Page 1 of 2 12>
Topic Options
#53958 - 05/05/11 12:38 AM Ron Paul 2012 Money Bomb
Shea Offline
member


Registered: 03/24/11
Posts: 108
Loc: Chicago
I recall there being some people with Libertarian leanings on the board; as a friendly reminder:

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

You can make a donation, see if we can reach the $2 million mark before the first GOP debate.

Top
#54068 - 05/07/11 07:13 PM Re: Ron Paul 2012 Money Bomb [Re: Shea]
Meph9 Offline
member


Registered: 04/02/11
Posts: 161
I don't think Ron Paul is seriously going to run for president, more importantly as much as I respect Paul he little chance of winning. Ron is just to reasonable and educated to survive a republican primary.
Top
#54087 - 05/08/11 12:09 AM Re: Ron Paul 2012 Money Bomb [Re: Meph9]
Shea Offline
member


Registered: 03/24/11
Posts: 108
Loc: Chicago
Paul's won something like 10 elections in Texas; he knows something about winning. I do understand what you're driving at though, and I know in terms of media coverage, he's at a definite disadvantage.
I'm still enough of an idealist to throw my support behind a long-shot, especially when it's a case I feel so strongly about. Liberty is worth taking a few ideological potshots for in my opinion.

Top
#54104 - 05/08/11 12:03 PM Re: Ron Paul 2012 Money Bomb [Re: Shea]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
One of the main reasons Paul did not win the Republican nomination was due to the McCain and Romney camps painting Paul as a nutcase.

Now, however, I think a lot of people realize that if we'd listened to Paul's conservative economic strategy, and had not spread our military so thin across the world, we might have avoided this recession we're currently dealing with.

It's pretty tough painting a guy as a loony the second time around when he was right all along. I think that will put him in better stead to win the Republican party nomination. It's not like there's a great choice of candidates to pick from: Trump (lol), Huckabee (running on the anti-abortion platform), Gingrich, Michele Bachmann (airhead), and Romney (the only real contender to Paul). Everyone else is a nobody.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#54236 - 05/10/11 01:27 AM Re: Ron Paul 2012 Money Bomb [Re: Shea]
Meph9 Offline
member


Registered: 04/02/11
Posts: 161
Yes congressman Paul but the fact is Ron Paul doesn't play ball with the GOP leadership. This election cycle I don't see a candidate winning the Republican primary without saying that obama is muslim/foreign, or that nonexistant "islamic socialists" are trying to destroy America...

Ron Paul is too reasonable to win the nomination.

Top
#54239 - 05/10/11 01:39 AM Re: Ron Paul 2012 Money Bomb [Re: Meph9]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
So are you saying don't back the candidate because he's too right?

(oh my GAWD! Here she goes again...)

That's the damned problem with this country: half the people in it are backing a pile of shit because they are too afraid that they'll be the only ones standing in the camp of the guy who would do a good job. Perhaps if each person who is too chickenshit to put some muscle in their politics just refrained from voting or voicing, we could get the douchebags out of the capitol.

Do me a favor and punch yourself in the ear (because I hit like a girl). You probably voted for Obama anyway. That deserves at least a kick in the balls.

Top
#54240 - 05/10/11 02:09 AM Re: Ron Paul 2012 Money Bomb [Re: ceruleansteel]
Lucifer Rising Offline
member


Registered: 04/10/10
Posts: 147
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
Okay, I like Ron Paul. I simply wish there was somebody running on a similar platform I think could handle the presidency. Let's say he wins the election, do you think he can deal with the senate and the house? He might be able to win over a couple of the supreme court justices, but that's it. Do you think the members of the Republican party are going to back him up? Do you expect him to get help from the Democrats. If elected, I cannot see him being able to do much with it. The Democrats were barely able to do anything when they had a majority across the board, so what is Ron Paul going to do?

I don't see him winning the election, and I don't see him being able to do much if he did. I could be wrong, I hope I am. I'm probably going to vote for him anyway. I'll let you know though, I'll vote for Obama before voting for any other Republican.
_________________________
Even if you're the ultimate evil lord of the underworld, you should always be yourself. Mickey Mouse

Top
#54245 - 05/10/11 09:24 AM Re: Ron Paul 2012 Money Bomb [Re: ceruleansteel]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
That's the damned problem with this country: half the people in it are backing a pile of shit because they are too afraid that they'll be the only ones standing in the camp of the guy who would do a good job. Perhaps if each person who is too chickenshit to put some muscle in their politics just refrained from voting or voicing, we could get the douchebags out of the capitol.


Politics and democracy, in some ways, are the very essence of "might makes right".

If you're afraid to stand up for what you believe in, then you're a coward. If, on the other hand, your choice is between a bad choice and nothing, well, sometimes it makes sense to take the bad choice. Actions have consequences, and life goes on.

You see, I trust, how political campaigns actually work. If a candidate wants to win, then being "right" is usually irrelevant.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#54246 - 05/10/11 09:27 AM Re: Ron Paul 2012 Money Bomb [Re: Lucifer Rising]
Shea Offline
member


Registered: 03/24/11
Posts: 108
Loc: Chicago
One thing he could do, with absolutely no help at all, is limit the role of the executive office in legislative matters. Shoot, imagine writing an executive order, that disalowed executive orders that created too sweeping of a legislative reform!

Outside of that, if Ron Paul wins, it will be on the notion of sound money and embracing the economy propounded by the Austrian economists and actually making our money worth something. If he wins, it will be because the sensible people of our society temporarily united to endorse the notion of a free market--no way the chambers of the senate would try to take a stand against things like this, provided Ron Paul was able to retain a bit of momentum going into the White House.

Top
#54256 - 05/10/11 11:18 AM Re: Ron Paul 2012 Money Bomb [Re: Shea]
Lucifer Rising Offline
member


Registered: 04/10/10
Posts: 147
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
 Originally Posted By: Shea
If he wins, it will be because the sensible people of our society temporarily united to endorse the notion of a free market--no way the chambers of the senate would try to take a stand against things like this...

I think you underestimate how stubborn politicians can be.

 Originally Posted By: Shea
One thing he could do, with absolutely no help at all, is limit the role of the executive office in legislative matters.

So let's imagine for a moment he is elected and I am right about him having trouble gaining support for his ideas in the legislative branch. What you want him to do is use his executive power to limit executive power so he will be able to do even less. The scope of executive power is not even a primary concern of mine. A person can give himself total control, claim himself emperor if he wants, if he is able to run the country well enough. Wouldn't bother me. I support him because I agree with most of his ideas. I'd rather see him "abuse" his executive powers to get things done than have him simply give them away and achieve nothing.
_________________________
Even if you're the ultimate evil lord of the underworld, you should always be yourself. Mickey Mouse

Top
#54315 - 05/10/11 11:54 PM Re: Ron Paul 2012 Money Bomb [Re: Lucifer Rising]
Shea Offline
member


Registered: 03/24/11
Posts: 108
Loc: Chicago
Plainly you're not very familiar with Ron Paul's ideas. The thrust of his philosophy rests upon the notion that the government is too intrusive and paternalistic; Ron Paul is respectable precisely because he is a proponent of individualism and small government. By their very definition, Ron Paul's ideas in governance couldn't be "abusively" enforced. It would be like a pacifist punching people until they adopted pacifism.

If he limited the role of Executive Legislation (which should be somewhat of an oxymoron, if one gives any deep consideration to the Constitution), yes it would limit his influence. But, it would also limit the power of all the statists to take the office after him; at least temporarily. Realistically speaking, the dichotomy that exists between individuality and collectivism can never be resolved; especially in the government.

Additionally, I'm certain I haven't underestimated the nature of politicians. Calling them stubborn implies that the bulk of them actually have a political agenda that they consistently follow. They don't. Special interests run our government.

Of course, lobbyists aren't to be blamed; they're playing the system as it stands. If you limit the power of the government, it doesn't matter who buys what congressman as their individual influence will be much less valuable in the long run.

Top
#54316 - 05/10/11 11:59 PM Re: Ron Paul 2012 Money Bomb [Re: ceruleansteel]
Meph9 Offline
member


Registered: 04/02/11
Posts: 161
So are you saying don't back the candidate because he's too right?

Uh no that's almost the exact of what I said, you completely misunderstand. I not saying a whole lot about Ron's actual ideas/policies what I saying is that the GOP is infected with a forever ignorant group of social conservatives. Would the party be smart to choose Paul? Yes, but at this point seeing as how upwards 1 in 10 Republicans believes Obama is a muslim foreigner I'm not sure that there to be using a whole lot of logic in selecting their nominee. Everyone from Trump to Huckabee or Bachmann has on at least one point tried to play into that lunatic narrative, and since the GOP leadership is too cowardly to denounce that nonsense it's going to hurt them.

Lets look at most of the frontrunners on the right:
Gingrich who apparrently believes that Obama's political philosophy is based on "Kenya anticolonial socialism"(what ever hell that is)

Bachmann and Palin have been cheerleaders for the birther type ideology for some time now.

You've even got Huckabee who usually doesn't dumb things like this attempting to pander to the fools about the "socialism, Mau Mau rebellion..."

Frankly I think it comes down to the fact that Ron Paul unlike people like Gingrich, Boehner, McConnell and so on Mr.Paul seems unwilling to support these ideas because he knows they are true.
Republicans for the most part love that fanatical ideology so that means who ever is going to win the nomination is going to have to is pander to the dumbasses to beat the other right wing candidates, but in doing so they will turn off the majority of the country who can't stand their conspiracy theories.


But there is always the chance that I'm completely wrong because if you asked me a couple years ago if I thought the birther movement was going grow after 2008 election I would have never believed that. It's going to be a crazy race so all bets off.

Top
#54330 - 05/11/11 12:43 PM Re: Ron Paul 2012 Money Bomb [Re: Meph9]
Thule Offline
temp banned
pledge


Registered: 04/30/11
Posts: 68
Whoever wins is mostly chosen by billionaires, bankers and people with political power (secret societies as well). These people are robbing America to fill their own pockets and special interests. Ron Paul goes against the establishment too much so they will not support him. Even if all the losers in America support Paul he won't win without the backing of the people in power.

The TV screen tells most people who to vote for. I'm amazed Paul even gets on TV with his reasonable views and revealing the truth about our money system and such. So if I had money to throw away I would give it to him, but I don't think it will do much good. But if I was a billionaire and could actually do some good with the money and give him a good chance at winning something I would maybe throw money at it.

Really the main thing Paul does is bring certain issues to attention for people and maybe influence politicians to be more reasonable. I feel like it would be more realistic for him to simply be a congressman or something. Running for president mostly he is just getting his name and ideas out there rather than actually winning anything.

That's one reason I want to form my own private society. If we were rich and owned a TV station we could have a real voice in politics.

Money and power is what gets people elected, not casting your vote. For every 1 educated and reasonable person there are about 10,000 uneducated morons voting (usually based on what their pastor or TV told them to vote for). That's modern democracy (watch the documentary "happiness machines" on youtube to learn about an Edward Bernay's type of "democracy" that we have today.).

The presidential election is the biggest joke. That's when all the idiots come out to vote and the most publicized. The president is like an actor made to entertain the masses, and has little power himself anyway. The real power would be to run in the private circles of people who fund the presidnt, special interests groups, secret societies etc.

And to have your vote count vote for an election which isn't publicized so has a lower turn out.
_________________________
http://www.hraftzer.weebly.com

Top
#54332 - 05/11/11 01:06 PM Re: Ron Paul 2012 Money Bomb [Re: Meph9]
Lucifer Rising Offline
member


Registered: 04/10/10
Posts: 147
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
No, I understand his ideas. However, there are times you have to give up some ideals, at least temporarily, in the name of pragmatism. You are right about special interest, and I don't see any politician giving up on their investors. Also, many politicians are actually stubborn about certain things, especially when it comes to social issues. The best bet he would have to make many of the changes he wants to put forward is to use what executive power is available to him. If he gets into office and just gives that away, he won't have enough support in the legislative branch to do a damn thing. You are naive if you think otherwise.

I agree with him that there is too much government interference in people's personal lives. He could use executive orders to make at least some of the changes that would help in his cause. If then he wants to give up that power, that would be understandable. However, I personally don't care about the constitution, I don't care about democracy, and I don't care about how power is distributed. I could happily live in a dictatorship if the government stays out of my personal business and does well running the country. I simply think his ideas are the best presented to me as a choice.
_________________________
Even if you're the ultimate evil lord of the underworld, you should always be yourself. Mickey Mouse

Top
#54336 - 05/11/11 01:36 PM Re: Ron Paul 2012 Money Bomb [Re: Lucifer Rising]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Lucifer Rising
I could happily live in a dictatorship if the government stays out of my personal business and does well running the country.


I could happily live in a dictatorship <> the government stays out of my personal business.

Can you provide an example of how that "<>" sign could ever change to an "=" sign?

I agree with him that there is too much government interference in people's personal lives.

I wonder if all those folks living under Kim Jong Il (who is a dictator) feel free to pursue their personal business?

I'd bet not.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
Page 1 of 2 12>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.027 seconds of which 0.001 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.