WASHINGTON - Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, aided by an extraordinary outpouring of Internet support Monday, hauled in more than $3.5 million in 20 hours.
Paul, the Texas congressman with a Libertarian tilt and an out-of-Iraq pitch, entered heady fundraising territory with a surge of Web-based giving tied to the commemoration of Guy Fawkes Day.
Fawkes was a British mercenary who failed in his attempt to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605. He also was the model for the protagonist in the movie "V for Vendetta." Paul backers motivated donors on the Internet with mashed-up clips of the film on the online video site YouTube as well as the Guy Fawkes Day refrain: "Remember, remember the 5th of November."
Paul's total deposed Mitt Romney as the single-day fundraising record holder in the Republican presidential field. When it comes to sums amassed in one day, Paul now ranks only behind Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, who raised nearly $6.2 million on June 30, and Barack Obama.
Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the effort began independently about two months ago at the hands of Paul's backers. He said Paul picked up on the movement, mentioning in it speeches and interviews.
"It's been kind of building up virally," Benton said.
The $3.5 million, he said, represented online contributions from more than 22,000 donors.
Paul has been lagging in the polls behind Republican front-runners. But he captured national attention at the end of September when he reported raising $5.2 million in three months, putting him fourth among Republican presidential candidates in fundraising for the quarter.
Paul as of Monday had raised $6.3 million since Oct. 1, more than half his goal of $12 million by the end of the year, according to his Web site.
Paul advocates limited government and low taxes like other Republicans, but he stands alone as the only GOP presidential candidate opposed to the Iraq war. He also has opposed Bush administration security measures that he says encroach on civil liberties.
you know marmot most of us don't want a social revolution to come through mass murder like DESTROYING THE FDA would cause!!!
you know marmot most of us don't want a social revolution to come through mass murder like DESTROYING THE FDA would cause!!!
you know marmot most of us don't want a social revolution to come through mass murder like DESTROYING THE FDA would cause!!!
food and drug administration; they make it so corporations can't release poisonous or bad products on the market.black/white yo
the libertarian solution; the market will self correct because via word of mouth, people will stop buying poison.
of course the fact that this will kill a lot of people before self correction infinitely considering products change escapes them.
Actually I'm arguing in this topic right now, but I'm wondering whether I shouldn't really just lock it. Just about everybody on this forum is quite strongly against Ron Paul, and I think that not only is this going to end in tears, it's also not going to open anyone's eyes. (If any of you has anything to say, now's the time!)
Just about everybody on this forum is quite strongly against Ron Paul, and I think that not only is this going to end in tears, it's also not going to open anyone's eyes. (If any of you has anything to say, now's the time!)Unfortunately, you are going to be quite wrong about this. More and more people that I meet in real life express their approval of Ron Paul as "better than the other candidates," with DJH47 exemplifying it. His "cult" following among the teenager and college-student demographic is quite alarming, largely due to the internet, but also mainly because naive youngsters think its "cool" to support a candidate that supposedly gives power to the people and takes (all) power away from the government. YAY
black/white yo
"Values Voter Presidential Debate"
On September 17th 2007, Ron Paul participated in the "Values Voter Presidential Debate". The complete video footage of the debate can be watched here, and the results of the debate's "speed round" questions can be read in PDF format here.
Of particular note is is the question asked by Tom DeRosa of the Institute for Creation Research: "Will your office support and encourage a more open approach to education in the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?" (See 125m43s in the video footage linked above.) Ron Paul answered this question "yes".
I'm not. :)
Well, not strongly anyways. He still seems better than the rest of the candidates in my opinion. And I am perfectly happy to elaborate peacefully and without arbitrary emotion if anyone has any questions.
Alright, let's start with the most obvious, then. Why do you think it's a good idea for the US to end its affiliations with various important international treaties and organizations? Like I said before, the UN and WTO are on his list of memberships to relinquish. He cites various ridiculous reasons, for example "And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever." (taken directly from his site (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/american-independence-and-sovereignty/)). How on earth can you stand behind such a viewpoint?
he believes there is a secret global conspiracy called the New World Order, and the UN and other nations are part of it. there are quotes supporting this in the link I provided.I just asked Google whether that was true, and it has answered positively (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.brokenlibrarian.org%2F+%22new+world%22&btnG=Search). For the lazy:
My question being left unanswered leaves me in great distress. (I seriously am interested in hearing what Ron Paul supporters have to answer, because I can't quite get behind the possibility of being a supporter of his.)
Regardless of what your opinion of Ron Paul is, you have to admit that it is amazing that a "right-wing fringe" candidate who "doesn't show up in the polls" can net 4.2 million (according to the AP) is absolutely AMAZING.
To answer Dada, Have you read the UN Universal Declaration of Human rights, the Kyoto Protocol or the Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Court? Check out Article 29 of the UDHR, or article 81 of the Rome Statute? I've looked over the Rome Statutes and the UDHR and I don't recall seeing any of the rights which the bill of rights protectsFirst of all, let's disregard the Kyoto Protocol for a minute. I don't know why you brought that up. The Kyoto Protocol is related to reducing greenhouse gases, and as such as absolutely nothing to do with the human rights that you mentioned.Hidden content (Click to reveal)in either of them. I happen to like my inherent natural rights, and the UN doesn't seem to think that I possess them unless they say so. I beg to differ.(freedom of speech/press/religion/assemlby, Right to keep and Bear arms, protection against double jeopardy, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, trial by jury, protection against self-incrimination, security of my person, places and effects from unwarranted search and seizure, Ect.)
The UN isn't so great if you actually read what they say.Maybe you should actually read what they say.
If the constitution was so infallible, why does it have so many amendments? :hmm:
Could it be because the constitution was written 250 years ago and THE WORLD HAS FUCKING CHANGED SINCE THEN?
Also, aren't most of those things you listed in the hide tag contained within the amendments, not the bill of rights? Perhaps they are redundantly specified.
edit: yes they are!
If the constitution was so infallible, why does it have so many amendments? :hmm:
Could it be because the constitution was written 250 years ago and THE WORLD HAS FUCKING CHANGED SINCE THEN?
Also, aren't most of those things you listed in the hide tag contained within the amendments, not the bill of rights? Perhaps they are redundantly specified.
edit: yes they are!
also I have long advised no one pay attention to KK4 outside of complete contempt, because addressing his truly fucked up point of view adds the illusion of legitimacy to his thoughts, and while GW's administrators may think antisemitism has an equal place next to logical discourse, some of us realized (back in highschool) that all viewpoints are not legitimate or worthy of attention.
PS: I'm completely fed up with your trolling, by the way (KK4). Do not post about the UN's bills being bad because you didn't read them. You actually said that the UN is "not so great" because the Kyoto Protocol does not mention human rights. It's a god damn greenhouse gas treaty. It isn't even supposed to.
If all you're gonna do is waste people's time, don't!
I don't have the time to read any of the replies, but that guy fawkes/v for vendetta shit is hilarious (I haven't seen any ron paul advertisements!) when coupled with him raising 3.5 million. just holy shit wowcontinuation: yeah, it's pretty amazing how people can be tricked into supporting something like this. like don't they even feel the need to look into this guy, or is a spectacle like TAKE BACK WHAT YOU DESERVE//RETURN TO GREATNESS seriously enough to get people to support shit nowadays. then again, it's been that way in America for a while hasn't it. hell that's pretty much all Atlas Shrugged is, it tricks people into believing they deserve more than what they've got, and the answer to this is fuck everyone who's not me
Again, I only reluctantly, and perhaps temporarily, support Ron Paul. And by support, I mean "hypothetically vote for". I have not put any money down this early into the election. Still, I think this paranoid, delusional, religious and conspiracist politician is the current best candidate.Basically, all your post says is "I know he's crazy, but I'm still gonna vote for him". What about the things I mentioned? What about the fact he wants to withdraw from the most important international relations? You stand behind that, you say, but for what reason?
[...]
- He supports sound fiscal policy, ending deficit spending by the governmentOmeg: these are the reasons why people want to vote for Ron Paul.. because this is all they hear and they dont listen to the rest of the horrible shit he says. Some of his base ideas are really good and stuff that I personally believe should happen (ala all of the above) but his other baggage is just too much.
- He advocates smaller government, eliminating superfluous government agencies which will decrease government spending, and lighten the tax burden
- Advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy. No more Imperial wars and no more "peace keeping" or meddling in the affairs of Foreign nations.
- Ending the drug war, which is a massive waste of time and money
- Ending the war on terror (same reason as above)
- Advocates National Sovereignty, keeping the power of the government in the hands of the people
Basically, all your post says is "I know he's crazy, but I'm still gonna vote for him". What about the things I mentioned? What about the fact he wants to withdraw from the most important international relations? You stand behind that, you say, but for what reason?
EDIT: and I must add that I really want to know. This isn't false interest. I see that there are a lot of Ron Paul supporters on the Internet, for some reason. I've not heard a single one of them actually state solid reasons for supporting him and his viewpoints. All they ever say is "other candidates don't care about the constitution" and stuff like that. It's like they don't even have a reason to support him other than the fact he's apparently COOL.
and other egregious violations of peoples civil liberties.
Let see if I can give you a quick answer.
Several of the international organizations we belong too, especially the UN and NATO, have an annoying habit of dragging the U.S. into military conflicts it could otherwise avoid. We have too many troops in too many places of the world, and getting into conflicts we don't belong it just ends up getting our soldiers killed an costing us money we don't currently have. And while it may improve our relations with some UN/NATO members, it likely generates a lot of ire with the various 3rd world nations we end up "peacekeeping"/occupying/bombing. If we need to group together with other nations for defense we can do it on an as needed basis, we do not need to belong to these types of organizations.
As for trade treaties and trade organizations such as WTO or NAFTA, I have nothing against them in particular, but I also don't see the need for them. We can engage in free and open trade without such agreements.
Where Ron Paul really shines is that he seems to be the only one who recognizes that we need to stop manipulating the affairs of other nations through force of arms, arming dissidents, or otherwise trying to occupying or aid in overthrowing the governments of other countries. As part of the "War on Terror", we have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and are actively discussing military action against Iran. And yet, the regimes of all three nations came to power with the aid of the U.S. So, essentially, every "front" in the "War on Terror" has been against a regime that is essentially a past U.S. foreign policy mistake. Ron Paul has recognized this pattern and wants to end this type of foreign policy.
And of course there is the war in Iraq, which Ron Paul has opposed from the beginning(when others like Hillary went ahead and authorized the use of force), and which he is promising to promptly remove us from if we are president. This war has caused us nothing but problems, and the sooner we get out of there, the better. And because Ron Paul stood up against the war from the beginning, and did not cave to political pressure, it is likely he will stand by his promise.
Domestically, we have suffered a huge loss of civil liberties in past 7 years do to bills like the USA Patriot Acts, Military Commissions Act, the Free-America acts, etc. These bills allows for general warrants, warrantless wiretapping, searching the property of citizens without informing them, suspension of habeas corpus for "enemy combatants", the waving of Geneva convention rights for "enemy combatants", and other egregious violations of peoples civil liberties. These types of laws are serious problems and need to be done away with as soon as possible. And again, Ron Paul has voted against these bills and wants to do away with them.
Economically, our country has suffered from two chronic economic problems that have been ignored and allowed to worsen, the devaluation of our currency and an accumulation of a multi-trillion debt. Steady inflation has reduced the value of the U.S. dollar to less than 4% of its 1913 value over the course of the century, and we have a 9 trillion dollar debt that is now increasing by over a half-trillion dollars annually, no thanks to politicians who have ignored the problem for decades. These problems WILL get us into serious trouble eventually, and we can either fix them now under controlled circumstances are wait until they get so far out of hand we will be forced to deal with them. I prefer to fix them now instead of later, and I want somebody who is willing to do that. Again, this would be Ron Paul.
Ok, that wasn't a very quick answer, but hopefully it gives you a feel for why a lot of people(including myself) are backing this guy.
he also wants to get rid of the fda
he also wants to get rid of the fda, the irs and he has spoken many times in the past about privatizing education, making healthcare even more privatized, and is a known racist (fleet footed, the blacks, let's kick all those goddamn mexicans out i don't care if 5% die etc)
But i guess since he wants to get rid of the patriot act and get us out of iraq (hint: Obama and the awful hilary clinton want to as well and aren't fucking crazy and don't think we should destroy any chance for the poor in this country to have meaningful education or healthcare.)
But go ahead and spout off about civil liberties and how he will tape the constitution back together when the man will be taking REAL civil liberties away: People's ability to live a decent life.
can you guys provide links / sources on the following:
Ron Paul wanting to get rid of the IRS
Ron Paul wanting to remove the FDA because we will self correct the market
Ron Paul being racist
basically links/sources on all the bad things. I know he is a terrible canidate but UHHH i havent seen any DIRECT 100% GUARENTEED TROOTH sources on that shit. Espically the reason he wants to remove the FDA and that its okay cause we'll self correct.
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers. (Oct 2005)
Ease procedures on the purchase and registration of firearms. (Nov 1996)
Allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms. (Nov 1996)
Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
Ron Paul has never voted to award the Congressional gold medal to anyone, so its not like Rosa Parks was singled out. He is rather indiscriminate with this policy. He doesn't consider the gold medal a legitimate government expense.
Well, except for the racist part, this is true, but for good reasons:
FDA: FDA regulations prevent new drugs and medical devices from entering the market for years at a time, and at costs in the hundreds of millions. In the case of drugs or medical devices needed to treat life threatening conditions, many people with life threatening conditions have died waiting for their treatment to receive FDA approval. The regulations also act as a market entry barrier discourages new competitors from entering the market. The high complaince cost and lack of competition are partly to blame for the astronomical cost of drugs and healthcare coverage. And to add insult to injury, many drugs with harmful effects still make it to market despite all these sacrifices made to ensure there safety.
It is possible that through a combination of voluntary complaince measures, consumer information services, liability, and market competition that drug safety could still be ensured but without the huge cost, delays in life saving treatments and other problems that the FDA causes.
IRS: Ron Paul wants to reduce the size and scale of the government to the point were Federal Income taxes are no longer necessary to maintain it. Once this occurs, the IRS can go.
Healthcare: While there has been a push of place the Federal government in control of funding healthcare, many of us would like to see the Federal government out of healthcare. If anything, the Federal government has proven itself completely incompetent in matters of financing, wallowing in debt and unable to properly fund all of its current responsibilites. That last thing we need is something as critical as our health dependent on the government's ability to properly finance its obligations. Furthermore, one of the key problems with our health care system is rising health care cost. A universal payer system will create a buffer in which our tax money is first pooled together for all Federal expenses and then distributed back to the health care system, which will effectively hide the cost from the taxpayer(especially because it is likely to be covered with borrowed money) but has no guarantee in actually reducing the cost or fixing the problem.
Rather, what we should do is put health care money back in the hands of individual people. Right now, the money used to pay for health care is twice removed from their control. There health care is payed for by their insurance company, which is in turn payed for by their employer, by money would otherwise be received by and under direct control of the individual. The status quo is maintained because of tax benefits that can only be obtained through employer health coverage and the fact that many employers of forced to provide HMO coverage thansk to Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. Note that there has been a steady rise in health care prices since the passage of the HMO Act and the establishment of our current healthcare structure, so changing these circumstance might actually result in lower health care cost. Ways to circumvent this situation include providing the same tax benefits to employes who personally pay for their health care and the establishment of Health Savings Accounts as an alternative to HMOs.
Racism: Ron Paul is not a racist as far as I know. He is construed to be a racist by some by taking individual events or positions well out of context.
But i guess since he wants to get rid of the patriot act and get us out of iraq (hint: Obama and the awful hilary clinton want to as well and aren't fucking crazy...)
The reason drugs undergo such incredibly strict testing is because they often create massive side effects in certain people, and they have to test it against every combination of features they can think of to make sure they aren't killing people. It's not like a video game where you can release a buggy version and then fix it up as people discover errors; lots and lots of people can die if they miss something, either through insufficient testing or plain old negligence. Don't say "lots of harmful drugs" make it to the market, because LOTS more would make it to the market without them, and lots more people would be dead.
Hahaha, yeah right, voluntary compliance measures. Because big corporations are well known for their adherence to anything voluntary that costs them money, right? Market competition isn't going to magically solve the issue of dangerous drugs entering the market and neither is liability; when you can afford to hire fifty of the best lawyers in the world against some poor schlub who hired Joe Lawstudent to defend him you can afford to pretty much crush every lawsuit that comes you way. And the US legal system doesn't need more lawsuits being thrown around, as it is already crippled by them. The FDA does a pretty good job of keeping the things we (you) eat and the pill we (you) need safe. You live in a dreamworld if you think handing over the reigns to the free market is going to safe lives.
Income taxes pay for schools and roads and all that wonderful stuff in addition to government salaries. Once again, he is assuming the free market will step in to pay for all the things that income tax is paying for now; privately owned/subsidized schools and roads and God knows what else.
You obviously have no understand of how universal healthcare works. If a forty year old man with three kids has a heart attack and doesn't have health insurance at his workplace, he is fucked, because he can't possibly afford to pay for the treatment.
However, if everyone else in the country donates 3 cents, he is fine. Is this forcing people to pay extra money? No, the money already exists, and everyone can use it under a universal healthcare system. The US has more than enough money in its healthcare budget to pay for universal healthcare, and it is the fault of (primarily) independent insurance companies that such high costs for hospital care exist.
Universal healthcare isn't for Jack Middleclass who has healthcare through his work and private health insurance at home, it is for the hundred million or so Americans who can't afford it/aren't offered it. I am in favour of a reform in terms of how healthcare money is handled, but abolishing it and cockblocking the idea is just insane, and shows that you have no interest in protecting the welfare of a quarter of the population of the US.
Again, this is just not a viable option for a huge number of Americans. "Twice removed from their control"? Give me a break. Individual people OFTEN cannot afford to pay the huge medical bills a simple accident can cause, and many insurance plans are setup entirely to screw people out of their money while not actually providing any benefits to people who do not fall exactly into their contract's conditions. What the government needs to do is crack the fuck down on health insurance providers instead of repeatedly turning a blind eye or even outright supporting them (as is the case with Kaiser Permanente).
Do you not have any social conscience? Do you not have any love for your country? If so, how can you vote for someone who wants to return the US to the way it was in 1780, complete with laissez faire government that doesn't give a shit about its people? The free market exists to make the rich richer off the backs of the poor while the middle class stays more or less the same. While you can argue its strong points in terms of economics, when applied to politics it completely falls apart.
When the founding fathers were writing the constitution, they should have added something about the separate of corporation and state next to the bit about the separation of church and state (not that anyone pays attention to that anymore, but whatever).
http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/ron-pauls.html
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll764.xml
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/5/193414/2787
Obviously the reason why drugs undergo testing is to protect the consumer. However, there are multiple was to go about drug testing and quality control, and you do not necessarily need the incredibly complicated and expensive FDA oversite to achieve these goals. Instead, other means such as those a previously mentioned can be employed.
And what you fail to understand is that there are ways to provide healthcare for the poor other than Universal Healthcare, whether that be charity or merely a government program limited strictly to the poor. I have no problem giving the poor finanical assistance for healthcare, but there is no reason why that should entail placing the government financially in charge of health care for those who can provide for themselves, especially when the government is not in proper financial shape to manage its existing responsibilities, let alone any new responsibilities that are this important.
There's also a moral standpoint, shouldn't it be a right for everyone to get healthcare?
The problem is that a "right" to government healthcare inevitably and coercively comes out of someone's pocket.
Most of the social service programs in modern western countries were created in response to the immanent threat of socialist revolution overthrowing the current states. Their longevity can be attributed to the irrationality of the populace. Note that despite being a essential component of human survival, very few people are advocating for collectivizing food.
The problem is that a "right" to government healthcare inevitably and coercively comes out of someone's pocket.
Most of the social service programs in modern western countries were created in response to the immanent threat of socialist revolution overthrowing the current states. Their longevity can be attributed to the irrationality of the populace. Note that despite being a essential component of human survival, very few people are advocating for collectivizing food.
Actually, we managed to run the country for over two centuries without it, and it was done without running up a huge debt. The Federal government was up to that point funded by tariffs and excise taxes. This was more than enough to run our military. Of course, at the time, are military was not stationed all over the globe, so it was much cheaper to maintain.
Schools and hosptials are run at the state and local level, and do not require Federal revenue to operate.
Actually, we managed to run the country for over two centuries without it, and it was done without running up a huge debt. The Federal government was up to that point funded by tariffs and excise taxes. This was more than enough to run our military. Of course, at the time, are military was not stationed all over the globe, so it was much cheaper to maintain.
Schools and hosptials are run at the state and local level, and do not require Federal revenue to operate.
a) Good luck raising excise taxes and tariffs on free trade
and
b) In 1865 they did not have to worry about ICBMs (defence and offence) or stealth bombers or one of the several dozen other multi-billion dollars programs that the US government has to worry about until every other country in the world agrees to stop worrying about them too.
It's like Ron Paulists are stuck in 1792 or something; the world has changed a great deal since then, and so the US government superstructure has changed as well.
Maybe we should just repeal all the amendments (except the first ten, god bless america) because they are probably unconstitutional and then abolish the military, because state-run militias can defend the country for us.
You guys are pushing for laissez-faire feudalism. The federal government exists for a reason.
You guys can make all the ridiculous excuses you want but it all comes down to this:
You're incredibly selfish and don't want to be taxed, damn the consequences.
Before the income tax was established in 1913, the Federal government had no problem running both a standing army and the navy without the income tax, and the navy included some fairly impressive warships that were state-of-the-art for their time. The key difference between then and now isn't that we didn't maintain an army or some impressive weaponry, but that our armed forces stayed within or near the country except during times of war, as opposed to being permanently deployed across the globe.
:words:
i can't believe how dumb you lolbertarians can be.
You keep spouting off on charity but do you really think charity will cover all of the social programs that are needed in this country? Even WITH an income tax bush still cut hundreds of needed programs. Even more will be cut under paul's terrible plan. So you're ok with no special education, no welfare, no food stamps, no support for low income families, no fuel assistance, no student loan assistance, dillution of the federal prison system (lol), dillution of the interstate highway system, medicare, medicaid, social security, healthcare assistance, federal investigative groups (FBI, DEA, ATF etc, don't you watch.... without a trace?), the fcc,
AND MANY MORE
fun reading
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/dark-side-of-paul-phenomenon.html
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html
allow me to jone you
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html
I want this good man to be protected at all times. If the jews can do 9-11, they will do him. I am so fearful for this man! Ron Paul is the only person who makes sense and he needs protection! I sure hope he's getting it.
I am thrilled he's finally going to be on some mainstream media shows. It really got their attention when he raised that cash! No denying his supporters now!
I appreciate this sentiment. We have a dysfunction in our community at times where our efforts to name the jew, while a useful and eye-opening device for initiates, often spiral and contort wildly isomuch that we find jews where they are not. This is creates defeatism and convinces us that our efforts are moot, which then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. While I believe the deck is stacked against us, I don't for a moment ascribe to the system any supernatural immunity to our practical efforts on the ground. We can make a difference. We are not fighting the Borg. Lets just keep our eye on the ball and work for it. The white nationalist who is most controlled by the jews is the white nationalist who sees him where he is not, because for that person the jew has truly monopolized his time and mental energy without lifting a finger or spending a penny of his own. May clear heads and direct action prevail, go Ron Paul!
What do the Terrorists think about Ron Paul, Truth? Glen Beck and David Horowitz said he's in bed with the Islamo-facists the other night.
Also, I was at the Ron Paul rally, mostly looking out for snipers on the mint building and surrounding bulidings, and although I saw metric fuck tons of veterans, I did not see a single Skin-head Neo-Nazi or right wing militant.
I'm... I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Surely you aren't trying to say that just because we could afford state-of-the-art weaponry in the 1700/1800s without the IRS, it means we could afford to the same nowadays if we just cut back on our globalization, right? I mean, there have probably been more advancements in warfare technology in the past 20 years than there was in the first two centuries of our country's existence...
i can't believe how dumb you lolbertarians can be.
You keep spouting off on charity but do you really think charity will cover all of the social programs that are needed in this country? Even WITH an income tax bush still cut hundreds of needed programs. Even more will be cut under paul's terrible plan. So you're ok with no special education, no welfare, no food stamps, no support for low income families, no fuel assistance, no student loan assistance, dillution of the federal prison system (lol), dillution of the interstate highway system, medicare, medicaid, social security, healthcare assistance, federal investigative groups (FBI, DEA, ATF etc, don't you watch.... without a trace?), the fcc,
AND MANY MORE
Quotespecial education - can be run at the state level just like the rest of education is
No it can't. You're showing an uncommon level of stupidity if you think that letting each state handle special education is a good thing (Some states are far too poor to support it)Quotewelfare, food stamps, low income family assistance - these programs actually carry a risk of making encouraging participates not to pursue employement, or at least not to pursue it with the same vigilance. As it stands, these programs can probably be consolidated, and their burdens eventually shifted to charity, state and local government
You're the most ignorant person i've ever met thanks. CHARITY GUYS CHARITY. fuck you seriously. What you're saying is completely bigoted and some would even say racist. Guess what chach? My family was on welfare and food stamps when my mother left my dad, and not only are we not on it now, but she works full time while working on her master's degree in Speech Pathology. If those programs had not been available to us at the time I have no idea what we would have done. You're a horrible human being.Quotefuel assistance - don't need it anyway, get rid of it
I would implore you to do a bit or research before posting nonsense like that. Not only do we NEED it but we need a larger and more comprehensive program in place. Do you really think it is ok for people to freeze every night because they have to choose between food and oil? Are you fucking crazy?Quotefederal prison system - much of the burden currently placed on the federal prison system is do to drug prosecution. The need and cost of the federal prison system can be dramatically reduced by eliminating drug prohibition
Saying "Much" is a ridiculous statement. But I guess you think it is ok for people to sell heroin and cocaine to our children right? DON'T TAKE MY FUCKING NOSE CANDY LIBERTY AWAY. Maybe you missed the part where federal crimes had a broader scope than just drug crimes chach.Quoteinterstate highway system - despite 'interstate' in the name, interstate highways are primarily funded for and maintained by the individual states they reside in, just like all other roads
They are usually funded by tolls that are state programs yes, but they recieve a ton of funding from the federal government.Quotemedicare, medicaid, healthcare assistance - the need for these programs can be greatly diminished by bringing medical cost under control and in line with the rest of the market system. The remaining burdens can be dealt with like welfare, consolidate these programs, then try to phase them out in favor of charities, state and local programs.
I just can't believe what i'm hearing. Some seniors cannot afford to spend hardly any money on their medical bills. Bringing things in line with the market is not going to help anyone other than the ones who could previously afford it. And again, if you think charities will help out enough THINK AGAINQuotesocial security - has its own tax that it is supported by, does not depend on income tax funds
I'm aware. I was referring to the fact that ron paul wants to get rid of the social security tax too. Also it's a federal tax.QuoteFBI - can likely be maintained without the income tax
How do you suppose that can be? I'd seriously like to hear something than some baseless statement, I can make those too. "Ron Paul is likely a jew in disguise who in due time will kill everyone".QuoteDEA - can be abolished as soon as drug prohibition is done away with
Again you say that the "War on drugs" is not a good thing when people die every day from overdoses, and it destroys our streets. And before you make a correlation to alchohol I want to know if you have EVER spent serious time around a person addicted to a hard drug? It's a completely different circumstance and if you can't realize that, you are insanely naieve.QuoteATF - probably should have never been created in the first place, we don't need it and can just get rid of it
more baseless bullshit. Being an lolbertarian you must love the illegal gun trade and wish you too could have a fully automatic AK.
you're a terrible person and your free market pandering has been exposed.
You forget that our advances in industrial and manufacturer technology and techniques tend to keep pace with the rest of our technology(if not being outright necessary for the continued advance of the rest of our technology). So while the complexity of the devices we build increases, so does our capacity to produce increasingly complicated systems.
You obviously have no grasp of how the military-industrial complex of the USA works. It is not a steady curve upwards where factories magically become more complex and so the weapons they produce become more complex; they could have manufactured several million FULL KITS (including rifle and ammunition) for a General Infantryman of the second world war for what it costs to buy one F-22 Raptor from the people who make them (sorry pal the US government doesn't build their own armaments, they buy them).
Giant corporations like Lockheed-Martin and Boeing can charge pretty much whatever they like for their technology, and the federal government has to pay it. Why? Because of laissez-faire economics, my foolish friend! When you let companies have a completely free hand at running themselves, they will try to make as much money as possible and to HELL with the social consequences!
That being said, it is obvious you live in a dreamworld if you think it costs the US the same amount of money today (even minus any peacekeeping or overseas operations) to run their military as it did in 1913 before the massive aggrandizing during the first world war (nevermind the second World War when the US built more new modern warships than previously existed in the world, total).
Just stop talking about the federal income tax and its relation to the armed forces of the US. You have no clue how they interrelate or how money works in general, it seems.
No it can't. You're showing an uncommon level of stupidity if you think that letting each state handle special education is a good thing (Some states are far too poor to support it)
You're the most ignorant person i've ever met thanks. CHARITY GUYS CHARITY. fuck you seriously. What you're saying is completely bigoted and some would even say racist. Guess what chach? My family was on welfare and food stamps when my mother left my dad, and not only are we not on it now, but she works full time while working on her master's degree in Speech Pathology. If those programs had not been available to us at the time I have no idea what we would have done. You're a horrible human being.
I would implore you to do a bit or research before posting nonsense like that. Not only do we NEED it but we need a larger and more comprehensive program in place. Do you really think it is ok for people to freeze every night because they have to choose between food and oil? Are you fucking crazy?
Saying "Much" is a ridiculous statement. But I guess you think it is ok for people to sell heroin and cocaine to our children right? DON'T TAKE MY FUCKING NOSE CANDY LIBERTY AWAY. Maybe you missed the part where federal crimes had a broader scope than just drug crimes chach.
I just can't believe what i'm hearing. Some seniors cannot afford to spend hardly any money on their medical bills. Bringing things in line with the market is not going to help anyone other than the ones who could previously afford it. And again, if you think charities will help out enough THINK AGAIN
I'm aware. I was referring to the fact that ron paul wants to get rid of the social security tax too. Also it's a federal tax.
How do you suppose that can be? I'd seriously like to hear something than some baseless statement, I can make those too. "Ron Paul is likely a jew in disguise who in due time will kill everyone".
Again you say that the "War on drugs" is not a good thing when people die every day from overdoses, and it destroys our streets. And before you make a correlation to alchohol I want to know if you have EVER spent serious time around a person addicted to a hard drug? It's a completely different circumstance and if you can't realize that, you are insanely naieve.
more baseless bullshit. Being an lolbertarian you must love the illegal gun trade and wish you too could have a fully automatic AK.
That is true, he also wants to do away with this tax and social security itself. The program is very expensive to fund, provides minimal benefit, and its setup is going to require either a tax increase or benefit reduction in the elderly take up a greater fraction of the population.
I don't care how much you reduce costs, some people CANNOT AFFORD TO BUY MEDICATION AT ALL WITHOUT SACRIFICING FOOD/LODGING/ETC. How is this a difficult concept to understand.
And how is one particular entity justified in coercing other people into paying for it?what the hell
Yeah, I know this is off topic, but Fully Auto weapons are legal if you 1) live in a state which will let you purchase an NFA weapon 2) pass a federal background check 3) get the permission of the local sheriff 4) Are willing to pay far out the ass for a weapon made prior to 1986 5) pay a $200 transfer fee.
Interestingly enough, NFA (national firearms act) was passed in 1934 during the depths of depression, making coming up with $200 extremely difficult unless you were the pinkertons, when the federal government was taking on expanded federal power under the War Powers act and the Roosevelt administration. Also quite interesting is that if a corporation wants full auto weapons all they have to so is pay the $200 transfer tax per weapon.
I would like to see Ron Paul elected because of his veiws on the constitution and the economy, but if he can get NFA and the 68GCA (1938 Nazi weapons law in english) repealed I will love the man forever. You guys should go read over the gun laws and see how frigging inane they are. case in point, I have a Yugo SKS which is classified as a Curio & Relic by the BAFTE, if I want to add a new stock to it I have to add 10 US made compliance parts to comply with 922r, or I go to jail for 10 years. I'd like a neat T6 adjustable stock for my SKS, 'cause the standard stocks are a bit short for a person of my size, but I don't want to go to federal prison for violating 922r.
So yeah, I must be a horrible person because I want full auto weapons, want a nice synthetic stock on my SKS, believe in Ron Paul, the consitution, and think stupid ass laws should be repealed.
Is there any good reason for you to even want a full-automatic? By "good reason" I mean good enough to be worth the downsides of allowing such weapons to be more accessible.
Is there any good reason for you to even want a full-automatic? By "good reason" I mean good enough to be worth the downsides of allowing such weapons to be more accessible.
It's all about freedom of choice IMHO. There is no "good reason" for me to want one any more than there is "good reason" for a person to have a 10 karat diamond ring or and SUV the size of an APC in the city, I would like to have a fully automatic weapon because I believe that I would get enjoyment out of its use and possession. Will making automatic weapons legal without heavy regulation increase some public danger? perhaps. But far more people are killed by car crashes and far more people are killed because they have nice diamond jewelry than have been killed by guns, and far fewer killed by fully automatic weapons in the hands of criminals. Even so, the weapons will still be expensive because of the small supply and those willing to purchase them. We already have laws to stop criminals from getting guns, and we have laws to stop people from getting unregistered automatic weapons, yet criminals still manage to get them. I doubt that every drug pusher will be packing an m249 under his coat if the NFA was repealed. Fully auto weapons, even for criminals, are not very cost efficient unless you have a sizable fortune and government backing, which includes experts who know how to maintain the weapons. When the AWB sunset in 2004 there were worried cries that blood would run red in the streets, yet there have been no wild west style shoot outs, and the Justice department's own study of the AWB showed that it had little to no effect on crime because criminals would rather use a .38spl revolver with a 4" barrel than a Kalashnikov clone with an over all length of about 3'. So I think the dangers of more automatic weapons on the street is exaggerated.
Also, I as a law abiding citizen should be trusted with an automatic weapon. Am I not innocent until proven guilty, and any legislation to preempt my owning of a weapon assumes that I am a criminal, which according to my interpretation violates my right to the due process of law. Also, I have gone through multiple background checks and have been vetted as a responsible citizen. I vote regularly, I pay my taxes, follow the traffic laws, and have never been suspected or convicted of a crime. I am a model citizen, although I admit I am somewhat eccentric (which is no crime), and if it is my choice to use my hard earned money to buy an automatic weapon, a 9lb gold chain, a huge gas guzzling SUV, or a 10 Karat diamond ring than it should be my right to do so, and it should be the same for everyone.
IMHO, Ron Paul agrees with this freedom of choice for all people. Not just for guns, or cars, but what ever we wish to spend our money on. I believe that I can make wiser uses of my money than the federal government.
what enjoyment will you be getting from a weapon thats only purpose is to kill human beings more efficiently? I could see if you wanted a rifle for hunting but you just want to shine the stock while you jerk off over your new found power over human life.
ps guys i think it's pretty obvious that KK4 wants automatic rifles for cool pix
When the AWB sunset in 2004 there were worried cries that blood would run red in the streets, yet there have been no wild west style shoot outs, and the Justice department's own study of the AWB showed that it had little to no effect on crime because criminals would rather use a .38spl revolver with a 4" barrel than a Kalashnikov clone with an over all length of about 3'. So I think the dangers of more automatic weapons on the street is exaggerated.
what enjoyment will you be getting from a weapon thats only purpose is to kill human beings more efficiently? I could see if you wanted a rifle for hunting but you just want to shine the stock while you jerk off over your new found power over human life.
I know you are familiar with their existence, so I will just have to call you out on the fact that you totally "overlooked" them; submachine guns. Submachine guns are fully automatic and do not have 3' barrels. They are easily concealed and sometimes very inexpensive (as is the case with Tec9s) and are fairly easy to maintain. In addition, they use easily obtainable and inexpensive pistol ammunition.
When I hear about automatic weapons becoming legal, I don't just suddenly envision a bunch of gangs driving around with AR15s and AK-47s shooting them in the air wildly, I imagine escalating violence after some private collector has his gun collection stolen and suddenly all those fully automatic SMGs he had to buy because IT WAS HIS RIGHT GOD BLESS AMERICA are now floating around in the hands of criminals. If you keep them out of the market entirely then you keep them off the streets, it is that simple. Sure, people will still be able to get them, but it keeps their cost high and keeps their appearance uncommon.
The simple truth is that more guns owned by HONEST AMERICANS directly translates into more guns floating around in the streets. Despite thinking you are totally insane, I don't doubt that you'd probably not kill anyone with your fine collection of rifles and crazy Yugoslavian knockoffs, but someone out their is going to amass a big old cache of them and then get robbed and lose it, and then those guns will be used to rob and shoot people (which is the primary usage of guns).
Also, stop using terminology that no one knows because we are not gun-nuts. I am pretty familiar with guns so I get all the .38spl/Kalashnikov/SKS/et cetera but not everyone can follow your crazy comments about various acronyms and their danger to HONEST AMERICANS.This is a reoccurring problem, seeing as I am a self described weapons specialist. I'll just add pictures when I go on about weapons. That should fix some things.
ps guys i think it's pretty obvious that KK4 wants automatic rifles for cool pixThat is a friggin' awesome graphic. Fuckin' savedHidden content (Click to reveal)(http://www.gamingw.net/pubaccess/23983/yerp.jpg)
:words:
However, The more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens the less crime there is. (look at the crime stats in places with tighter gun laws vs those with fewer gun laws)
The key difference is that libertarians still believe in a government, and that the government should be authorized to prevent the use of violence and coercion against itswhoa there sonny you're starting to sound like a republocrat. the same government who planned 9/11 (INSIDE JOB) can protect it's citizens from violence? heh looks like you need a fact check heres a cool topic to KEEP YOU INFORMED:
population.
tell me bucko why is the government any better than private militias?
where does this inherent trust come from?
Well, not every government will be better than private militias. But a good government will be better than private militias because it will be under, or at least mostly under, the control of the people. And as long as an individual does not use force to harm another individual, he will never have to fear threats or violence from a good government. This can not be said of private militia.
Well, not every private militia will be better than government. But a good private militia will be better than government because it will be under, or at least mostly under, the control of the people. And as long as an individual does not use force to harm another individual, he will never have to fear threats or violence from a good private militia. This can not be said of government.
Lets get something strait, Somalia is in a state of Anarchy, and there is a world of difference between Anarchy and Libertarianism.
The underlying philosophy behind libertarians is to confine the use of force to a single entity, the government, and otherwise keep it out of all other activity.the more you know: the difference between anarchy and libertopia is instituting a basic "government run" peace force.
because of "reputation based" markets the people ultimately control the companies who employ militias much like the free market and self regulation all true libertarians believe in. the same self regulation that will occur 100% no doubt after the fda is disbanded and that will be far superior to the fda which was instituted to steal money from honest companies like my own (doug beachs ecletic remedies incorporated: NEW! chemical soap bars burn through multiple layers of skin for a refreshing clean).
who are you to decide what affairs the government meddles in and what they don't? good job dodging the question pal but it's not a suprise considering you are only a Level 5 Operating Libertarian (i am level 17). only the true libertarian market controlled by rational self actors (the population) can dictate this.
by the way i dislike history and i believe it should never be considered this is why i like true ron paul supporters (young rich white people). there is no such saying "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" and i am merely mentioning this seeming jumble of words to give you a vague example of a non-existent quote. for instance ron pauls policy in no way represents a similar time in history at all and my previous reference to setting progress 100 years backwards has no basis whatsoever (p.s. i found this cool link while browsing sexypornowallpapers.com : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age )
there's a reason the entire civilized world does not run a government in any way shape or form related to libertarianism
Lawlz, Constitutionalism. Just because some things (like the Federal Reserve) don't exist in the Constitution doesn't mean they are unnecessary. Our country was ridiculously small at the point the Constitution was ratified, and has grown several times its original size since then. Regulation of funds would be... difficult, to say the least, without a federal entity to oversee operations.
And apparently abolishing the Second Bank of the United States didn't help any back in the day. Panic of 1837, anyone? It was also caused by Specie Circular, initiated by Andrew Jackson, which required money to be back up by gold and silver specie. A.K.A gold standard. Didn't work very well. And Ron Paul is (correct me if I'm wrong, please) proposing we do the same thing. Just think of how badly this would end up with the United States population several times the size it was in 1837...
Some things Ron Paul says are very interesting and admittedly may be beneficial to America, but I don't think adhering strictly to the Constitution will get us anywhere. Times have changed, and if we don't change with them, the country will be left behind. Certainly, the Constitution is the basis of our government and provides for liberties for American citizens. That doesn't mean we can't deviate from it where it is "necessary and proper" to do so.
Now, defining the "necessary and proper" clause is a big issue, but it doesn't change the fact that many of the steps we have taken that were not fundamentally supported by the Constitution have been an improvement on the American society. The reference to The Jungle makes the perfect example. Self-correction is nigh impossible to do when companies throw safety out the window and focus on pure profit. The FDA is certainly expensive, but I think the services it provides allow me to overlook that fact. I like taking a bite out of a homemade hamburger and not having to worry about how many people have gotten sick before the industry "self-corrected" itself to make the burger safe.
Ahahaha, education. Federal standards set for education is the only reason why Florida isn't completely failing at education. Well, I mean, we are failing at education, but I'm pretty sure it would be worse if we weren't forced to met some education requirements set by the government.
I am glad we are back to arguments that both coherent and not condescending.phanixis is right. listen "gayming world", when we talk about racist joke candidates who will never be elected and push obsolete and archaic polices that will drive the usa into another gilded age (this time is for keeps; we'll make sure those nig-nogs don't start some kind of "civil rights movement" this time) let's do it with a bit of respect alright? you poor people and minorities can go to hell and die in a ditch but let's at least be civil about it. here, let me write 5 paragraphs of an intellectual black hole to prove to you why ron paul will increase your penis size if elected (PENIS DRUGS THE FDA DOESNT WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT).
I am glad we are back to arguments that both coherent and not condescending.
(this time is for keeps; we'll make sure those nig-nogs don't start some kind of "civil rights movement" this time)
phanixis you should go on this cool website i found that has ron paul as their official candidate and treat people nice (if you are of the "correct race") and don't berate you like these gayming world lamebrains:
www.stormfront.org
Protip: If pretty much every skinhead, white-supremacist, gun nut and generally crazy right-wing fuck takes up your banner, there is something wrong with your banner.Point made. The fact of the matter is, he probably knows that a lot of his candidates are racists, anarchists, and the like. The fact that he does not and has not CONDEMNED these mindsets probably means he either agrees with them (possible, but not most likely) or he wants any support he can get (very likely).
If 80% of my support came from pregnant women, I'd become the pregnant woman candidate, despite the fact that I am a man (who is not pregnant). Conversely, if 80% of Ron Paul's support comes from racists he is the racist candidate. Sorry, but if you make no effort to stop blatant racists from supporting you, then you obviously are glad they support you.
(render: heh...got waht he deserved.....)
Ugh, even here in Toronto there's a Ron Paul hope for America sticker near my school. I really fucking want to deface it. Also, why the hell is Ron Paul still running for nominations? Doesn't he clearly stand no chance?
ahahaha I'm glad I saw this topic today, you hate me so much and im just sitting here I think I'm gonna be reading Ximenez comparing anime characters to ron paul
I have personally moved on to choosing between the various LP nominees, for the record.
In the name of those of us who don't know what is going on in USA I ask, what is wrong about Ron Paul?
Also, why the hell is Ron Paul still running for nominations? Doesn't he clearly stand no chance?
I think he's hoping McCain dies of old age before the election, so he'll be able to take his place. That's the only possible reason I can think of other than he's fucking insane.
you were the one who waited till I was banned over trying to prevent this shit to post "*exhales* glad that's over with..." pal.what? oh lmao like I'm going to remember a post from earlier in this thread. I don't know what you're talking about preventing, but I just said that I was glad that you were banned (which obviously had to wait until you were!). it was over a half a year ago but I'M SORRY. the curse of the steel paladine is ancient and unyielding, one can never truly escape its wrath
I think he's hoping McCain dies of old age before the election, so he'll be able to take his place. That's the only possible reason I can think of other than he's fucking insane.
Phanixis: Defend Ron Paul's decision to introduce a bill to remove federal aid for all Iranian students.I think some other Ron Paul supporter got asked this same question and he gave some ridiculous answer like "they're foreign, so why should they get U.S. aid?", completely ignoring the fact that the bill he proposed specifically targeted Iranian students, making it nothing but a textbook example of discrimination.
I think he's hoping McCain dies of old age before the election, so he'll be able to take his place. That's the only possible reason I can think of other than he's fucking insane.
Phanixis: Defend Ron Paul's decision to introduce a bill to remove federal aid for all Iranian students.I asked my loud mouthed friend the same question, and got a response similar to "YAH THEY'RE FROM IRAN WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO PAY FOR THEM????"
Was this bill directed specifically at students who had lived in Iran?Specifically at Iranian students, yes.
it's because Paul knows his bread and butter as a libertarian is the white supremacist and nationalist. for someone who rails about the US being jerks in Iraq he sure is quick to be jerks to IRANIAN STUDENTS HERE.heh what about white dudes majoring in physics and engineering that are taking farsi
also fun fact I think most college make it against the law to teach Iranian guys nuclear engineering.
it's because Paul knows his bread and butter as a libertarian is the white supremacist and nationalist. for someone who rails about the US being jerks in Iraq he sure is quick to be jerks to IRANIAN STUDENTS HERE.Well, I guess that to some degree, he isn't in disagreement with the U.S. because they, you know, BOMB HOUSES and stuff. That's just his cute face for the media. He's really against them SPENDING MONEY in Iraq. He probably couldn't care less about the people that have died as a direct result of the U.S. military.
Well, I guess that to some degree, he isn't in disagreement with the U.S. because they, you know, BOMB HOUSES and stuff. That's just his cute face for the media. He's really against them SPENDING MONEY in Iraq. He probably couldn't care less about the people that have died as a direct result of the U.S. military.well
what the hell you think ron paul WANTS TO REFORM HEALTH CARE OR SUBSIDIZE ANYTHING?those were just examples
those were just examplesAre you aware that the whole thing about libertarians is that they don't want to govern?
I think paul only specifically mentioned that he would pump money into roads, bridges and other infrastrcture stuff
I dont know when the last time you went to a very rural area was, but currently the ones around here anyway are sorely in need of some serious help (and I can think of a few others too.. like the entire state of louisiana)
those were just examples
I think paul only specifically mentioned that he would pump money into roads, bridges and other infrastrcture stuff
I dont know when the last time you went to a very rural area was, but currently the ones around here anyway are sorely in need of some serious help (and I can think of a few others too.. like the entire state of louisiana)
although i must say if the new roads were whites only, i think that'd be okayyeah gravel roads are manageable
yeah gravel roads are manageable
structurally unsound bridges arent
yeah gravel roads are manageableMan, yeah, Fiat currency.
structurally unsound bridges arent
Man, yeah, Fiat currency.
http://www.math.lsu.edu/~bogdan/photo-albums/poland-poznan/fiat.jpg