefs in some way. What they cannot do is force their actual religion on people through law-- I can guarantee you that he is against that notion 100%. Here's an example:
Ron Paul often cites St. Augustine when talking about war, because he is a subscriber to the Christian theory of "Just War." This certainly rules out preventative wars of aggression, wars for resources, and any other reasons for war other than self-defense after being attacked. Had politicians actually followed these ideas, be they from a "saint" or not, our country would not have been involved in a fraction of the conflicts that it has been involved in since its creation. If he had arrived at these ideas through studies of his own faith, and they force no harm on anyone else, and deprive no one else of any life, liberty, or property, he is certainly entitled to use it in his decision making.
As for other government hostility towards religion, it should be noted that Ron Paul was one of the few who supported the idea of a Mosque "at" Ground Zero, as he is a believer in the first amendment right to religious freedom and a firm believer in property rights. Some people are trying to put a stop to this Mosque any way they can including using lawsuits and legislation to prevent it from happening.
But seriously, if you're going to lose ALL respect for a politician, why not do it based on how the person has voted, or how they have acted, instead of some fairly ambiguous statement, in which its worst possible iterpretation is nothing more than, "America was founded as a Christian nation, by mostly Christians, and therefore is based on certain Christian ideas." This doesn't even imply that this Christian background for America is exactly how it should be for all years to come-- it just makes historical reference to a fact that maybe some people simply do not like or like to believe, and that government should tread lightly or not at all when dealing with people's religious beliefs. The very last word in that quote is "religion," not "my religion," and not "Christianity." If it were "Christianity" he would sound much like a person interested in forcing that particular religion down your throat. But he isn't. Read his writings at length and you will find that this guy does not want to run your life, tell you how to live, or what to believe.
Maybe the federal government's hostility towards RELIGION may include TSA agents profiling and giving extra search and seisure to people who appear to be Muslim at the airports? Maybe the hostility he speaks of refers to how many people of the Islamic faith needlessly die every year thanks to US intervention in their homeland, or maybe he refers to the hundreds that are taken to legalized torture chambers like Guantanamo Bay without any due process?
Maybe it's the (R) next to his name, but for all of the great ideas that this man has, I can't get over the number of people who don't want to support him because of ONE THING he said somewhere, sometime, that was probably taken out of context or misunderstood.
Even if he's wrong about HALF of what he talks about, aren't people just sick of war at this point and ready to elect someone who HAS to be held accountable for bringing an end to it, simply for how much he speaks out against it? Hasn't anyone heard him say that he wasn't going to take away every entitlement ever, and that although he doesn't prefer the welfare state at all, if he had to compromise, the welfare would not see the cuts that war spending and big business subsidies would see? Do they realize that he understand that Presidents act unilaterally all the time in making big decisions without Congress that Dr. Paul couldn't wipe out half of the Federal Government, even if he really wanted to, without legal processes from the other branches of government? Or do people really just want more of the status quo? Seriously, none of the other people running are even trying to hide it anymore that they're really not any different than anyone who has ever held the office. Status quo at face value.
If this country wants a real revolution towards PEACE, conservatives have to wake the fuck up and listen to this guy, and get behind him, instead of their 10 other poor choices (excluding Gary Johnson). Liberals and Democrats should at least temporarily switch parties to register Republican and give this guy one huge push in the primaries and polls. If he were to win the Republican nomination, and former/current Democrats feel obligated to still vote for Obama, then by all means, do it knowing that the best thing for Obama would be competition like Paul to keep him honest.
If nothing else, this guy's voting record is the most consistent out of anyone in history, and I'll say without batting an eye that he among the few true statesmen left. He deserves a lot more than to be judged on a few statements here and there. Those who do not like his views, usually at least RESPECT him.
If Ron Paul said that privatizing social security meant allowing a person to opt out of the system, or to have that money to put towards their own retirement in whatever manner they want, how is he a shill for the "billionaires boys club"? If I can take my own retirement money and blow it on a car, use it for an investment property, throw it under my mattress, buy some gold with it, give it to my mother to manage, put it in a CD, etc... how does this benefit the Koch Brothers? Sadly, you are mistaking his stance on this issue for George W.'s, whose definition of privatizing social security did mean EXCLUSIVELY investing it in the stock market. Paul's stance is that it's your money, your future, you decide what to do with it. What in this video made you think anything else? If anything, is it not noble that he introduced legislation preventing other areas of government from taking from our social security accounts since they've been moved to the general fund? This money gets looted all the time, so I have little to no faith that all the money is there for all the people that have paid into it. Printing the money to replace that gets spent in other areas only devaules the money that is left in social security, which is a horrible solution for keeping it "solvent."
It seems the US Debt Clock site sees your +3 trillion actually at -15 trillion, unless I am reading it wrong.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
That he's basing his whole argument on information that isn't correct?
Ok... and who created that website you just linked to? How accurate is it?
If you're looking for the socially liberal, fiscal conservative candidate, look no further than Gary Johnson.
"like Ron Paul, but with less Jesus"
you need Jesus.
Godfather.
Who says that God has to be a giant man in the clouds and not simply something greater, like the universe itself? Like Eddie says in Push Me, Pull Me, "The oceans made me, but who came up with love?" Maybe the oceans made us AND came up with love? I can understand how people do not believe in Jesus, but was his actually philosophy bad at all? I don't think so. The problem with most "Christians" is that they put too much emphasis on the laws that were born out of "the church" and not nearly enough of Jesus' actual teachings.
I see Paul to be more of a follower of those teachings-- but if belief in something that "crazy" isn't for you, you've definitely got Gary Johnson right. He is great as well. If he were the frontrunner between the two truly libertarian-minded candidates, I might be supporting him more than Ron-- their ideas are pretty close to one another. I wouldn't be surprised if Paul got the nomination that he would strongly consider Johnson as a running mate.
Ron Paul is very Christian... not open-minded about the concept of God at all from what I know. And I've also understood him to mean that politicians should make decisions based on their religious beliefs... which compromises ideal pragmatic/objective decision making. I'm open-minded too about "god" and actually like your interpretation (god IS the universe, is part of everything and everyone)
The last thing this country needs right now is an overzealous Christian to fan the flames of fundamental religiosos throughout the world, especially Al-Qaeda.
uh, the obama administration said it, don't think they called up a billionaire boys club to talk it over first.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/us/po ... ealth.html
at best after 2037 i believe they say they are able to cover about 75% of benefits...oh that is great....I would love to not get full benefits for a system I am FORCED to put money into.
seriously, you can bury your head in the sand but it is happening...not even mentioning the IOUs that are already considered part of the SURPLUS...so it is money the government still has to pay itself because it borrowed from the fund
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/09/133627103 ... ping-point
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
So you take issue with him saying that social security is broke? Our country is trillions in debt, I do not see why this is so hard to believe. Also, the insolvency of social security is only a small part of his argument against it, not his whole argument at all. His primary argument against it is that people should have more choices in planning their retirement simply because it is their money, and they should decide the best way to invest it. The same philosophy of liberty says the government shouldn't tell you who you can or cannot marry, what you can or cannot put into your body, etc... It's a very consistent position that apparently scares a lot of people, or some people subsrcibe to it only in part. I do not understand why. But back to social security, he recognizes that if you listen to him closely enough in other interviews he doesn't necessarily talk about abolishing social security all together. It has been ingrained in our society for so long that getting rid of it A) robs people who have paid into it and
I do not know who the author of the site is, but each number on the site refers to where its source is from, and as far as I can tell most of it is from government sources like the Congressional Budget Office, The Fed, etc... If you mouse-over social security, it says the source is The Federal Reserve, who if anything is sugarcoating these numbers.
Kinda... To me, it's a bit Chicken Little to run around shrieking about how it's bankrupt. Do we need to fine-tune it? Yeah... probably. But not with a chainsaw.
See, that all sounds so reasonable.
But is it a workable solution? What happens if you fuck up your investments and are flat broke at 94? Do you just starve to death or do we have to pony up and help you out? Kinda like the people who refuse to buy health insurance and then go to the emergency room so the rest of us can pay for it when they need help?
Well and see.. that's the problem. I need to know who made the website, how accurate their information is and what their agenda is. Sadly, we live in a world where intentionally misleading the people is legal and good for business.
Right, because if people don't think like you or believe in what you believe they are obviously crazy.
that's about the only thing he's ever been right on IMO. But we all have different views.
Cheers.
I do not think it's chicken little. I think it's recognizing some hard, sad truths at play here. Social Security is not all that secure in many ways, money gets taken from it all of the time, and recognizing that the country is trillions in debt means that it very well could be running on fumes. I do believe that speaking against a system that is strictly based on confidence may be detrimental, such as our currency which is backed by nothing, but I believe these things tend to be realized by everyone at some point and that's when collapse is likely. It's better to be truthful early. As far as sources go it's worth it to see if this debt clock actually refers to the government / official sites, absolutely. What is your source for social security being 3 trillion in the black? Is it any more credible than the debt clock?
If I end up flat broke at 94 and not a day earlier, then I played it right!
I've got some more chicken little for you-- having a national currency that is backed by nothing but confidence and is printed at alarming rates has great potential for disaster. The entire dollar system can go broke if our creditors decide to stop buying our debt and the Fed decides to print the money for every spending measure that is needed. Social Security may be "rich" in dollars, but what good is it if those dollars do not buy anything? I see this as a true disservice to the people to not allow them to hedge against this likely scenario, when it's quite clear that every day money is being thrown around haphazardly by the government as well as by banks and major corporations who have institutions like The Fed to ensure that their recklessness is always rewarded and not punished. Over the past 40 years alone, the dollar has lost a tremendous amount of its value, 95% since 1913. Forcing people into any system which attempts to paper itself over knowing these facts is immoral. Why not afford ourselves other options, choices, and finding ways to build a better mousetrap? This should be our goal while recognizing that taking care of others is not only charitable, but pragmatic. No one wants to see anyone fail, but sometimes supporting too much failure will lead to everyone failing.
More than anything, I respond to you because of saying that Dr. Paul is bought and paid for by the Kotch's. I do not believe this to be true, as a true understanding of his policies show that his ideas come from strong philosophical grounds, not special interests. I said this in another thread. If being a true champion of the Free Market (like Paul or Gary Johnson are) was so great for big business, why isn't Ron Paul being showered with donations by major corporations, weapons manufacturers, overseas contractors, etc...? Why aren't these two guys destroying everyone else in fundraising and media exposure, who are also corporately owned? Why does GE own the "liberal" NBC?
Ok, there's something that I think sounds reasonable for both of us.
What do you think the chances of that happening are, though?
The chances might be as good as implementing something such as "Romney Care," when it comes to public health care. Maybe the point isn't discussed enough, but most conservatives would likely compromise with government programs being handled at state levels if more of them could be abolished at the federal level. I know I personally am for as few of those as possible, but I'd rather see what ideas different states come up with rather than some giant conglomerate of a federal government which is most likely to be usurped by the greediest of the greedy.
I think the sheer size and power of the federal government is why people tend to turn to them for solutions. However, bigger is not always better. I think the federal government tends to operate like a bull in a china shop.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
See. Mancrush.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
How again is Social Security sustainable? And Medicare? And the United States economy?
There is no reference to God in the Constitution.
How would you say it? Owned?
Beavers, who would you like to see be the president of this country? It can be anyone, past or present who meets the age and birth requirements for the job, "electability" is no factor to be considered. I'm just curious, as I think a lot of people would like to see someone like Ron Paul in office but doubt his electability, and I think that may be the biggest drawback to his popularity. You clearly dislike him. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. But who is your guy / gal to hold this office if you could put anyone in that position?
You can't ask that kind of question and not expect everyone to want to answer...
Anyone at all past or present? Can we cast our vote for a past president?
That's a good question, but I hope it doesn't set up a "my guy is better than your guy and you're a fool for supporting so-and-so". I don't have a strong sense of loyalty and attachment to any politician, but I think conservatives and Ron Paul supporters assume that people who disagree with them have that loyalty for Obama, etc. I would say that the politician I find myself agreeing with the most is Kucinich. I also like hearing Bernie Sanders talk. I think the ideal person that I want for president is someone I don't know about. There are thousands that would qualify, but don't go near the political arena because of all the phoniness that goes with it. This person has a wide knowledge base, a deep understanding of history, a respect for the development of new technology, core values of compassion, cooperation, empathy, and respect. Work history would include experience digesting data, maintaining integrity when faced with those values being challenged on a regular basis, collaborating with others, and understanding of individual psychology balanced with the sociology of the group.
Other beliefs my ideal candidate would have would be an unflappable belief that at our core, all humans are good people (and when I say all, I mean ALL). In objective terms, I'm looking for someone who matches my anti-military beliefs, makes decisions based on the long-term and not short sighted, knee-jeer reactions, Funding for education and research are high on my list. They would speak of balance in their proposals, and also live it in their life. He/she would have to rise above the B.S. in order to help balance the budget. There's more, but this is what came off the top of my head.