What's with the Ron Paul bandwagon?

Ledbetterus

Relax on the attacks people, lol. I just wanted some clarification on here. Thanks for the replies. One thing that bothers me with RP is it seems he has zero chance of winning. At least according to most people who don't pay attention to his "internet phenomenon".

The Democrats have a solid set of bull shitters this year as well. It will be interesting to see how it all develops, and especially who the winners choose as their running mates.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Well, the welfare statists actualy consider a child to be property of his or her parent for most purposes.

Therefore, the parents are paying the tax.

So since I don't have kids, then I shouldn't have to pay for public education? That's where this argument is going isn't it? If it's unfair for someone who doesn't "pay into the system" to take from it, then obviously it's unfair to force someone to pay into a system where they DON'T take from it.

I just think that whole line of thinking is silly...I think it does benefit me when the kid next door to me gets an education...or when his mom is able to get help from the government to feed him when she's out of work...or when he's able to get medical attention when he's sick.

DriftingByTheStorm

Ledbetterus wrote:

Relax on the attacks people, lol. I just wanted some clarification on here. Thanks for the replies. One thing that bothers me with RP is it seems he has zero chance of winning. At least according to most people who don't pay attention to his "internet phenomenon".

The Democrats have a solid set of bull shitters this year as well. It will be interesting to see how it all develops, and especially who the winners choose as their running mates.

Why do you say he has a zero chance of winning.

Remember that the polls showing him at 10% (yes, it is 10+ percent these days!) are polls based on likely Republican primary voters -- numbers taken from polls of 2004 republican primary voters ... a year where Bush ran UNOPPOSED, so voting for him in the primaries was a 100% symbolic gesture done ONLY by those hardcore chickenhawks that still wanted more war and right winged shenanigans after the first Bush go-round ... it was the LOWEST TURNOUT EVER for a republican primary ... like 6% turnout.

So you want the popularity polls based on the 6% who turned out to re-nominate bush in his uncontested 2nd term primary to indicate to you that Ron Paul is unelectable!?!

The Ron Paul movement is HUGE.
Even the media is admitting that currently.
Go watch the Tucker Carlson Ron Paul blimp piece, or the ABC roundtable discussion where they talk about him, or any of the last few Wolf Blitzer pieces ... the guy has a SERIOUS following.

What other PRIMARY candidate has such a motivated group that is GUARANTEED to go out and vote for them?

I tell you this much: that candidate is NOT a repubican.

DriftingByTheStorm

Saturnal wrote:

...I think it does benefit me when the kid next door to me gets an education...or when his mom is able to get help from the government to feed him when she's out of work...or when he's able to get medical attention when he's sick.

The benefit achieved and the means of achieving this benefit have become irrationaly confused in your mind.

On healthcare

Free Market Education

Answer this question:
If by cutting federal government involvement in education and subsidized public schooling, EVERY family received a guaranteed tax deduction large enough to cover their childs education, would you support the abandonment of that system?

Could we do that and offer vouchers to those that truly couldnt handle it, then maybe phase out those vouchers?

Is it really too "cruel" to assume that people could and should be willing to pay $50 a month or so for the education of their child? They are paying anyway, they just don't have to manage it themselves, uncle sam takes care of it.

If someone can't be bothered to budget X dollars a month for the education of their child, do they really have any business having children? Do we really want to encourage that lack of resolve in our country through the unqualified subsidy of their childs education?

Ledbetterus

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Why do you say he has a zero chance of winning.

Remember that the polls showing him at 10% (yes, it is 10+ percent these days!) are polls based on likely Republican primary voters -- numbers taken from polls of 2004 republican primary voters ... a year where Bush ran UNOPPOSED, so voting for him in the primaries was a 100% symbolic gesture done ONLY by those hardcore chickenhawks that still wanted more war and right winged shenanigans after the first Bush go-round ... it was the LOWEST TURNOUT EVER for a republican primary ... like 6% turnout.

So you want the popularity polls based on the 6% who turned out to re-nominate bush in his uncontested 2nd term primary to indicate to you that Ron Paul is unelectable!?!

The Ron Paul movement is HUGE.
Even the media is admitting that currently.
Go watch the Tucker Carlson Ron Paul blimp piece, or the ABC roundtable discussion where they talk about him, or any of the last few Wolf Blitzer pieces ... the guy has a SERIOUS following.

What other PRIMARY candidate has such a motivated group that is GUARANTEED to go out and vote for them?

I tell you this much: that candidate is NOT a repubican.

I'm glad you put it that way. As I stated, I've been in the dark on most of the candidates until a few weeks ago. I would like to see Ron Paul win the nomination. At least that would assure us of something better than the passed 8 years. Democrat or Republican president

fragileblake

I don't know whats up with the Ru Paul bandwagon. He's a good cross-dresser, but president? I dunno, I guess we'll see.

dontloseyourheat

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I've heard some crap before...and this is up right there.

How is this crap? It's not like people are making it up. He is funded and supported by white supremacist groups, no one is making it up.

He might not agree with them but they do support him because his ideas would give organizations like theirs more leeway.

It's not a personal dig at him it's just the way it is.

DriftingByTheStorm

dontloseyourheat wrote:

How is this crap? It's not like people are making it up. He is funded and supported by white supremacist groups, no one is making it up.

He might not agree with them but they do support him because his ideas would give organizations like theirs more leeway.

It's not a personal dig at him it's just the way it is.

His funding is over 10.5 MILLION for the QUARTER (probably going to be 15-20 MILLION by quarter end thanks to 12\16)!

The white supremeiCIST ... SINGULAR, ONE OF THEM ... one prominent white supremecist ... contribute a whopping FIVE HUNDRED dollars.

500\1,000,000.000 = Who Gives A Fuck

???

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Indian Summer wrote:

So any democrat will do for next year then.

None have come forth with any plan that makes sense other than lip service.

No substance....no character. Same old...same old...

fool you three times.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

dontloseyourheat wrote:

How is this crap? It's not like people are making it up. He is funded and supported by white supremacist groups, no one is making it up.

He might not agree with them but they do support him because his ideas would give organizations like theirs more leeway.

It's not a personal dig at him it's just the way it is.

This is where you're wrong, it is exactly a personal dig. It's nonsense.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

The benefit achieved and the means of achieving this benefit have become irrationaly confused in your mind.

On healthcare

Free Market Education

Answer this question:
If by cutting federal government involvement in education and subsidized public schooling, EVERY family received a guaranteed tax deduction large enough to cover their childs education, would you support the abandonment of that system?

Could we do that and offer vouchers to those that truly couldnt handle it, then maybe phase out those vouchers?

Is it really too "cruel" to assume that people could and should be willing to pay $50 a month or so for the education of their child? They are paying anyway, they just don't have to manage it themselves, uncle sam takes care of it.

If someone can't be bothered to budget X dollars a month for the education of their child, do they really have any business having children? Do we really want to encourage that lack of resolve in our country through the unqualified subsidy of their childs education?

This is all besides the point of saying that "people who don't pay into the system should never benefit from it" is ridiculous. Again, this implies that I have no interest in the kid living next door to me getting an education...and if the kid's parents die in a car crash, then that's just too bad, and he'll have to figure out how to manage his own education/welfare bills. It also implies that if his parents are idiots and don't put aside any money for his education bill every month and don't pick up any vouchers, then that's only the kid's problem and not mine. I think it is partly my problem, and I have a stake in the kid's education and general well-being. If I lived in my own little protective bubble, then maybe I wouldn't care. But that's not how the real world is.

prism

Saturnal wrote:

This is all besides the point of saying that "people who don't pay into the system should never benefit from it" is ridiculous. Again, this implies that I have no interest in the kid living next door to me getting an education...and if the kid's parents die in a car crash, then that's just too bad, and he'll have to figure out how to manage his own education/welfare bills. It also implies that if his parents are idiots and don't put aside any money for his education bill every month and don't pick up any vouchers, then that's only the kid's problem and not mine. I think it is partly my problem, and I have a stake in the kid's education and general well-being. If I lived in my own little protective bubble, then maybe I wouldn't care. But that's not how the real world is.

Exactly. thank you

doesn't it occur to anyone that thinks that they shouldn't have to pay taxes towards public education that depending on the State and the school district the per child cost per year are anywhere from 6,000 to 12,000 per year? and for special needs kids the cost are even higher? I mean sure there's alot of problems that need addressing; like the need to cut administrators salaries and increase teacher salaries, but that's not even the point. so where they get this idea that all parents can fork over the needed funds for each child's education is pure fantasy. as for the parents that want and can afford a private education for their kid, well they're already do.

I think alot of RP supporters have a very myopic view that if He's elected it'll mean "less taxes for Me! I don't have to care about anyone else, and the far-reaching effects of his policies on the rest of soceity. it's all about what's in it for ME!"

RolandTD20Kdrummer

prism wrote:

Exactly. thank you

doesn't it occur to anyone that thinks that they shouldn't have to pay taxes towards public education that depending on the State and the school district the per child cost per year are anywhere from 6,000 to 12,000 per year? and for special needs kids the cost are even higher? I mean sure there's alot of problems that need addressing; like the need to cut administrators salaries and increase teacher salaries, but that's not even the point. so where they get this idea that all parents can fork over the needed funds for each child's education is pure fantasy. as for the parents that want and can afford a private education for their kid, well they're already do.

I think alot of RP supporters have a very myopic view that if He's elected it'll mean "less taxes for Me! I don't have to care about anyone else, and the far-reaching effects of his policies on the rest of soceity. it's all about what's in it for ME!"

First things first...get rid of the Fed. Vote for the guy that has that brilliant idea, and the nerve to back it up. Ron Paul is not some vicious miser that is out to wreck peoples lives, it's all going to be ok.

DriftingByTheStorm

prism wrote:

Exactly. thank you

doesn't it occur to anyone that thinks that they shouldn't have to pay taxes towards public education that depending on the State and the school district the per child cost per year are anywhere from 6,000 to 12,000 per year? and for special needs kids the cost are even higher? I mean sure there's alot of problems that need addressing; like the need to cut administrators salaries and increase teacher salaries, but that's not even the point. so where they get this idea that all parents can fork over the needed funds for each child's education is pure fantasy. as for the parents that want and can afford a private education for their kid, well they're already do.

I think alot of RP supporters have a very myopic view that if He's elected it'll mean "less taxes for Me! I don't have to care about anyone else, and the far-reaching effects of his policies on the rest of soceity. it's all about what's in it for ME!"

What i'm getting from all this is, it sounds like you believe that MOST people who have children actualy can NOT afford to pay for their education.

That must mean you also belive that there are a very few in this country who can and SHOULD be forced to pay for the education of the masses.
(which, by the way, is a complete fallacy. the people really paying are those not born yet. and all of us in terms of dollar devaluation)

On the flip side, when asked if a family should be expected to understand the TRUE cost of raising a child and budget for that expense, you say "NO" and "Let those who CAN afford it pay for other peoples education, because it fundamentaly benefits them".

Taking that logic, we should pay for every junkie on the street to get clean, every homeless person in america to get a house, every poor person in our town to have a meal for the evening, and every old person to get their medical care?

Sure, there are plenty of things that "benefit" me ... but there is no fucking free lunch, and when people think there is, they are provided no motivation to go out and find a lunch that is within their budget.

Don't you people understand that fundamental fallacy in logic?

Sure it is a problem today, but we should be looking for REAL solutions that phase out the problem, NOT ENCOURAGE IT.

Continuing to subisidize childhood education only ENCOURAGES people to have babies WITHOUT accounting for that childs very real expenses.

Also, you should know that most of that education is not paid for with current taxes, it's paid for in bonds and long term notes ...

that IS a "tax", just not on you an me ... it's a tax on those same children you just said you were helping ... but instead you are birthing them in to a world of future debt ...

and the way you folks want it you want an ever increasing number of those children (since no one has any reason to NOT have them) and you want them to be buried not only in the future tax debt of their own education ... but that of millions of other "unfortunate" childrens ALONG with the huge debt of the social security needs of their parents and grandparents (who just shlepped the cost on to them, thinking it was their civic duty to pay for it) and the cost of their neighbors welfare, etc etc etc.

It's not me being cruel.
Its you who do not understand that their IS NO FREE LUNCH, and that by not DISCOURAGING such thought, you are inherently ENCOURAGING it, and such 'logic' fundamentaly perverts the market, the system, and society in general.

When people do not feel personaly restrained in their lifestyle choices by the real need to budget for themselves and their family, watch out! The end result will be poverty for EVERYONE.

Why?
Because if THEY aren't paying for it, we ALL are paying for it ... and while it sounds good on paper ... you are basicaly saying MOST people can't afford it, so we should distribute that burden on to everyone ... but guess what ... you just said it, MOST people CAN NOT afford it.

So, at the end of the day, what can't be afforded CAN NOT be afforded. It has to stop.

And i take exception to you saying something like "administrative costs have to come down but that is not the point" ... um, that IS the point. Government services are always INFLATED. Go ask Rudy Giuliani why New York was going bankrupt when he took office. It was because the city was handing out welfare and free lunches all over town, and the subidized wages of city employees was often 25-75% HIGHER than market wages! Guess who paid for that mistake? EVERYONE!


[edit: BTW, Roland is right. If you got rid of the Fed, the pyramid scheme imbalance of the 1% having 35% of the wealth, with 90% having less than the 1% would begin to reverse, and rapidly. That would put more people in a position to afford the education you claim they cant be burdened with. You just aren't looking at all the pieces of the puzzle. It is YOU who are being myopic.]

prism

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

First things first...get rid of the Fed. Vote for the guy that has that brilliant idea, and the nerve to back it up. Ron Paul is not some vicious miser that is out to wreck peoples lives, it's all going to be ok.

except for when you look at what he says it's all "taxes are bad, this, that and the other is bad." but he offers no viable solutions. his "let the free market have at it" is only a solution for those with alot of money


besides Mr. Canadian, it's like YOU can actually vote for him or would have to contend (on a large scale anyway) with his warped policies.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

prism wrote:

except for when you look at what he says it's all "taxes are bad, this, that and the other is bad." but he offers no viable solutions. his "let the free market have at it" is only a solution for those with alot of money


besides Mr. Canadian, it's like YOU can actually vote for him or would have to contend (on a large scale anyway) with his warped policies.

There's no income tax in Dubai. The place is BOOMING. Every citizen gets a free house as well.

Continuing on like it is now is what's warped. That much is strikingly obvious.

baraka

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

First things first...get rid of the Fed. Vote for the guy that has that brilliant idea, and the nerve to back it up. Ron Paul is not some vicious miser that is out to wreck peoples lives, it's all going to be ok.

But Roland, it still begs the question..........what about things like public education? And it is not just education..........Ron Paul's libertarian beliefs do not allow for a federal role in anything but, defense and protection of private property (and privatization on his ridiculous scale is another thing!). According to him, all the rest should be privatized. That means education, public roads, parks, libraries, policemen, firemen and on and on. Those that can afford such things will be ok, but what about the poor........well who cares about them. There is something about the federal gov't for all of us to hate on. I could rant for hours, but the gov't is NOT the only one at fault here and it is silly to use them for the scape goat for everything. I could also list the many good things gov't has done that many take for granted. Do you know what the #1 best public health move is in history, imo? Sewers! There is so much that we take for granted. At least with the gov't the people have some kind of say via votes, unlike corporations.

Ron Paul holds a few ideas that I very much agree with such as his stance on foreign affairs.........but the rest of it, no thanks.

DriftingByTheStorm

prism wrote:

except for when you look at what he says it's all "taxes are bad, this, that and the other is bad." but he offers no viable solutions. his "let the free market have at it" is only a solution for those with alot of money


besides Mr. Canadian, it's like YOU can actually vote for him or would have to contend (on a large scale anyway) with his warped policies.

You must not get it.
If people aren't paying those taxes, shouldn't they have enough money after WORKING to get the things they need?

If you think they don't make enough currently to even pay taxes, think about this: Most businesses are so burdened by the taxcode, and compliance, that they can not afford to pay you what they should be. If that burden were removed not only from you, but also from your employer, the available wealth for distribution to YOU would be much greater. And we haven't even touched on the abolition of the Fed yet.

So what is your problem still?

Sounds like you just don't want to hold people accountable for financing their own damn lives. How is that a moraly superior position? You feel that life is too hard for the masses to take on the responsibility of it themselves? Most everyone needs a hand out? Is that it?

jeffbr

baraka wrote:

But Roland, it still begs the question..........what about things like public education? And it is not just education..........Ron Paul's libertarian beliefs do not allow for a federal role in anything but, defense and protection of private property (and privatization on his ridiculous scale is another thing!).

Sounds like the Constitution.

DriftingByTheStorm

baraka wrote:

but what about the poor........well who cares about them.

You still haven't come to the ultimate realization, which is this:

The very system you defend tooth and nail because you naively believe it is somhow supporting and looking after the unfortunate in our society .... that system is the VERY THING WHICH HAS RELEGATED THEM TO SUCH MISFORTUNE.

Once you come to that realization you will understand that increasing the mess that is government regulation, involvement, ownership, and management of all things which could be MORE CHEAPLY done for profit only MAKES THINGS WORSE for the poor. It means EVERYONE has less money, and guess what? When EVERYONE has less money, the poor have EVEN LESS!

Didn't you have any friends in highschool that discussed things like this?
I remember very clearly the day someone explained to me that the poor were only poor because the government wanted them that way, and that welfare and handouts were just appeasements ment to keep them content with being poor. I suppose you think that is false conspiracy?