Ron Paul collects social security....

kenny olav wrote:

You guys think New Orleans or any other disaster area would be better off without FEMA? It would've been nice if we hadn't had an idiot President who appointed an idiot to be in charge of it, but suppose the government did nothing... private organizations would rush to the scene and coordinate with each other? Talk to anyone in the areas of Vermont affected by Irene and see if they think FEMA shouldn't have been there to help them. Some states aren't big enough to tackle big disasters. This is the United States... we take on big problems together.


Ron Paul's campaign was successful only as a money-making operation. Donations paid his staff, and he sold more of his books. If he knew he had no shot of winning the nomination, he never let on... he always stated he was in it to win it. But he got nowhere near the delegate count he needed to win and he only got 10.97% of the popular vote. Gingrich, a scumbag of epic proportions, got more votes than him. Rick Perry knew when to quit... his campaign was also a total failure, but at least he saved himself from the shame of losing almost every state. Ron Paul couldn't even win his own district in Texas! All he won was a few caucuses... where only the political nerds show up. His libertarian message will never gain any more support than the small percentage of people who are under his spell... people who need to liberate themselves from it!

How many speeches of Ron Paul's have you listened to? Or do you just get your information about him on the huffington post? You seem satisfied with how the normal two party system has been working. Operating with the same philosophies for 30+ years. Vote for it to continue.

I am not sure why he gets so much venom from people like you. Do you work for FEMA? I don't know if they would have been better off...they would have been better off with better preparation and emergency preparedness at the local level that I can tell you. Money that goes from the people of Louisiana and Mississippi to the federal government could have easily simply gone to the state and local governments. The state and local government would then have the ability to boost, if they so chose, spending on emergency preparedness.

But really, have you read any of his books? You don't have to buy them, they are at the library. He had a few goals at the start of his campaign, one of those was to win the presidency, another was to hopefully get to give an uncensored speech at the convention, another was to get as many people who support his ideals of liberty and small government to a GOP convention and involved in local GOP politics to at least have a conversation about what the real goals of the GOP should be... The campaign's plan of having brokered or open convention fell apart after Santorum and Gingrich exited the race.

Do you honestly believe it is simply a money maker? Why does he reject the pension system he could be a part of that would make him more money in his lifetime than selling a few books? You want him to be the worst of the republicans, you want him to be a loon...but that just isn't true. He is the guy booed for quoting the golden rule at a debate...that is the arm of the GOP he is trying to change...I wonder why someone who probably hates NEO-CON politics as much as I do would hate him so much...

Political nerds? you are calling people who get involved in the system names because they disagree with you? Hmmm...who would I rather have vote, someone who is involved and motivated or someone who calls people political nerds for them getting involved in the process rather than bitching and doing nothing like most Americans? I don't care what side you get involved on, but I would recommend doing so. Because we seem to always come down to two choices as both parties have worked together to convince people that a vote against someone is better than a vote For someone...is that how we should pick our leaders?

There are things I can get behind that come from the left, but the thing that scares me is I never hear anyone on the left talk about how they are going to raise the real value of a dollar...about how they are going to fight inflation...and that is FAR more damaging to you, me, and everyone in the US than having FEMA or not having it...It is a hidden tax, one they can't subsidize, and unfortunately for those who work pay check to pay check, it is all to real a consequence of irresponsible leadership on the national level.

I suppose what Ron Paul's campaign was or wasn't is up to the beholder, but to imply that I am under some sort of spell, that I am some how confused is ridiculous and asinine. I read, I analyzed the best I could, I actually started taking business/economics classes ( I work in public health at the local level) to try to better understand what we can do as a country...I am not under a spell Ken, I have my eyes wide open. I actually voted democrat in every election through 2008. I just have, through life experience, changed my idea of what the federal government should be. I have realized that democrats and republicans are roughly the same. But because you have come to a different conclusions for whatever reason, I wouldn't accuse you of being under a spell. We just vote on different planks. I want a non-interventionist, trade with all government who doesn't support legislation that cuts down your civil rights. What is wrong with that? I don't agree with everything that Paul stands for, but at least he is consistent and I would rather take the good with the bad with someone I know, than be lied again and again by someone I don't.

I am not sure why I waste my time writing these, I should hide little clues in them that lead to a prize just to see if you read the whole thing.

Didn't get any of those numbers on the other campaign managers? or are Paul's the only ones that matter since he has spent about 1/10th of what Obama and Romney have spent...

kenny olav wrote:

show previous quotes

mikepegg44 wrote:

How many speeches of Ron Paul's have you listened to? Or do you just get your information about him on the huffington post? You seem satisfied with how the normal two party system has been working. Operating with the same philosophies for 30+ years. Vote for it to continue.

I can't respond to everything you posted... but here's a little bit of info for you: I've watched MANY of Ron Paul's speeches... I myself am a political nerd. I don't have much respect for the Huffington Post. I read news and opinions from every source you can imagine. I've known about Ron Paul since the Iraq War began, when I saw him speak out against it, and I thought what he had to say then was great... I thought it was fascinating that a Republican from Texas called the Bush administration "machiavellian" on the floor of Congress. I watched all of the Republican debates he was in during both the 2008 and 2012 campaigns. I am in no way satisfied with the two-party system. If I vote for Obama it's only because the only other candidate that can win is Romney. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and for David Cobb in 2004... but that was useless. I don't think we should even have a President... too much power in that office. I think we should have a multi-party parliamentary system with a Prime Minister. I think we need a broader based government that's more accountable to the people, and represents them more accurately.

I wouldn't expect you to reply to it all, some of it was simply FYI Like I said, I don't know why I waste me time writing this, I am surprised that I don't get TLDR as a reply more often

Interesting point about a parliamentary system. I don't think the two parties will ever give up their stranglehold until political nerds make them. That is why getting involved is so important. But I am wondering how, if you have listened to many of his speeches, you think that he is simply in this to make money?
I am confused by that. Do you think his years and years of consistency were an act to sell a few books? I think the fact that he saw people for free as a OBGYN rather than accept medicaid/medicare pretty much tells me all I need to know about him. His heart is in the right place. Maybe I believe to hard in him because I want so badly to see a politician who is consistent on principle rather than doing only what will keep them in office. Who knows.
But it is never useless to vote for someone you believe in, rather than someone who "has a chance"...i think politics would be less divisive if that were the case...people making arguments for things rather than against others. Probably a pipe dream. I just want a good life for my daughter and the one on the way...I bet there is more we agree on than disagree. I will not vote for Mittens, he may be slightly better than Obama, but 30 mph over the cliff is not different than 40mph...same result. But getting involved in GOP politics, trying to change the way a party is focused, while continuing to vote my principles is the example I want to leave. If I have to be in a two party system than I will try to change one of the parties to fit my ideas. Seems pretty stupid and impossible, but I would rather try than not.

Perhaps I'm too cynical, but like I said before, why such a big pay day for Jesse Benton? http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/20 ... lt-of.html I wonder what the rest of his staff was paid.

And over the years Ron Paul just seems to be repeating the same rhetoric. A lot of what he says sounds good, and some of it you never hear from the major parties... so I get why people would trust him over the major party candidates, who are obviously full of shit, but during this past campaign I began to suspect that he's just playing the role of anti-establishment guy because he knows a lot of people are looking for that. But he actually takes it further... into a kind of religious territory... he talks about the Founding Fathers like they were prophets, creating a glorious new nation that would be a beacon of freedom for the Earth... but really they were corrupt politicians as well...

James Madison owned slaves when he was President during the War of 1812. Slavery was legal in Washington D.C. at the time, and when the British marched in, they freed the slaves, and those freed men were more than happy to join the British army and fire guns at their former oppressors. The British were also going to give the Great Lakes territories to the Native Americans if they had won the war. All of this probably had less to do with morality and more to do with punishing the Americans... but my point is... there is no glorious past... when people talk about how wonderful the Founding Fathers were, they lose me.

kenny i'm with you...i see some value in Ron Paul's arguments, most especially on the social side of things. However, we, as a country, have demonstrated a remarkable ability to not care about anyone else but ourselves for a long fucking time. I don't see a reduction of a shared governance being a good thing as a result - which is why Ron Paul loses me. At the same time, those governing us are supposed to be US and they are not that. Instead we get a bunch of rich dickfucks hanging out with and looking out for the best interests of other rich dickfucks. This is why the OWS protesters are compelling to me. Getting rid of the social control, while looking toward a feeling of shared governance, one committed to helping all of US (in this country and abroad) somewhere better through social institutions that are more concerned with helping others than making money makes sense. As such am I for more government? Noish. I'm for better, more committed government that helps us be more socially just and committed individuals. We have found out for far too long that radical individualism creates radical individuals and not better human beings. I would love to pay taxes to a system that helps out the poor in urban and rural areas get to a mindset that selling drugs, killing them and ourselves in various ways, and doesn't depend on selling ideas but rather things for a better world than just reducing things to the individual. That's just me and I'm in a Ron Paul thread so this will get dismantled in a minute.

Back on Katrina for a sec...weren't the people of NOLA told to evacuate 3-5 days before it hit?

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

show previous quotes

pandora wrote:

Ron is entitled to his social security, we all are.

What about all the fake disability out there those who are collecting social security years before
they are worthy.

So much waste and fraud of our taxpayer money ... Ron is legally entitled
go after those who are not.

doesn't it seem slightly amiss to you that the man can rail on and on against social security and base his whole political platform on pointing out the unconstitutionality of it all while benefitting from it?

that would be like me saying we need to cut greenhouse gasses immediately while voting to cut down forests, increase fossil fuel burning and voting to stifle any funding for alternative fuel sources...

Actually it isn't like that at all. It couldn't be further from that. It would be like you planting 50 trees, having them taken from you by law and then giving back 25. Would you refuse the 25 and work to eliminating the forced taking, or would you let them have all 50?

he pays more than he takes out. He is taking the money that is rightfully his. Like he said, he would have opted out long ago if it were possible to do so.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

whatever broseph, care to discuss the topic of ron paul being a hypocrite? sounds like someone is bitter because the selfish, bullheaded, libertarian philosophy has not caught on, and will never ever catch on in this country. it must sting to know that there will always be entitlement programs and that your tax dollars are always going to go to helping the less fortunate...

don't you have an economic crisis to fix somewhere?

and as far as cheerleading goes, search my posts... to be honest, you have not read many of my posts, because i complain about obama a lot. i am a progressive. i am for moving our society forward. the dems are the party with the closest agenda to that, so of course i am going to support them in most cases. do you honestly think i am going to vote for someone like paul or romney? i criticize the dems for being spineless and settling for less than what they want all the time on here. kind of like how the tea party criticizes the gop for being too liberal...i criticize the dems for being pussies....

so instead of focusing on what i support and what i say, why not try to debate my positions instead of attacking me? it makes you look weak.

show previous quotes

inlet13 wrote:

I'll give you credit gimme, from what I've read - you are by far the biggest cheerleader for a political party in this entire place, which is saying something. I don't think I've ever read you ever disagreeing with party line... ever. And if you've ever come close, you always have a caveat that the other side would have been worse.

Anyway, cheer away - bro. Cheer away. Go "D" go. Go "Obama" go. :fp:

Why debate someone who clearly has very little independent knowledge. Not singling anyone out, there's some like this on both sides. It doesn't get anyone anywhere to debate someone who has been mind-warped into playing a figurative political ideal version of follow the leader for their whole lives.

Simply put - some can't put down their pom-poms long enough to really think about issues - independently.

Ron Paul collects money from a system he's paid into for his entire life. He doesn't think the system works, I agree with him. He knows that system will be insolvent down the line, I agree with him. Moreover, he thinks government is completely inept and inefficient at managing money.... I agree with him. Why would he volunteer to allow that same inept and inefficient government to confiscate his wealth if he could remove portion of it? By every aspect of his platform - he's against that. Therefore, why on earth would he be against taking money out of that same system? That's what he's doing. He'd like to change the system because it's unfair to the younger generation in the sense that it will be insolvent down the line. That does not mean he's not entitled to what he put in. Bottom line - the "topic" is stupid. There's no hypocrisy.

My recommendation - Put down your pom poms, pause MSNBC, take of your D pin - and think about topics before you post.

You know gimme, I could sit here and post up all kinds of things that he is doing that would be different, but I'm done wasting my time.


You are wrong, there will be change in this country someday. This never-ending war machine, endless bailouts, devaluing of the dollar with mass printing, unlimited entitlements, cradle to the grave welfare for the lame and lazy, amnesty for illegals, 20% unemployment (now), drones over the US, huge government expansions all will add up to one thing... FAILURE. It is unsustainable.

We will have a depression that will make the depression of the 20's look like a boom.


Or maybe K Street is secretly loaded with money tree orchards. In that case I stand corrected.