Ron Paul 2012

[Xaios]

Originally Posted by krypter

Well, on the second point, evidence (italics) suggests otherwise. We put Obama in the White House and he is a Christian. I'm a staunch Atheist and i support Obama all the way.

But the reverse your first point, and anyone seeking to take away "moral" rights is most likely to be a Christian, rather than an Atheist. No Atheist would seek to deny homosexual couples the right to marry, for instance.

Still, there are a very good majority of good practicing religious people who try their best to keep their faith a personal matter, and try very hard to not allow it to influence their political decisions. So nothing is ever a universal rule.

Obama is kind of the exception that proves the rule in this particular instance, and he's also proof positive that christians can be social progressives as well.

Your second point is well made, and as a Christian, I concede that you are correct.

Also true, universal rules are dangerous assumptions. All I can say is that, more often than not, people will make assumptions based on a label, regardless.

[Randy]

There's a few of Ron Paul's positions I agree with entirely and he's one of the only people asserting them. Then there are some really (IMO) radical ideas that are untested and would require essentially jumping right into without a safety net before we know if they'd work, a few of which seem like BIG ideas for little problems.

[Overtone]

I see the conversation's moved on but I just wanted to throw it out there that bankers in the administration has been a theme for a long time now. Bush had Goldman people around him (Hank Paulson), Clinton had Citi people around him (Bob Rubin), and even the non-banking people (like Harvard professors) seemed to be pretty loyal to the banking system. For anyone interested in the subject Inside Job is a good documentary to watch.

And I agree that while a gold standard is better and a system with a smaller fed and treasury would be better, I have a really hard time thinking of a way to transition to that. It can't really be done at a time like this. But I guess the question would be "Do we suffer more from the transition or from the inevitable collapse that will happen if we don't transition." I honestly don't know if there's an answer to that question, since it's likely that either the transition will cause the collapse, or that a collapse will lead to transition. The latter seems more likely.

[krypter]

Originally Posted by Overtone

I see the conversation's moved on but I just wanted to throw it out there that bankers in the administration has been a theme for a long time now. Bush had Goldman people around him (Hank Paulson), Clinton had Citi people around him (Bob Rubin), and even the non-banking people (like Harvard professors) seemed to be pretty loyal to the banking system. For anyone interested in the subject Inside Job is a good documentary to watch.

And I agree that while a gold standard is better and a system with a smaller fed and treasury would be better, I have a really hard time thinking of a way to transition to that. It can't really be done at a time like this. But I guess the question would be "Do we suffer more from the transition or from the inevitable collapse that will happen if we don't transition." I honestly don't know if there's an answer to that question, since it's likely that either the transition will cause the collapse, or that a collapse will lead to transition. The latter seems more likely.

Well put dude.

[Alimination]

Originally Posted by Overtone

I see the conversation's moved on but I just wanted to throw it out there that bankers in the administration has been a theme for a long time now. Bush had Goldman people around him (Hank Paulson), Clinton had Citi people around him (Bob Rubin), and even the non-banking people (like Harvard professors) seemed to be pretty loyal to the banking system. For anyone interested in the subject Inside Job is a good documentary to watch.

And I agree that while a gold standard is better and a system with a smaller fed and treasury would be better, I have a really hard time thinking of a way to transition to that. It can't really be done at a time like this. But I guess the question would be "Do we suffer more from the transition or from the inevitable collapse that will happen if we don't transition." I honestly don't know if there's an answer to that question, since it's likely that either the transition will cause the collapse, or that a collapse will lead to transition. The latter seems more likely.

Yeah, I think the last president who wasn't funded by a bank group was JFK. I know he tried to shut down the central bank, but he got shot down obviously. Not saying it was an inside job (though it could be, hell no one will know) but it did happen just a few days before the bill would get signed.

It really is scary though if you think of those two scenarios. It's like either jumping off a burning plane for possible survival or stay in and know you'll die for sure. I know Ron did mention that he won't do any executive orders on shutting the fed down immediately, but he will educate the public on it. Honestly that's what I'm hoping for more. Because if everyone is in, this could be such a smoother road.


By the way he's in! He's running for Republican president 2012. GOP debate is tonight.

[Demiurge]

Originally Posted by mountainjam

its not a conspiracy, just look at how many people in his cabinet, and every other past president for that matter, are filled with former goldman employees. same goes for the chairman of the fed.

That's a far cry from the current administration being "owned" by Goldman Sachs as claimed as the OP. Sometimes a former employer is a former employer, and perhaps it's the expertise in a given field (such as economics) and not the continuity of an clandestine agenda is what a person takes to their next job. 75% of the people I work with used to work at one of my company's competitors- means nothing.

Just because a correlation with a scandalous interpretation is possible, doesn't make it credible.

[Alimination]

Originally Posted by Demiurge

That's a far cry from the current administration being "owned" by Goldman Sachs as claimed as the OP. Sometimes a former employer is a former employer, and perhaps it's the expertise in a given field (such as economics) and not the continuity of an clandestine agenda is what a person takes to their next job. 75% of the people I work with used to work at one of my company's competitors- means nothing.

Just because a correlation with a scandalous interpretation is possible, doesn't make it credible.

I agree with you to a degree. Because I don't believe that a single private bank should work with the government to begin with. When this country started it never did. Guys like Thomas Jefferson even warned about it. Andrew Jackson fought it and destroyed it the first time it came.

When you look at how these massive organizations (The same ones that almost single handedly destroyed the dollar, AND bankrupt themselves just to get bailed out by the gov) "donate" millions of their own money to politicians out in the open, or the white house loaded with ONLY wall street members.. and then you look at our economy.. how the middle class is about to collapse yet wall street is at it's record finest?

Does that not tickle your balls not even a little? lol

Whether it's a conspiracy or not, it is our job as "the creators" of our government to keep an eye on them. We are responsible for our own child.

[Dirtdog]

I will vote for Ron Paul but I doubt the majority would vote him due to his radical (constitutional) Ideas. I am a libertarian through and through.

[Kryss]

good thread going here. right now more than anything we need a libertarian to reign in the pigs in washington. like a few other people pointed out to me the policies and what not are more vital to me than the religious faction. the guy could worship the flying spaghetti monster for all i care but if it looks like he is intelligent and he says the things that need to be said and changed then i'm all for it. less gov't control at the fed level and less spending need to happen. let the states govern themselves for the most part stay out of the social aspect and trying to control peoples lives. i hope he wins the nomination but i'm afraid because of being a libertarian the media will once again do everything they can to make sure he is ignored and passed by.

[krypter]

But clearly worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster IS a sign of intellect.



Raaaaamen.

[Kryss]

true true my vision of god would be jason becker sweeping on a 4 neck guitar like michaelangelo and playing 5 billion notes per second while drunk......even though he probably would just barely surpass the abilities of both Michelangelo and Petrucci
he would probably be throwing donuts at yngwie all the while doing his sweeps. sorry to get off topic i was just thinking randomly.

[Alimination]

Originally Posted by Kryss

true true my vision of god would be jason becker sweeping on a 4 neck guitar like michaelangelo and playing 5 billion notes per second while drunk......even though he probably would just barely surpass the abilities of both Michelangelo and Petrucci
he would probably be throwing donuts at yngwie all the while doing his sweeps. sorry to get off topic i was just thinking randomly.

Lmfao amen

[xmetalhead69]

Originally Posted by Alimination

By the way he's in! He's running for Republican president 2012. GOP debate is tonight.

times like these make me wish I hadnt registered as an independent so I could vote in the primaries

[Krauthammer]

The 1st debate has taken place. Thoughts? I thought the announcers asking the questions fell in line with trying to bait Paul.

"So your saying that legalizing heroin and prostitution is an exercise for liberty?"

You have to admire Dr. Paul, even with thick pretentious questions specifically aimed to get him to .... up, the man sticks to his principles and consistent voting record. He strictly adheres to the constitution, which is tremendously respectable given the fact that his opponents raised their hands in favor of water boarding (torture) and perpetual war.

He is the 1 person on both sides that want to end these wars, no one else says that. As American candidates for president, how could there be votes for those that say that this is all necessary? Kill more to achieve peace quoth the status quo....

Edit: It is the State's right to decide on social issues per state, not the Federal Gov't

[Alimination]

Originally Posted by Krauthammer

The 1st debate has taken place. Thoughts? I thought the announcers asking the questions fell in line with trying to bait Paul.

"So your saying that legalizing heroin and prostitution is an exercise for liberty?"

You have to admire Dr. Paul, even with thick pretentious questions specifically aimed to get him to .... up, the man sticks to his principles and consistent voting record. He strictly adheres to the constitution, which is tremendously respectable given the fact that his opponents raised their hands in favor of water boarding (torture) and perpetual war.

He is the 1 person on both sides that want to end these wars, no one else says that. As American candidates for president, how could there be votes for those that say that this is all necessary? Kill more to achieve peace quoth the status quo....

Edit: It is the State's right to decide on social issues per state, not the Federal Gov't

MAN!! I can't belive I missed it! I heard he destroyed the debates!

But yeah I understand what your saying man! I totally agree with you 100%!
I'm glad he got a crowd going on him though!

but ugh! go figure they'd give a lame question about drugs and prostitution. They tried to mess him over the last election debates. I'm glad he nailed it though. And yeah it is the state to decide, I don't understand why they give them these questions to start. :/

[Ibanezsam4]

^ i found last nights debate to be an exercise in futility. we're too far away from a primary to even consider candidates at this point, also consider the GOP heavy weights haven't even stepped into the ring. last night was a debate between the potential VP candidates (Cain for VP anyone?).

while i agree with Paul on many issues, i disagree with him wholeheartedly on too many issues for me consider voting for him. for example his foreign policy is dated as hell, he wants to return to the isolation originally intended by the Founders, however he doesn't seem to realize that pandora's box was opened and that lid is damn hard to close. i dont agree on his stance on Israel, i find it foolish to throw your one democratic and military ally in the middle east under the bus, i also know for a fact that once RP gets his first "oh shit" briefing from the Joint Intelligence, half the shit he campaigned on would disappear.

he's smart, but naive.. naive to a very dangerous fault, and i get the impression he's very stubborn.

which leads to his final presidential bid ending fault.. he comes across as a bat-shit-crazy whiner with a tin foil hat and a shotgun in his closet. as pointed out by other posters his views come across as a little... sketchy... but there are some views he holds that were held by Reagan. the difference being Reagan was able to calmly and assertively communicate an idea to an audience in a fashion that made sense. the second Paul opens his mouth he sounds like he's complaining.. just full on complaining, its sounds awful, he says the right things but the manner in which he says it offends my ears. America won't vote for that, and the minute the general election starts you can bet a good sum of money the DNC will have a field day picking him apart.

i want a charismatic but solid presidential candidate, one who can communicate the ideals i hold dear, and not sound like a crack pot...

[Krauthammer]

Originally Posted by Ibanezsam4

^
i want a charismatic but solid presidential candidate, one who can communicate the ideals i hold dear, and not sound like a crack pot...

I guess that it really comes down to what everyone's idea of America is. This is a huge turning point, not just in America, but the entire world. Do we want to return to a prosperous nation as it was before the Federal Reserve or accept the cardboard-cutout we are linked to to this day? I understand I am a bit skewed, the times are completely different from 100 years ago, 200 even more so. That was the era the Constitution was created. Different times demand different approaches. From what I read, and see on the street, is that more Fed intervention in the daily lives of American citizens creates more harm than it does good.

IMO: Adhere to the principals, and apply it in this new generation.

Dr. Paul wants to scale back federal gov't, and for good reason. How many regulations are in place to hinder economic/social growth? Stacks of papers are required more and more for even the smallest of business in anyone's hometown. All Fed red tape. Who can actually keep up with the volume? Walmarts and Best Buys. That awesome guitar shop on the corner street that doesn't say Guitar Center or SamAsh cannot compete and thus no strength in the world economy.

If you want an actor, movie star, or another economic rapist, don't vote for Dr. Paul. Just stay home.

And I mean that in the best way possible. I can say this because we are free, and thus you are free to make your own educated decisions.

[mountainjam]

i caught the debate on fox news last night. anybody else think that the 29 person panel after the debate was totally fake and staged by fox?

[Krauthammer]

Originally Posted by mountainjam

was totally fake and staged by fox?

[Alimination]

Originally Posted by Ibanezsam4

^ i found last nights debate to be an exercise in futility. we're too far away from a primary to even consider candidates at this point, also consider the GOP heavy weights haven't even stepped into the ring. last night was a debate between the potential VP candidates (Cain for VP anyone?).

while i agree with Paul on many issues, i disagree with him wholeheartedly on too many issues for me consider voting for him. for example his foreign policy is dated as hell, he wants to return to the isolation originally intended by the Founders, however he doesn't seem to realize that pandora's box was opened and that lid is damn hard to close. i dont agree on his stance on Israel, i find it foolish to throw your one democratic and military ally in the middle east under the bus, i also know for a fact that once RP gets his first "oh shit" briefing from the Joint Intelligence, half the shit he campaigned on would disappear.

he's smart, but naive.. naive to a very dangerous fault, and i get the impression he's very stubborn.

which leads to his final presidential bid ending fault.. he comes across as a bat-shit-crazy whiner with a tin foil hat and a shotgun in his closet. as pointed out by other posters his views come across as a little... sketchy... but there are some views he holds that were held by Reagan. the difference being Reagan was able to calmly and assertively communicate an idea to an audience in a fashion that made sense. the second Paul opens his mouth he sounds like he's complaining.. just full on complaining, its sounds awful, he says the right things but the manner in which he says it offends my ears. America won't vote for that, and the minute the general election starts you can bet a good sum of money the DNC will have a field day picking him apart.

i want a charismatic but solid presidential candidate, one who can communicate the ideals i hold dear, and not sound like a crack pot...

I respectfully disagree about the foreign policy. Because well your referencing Pandora's box. How we opened this evil box of doom, and we should let it continue making a bigger mess until a possible chance of hope comes out of it.

Well I don't think that's a good idea, that we spend most of our hard work money to fund wars that we should never be a part of and to make worse.

Israel has been at war with these guys for with these guys for hundreds of years, and us messing in their affairs is insane! let them handle it! I'm pretty damn sure they have enough power to do so. Then we get all butt hurt when they attack us. Well no shit they would! We're provoking it! Just like how we provoked getting into WW I (supplying the Allies as a neutral country which lead to the sinking of the Lusitania).

and it's damn absurd that we give money to their damn enemies too!! We're making this "web of friendship" that is backfiring on us because not everyone is friends with your friends!

I don't think it's as hard as getting out of an insurgency (not war) as people make it. We just leave them the hell alone. If they seriously attack us, then we .... them up right back, but we don't dethrone their leaders to promote democracy!

By the way don't think Democracy is a good thing! We're not even in a democracy, we are a Republic! There is a major difference!


As for the way they speak, eh I guess I could care less on that part. Hell they could have a lisp for all I care as long as they lead towards the constitution. lol

[Ibanezsam4]

okay.. apparently i dont like Paul and i am less conservative than people who do.. i will state again, i agree on a lot of issues with ron paul, many conservatives do. however, i believe he would be the most inept leader for conservatism, and constitutional-ism. he is the definition of the "party of no" we need a communicator. someone who can bridge the gap between undecided voters and us (conservatives). someone did it once in 80s, it can happen again.

you can vote principle all you want, however if you choose the wrong candidate you lose. and when you lose more damage happens. he can't beat the DNC, not by a long shot. especially after this: Young Americans For Freedom Expel Ron Paul | RedState

too easy of a target. pick someone who is harder to shoot down. chris wallace has already said that the hardest candidate to prepare for was Cain, simply because he has never held public office.. and lets face it, Cain was very impressive

[xmetalhead69]

I wish we could move away from all this 'left, right', 'democrat republican' 'liberal conservative' BS. Its all just stuff to divide us. sigh, i'm living in a dream world

[Krauthammer]

Originally Posted by Ibanezsam4

i dont like Paul and i am less conservative than people who do. i will state again, i agree on a lot of issues with ron paul, many conservatives do. however, i believe he would be the most inept leader for conservatism, and constitutional-ism. he is the definition of the "party of no"

"said that the hardest candidate to prepare for was Cain, simply because he has never held public office.. and lets face it, Cain was very impressive"

Is there proper recourse for desiring an American with a Constitutionalists' mindset and voting record? The Dems haven't had their say yet in proper televised debate for the initial test run of candidates, yet as a quote un quoted Republican, the only candidate that remembers and states on record that the States of America have the 1st and last say on what goes on in said State. The District of Colombia is inept, and deserving of a proper reassessment.

Dr. Paul conveys the message that many Americans do not want to hear; to get rid of unnecessary Gov't intrusion, invasion, coercion, as well as intimidation to even consider a different side to the truth. The 1 person running for the highest office in the nation, the ONLY one that says we need the WAR(s) to end immediately, to bring our family and friends back home from continuing to fight for a prerogative assumption of declared freedom while destroying what little there is left at home, is, IMHO, the only one that should get votes, or even deserves votes.

To vote a pro-war person, (one of those guys that raised there hands when asked to resume water boarding @ the republican debate this May 5th, 2011) ,you are just as guilty as the soldier to carry out the orders. Yet your hands would be clean, and free from the burden conducting the foreign/domestic policies that truly shape the lives of everyone across this planet that we all share,

It may be callousness that make me sound like a heartless individual, I support my military for making it possible to express myself in such a demeanor, without them this would not be possible. I desire for all voting Americans to make the link that voting for a "continuation of the war on terror" "candidate" condemns our greatest asset to a fate that they no longer have in their hands; they do the job they are told to do, liberation or destruction.

America "got" OBL, so the war should be over, right? You can declare war and opposition to an over-reaching country, you cannot wage war against an idea, terrorism. It has no country, follows no race nor religion. It is what it is, and has been ever since humans created civilization. Let's bring our people home, they belong here. Cain and the rest are as heartless as they come, very undeserving for the title of Commander-in-Chief. They will not hesitate to continue this atrocity committed on the other side of the planet, and of course at no cost to them, financially or personally.

I want my family home in the USA, defending the USA, not doing missions in Afghan or Pakistan. I do have family over there, and I wish to see them again. Anyone Anti-War has my vote, and Dr. Paul is the only one that shares my sentiment. If there are others that say that war is BS, please let me know. I think I got the thumbs-up for waterboarding from 4 out of 5 debate participants, excluding my personal candidate.

Makes me ....ing proud.

[krypter]

At no point in our history have we been as free, as a people, as we are right now.

[Ibanezsam4]

Originally Posted by Krauthammer

stuff

waterboarding will continue, mark my words. if not by us, then by our allies for us (dont think we haven't done this already). you live in a dream world where clandestine operations dont need to dirty their hands to save our skins. quite frankly i was happy that four out of five raised their hands. then again, im a fan of wild bill donovan.

as for Afghanistan, im against that part of the war front for entirely different reasons. mainly to do with helping a country of pedophiles.. but i acquiesce. my focus is on the terror threat on a much larger scale, and think we need to take a step back and reassess.

but i know none of this will happen with any candidate elected. because every newly arrived president gets what i call the "oh shit" intelligence briefing. entailed this briefing are all the things that can go wrong, and will go wrong. after this, promises made on the campaign trail start to take a back seat, and if the promise is kept it's to a much lesser degree.

so im more interested in a candidate that says "i will hold off on making that decision till i have all the information all the table, and can make the right choice"

we can try and save money in the military, however this election is going to focus on domestic policies, rather than on foreign ones