Ron Paul 2008 - A Prelude To The Presidency

[BrooklynBound]

[QUOTE=Warfish;2220389]Oh, and I'll be happy to support this.....the day MY tax money is no longer used for Public Education, Welfare or the half dozen other worthless Federal Waste Programs I do not benifit from, take use of, or in any way interact with.

After all, we ARE interested in Fair, right? I agree 100%.[/QUOTE]
I agree with all of this. You’re not going to “get” me on gov’t spending.

[JetsCrazey]

you either believe in a freer society or govt intervention. Anything else regarding the left-right spectrum is BS fluff that's used to divide the people.

When it comes to the topic on govt spending, "having a heart" is an anti-darwinian euphemism for socialism, and it's inherently anti-freedom.

[BrooklynBound]

[QUOTE=Warfish;2220378]:rolleyes:

You really have drank the cool-aid eh? Wow.

By the way, this may come as a shock to you, but you cannot do what's best for the country if you're not elected.[/QUOTE]

You can’t do what’s best for the country if you compromise your values. If the people elect corrupt politicians, then they deserve them. Right now, we do. The only way to promote change is to stop settling for mediocrity.

If Paul wanted to pander, he’d be a neo-con with a slight towards his views, instead of being as genuine and forthcoming as he is now.

[Big Blocker]

[QUOTE=Warfish;2220389]Oh, and I'll be happy to support this.....the day MY tax money is no longer used for Public Education, Welfare or the half dozen other worthless Federal Waste Programs I do not benifit from, take use of, or in any way interact with.

After all, we ARE interested in Fair, right? I agree 100%.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

Libertarianism appeals to people who assume that only the things they don't care about will be not supported while only governmental activity they do care about/is "necessary" (the same thing, right?) will continue.

In short, it is incredibly naive.

[JetsCrazey]

Yeah, that Jefferson was a naive fellow
so was Milton Friedman, the Nobel-Prize winning naivete
And Ludwig von Mises? naive.

[Jetdawgg]

[QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2220459]You can’t do what’s best for the country if you compromise your values. If the people elect corrupt politicians, then they deserve them. Right now, we do. The only way to promote change is to stop settling for mediocrity.

If Paul wanted to pander, he’d be a neo-con with a slight towards his views, instead of being as genuine and forthcoming as he is now.[/QUOTE]

Ron Paul and his supporters has some folks sh1tting in their pants right now. Take that to the bank!!!!

[BrooklynBound]

[QUOTE=Big Blocker;2220477]Exactly.

Libertarianism appeals to people who assume that only the things they don't care about will be not supported while only governmental activity they do care about/is "necessary" (the same thing, right?) will continue.

In short, it is incredibly naive.[/QUOTE]
Naive is thinking that the gub'mint is supposed to take care of you.

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=Jetdawgg;2220538]Ron Paul and his supporters has some folks sh1tting in their pants right now. Take that to the bank!!!![/QUOTE]

Do you really believe that?

Look, I am as "desperate for a third option" as anyone, and if you looked isses by issue I may be one of THE most Libertarian guys on this board. I don't disagree with much of what Paul says on many issues (although I find his foreign policy ideal a bit juvenile and naive personally).

However, I do not see him as having any shot in hell, and his "support" is no different that that of a Ralph Nader or Ross Perot. Makes for good ad copy, won't mean anything come election time.

I mean really, who exactly do you think is "****ting their pants" because of Paul? Maybe the thirs tier guys, but certainly not any of the poll leaders.

So who do you think is "****ting their pants" then?

[MnJetFan]

[QUOTE=JetsCrazey;2220306]The result of policing Iraq is turning out to be just like Vietnam...
spending taxpayer money so the special interests can get rich. Ultimately that's what it's all about.
The boogey-man will always be there, whether it be Marxists or a few jihadist thugs, War thousands of miles away is first and foremost a racket.[/QUOTE]

War was brought to this country on 9/11 and Bush had the balls to do something about it. Unlike Clinton who sat on his thumb for 8 years. BTW howabout thousands of Looney Muslims!

[HDCentStOhio]

With Brooklyn banned, who is going to carry on the Paul movement here? Looks like Dawgg.

[sackdance]

[QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2221591]With Brooklyn banned, who is going to carry on the Paul movement here? Looks like Dawgg.[/QUOTE]

Brooklyn banned? Do tell.

[Jetdawgg]

[QUOTE=Warfish;2221117]Do you really believe that?

Look, I am as "desperate for a third option" as anyone, and if you looked isses by issue I may be one of THE most Libertarian guys on this board. I don't disagree with much of what Paul says on many issues (although I find his foreign policy ideal a bit juvenile and naive personally).

However, I do not see him as having any shot in hell, and his "support" is no different that that of a Ralph Nader or Ross Perot. Makes for good ad copy, won't mean anything come election time.

I mean really, who exactly do you think is "****ting their pants" because of Paul? Maybe the thirs tier guys, but certainly not any of the poll leaders.

So who do you think is "****ting their pants" then?[/QUOTE]


Did you see any of the republican debates? Did you see the way that the other candidates were jumping over each other to attack Dr. Paul?

They only want to attack the leader. Have you seen the money that Dr. Paul has raised lately? Huckabee raised 70k yesterday. He is the newly annointed (by the MSM) leader in another fake poll and he cannot even raise 100K.

Dr. Paul raised 4.2MM in one day and since then it has climbed to 8MM. There is another 'money bomb' day forthcoming on Dec 16th. It will be even bigger.

Rudy is the right wing neo con candidate of choice. He may be able to sustain a while longer as he has money. Romney is through. He already using his own money to finance his camPAIN. Thus the cancelling of debate next month.

Thompson has no energy. Huckabee may make some sense but he cannot raise any dough.

On the 'lw' Hillary is just another hack for the PAC's. Obama has not even explained how he will manage the deficit. He may not have voted for the war but he wants to attack Iran to perpetuate it.

Edwards has already lost before. He has made it clear that he will differ from Hillary with the PAC money.

The 'War Party' and their cohort, the MSM is in trouble here. They know it, they feel it. The War Party uses the MSM to attempt to stifle debate and select for the people just who will win.

Ask people who don't use the internet much and they have never heard of Dr. Paul. I heard an account that Dr. Paul's name was mentioned just under 5K times between Aug of '06 and Aug of '07.

During that same time period G-man was mentioned nearly 495K times in the MSM.

Dr. Paul has the people. In a democracy, eventually the people rule as in the last election. Finally for here, Dr. Paul has the support of the military and the veterans.

[HDCentStOhio]

[QUOTE=sackdance;2221621]Brooklyn banned? Do tell.[/QUOTE]

He called Limolady the c word on the main board in the Gate D thread.

[Jetdawgg]

[QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2221708]He called Limolady the c word on the main board in the Gate D thread.[/QUOTE]


Shaking head....

[JetsCrazey]

[QUOTE=MnJetFan;2221586]War was brought to this country on 9/11 and Bush had the balls to do something about it. Unlike Clinton who sat on his thumb for 8 years. BTW howabout thousands of Looney Muslims![/QUOTE]

You might want to read up on what the CIA has been doing since 1953 in the Islamic world. This war did not begin on 9/11/2001. We have been financing extremist governments there for decades, building military bases on their holy land, staging coups, etc etc etc. And it's all for the oil companies, which come hand-in-hand with the international banks that have run the American government since the 1800s.

"The real truth of the matter is that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson." -President FDR, 11/21/1933 in a letter to his advisor E.M. House

If you think that we can do do whatever we want in the Arab world so the upper crusts can make money without any blowback then you indeed have a problem.

Even Alan Greenspan now admits that the Iraq war is for the vast amount of oil that's there. More intervention for oil companies = more chance of terrorism.

If we want to stop the terrorist blowback we have to stop financing governments halfway around the world with taxpayer money. It's that simple.

[Jetdawgg]

[QUOTE=JetsCrazey;2221720]You might want to read up on what the CIA has been doing since 1953 in the Islamic world. This war did not begin on 9/11/2001. We have been financing extremist governments there for decades, building military bases on their holy land, staging coups, etc etc etc. And it's all for the oil companies, which come hand-in-hand with the international banks that have run the American government since the 1800s.

"The real truth of the matter is that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson." -President FDR, 11/21/1933 in a letter to his advisor E.M. House

If you think that we can do do whatever we want in the Arab world so the upper crusts can make money without any blowback then you indeed have a problem.

Even Alan Greenspan now admits that the Iraq war is for the vast amount of oil that's there. More intervention for oil companies = more chance of terrorism.

If we want to stop the terrorist blowback we have to stop financing governments halfway around the world with taxpayer money. It's that simple.[/QUOTE]


Right On

[Come Back to NY]

[QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2221708]He called Limolady the c word on the main board in the Gate D thread.[/QUOTE]

he didn't call her it-he asked her to show it (show your c*nt)...regardless, it was completely classless in the context of the thread...

[HDCentStOhio]

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2221758]he didn't call her it-he asked her to show it (show your c*nt)...regardless, it was completely classless in the context of the thread...[/QUOTE]

In any case he is gone for an extended period of time.

[quote=JetsCrazey;2219750]Thompson and Guiliani "gets what's important?". Please explain further and disprove the following:

-They want to bankrupt the nation with an unmanagable foreign policy. Anyone who knows anything about history knows the US is currently going down the same path as the Roman Empire, bankruptcy via overextension. Bin Laden himself has said Al-Qaeda has had an easier time recruiting since we sent all those troops into Iraq. How do you expect to curb terrorism when your policies CREATE MORE TERRORISTS? Answer this for us.

-They offer no solutions regarding the crashing dollar. This will erode our savings and won't benefit you or I one iota.

-They do not understand the nature of the Middle East conflicts. They believe terrorists attack us because we are rich and allow women to walk with their head exposed instead of understanding the concept of blowback. Simply put, they are shills trying to justify a war for oil companies, military suppliers, and contractors in which the US has been the aggressor since 1953. What would we say if China or the Soviets were building military bases in the gulf of mexico for the past few decades?

-They offer no solutions to the fact that I will put my hard-earned $$ into social security but will receive NOTHING.

Thompson and Guiliani offer no solution to any of this. Ron Paul offers solutions to all of these. Read "Imperial Hubris" by Michael Scheuer, the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit during the 1990s and you might learn a thing or two.[/quote]

US security is #1, everything else follows

even the dollar you worship

what do you expect, intelligent rhetoric
from dopey kids who dont remember
the cold war and the external threat to us from
russia etc we did not cause or create
most of the ME were soviet clients

we create more terrorists by fighting/killing them
after they kill us...riiight
where terrorists are made, rupaul will make more
through his live and let live terror friendship policy

as a person formally trained and far smarter than
you in the areas of finance and economics,
among everything else,

the "weak" dollar is actually beneficial at times

not always, but now lower exchnage rates and

it keeps a slowing economy growing via increased exports
it prevents unemployment & its concomitant social problems

i see illegals and welfare bums of all kinds as our #2 problem

just like SS pilferage we have the clintons countless
amnesties, lack of enforcement and libs to thank for that

but i dont see rupaul flapping his yap about immigration
limits or borders, just his pal tancredo. strangely silent

i understand there are weirdos who hate this country
and want to see it fail

i understand there are morons who think every problem
in the world begins and ends with our government
(i. e. alex jones/troofer types, who ronpaulstiltskin
regularly consorts with)

i understand there are dunces who support people that
denigrate them (certain someones noted in
rupauls newsletter over the years, like minorities for rupaul
(who might be dems for obama yet like to
register as gopers or vote in open gop primaries for
americas greatest patriot)
thanks to his unsavory base,
(i.e. stormfront types) will seek to elimate
civil rights laws/protections at the federal level

i just didnt understand of em actually how many live in this country

[jefethegreat]

[QUOTE=Big Blocker;2220152]You cannot pursue an environmental agenda without the involvement of the government.

The problem I have always had with libertarians is that they really are not for no government at all. Limited government sounds good in theory, and in fairness it does go back to our earliest heritage, looking at people like Jefferson and the like.

But limited government is a slippery concept in practice. What will be limited, what allowed?

That is where libertarianism loses its coherence.[/QUOTE]


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.... The Tenth Amendment