oh i do sorta
Printable View
oh i do sorta
I will be voting for him in my state's caucus.
I am advertising for him with stickers and buttons.
Although I do not agree with every position he has taken, I think the country sorely needs a true libertarian at this juncture.
I hope he wins!!!
I met Ron Paul in Las Vegas at Freedomfest '07. This man could potentially save this once great nation of ours. Can you imagine actually having the freedoms originally intended by our forefathers. (Please do not take any offense to this post please, i am sharing my opinion from what I have heard him say and read about.) As far as returning to the gold standard. We currently have a FICA (i believe this is the term) where a group of bankers who are NOT part of the federal government yet call themselves the Federal Reserve, hold America's gold as collateral (sp?) for money they print at their own whims, thus the giant inflation and wonderful economic situation we are in. How they convinced congress this was a good idea is beyond me. Healthcare for everyone, how could this be a bad thing, healthier citizens means a less stresses healthcare system. He also emphasizes bringing all troops home and to cease occupying other countries (which has been proven to be a major reason for terrorism, just read Blowback) The main thing that makes Ron Paul the right candidate is that he wants to put the freedom of choice where it belongs, in the people's hands, not an overpowered government. I am sure I have left out all kinds of valid points, I am just passionate about this man and his ideals. Please visit Ron Paul 2008 — Hope for America and thank you for sticking with me through this rant...lol
RON PAUL FOR CHANGE
I got at least two people to hopefully vote for Ron Paul. My gramma thinks he's too radical though.
My grandma is totally behind him now... And my mom, three brothers, one sister, wife, two children, two workmates, my neighbors have their yard signs up now too...it's catching on!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by foodsy
It started with me this last summer...and the brushfire has grown to over 15 people I know and love supporting Dr. Paul and counting! And from what I understand, this is pretty typical storyline. The message of freedom, peace and prosperity is popular!
RP08
man was up with all the Dennis Kucinich supporters. That guy to me is to easy to control meaning he seems like he could be taken advantage of. He just dont seem very streetsmart or smart at all. Hes running for Pres. and said hes seen a UFO come on I belive there are aliens but i dont think that hes seen one that kinda thing is very rare and it just happends that a guy running for office seen one. Lets be honest RON PAUL takes a HUGE shit on Dennis Kucinich's campaign.
When wouldn't it be? lolQuote:
Originally Posted by 420izzle
Ron Paul is the man. I've already got some friends voting for him.
If I could fly to the US and vote for Ron Paul then I would ;)
I'm a newb here, and mostly a lurker, but I am also a social scientist.
Ron Paul should not be taken seriously by anyone. Sorry. He knows nothing about economics, and his tax plans and ideas on the Federal Reserve are dangerously naive. There is not enough gold in the world for the US to adopt a gold standard! There is simply not enough gold wealth to cover the US's material wealth. His ideas regarding our economy are simply stupid. Very VERY stupid.
I do have some respect for his ideas regarding foreign policy. It's moot anyway. He has no shot at winning the Republican nomination, much less a general election.
EDIT to add:
I posted this on another forum -- thought I would acopy and paste it here:
Respectfully, I'm not sure why you guys take RP seriously. Bring back the gold standard? That shows me he knows nothing about economics. (There is not enough gold in the world to back up all the US's wealth!)
Abolish the IRS? Replace it with what -- a flat tax? This will disproportionately affect poor people. Our current tax system is not perfect, but there is a reason every civilized western country uses a progressive tax system. Why? Because people with more disposable income will not have their needs taxed, whereas those who have little to no disposable income will have much less financial "breathing room."
A national sales tax would be even worse!
The reason RP is not taken seriously: a) Because he represents a true threat to the establishment and will bring power "back" to the people, or b) because his ideas are silly and likely dangerous. Occam's razor.
I don't want to denigrate anyone in this thread. Yeah, I'm a newb, but I actually know something about this (it's kind of my career). A lot of intelligent people are supporting RP, but just look at how untenable his positions are!
I will say is is close to right on regarding Iraq and the whole imperialism thing. His foreign policy outlook is good. But domestically his ideas are rather silly and dangerous.
This is totally incorrect. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by bestbet
Bin Laden hates the Shia quite possibly more than the US. Many extremist (Wahhabi) Sunnis believe that the US, Israel, and Iran (yes, Iran) are allies fighting against "true" (Sunni Wahhibism).
I will happily take back my statements should you provide a link. I think I probably agree with your overall position regarding foreign policy, but it's important to have your facts straight. :)
This is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Garcia 2007
Many states (eg New Hamphire, Missouri) are open primary states.
Wow you really don't know what you are talking about at all do you?Quote:
Then for the democrates you have the same thing and the far left liberals have the most activist voting block so you end up with a cannidate on the far left ( ie. Kerry and Gore )
So in the end we have cannidates that are on the extream end of either party. So in turn nothing in our goverment gets done!!!! because there is no middle ground!
I posted here the other day and my post is GONE! :wtf:
Ron Paul will not legalize marijuana or any other drug. Im not sure if anyone has cleared this up but I have seen numerous comments (and the above signature) on how he will do so. He will simply remove the federal governments authority on the matter and leave it to the states--the constitutional way. If your state wants marijuana to be legal then it will be.
Respectfully, I'm not sure why you guys take RP seriously. Bring back the gold standard? That shows me he knows nothing about economics. (There is not enough gold in the world to back up all the US's wealth!)
Well, he never actually said he would bring it back. But, the gold standard makes a lot more since than money being back by thin air.
Abolish the IRS? Replace it with what -- a flat tax? This will disproportionately affect poor people. Our current tax system is not perfect, but there is a reason every civilized western country uses a progressive tax system. Why? Because people with more disposable income will not have their needs taxed, whereas those who have little to no disposable income will have much less financial "breathing room."
Yes, abolish the IRS. The only reason it is there is to pay the debt to the Fed. And, who is to say income is disposable? Bill Gates and Donald Trump have disposable income? Their money--a product of their mind--is disposable? Their mind and contributions to mankind are disposable? Flat tax? Over my dead body.
The reason RP is not taken seriously: a) Because he represents a true threat to the establishment and will bring power "back" to the people, or b) because his ideas are silly and likely dangerous. Occam's razor.
What is the establishment? And power to the people is stated in the constitution and correlates directly with logic...so help me out with your A. As for B: His ideas give power to the people and take away from a house of fascists. You're damn right WE are dangerous.
I don't want to denigrate anyone in this thread. Yeah, I'm a newb, but I actually know something about this (it's kind of my career). A lot of intelligent people are supporting RP, but just look at how untenable his positions are!
Intelligent people know logic; so they side with logical positions. Untenable? I think we can take care of ourselves just fine
I just want to let everyone know that Fox News has announced that Ron Paul will be excluded from the Fox News debate in New Hampshire on January sixth.
No, it doesn't. Honestly.Quote:
Originally Posted by iniganja
The value of money is decided by a process of floating: which basically allows the value of currency to fluctuate against other currency.
There is no such thing as real value. The only reason gold has value is that we give it value. As I explain to my classes: God does not cram wealth inside of gold. If we want to say shiny pieces of golden metal have value, then it has value. The same exact principle applies to little green pieces of paper.
Yes, economics is weird.
Gold and silver cannot be printed.Quote:
Originally Posted by xlz916
No, but they are subject to the same forces of supply and demand.Quote:
Originally Posted by angry nomad
New sources of gold and silver can, and have been found. When this happens their value goes down.
Smart governments do not print more money when they are in financial trouble. Because it is insane.
We do alter the value of our money through a system of altering interest rates that banks can change each other int he short term. This does give us some flexibility in increasing or decreasing the value of our own currency. (And yes, having a weak currency is a good idea sometimes!)
EDIT: The main advantage of having a system where a government can print money at will is that they can expand their economy when needed. Gold, as you mentioned, can't be printed. The US economy has outgrown the gold standard. There simply is not enough gold to cover all its wealth.
The "gold standard" doesn't mean gold necessarily, you seem pretty stuck on that. RP has stated this. " We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros."
The current system sucks and needs to be revamped big time...I remember when I was in Germany and the euro was first introduced, how great was that $1-1.5 euro or so. Now look at it, pretty much reversed....we get loans from foreign countries for ridiculous amounts.
Our wealth needs to be backed by something real otherwise the way its going the all mighty dollar is in trouble. We need to pull in to the US and pay off China and get the dollar back where it should be.
Dude, I am not trying to debate, but inform.
The idea that "money" needs to be "backed" by something "real" is wrong because 1) money is a commodity (like anything else of value), 2) wealth is a social construction, and the only things that have value are those thing we GIVE value, so 3) there is not such thing as REAL wealth.
Go back and read my posts above. I have tried to explain this -- if I am not clear I apologize.
Again, this is not really debatable. I mean, if you want to argue that 2+2 equals 5, knock yourself out.
EDIT:
I agree 100%.Quote:
We need to pull in to the US and pay off China and get the dollar back where it should be.
The problem is that Bush's policies have really left us with no real answers. Doing both of these things at the same time is very difficult, and will lead to recession (which is likely inevitable anyway).
Having 5000+ friends on myspace does not make you a social scientistQuote:
Originally Posted by xlz916
You obviously know NOTHING about Ron PaulQuote:
Originally Posted by xlz916
You also know nothing about how the primaries work, but I'm sure you watch a lot of Fox NewsQuote:
Originally Posted by xlz916
Ron Paul does not support replacing the IRS with anything other than less spending, and if you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't have gone on about a flat tax as if it is something he supportsQuote:
Originally Posted by xlz916
I hope your boss doesn't read what you post on the internet :PQuote:
Originally Posted by xlz916
Nailhead:
Nice ad hominem attack there.
I have like 30 something Myspace friends. However, I do have a Ph.D. I don't know if that addresses any of your concerns or not.
Fox News is chock-full of right wing propaganda, on top of being really poor journalism. I mean bottom of the barrel, make-up-your-own-facts journalism.
If I say something inaccurate then please correct me. Provide a link or something. I will correct myself. (Example -- "You also know nothing about how the primaries work" -- ???)
I'm sorry if we don't agree on Ron Paul. But that does not make me an idiot.
EDIT: I posted while still editing/typing. Other post can be deleted, sorry!!
Are you possibly a professor?? But I'm pretty sure your a Socialist.
Originally Posted by xlz916:
"Abolish the IRS? Replace it with what -- a flat tax? This will disproportionately affect poor people. Our current tax system is not perfect, but there is a reason every civilized western country uses a progressive tax system. Why? Because people with more disposable income will not have their needs taxed, whereas those who have little to no disposable income will have much less financial "breathing room.""
"disproportionately affect poor people"?? how with it disproportionately do anything?? It's flat, and if your under a certain income, you don't pay at all. Learn about the flat tax. The current system puts the burden of all these social handout programs on the backs of the innovative and ambitious.
"there is a reason every civilized western country uses a progressive tax system" and most are in VERY bad shape, with stagnant economies.
I have never had or will ever have "disposable income". Could I have some of your "disposable income"?? It does not exist, "disposable income" was made up by people like you. All MY money is mine and I have a plan for it. You did not work for it, I did. You will not decide for ME where it is best spent.
I've donated to Ron Paul's campaign and truly hope he wins. I'm not as socialist in my viewpoints as Kucinich but I think he has integrity. I dream of a Paul victory but if he's out, i would rather have Kucinich than any of the other corporate shills running in both parties - despite the fact that he's a near polar opposite philosophically to Paul.
NorCal: thanks for a reasonable, non-hostile, intellectually honest, and non-trollish response. :pimp:
Yes. And have have socialist leanings, though I (like most leftists) concede that capitalism as an economic system works better at creating wealth.Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal Grown
The issue with capitalism is that it also creates wealth inequality, which I personally have a problem with. I believe in wealth redistribution in the form of taxation + redistributive government programs (MUCH more than the bottom of the barrel social redistribution we have in America).
Quote:
I have never had or will ever have "disposable income". Could I have some of your "disposable income"?? It does not exist, "disposable income" was made up by people like you. All MY money is mine and I have a plan for it. You did not work for it, I did. You will not decide for ME where it is best spent.
What is disposable income? A fair question! This is economics academic jargon for income that comes after meeting one's necessities. Food, rent, bills, etc, is non-disposable. Money that goes toward weed, pussy, plasma screen TVs, and that WoW subscription is disposable income.
You can claim you don't have it if you want, and that is cool. I do understand your position. I even respect it. I just don't agree with it. My opinion: if you make a certain amount of money, you should pay more taxes.
This is likely an issue we will have to agree to disagree on.
:)
The problem is the Fed just makes money whenever they want. Only alchemists can make gold.Quote:
Originally Posted by xlz916
Also:
Is simply factually inaccurate.Quote:
"there is a reason every civilized western country uses a progressive tax system" and most are in VERY bad shape, with stagnant economies.
Since 1998 Sweden's rate of growth has been better than the OECD average (basically, other advanced capitalist democracies) EVERY year except one. Sweden, as I'm sure you know, has many more social programs than most other capitalist countries.
Here is where we can agree (I hope): capitalism works. Different systems of capitalism all work relatively well. Which flavor of capitalism you prefer largely depends on your personal values.
Arguing which works better is somewhat pointless imo.
You are totally correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by angry nomad
However, this might not be a bad thing. If you have a government that is run by people that know what the fuck they are doing, it can actually be a good thing.
Given the recent incompetence and stupidity of the Bitch administration I completely understand your lack of trust in government doing this well. Luckily, we have ceded power to a group that can effectively act independently of politicians. (Whether or not this is actually constitutional is another matter entirely.)
Here is a hierarchy most economists would agree on:
Currency supply completely controlled by a bureaucracy of expert economists >>> an inflexible currency system (eg, the gold standard) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currency supply completely controlled by a bunch of idiots
Word! I tell my classes the same thing! :rastasmoke:Quote:
Only alchemists can make gold.
Ron Paul has broken all records for donations within 24 hours of any candidate in history, his supporters have launched a blimp without any help from the Ron Paul campaign, his supporters have more meet up groups than any other candidate, republican or democrat, he has won over half of the straw polls, and what he didn't win he usually came in 3rd or 2nd, and you are still naive enough to think this guy doesn't have a chance at winning? Might I also remind you that very few people vote in the primaries, and phone polls given only represent what people want, but not what people are willing to get off their ass and vote for, hence they are not very accurate in determining how well Ron Paul will do when voting day comes. I don't need a link to back up simple common sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by xlz916
You also conveniently avoided how I pointed out you don't know much about what Ron Paul supports when you stated he supports a flat tax to replace the IRS, something he has repeatedly said he does not support. Maybe you were thinking of Mike Huckabee because he supports that, but not Ron Paul. If you need a link google it yourself, this isn't hard information to dig up on the net and if you were half as smart as you try to portray yourself you would already know more about Ron Paul than myself. I'm not doing your political homework, you're the social scientist, so simple research should come naturally to you, right?
Hey Nailhead.
Please show me where I said RP supports a flat tax. I can save you time: I never said he did. I did say he supports getting rid of the IRS. I am pretty sure I am correct about that.
I am not trying to claim to be smart. I never meant to do that, and I'm sorry if I appeared that way to you or anyone else. I'm not trying to be an ass, or belittle anyone. You are the one that said I was not a social scientist (some idiocy about MySpace), so I was really just defending myself. (FYI: personal attacks are neither polite nor a strong argument make.)
When I say that if I make an incorrect statement you should provide a link to correct me, I am not asking you to do my research for me. I am asking you to prove me incorrect. If I have said anything incorrect, I will take it back. Simple as that.
As for Ron Paul not standing a chance, we will see about that won't we. I don't deny he has raised a lot of money. However, I don't know a SINGLE political scientist that would claim he has a snowflake's chance in hell (including myself). Sorry. But this is really a silly argument. If I am wrong, I will concede I don't know a damn thing about politics. I will be shocked if he gets higher than 4th in Iowa, and 3rd in NH. That is being generous.
I will be either proven right or wrong very soon.
Here you go:Quote:
Originally Posted by xlz916
Quote:
Originally Posted by xlz916
Then why did you say...Quote:
Originally Posted by xlz916
Quote:
Originally Posted by xlz916
Whether intentional or not, you have a condescending attitude in your posts. You didn't even say what your Ph.D is in or how that relates to the topic we are discussing, thus it is completely irrelevant. George W. Bush attended Harvard University, one of the most respected schools in America, but what good did that really do? If you want to impress me, do it with words of wisdom, not your personal history of education.Quote:
Originally Posted by xlz916
lol, I know I didn't post it but I was thinking to myself how your most likely response would be something along the lines of "we will see what happens". If we are talking about chance then surely you are basing your assumption of Ron Paul having 0% chance on some sort of evidence, right? I gave you specific reasons why he does indeed have a chance at winning, I didn't say it was a sure shot, but I did provide good reasons to back up my opinions and you have not done the same for your own. Why should I hold your opinions over anyone else's?Quote:
Originally Posted by xlz916
You still did not show me where I said RP supported a flat tax.
EDIT:
You have a hard time accepting apologies?Quote:
Whether intentional or not, you have a condescending attitude in your posts.
This is what I wrote:
WTF is your problem dude? Seriously. I'm just trying to chill and discuss politics. If occurs to me that maybe I have been and ass, so I man up and say I'm sorry. If that is not good enough for you, then whatever!Quote:
I am not trying to claim to be smart. I never meant to do that, and I'm sorry if I appeared that way to you or anyone else. I'm not trying to be an ass, or belittle anyone.
Fair question. My evidence is that polls have consistently shown Paul having low support consistently. You say those polls are not accurate. Correct? I think they are not perfect, and tend to underestimate his support, but Paul will not do better than 4th place in Iowa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nailhead
Any yes, will will see soon won't we?
EDIT: grammar.
If by your own post you did not mean to insinuate Ron Paul supports a flat tax, why did you even bring it up? Was it just another irrelevant post just like you mentioning your Ph.D or your job title? What other irrelevant information would you like to post that has nothing to do with what we are talking about?
I tend to side with the folks that say the polls are pretty inaccurate. For instance, traditional phone polling only call those that are (let's take the republicans) "likely republican voters" and their definition seems to be those that were registered republican and voted in the last election.
I have seen folks say that amounts to about 4-6% of republicans in 2006, most of whom voted for Bush, which is a pretty small pool to be choosing out of and would not be Paul fans anyway.
Paul's demographics seem to draw from young voters (never voted before and use cell phones more than land lines), disenfranchised voters (didn't vote in the last election) and Independents and Democrats that registered as Republicans solely to be able to vote for Dr. Paul this time around. The polls would not reflect those demographics.
As you say though, we will know shortly, won't we? :)
See, I didn't even need to insult anybody or be belligerent to get my point across. Amazing how that works Nailhead, huh?
Dude, you are the one that brought up that the only thing that made me qualified was having 5000+ MySpace friends. You attacked me remember? Point out where I have insulted you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nailhead
So, after you insulted me, I decided to try and defend myself. In doing so, I likely made as ass of myself. So I apologized to you. You chose not to accept my apology and basically say "fuck you." If that's how you wanna be, then fine I guess. I was trying to be cool with you. I really was. But I guess that is not happening. Hopefully there are other people more chill than you on this board. Thankfully, it seems most people here are much nicer.
My "qualifications" don't mean shit. I have a piece of paper that supposedly means I know something, and a LOT of fucking student loan debt. You are 100% that a degree, in and of itself, means nothing.
I would like to be cool with people here, including you. If you can't be cool with me, then seriously just leave me the fuck alone. If you can, then fine.
Good points. You have just outlined why I think that the phone polls underestimate RP's support in Iowa (not as much in NH).Quote:
Originally Posted by Fencewalker
Check out what I bolded above. That is a lot of shit to do just to vote for RP! Did some people do it? Yes, certainly. Did enough do it to make him likely to contend for a Republican nomination? I don't think so. Voting tends to be habitual -- people that have never voted are notoriously unreliable as far as turnout goes.
The big question: is RP's young, inexperienced based MOTIVATED enough to overcome all expectations? If so, if RP manages to even get 2nd, or even 3rd in Iowa, then we might actually have a RP revolution!
I'm not going there anymore. But thanks for talking to me in a civil way. I like to think that people that disagree can have a civil discussion. :DQuote:
See, I didn't even need to insult anybody or be belligerent to get my point across. Amazing how that works Nailhead, huh?
Sorry if you took this all so personally because I wasn't trying to attack you, but rather attack your political statements. I only criticized your education after you presented it as part of your support for your statements, I only considered this as part of the political debate we were having, nothing personal. If you took it that way, then I am sorry.
But back on topic...
As for phone polling, another reason it's not very accurate for showing Ron Paul's support is that it is one thing to have somebody call you and ask you about your political opinions. I know a lot of people that while they can give a definite answer to who they support, the question of if they will actually vote is another issue. Many will not, but I would say most Ron Paul supporters understand how important the primaries are and know the dates of when and where they need to be. Most people, that vote at least, only vote in the general elections. The primaries are usually for people that are more involved in politics than others, and while people in early states might be more excited to be involved with the countries future, I'm not convinced other states have people just as interested.
I don't think Ron Paul is a majority, I'm guessing it's probably more like 12%, but while Giuliani might have 21.5%, maybe only 20% of those supporters will actually go and vote in the primaries, whereas Ron Paul might have a mere 12%, but 99.9% of his supporters will be bright and early at their states polling location.
It's just a theory of course, but I do think it is something to consider because many republicans are not really thrilled with any of the candidates and may not vote at all because of that.
I like ron paul and yes he supports the end of war on drugs but yall all know he really isn't going to win. if yall are willing to admit that like me then vote for obama i don't care what he says he gonna do but i know he won't take us to war.
Hillary is going to win and we don't need clinton's or bush's in the white house so just think about waste your vote on the right canidate or sacrifice your vote for the second best.
Hillary is going to win! fight back:(
oh well doesn't matter anyway:smokin:
:smokebong: