MT Consensus: Ron Paul

inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
edited January 2012 in A Moving Train
I'm very happy to be reading both liberal and conservatives coming together to support...

... Ron Paul. Is this the first time there's been an overall consensus on the MT?
Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <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&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1345678

Comments

  • LikeAnOceanLikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    He is the only real candidate. People can argue all they want about the other puppets running and which ones idealogies fit closer to their own.


    There are bigger issues our country is facing than abortion, tax rates, etc.. Our current government is bought and destroying the future of this country.
  • The bigger question is whether Paul will even get a chance given the media's attempts to silence him completely. I suspect it's going to be Romney vs Obama which means nothing will change.
  • I wouldn't give a damn about the election in US if it was n't for Ron Paul. HE made me intersted in politic in US..
    ~ Enjoy The Struggle
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    Don't know about consensus, but i am sure glad to see people supporting him as well.

    Who else are you going to support

    Mit Perry?
    Rick Romney?
    Michelle gingrich?
    Newt Santorum?


    It is a true example of why Americans on the right are full of sound and fury that signifies nothing. All the talk about small government and limited government and free markets...and the only candidate that would actually attempt to accomplish those things is Ron Paul and he still only polls at 13%... It should be closer to 50% and yet here we are, a few weeks out from Iowa and New Hampshire picking the candidates the rest of us get to vote for and they are supporting Romney and Newt...jesus christ it upsets me.

    There has certainly been a change in tune on him here because I think people finally see through the debates and other things that he really is reasonable and his Foreign policy is that of non-interventionism...I would love to see debates with Obama and Paul...not because Paul would run away with them or anything, but I think it would be the first time there would be Major differences in candidates in a long time.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    i would say there is a reasonable consensus on ron paul

    depending on what the subject is, there have been other topics of consensus and it also depends on which members you are talking to - you will actually get more agreement than disagreement ...
  • 7RayZ7RayZ Posts: 488
    :x
    What does Ren Hoek say, "Stooooooooopid."

    Just bend over. All of you. Please do it now. Get it over with.
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    Don't know about consensus, but i am sure glad to see people supporting him as well.

    Who else are you going to support

    Mit Perry?
    Rick Romney?
    Michelle gingrich?
    Newt Santorum?


    How about Barry O? A lot of people seem to support him too. But, my point was... it seems to me... some here have decided he's not that great and turned to Dr. Paul as an alternative.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <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&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    The bigger question is whether Paul will even get a chance given the media's attempts to silence him completely. I suspect it's going to be Romney vs Obama which means nothing will change.

    The one plus of the media's silence is the fact that he really hasn't been attacked by the other candidates. Right now the media seems to be going after Romney and Newt hard. This may benefit Paul.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <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&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    im not voting for ron paul. i completely disagree with his domestic policies. if paul got the nomination i would vote for obama and hope to god there was a progressive majority in the senate and the house.
    "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."
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    He's my Vote
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    inlet13 wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    Don't know about consensus, but i am sure glad to see people supporting him as well.

    Who else are you going to support

    Mit Perry?
    Rick Romney?
    Michelle gingrich?
    Newt Santorum?


    How about Barry O? A lot of people seem to support him too. But, my point was... it seems to me... some here have decided he's not that great and turned to Dr. Paul as an alternative.

    That I hadn't thought about. I was thinking you were referring to the GOP primaries.


    and I would rather call him
    Barack Gingrich
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    im not voting for ron paul. i completely disagree with his domestic policies. if paul got the nomination i would vote for obama and hope to god there was a progressive majority in the senate and the house.

    dude ... obama has shown that he has no interest in taking on the system ... i am not sure if ron paul will (which is what i keep asking his supporters) but obama had his shot ... and he sold out ...
  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    Ron Paul is not up to the task anymore... imo

    that job beats the most physically and mentally able,
    look at how the Presidents age in a matter of a few years

    might be the truth they find out once in and then the lies they live
    thereafter... I don't know

    lots of stress for sure, what do they say ...
    the most stressful things are those we have no control over.
    The job seems shattering, none have been the men they were.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,156
    im not voting for ron paul. i completely disagree with his domestic policies. if paul got the nomination i would vote for obama and hope to god there was a progressive majority in the senate and the house.
    What about this option?

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQWI0XcCRbhgYb6YtDDr5luS-lsruSjg54irNs1bLjIQYl3cine
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    polaris_x wrote:
    im not voting for ron paul. i completely disagree with his domestic policies. if paul got the nomination i would vote for obama and hope to god there was a progressive majority in the senate and the house.

    dude ... obama has shown that he has no interest in taking on the system ... i am not sure if ron paul will (which is what i keep asking his supporters) but obama had his shot ... and he sold out ...

    I think Ron Paul had an interest in taking on the system, but that's a sure fire way of the powers that be to eliminate him, including the media (which downplays him and gives him little air time). The same happened to Kucinich; he took on the system and the system then ridiculed him and gave him little air time so as the public knew nothing about him unless the lazy public actually educated themselves without the media's help.
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    pandora wrote:
    Ron Paul is not up to the task anymore... imo

    that job beats the most physically and mentally able,
    look at how the Presidents age in a matter of a few years

    might be the truth they find out once in and then the lies they live
    thereafter... I don't know

    lots of stress for sure, what do they say ...
    the most stressful things are those we have no control over.
    The job seems shattering, none have been the men they were.

    Dick Cheney lived for 8 years in the white house with quite possibly the worst ticker on the planet. The whole age thing is a misnomer, particularly if Paul only served 4 years then bowed out. For example, Reagan was 2 years younger than Paul when he was re-elected.

    I understand that age is an issue. But, to base your vote strictly on age is silly IMHO. Platforms are much more important than looks/age/etc.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <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&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • bigdvsbigdvs Posts: 235
    paul is 76, reagan took office for first term at 70
    "The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
    — Socrates

  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    bigdvs wrote:
    paul is 76, reagan took office for first term at 70

    Correct. As I said, Reagan was 74 when he was re-elected.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <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&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    Wow. 76!

    I guess his running mate would be crucial. Although he looks pretty good for 76!
  • RW81233RW81233 Posts: 2,393
    I can see why he appeals to many people on this board (read: middle-upper class white people, who truly believe they have earned everything they've gotten), and for good reason since many of you own or run businesses based on the fact that you did work hard at some level. Further I think he's appealing because he wants to bring troops home, etc. However, I am definitely not voting for a (borderline) racist (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/09/07 ... nd-racist/), or someone whose domestic economic policies are so retrograde that it would only exacerbate class inequality in our country.
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    RW81233 wrote:
    I can see why he appeals to many people on this board (read: middle-upper class white people, who truly believe they have earned everything they've gotten), and for good reason since many of you own or run businesses based on the fact that you did work hard at some level. Further I think he's appealing because he wants to bring troops home, etc. However, I am definitely not voting for a (borderline) racist (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/09/07 ... nd-racist/), or someone whose domestic economic policies are so retrograde that it would only exacerbate class inequality in our country.


    Well, that's dissappointing.
  • UpSideDownUpSideDown Posts: 1,966
    Ron Paul gets my vote
  • WildsWilds Posts: 4,329
    I've been independent since I first voted for Clinton in his first term. I've voted Democrat each year, mostly because they seemed like the less evil side of the same coin.

    Warmongering is our countries policy and has been since we had our opportunity to rule the world after WWII.

    We occupy every country we 'help' and will never leave.

    I'm anti war. This is the best reason to vote for Ron Paul. He is anti war. His domestic policy seems extreme, but he will not be able to do too much domestically, but I think overall he will be good for this country.

    He will take a stab at running government without the bloated part. Allow smaller governance to take over where the Federal government has no business.

    He is the only candidate who has any principle at all and doesn't cater to get a vote. He believes in what he says and votes accordingly.

    Is he perfect. No. Is the the best man for the job. Absolutely.

    I'm currently registered Republican. Never thought I would see the day that happened.

    I plan on voting Paul in the primary and hopefully again in the Presidential election.
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    Wilds wrote:

    He is the only candidate who has any principle at all and doesn't cater to get a vote. He believes in what he says and votes accordingly.

    Is he perfect. No. Is the the best man for the job. Absolutely.

    This.
    Wilds wrote:
    I'm currently registered Republican. Never thought I would see the day that happened.

    And this is exactly what this thread's about...
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <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&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • satansbedsatansbed Posts: 2,139
    Wilds wrote:
    I've been independent since I first voted for Clinton in his first term. I've voted Democrat each year, mostly because they seemed like the less evil side of the same coin.

    Warmongering is our countries policy and has been since we had our opportunity to rule the world after WWII.

    We occupy every country we 'help' and will never leave.

    I'm anti war. This is the best reason to vote for Ron Paul. He is anti war. His domestic policy seems extreme, but he will not be able to do too much domestically, but I think overall he will be good for this country.

    He will take a stab at running government without the bloated part. Allow smaller governance to take over where the Federal government has no business.

    He is the only candidate who has any principle at all and doesn't cater to get a vote. He believes in what he says and votes accordingly.

    Is he perfect. No. Is the the best man for the job. Absolutely.

    I'm currently registered Republican. Never thought I would see the day that happened.

    I plan on voting Paul in the primary and hopefully again in the Presidential election.

    america isn't occuyping lybia
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    RW81233 wrote:
    I can see why he appeals to many people on this board (read: middle-upper class white people, who truly believe they have earned everything they've gotten), and for good reason since many of you own or run businesses based on the fact that you did work hard at some level. Further I think he's appealing because he wants to bring troops home, etc. However, I am definitely not voting for a (borderline) racist (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/09/07 ... nd-racist/), or someone whose domestic economic policies are so retrograde that it would only exacerbate class inequality in our country.


    Well, that's dissappointing.

    The comment about the washington DC justice system was taken so far out of context the entire "list" proving he is a racist is rendered useless. If you cannot recognize that as a statement on the inequity of incarcerated individuals in the nations capital I don't know what to tell you. I wonder why it stops where it does. It is an attempt to smear. That is all.

    Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

    The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

    More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty."

    wonder who wrote that...but I guess we are only supposed to believe the bad stuff that is written when taken out of context 20 years later...
    i could go through the comments and refute each and everyone as a racist comment, but I will let everyone decide for themselves what the man's feelings are...
    how many people on here consider Joe Biden a racist? or Harry Reid? you can find this crap on them too...bullshit
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    Wilds wrote:
    Is he perfect. No. Is the the best man for the job. Absolutely.


    this sums it up nicely
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • satansbedsatansbed Posts: 2,139
    foreign aid: why ron paul is wrong

    ANOTHER line on foreign aid that I keep seeing on the internets lately is Ron Paul's quip: "Foreign aid is taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries." The second half of this quip identifies a real problem: too much foreign aid money gets cornered by local elites in recipient countries. Some of this is illegitimate cronyism or graft. Some is legitimate: foreign aid programmes have to be administered by well-educated locals, who generally come from well-off backgrounds and command relatively high salaries, all the higher as the foreign-aid programmes increase demand for their services. That's a tough nut to crack. Anyway, this is a real problem that merits attention.

    to continue reading

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... eign-aid-0
  • satansbedsatansbed Posts: 2,139
    and can someone please explain what returning to the gold standard would actually solve?
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    satansbed wrote:
    and can someone please explain what returning to the gold standard would actually solve?

    It could help lessen the volatility the boom and bust cycle we know all to well. Put simply, he believes it would help to limit excessive inflation. A commodity standard would bind the currency to the value of the "scarce" commodity rather than fiat, making the currency as stable as the commodity itself.

    Basically, Ron Paul sees the role of the FED as a giant price regulator, and like all regulation believes there's a loss associated. He believes when the FED prints money out of thin air (for any reason) it distorts the dollar value and there's deadweight loss associated with that "regulation" (if you want to call it that). This is where the booms and busts enter because as more or less dollars enter into the overall market our dollar value fluctuates widely around what should be equilibrium due to all these excessive alterations by the FED and lack of clarity of value with the fiat currency itself.

    The booms will seem awesome when they happen, but this process sucks when the bust occurs.

    I know from previous conversations with you that you are pro-Keynesian, or at least have appeared to be. Fair enough. Ron Paul, however, is the complete and total opposite. He's anti-Keynesian. He thinks the FED fucks up more than they help. Personally, I agree with him.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <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&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Sign In or Register to comment.