If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(US News)   Ron Paul quietly mumbles something as staff turns off auditorium lights   (usnews.com) divider line 135
    More: Sad, Ron Paul, White House correspondent, political cartoons  
•       •       •

6145 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Nov 2012 at 9:19 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



135 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-11 10:41:16 AM  

Tman144: Masso: I really feel the poor dude really got screwed at the GOP convention this year.

Yea, that taking a "vote" and then reading the "results" before anyone could say no was classic.


Didn't they change the convention rules such that only a frontrunner's delegates get a vote? Seems kind of silly to even bother with delegates any more, they should just invite nothing but party insiders.
 
2012-11-11 10:41:16 AM  

Tman144: Masso: I really feel the poor dude really got screwed at the GOP convention this year.

Yea, that taking a "vote" and then reading the "results" before anyone could say no was classic.


I hate RP with a passion, but he got screwed by the media, screwed by the other candidates, and screwed by the Republican Party. It was systematic and deliberate. No doubt.
 
2012-11-11 10:41:30 AM  

St_Francis_P: Masso: I really feel the poor dude really got screwed at the GOP convention this year.

He did, although I'm not sure it surprised anyone but Paul supporters. Maybe not even them.


Nope we weren't surprised at all. Anyone who followed the treatment he recieved in the primaries would not have been surprised. Disappointed but not surprised.
 
2012-11-11 10:41:55 AM  
As a Kentuckian, I hope somebody punches him in the nuts for creating that rotten crotchfruit who managed to do the impossible and make Kentucky voters look dumber.
 
2012-11-11 10:43:09 AM  

Smackledorfer: Weaver95: Masso: I really feel the poor dude really got screwed at the GOP convention this year.

yeah he did. Romney was the Chosen One prior to the convention and that's all there was to it.

Would it have mattered? If the media gave RP all the time in the world, would it have mattered once they got a few states into the primaries anyways?

I would have liked to see RPs ideas float around more, if only to see Republicans forced to discuss their rhetoric - highlighting both how poor many of Paul's ideas are as well as how shiatty the real policies of Romney are. But I don't think anyone but Mitt had a chance there. Out of the Republican primaries I don't think anyone other than Mitt would have done as well as he did in the general, either. I said this in a thread just last week, but I think Ron Paul survives as a respectable politician only because people don't really know him or his ideas. The more I learned the less I liked him, anyway.


I'm still pissed that Frothy or Newt didn't float to the top and run in the General. There would be a tide of blue so big, no tampon or maxipad could contain it.
 
2012-11-11 10:43:45 AM  
There seems to be an elegiac feeling, in this and other threads today, about how "it's over." America's greatness is behind us. There's no way of getting out from under the crushing federal debt. Obama's plan doesn't begin to make a dent in it and no one is willing to make the hard decision that can save us fiscally.

Sorry, I don't buy it. How could we go from a surplus and a happily chugging economy to the brink of disaster in just twelve years? Oh yeah, Bush, repubs, two unfunded wars, housing collapse... but seriously, was the economy unbeknownst to us so fragile in 1999 it could not survive eight years of garish stupidity? I just don't buy it. This country is still the greatest economic juggernaut the world has ever seen, it's come back from worse and it will come back from this. Raising taxes on the wealthy may not solve all our problems but it's a start. Cutting social welfare programs will be necessary too, but it's not the end. Military bloat must be reduced drastically, but in a way that will not leave our country open to attack (to be honest with you, this is not as big an issue as some people seem to think).

Obama was elected by a majority of this country. He was elected on a certain platform in 2008 and re-elected on essentially the same platfiorm in 2012. The American people obviously wants to see that platform implemented. Why not let him do it? Are you afraid that Obama's policies will be successful? Can anything his policies have in store equal the danger of the fiscal cliff? If you can't join in, at least get out of the way. Because to deliberately force the country into disaster would indeed be treason.
 
2012-11-11 10:44:35 AM  
Ron Paul is at best an economic libertarian, socially he is more Republican than libertarian.

Don't let me even get into Rand Paul.

/Of course if self-proclaimed 'evangelical libertarians' can exist, we know the brand is losing it original meaning.
//Will real libertarians now become populists?
 
2012-11-11 10:44:51 AM  

Smackledorfer:

Would it have mattered? If the media gave RP all the time in the world, would it have mattered once they got a few states into the primaries anyways?


probably not...but that's rather the point, isn't it? NOTHING would have led to a Ron Paul victory on the convention floor. he just didn't have the numbers to back him...and yet, the GOP crushed the Paulites and ejected them from the convention floor. there was absolutely no reason to treat Ron Paul supporters like that...it literally cost the Republicans nothing: not time, not money, not support...they could have let the RP supporters do their little dance and gone straight on to confirming Romney as the candidate - but the GOP leadership smashed them down, and ejected RP delegates from the convention.

that says more about the GOP than it ever will about the Ron Paul team.
 
2012-11-11 10:47:57 AM  

clambam: There seems to be an elegiac feeling, in this and other threads today, about how "it's over." America's greatness is behind us. There's no way of getting out from under the crushing federal debt. Obama's plan doesn't begin to make a dent in it and no one is willing to make the hard decision that can save us fiscally.


Not me. I felt that way in 1992, that America was done and Japan was winning, and then Japan cratered and the Internet exploded. I'm the libbiest lib that ever libbed, but I have full faith that the crazy experiment in brilliant chaos called the United States will reinvent itself yet again and come roaring back.
 
2012-11-11 10:49:46 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Smackledorfer: Weaver95: Masso: I really feel the poor dude really got screwed at the GOP convention this year.

yeah he did. Romney was the Chosen One prior to the convention and that's all there was to it.

Would it have mattered? If the media gave RP all the time in the world, would it have mattered once they got a few states into the primaries anyways?

I would have liked to see RPs ideas float around more, if only to see Republicans forced to discuss their rhetoric - highlighting both how poor many of Paul's ideas are as well as how shiatty the real policies of Romney are. But I don't think anyone but Mitt had a chance there. Out of the Republican primaries I don't think anyone other than Mitt would have done as well as he did in the general, either. I said this in a thread just last week, but I think Ron Paul survives as a respectable politician only because people don't really know him or his ideas. The more I learned the less I liked him, anyway.

I'm still pissed that Frothy or Newt didn't float to the top and run in the General. There would be a tide of blue so big, no tampon or maxipad could contain it.


Bonus, Obama's tendency (granted it may be less of a want and more of a requirement to even win) to move right and pick up any slack he can wrt his opponents views on a subject may have led a renewed support for NASA.


Weaver95: that says more about the GOP than it ever will about the Ron Paul team


Absolutely.
 
2012-11-11 10:50:53 AM  

yousaywut: Boxcutta: yousaywut: Boxcutta: The fruit of his loins is in Senate so his awful ideas live on, they're just spouted from underneath a poodle toupe.

I'de watch the next couple of election cycles as well. His followers really jumped up into quite a few state level R leadership positions. Some of his (no way in hell ever gonna get done) policies were quite extreme. But he did have a few implimentable ideas that were quite realistic.

Which ones specifically? Rolling back the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because those lunch counter owners would have eventually done the right thing because of the invisible hand or something.

Uh huh, Did you actually want an answer or are you just going to make up what you want to hear?


You're free to answer for the Pauls' positions if you want. I feel that libertarianism is a terrible idea, but surely you're aware that Ron Paul has a history of having overly racist literature distributed in his newsletter and Rand Paul has expressly said that the forced desegregation of lunch counters by the Federal Government is equivalent to telling private restaurant owners that they have to allow people to bring guns into their stores.
 
2012-11-11 10:54:45 AM  

theorellior: clambam: There seems to be an elegiac feeling, in this and other threads today, about how "it's over." America's greatness is behind us. There's no way of getting out from under the crushing federal debt. Obama's plan doesn't begin to make a dent in it and no one is willing to make the hard decision that can save us fiscally.

Not me. I felt that way in 1992, that America was done and Japan was winning, and then Japan cratered and the Internet exploded. I'm the libbiest lib that ever libbed, but I have full faith that the crazy experiment in brilliant chaos called the United States will reinvent itself yet again and come roaring back.


I'm not worried, yet anyways.

We've got decent infrastructure. We've got clean water and decent air. Our population density isn't that high. We should always be capable of feeding ourselves. Literally all we have to do is not grow in numbers too quickly and prevent something like cartels or religious extremists from taking over, and even poor economic policy alone can't ruin us.

I also have no real interest in being the chief of world police. There is nothing wrong with a country strong enough that nobody is going to fark with you at home. It works for Europe and Canada. I really don't see Russia, China, or anyone else coming to our side of the world and starting shiat. Our worst case scenario is no ability to step in and stamp out a pakistan/india crisis - but something that big I'm not sure we could anyways. And perhaps without knowing we'd stop the other from going to far they might be less inclined to escalate hostilities as well.

As much as I biatch, I'm an optimist in this regard.
 
2012-11-11 10:56:28 AM  

clambam: Sorry, I don't buy it. How could we go from a surplus and a happily chugging economy to the brink of disaster in just twelve years?


There was no surplus and there was a recession in the early 2000s caused by the dot-com collapse. Even without Bush tax cuts the budget deficit would have been pretty bad for several years. Same goes for the economy in general - the deregulation was the result of 90s-era policy, and a Dem in the White House would have faced the same meltdown.
 
2012-11-11 10:56:33 AM  

nekom: St_Francis_P: He has Friends in High Places.

He must. Don't get me wrong, it's good to hear a fresh new take on things, even if it is wrapped in total batshiat crazy, but he was never EVER a serious candidate. Yet he gets more publicity than someone such as, say Jill Stein, who has a completely reasonable left wing platform.


Ron Paul was a cult of personality thing. Most of the people I know who call themselves "Libertarians" don't have the courage of their convictions and gladly accept every form of government assistance they can find. Most of them work for a governmental agency of one form or another. It's easy to dismiss them as hypocrites, but that implies they're self aware enough to understand they're living a contradiction. I think mostly they're just caught up in Paul's personality. Kind of like people who passionately sing along with the song on the radio, but get the lyrics wrong.
 
2012-11-11 10:58:08 AM  

Shaggy_C: GAT_00: RON PAUL is somewhere between Grandpa Simpson and Time Cube on the relevancy scale. Crazy old man who doesn't know a damn thing about anything but somehow has millions of deluded fans who hang on his every word like a cult.

"Doesn't know a damn thing"? He has a very strong understanding of the federal reserve system and various economic theories, particularly the Austrian school. .


This is the equivalent of saying "He's a great doctor, particularly in the fields of phrenology and leech application".
 
2012-11-11 11:00:48 AM  
Just another Republican politician. Republican. Politician. Not a libertarian. Republican. Life long politician.
 
2012-11-11 11:04:59 AM  

dudemanbro: Now he can go back to his chosen field of refusing to give women abortions.


Because that is what libertarians do!

ghare:
Just another Republican politician. Republican. Politician. Not a libertarian. Republican. Life long politician.

And this.
 
2012-11-11 11:05:20 AM  
"I do not have much confidence in the political system and never did."

So I guess he spent all those years in Congress just for shiats and giggles. Oh and all those earmarks he hated but took anyways. For a man of principle, he doesn't have many.

Being a Texan, I wonder if he played the fiddle all those years in Congress.
 
2012-11-11 11:08:03 AM  

Shaggy_C: GAT_00: RON PAUL is somewhere between Grandpa Simpson and Time Cube on the relevancy scale. Crazy old man who doesn't know a damn thing about anything but somehow has millions of deluded fans who hang on his every word like a cult.

"Doesn't know a damn thing"? He has a very strong understanding of the federal reserve system and various economic theories, particularly the Austrian school. There's nothing wrong with his views from a conceptual framework, but they don't work in a world where the United States is depended upon for both economic and military security worldwide. If he were a candidate in say, a Liechtenstein or Monaco, his ideas would be quite compelling.


The Austrian school is a massive joke in the field of economics. See this
 
2012-11-11 11:10:03 AM  

TV's Vinnie: WitchyWoman: How can a doctor have such a cavalier attitude about the livelihood of thousands of people?

[www.clevelandleader.com image 215x300]

/It's not a Godwin if it's true.


I would take that a statement a step further...

It's not a Godwin if you believe it, Jerry.
 
2012-11-11 11:14:53 AM  

Shaggy_C: clambam: Sorry, I don't buy it. How could we go from a surplus and a happily chugging economy to the brink of disaster in just twelve years?

There was no surplus and there was a recession in the early 2000s caused by the dot-com collapse. Even without Bush tax cuts the budget deficit would have been pretty bad for several years. Same goes for the economy in general - the deregulation was the result of 90s-era policy, and a Dem in the White House would have faced the same meltdown.


There was a surplus (jeez, where the hell were you?) and while the economy was due for a correction, the Dot Com collapse was exacerbated by Bush's relentless economic pessimism during the campaign which he frantically tried to reverse once he was elected. As for the "Dot Com collapse" itself... well, you'll note how the Internet never made a recovery from that unheralded disaster, there are virtually no software companies left, no one is making any money at all on line... The housing crash is a more serious issue and I suppose you can make the argument the sector was overvalued. However, that's true of virtually any commodity (how much is your Lexus really worth?) and I don't see why a prudently regulated housing market could not have continued to grow along with the economy.

Once again, in your eagerness to establish that all good emanates from repubs and all evil from Democrats, you've found it necessary to rewrite history in the most hilariously wrong-headed way possible. And you wonder why people are laughing at you?
 
2012-11-11 11:16:42 AM  

yousaywut: Boxcutta: The fruit of his loins is in Senate so his awful ideas live on, they're just spouted from underneath a poodle toupe.

I'de watch the next couple of election cycles as well. His followers really jumped up into quite a few state level R leadership positions. Some of his (no way in hell ever gonna get done) policies were quite extreme. But he did have a few implimentable ideas that were quite realistic.

//Yes I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries.

/No I didn't vote for romney in the general


The problem with Ron Paul and why nobody took him seriously is because A: The Republican party didn't want him. B: He was too extreme to be taken seriously by either party. Thus would have instantly been a useless president because he'd be fighting with congress all of his term if he had even made it that far.
 
2012-11-11 11:24:27 AM  
Paul said Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney "was hit because ... one issue he was correct on, he opposed the [auto industry] bailouts, and the people in the Midwest voted against him: 'Oh, we have to be taken care of.'"

I keep hearing this and 'takers' and 'Santa Claus', and I have to wonder how close we are to a Tea Party candidate just up and saying 'Mussolini was right'.
 
2012-11-11 11:26:59 AM  

clambam: There was a surplus


Just look at the national debt numbers. If we actually had a surplus, why has the national debt increased every year since 1957? It's a shell game, transferring money from social security into the general fund and calling it revenue. It's double-counting money and it's not reality any more than taking a cash advance on your credit card and calling it a raise.
 
2012-11-11 11:27:54 AM  
i4.ytimg.com
 
2012-11-11 11:30:38 AM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-11 11:35:06 AM  

Enemabag Jones: Ron Paul is at best an economic libertarian, socially he is more Republican than libertarian.


Came to say this. The policy differences between Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are few and far between. They disagree on drugs and a few other issues here and there, that's about it. And they both appeal to a very similarly dodgy segment of the population. (Buchanan does so more in his criticism of Israel and theories about American involvement in the Second World War; Paul does so in his attacks on the Fed, which resonate with a lot of conspiracy theorists who believe there's a secret cabal to control the economy with scary names like Goldman and Greenspan.) Both are best described as "Paleoconservative."
 
2012-11-11 11:41:06 AM  

Boxcutta: yousaywut: Boxcutta: yousaywut: Boxcutta: The fruit of his loins is in Senate so his awful ideas live on, they're just spouted from underneath a poodle toupe.

I'de watch the next couple of election cycles as well. His followers really jumped up into quite a few state level R leadership positions. Some of his (no way in hell ever gonna get done) policies were quite extreme. But he did have a few implimentable ideas that were quite realistic.

Which ones specifically? Rolling back the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because those lunch counter owners would have eventually done the right thing because of the invisible hand or something.

Uh huh, Did you actually want an answer or are you just going to make up what you want to hear?

You're free to answer for the Pauls' positions if you want. I feel that libertarianism is a terrible idea, but surely you're aware that Ron Paul has a history of having overly racist literature distributed in his newsletter and Rand Paul has expressly said that the forced desegregation of lunch counters by the Federal Government is equivalent to telling private restaurant owners that they have to allow people to bring guns into their stores.


Ron Paul is about as racist as you are. But I am sure you are aware of the fact that the letter you are speaking of was written by another and completely disavowed. I didn't pay attention to his son as he was not attempting to run the country. As for the few Ron Paul positions I thought he would be able to implement that weren't off the wall number 1 was removing our military from oversees entanglements. As we are not in a declared war he can pretty much command them home as the CIC. The only other one I thought he would get away with would be telling the DEA to stand down on the war on drugs. Most everything else I read was going to be a fight with congress which means it wouldn't have happened. of course it would have required the 2/3 majority for almost any bill that came through congress as well because that crazy old man would have vetoed like everything.

Overall it would have been a rough 4 years of crazy in charge but at the end I think it would have forced the congress to learn to work together which would have had a lot longer lasting positive effects on the country.

//Just my tired thoughts I've been up all night time for sleep.
 
2012-11-11 11:42:17 AM  

bbfreak: yousaywut: Boxcutta: The fruit of his loins is in Senate so his awful ideas live on, they're just spouted from underneath a poodle toupe.

I'de watch the next couple of election cycles as well. His followers really jumped up into quite a few state level R leadership positions. Some of his (no way in hell ever gonna get done) policies were quite extreme. But he did have a few implimentable ideas that were quite realistic.

//Yes I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries.

/No I didn't vote for romney in the general

The problem with Ron Paul and why nobody took him seriously is because A: The Republican party didn't want him. B: He was too extreme to be taken seriously by either party. Thus would have instantly been a useless president because he'd be fighting with congress all of his term if he had even made it that far.


If he made it that far congress would have had to drop the partisan bs and learn to compromise and I really don't see that as a bad thing do you?
 
2012-11-11 11:44:23 AM  

yousaywut: The only other one I thought he would get away with would be telling the DEA to stand down on the war on drugs


The war on drugs employs a lot of people and no politician will touch that.
 
2012-11-11 11:49:37 AM  

CynicalLA: yousaywut: The only other one I thought he would get away with would be telling the DEA to stand down on the war on drugs

The war on drugs employs a lot of people and no politician will touch that.


Bingo. There's too much money being made on both sides for the 'war on drugs' to ever be canceled or won.
 
2012-11-11 11:51:30 AM  

yousaywut: But I am sure you are aware of the fact that the letter you are speaking of was written by another and completely disavowed.


If I remember correctly it was avowed, then disavowed, then avowed, then disavowed, and at no point did RP give any of the money earned via racist newsletters with his name at the top back. And how many years did he apparently fail to even READ the newsletters he was profiting from?

So ya, not quite as squeaky clean as you think.

yousaywut: Most everything else I read was going to be a fight with congress which means it wouldn't have happened.


Well, nothing is a better reason to vote for a guy than "none of his crazy would make it through congress, so it's cool" A better solution would be for you libertarians (or whatever word you personally want to call yourself) to find a candidate who supports the things you like (like getting out of the military) and not the crazy shiat you don't. If the only aspects of Ron Paul you like are drugs and foreign policy, you might find yourself more appropriately lined up with a liberal and not a libertarian. It always surprises me how many ron paul supporters eventually fall back on only liking his liberal ideas and hating the rest. If you feel that way, why support him?

yousaywut: If he made it that far congress would have had to drop the partisan bs and learn to compromise and I really don't see that as a bad thing do you?


Ah, he'll be so divisive the legislature will start to fart rainbows.
 
2012-11-11 11:52:30 AM  

Infernalist: CynicalLA: yousaywut: The only other one I thought he would get away with would be telling the DEA to stand down on the war on drugs

The war on drugs employs a lot of people and no politician will touch that.

Bingo. There's too much money being made on both sides for the 'war on drugs' to ever be canceled or won.


Odd, I keep seeing never never never but I also just saw a few states legalize and a dozen states decriminalize in the past decade.
 
2012-11-11 11:55:44 AM  

yousaywut: bbfreak: yousaywut: Boxcutta: The fruit of his loins is in Senate so his awful ideas live on, they're just spouted from underneath a poodle toupe.

I'de watch the next couple of election cycles as well. His followers really jumped up into quite a few state level R leadership positions. Some of his (no way in hell ever gonna get done) policies were quite extreme. But he did have a few implimentable ideas that were quite realistic.

//Yes I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries.

/No I didn't vote for romney in the general

The problem with Ron Paul and why nobody took him seriously is because A: The Republican party didn't want him. B: He was too extreme to be taken seriously by either party. Thus would have instantly been a useless president because he'd be fighting with congress all of his term if he had even made it that far.

If he made it that far congress would have had to drop the partisan bs and learn to compromise and I really don't see that as a bad thing do you?


Well, they would of had to do that anyway what with this fiscal cliff nonsense and hopefully they will. After all they can't be that stupid. That being said the majority of the congress disagrees with Ron Paul and lets say he did make it as far as President somehow. They might unite for sure, but against him.
 
2012-11-11 11:56:33 AM  

Smackledorfer: Infernalist: CynicalLA: yousaywut: The only other one I thought he would get away with would be telling the DEA to stand down on the war on drugs

The war on drugs employs a lot of people and no politician will touch that.

Bingo. There's too much money being made on both sides for the 'war on drugs' to ever be canceled or won.

Odd, I keep seeing never never never but I also just saw a few states legalize and a dozen states decriminalize in the past decade.


If you consider pot to be a serious component of the war on drugs, sure.
 
2012-11-11 12:00:27 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Paul said Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney "was hit because ... one issue he was correct on, he opposed the [auto industry] bailouts, and the people in the Midwest voted against him: 'Oh, we have to be taken care of.'"

I keep hearing this and 'takers' and 'Santa Claus', and I have to wonder how close we are to a Tea Party candidate just up and saying 'Mussolini was right'.


Well, they're already trying to reclaim McCarthy, why not?
 
2012-11-11 12:01:27 PM  

Infernalist: If you consider pot to be a serious component of the war on drugs, sure.


How do you define serious? I've seen a variety of citations regarding how much money cartels earn off it and it seems pretty serious to me.

I've seen an assload of statistics regarding how penalized people are for either doing nothing worse than having some pot on them or having pot in conjunction with something else leading to an increased sentence. That seems serious.


You want serious? Look at how many people get arrested on pot-related offenses, consider that you JUST NOW IN THIS THREAD agreed that the war on drugs employs a lot of people, and think about how much employment was directly related to pot. Ya, its farking serious.
 
2012-11-11 12:03:50 PM  

Smackledorfer: Infernalist: If you consider pot to be a serious component of the war on drugs, sure.

How do you define serious? I've seen a variety of citations regarding how much money cartels earn off it and it seems pretty serious to me.

I've seen an assload of statistics regarding how penalized people are for either doing nothing worse than having some pot on them or having pot in conjunction with something else leading to an increased sentence. That seems serious.


You want serious? Look at how many people get arrested on pot-related offenses, consider that you JUST NOW IN THIS THREAD agreed that the war on drugs employs a lot of people, and think about how much employment was directly related to pot. Ya, its farking serious.


And what I'm saying is that pot is, to me, a minor aspect of the overall war on drugs. Do agencies and departments make good money off of it? Sure. Will they lose some money as it's slowly legalized? Absolutely.

But those are really minor and nearly insignificant amounts when compared to how much money is made off of things like Heroine and Cocaine.
 
2012-11-11 12:06:32 PM  
Paul was gerrymandered out of office by Karl Rove and Texas Republicans.
 
2012-11-11 12:15:54 PM  
i47.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-11 12:16:09 PM  
"one issue he was correct on, he opposed the [auto industry] bailouts, and the people in the Midwest voted against him: 'Oh, we have to be taken care of'"

He says this shiat right out in the open. He would have said exactly the same about the impact of Sandy on the east coast. "Oh, we have to be taken care of."

Yes, RON PAUL, we believe in not simply allowing catastrophes to occur and then we just suffer through them and make no attempt to ameliorate them. We think that the way we just slid into the Depression and then wallowed in it for 10 years was a mistake. We believe in having fire departments that are paid for collectively but only provide service to homes and buildings that are actually on fire. We don't believe in having corporate fire departments that roll up to your house and watch it burn to the farking ground because you couldn't afford the SuperService plan.

Yes, RON PAUL. That's what we believe. Yes, we want to be slaves to the kind of tyrannical government that violently forces us to avoid another Depression, that violently forces us to have fire and police protection, that violently forces us to have roads and bridges and environmental safeguards. You may now proceed to college campuses and spread the word.

Bye bye.
 
2012-11-11 12:20:29 PM  

Infernalist: And what I'm saying is that pot is, to me, a minor aspect of the overall war on drugs


Are you basing that on a hunch?

Link

Link

I'm too lazy to find more, and I can't seem to find anything with a breakdown of something along the lines of total jail time (and thus prison system dollars) by drug type. But nothing I've ever seen has shown marijuana to be only a minor thing. You talk about the money driving the system, but you dismiss marijuana as irrelevant and non-serious.

That is ridiculous. If it is as much as 10% of the war on drugs then it is serious. I see nothing to suggest that marijuana plays a non-serious role in the war on drugs. I have never been any statistic showing that it is such a minor player as you suggest. If I'm woefully ignorant, please enlighten me.

Infernalist: But those are really minor and nearly insignificant amounts when compared to how much money is made off of things like Heroine and Cocaine.


Made by who? And I'll remind you that we are talking about the money that drives the drug war to continue, and not merely the money flowing into cartels. That means every minor fine that funds the police war on drugs. Every stat that justifies more drug dogs. Every abused stat that says "this guy was high AND he shoplifted, it's a drug crime!" that allowed people to continue to be hoodwinked into supporting the war on drugs. Every person who gets locked out of good jobs because he or she got caught.

It means that while the cartels may not be making the bulk of their cash off of weed, the police departments are certainly leveraging it for seizures.

But ya, it's totally not a serious thing.
 
2012-11-11 12:20:45 PM  

Shaggy_C: clambam: There was a surplus

Just look at the national debt numbers. If we actually had a surplus, why has the national debt increased every year since 1957? It's a shell game, transferring money from social security into the general fund and calling it revenue. It's double-counting money and it's not reality any more than taking a cash advance on your credit card and calling it a raise.


I diagree. There is a simple, straightforward way to look at these statistics which you folks are perfectly willing to use when it suits your needs; and there's also a complicated, convoluted way of looking at them you prefer to use when it's politically useful to you. I'll go with "taking in more money than you've allocated for in the budget" as a suitable definition of a surplus, not "you can't call anything a surplus until we've completely cleared the debt back to zero." That's not the way it works, Ron.
 
2012-11-11 12:23:20 PM  

yousaywut:
I didn't pay attention to his son as he was not attempting to run the country.


A. Then why the hell are you arguing with me?
B. He was running for Senate, which is part of the legislature, which is in fact how we "attempt to run the country." 

With regard to your other positions, Paul, like other Libertarians, have some good ideas such as reducing our military presence and decriminalizing marijuana. For every one of those ideas, they have 10 ideas that are terrible and would likely crash our government, such as going back to the gold standard, destroying safety nets for the poor, abolishing the EPA and endless other governmental agencies that do vital work.
 
2012-11-11 12:23:21 PM  

Shaggy_C: Tman144: Masso: I really feel the poor dude really got screwed at the GOP convention this year.

Yea, that taking a "vote" and then reading the "results" before anyone could say no was classic.

Didn't they change the convention rules such that only a frontrunner's delegates get a vote? Seems kind of silly to even bother with delegates any more, they should just invite nothing but party insiders.


Yeah - but it's always been the case, de facto. Partly because of the huge money involved, it's become like a bunch of studio execs greenlighting a picture. The ultimate result is usually a bland melange of whatever the cautious money-men hope won't offend anybody, and will put the most asses in seats.
Mitt Romney was the equivalent of a Michael Bay movie - an accountant's idea of a safe bet.
 
2012-11-11 12:28:10 PM  

fenianfark:


I LOLd
 
2012-11-11 12:29:07 PM  

Weaver95: As much as I like the libertarians....they've got issues. for starters, a solid third of the libertarians in the midstate seem to be thinly disguised racists. which, I grant you, is better than the local GOP, who seem to be mostly out of the closet with their racism....but still. I despise racists. the other problem i've got with the libertarians around here is they seem to believe that being looted and pillaged by a corporation is some sort of honor. they LOVE to get screwed over by a corporation - comcast, marcellus shale, tyco electronics...they LURVE to see their jobs outsourced, their money taken, rights trampled on...to them, it's a reason to celebrate. IMHO anyone who trusts Comcast to behave themselves without some sort form of outside regulation is an idiot. those sons of biatches would slap a meter on the internet and expect you to pay top dollar just to read the news or access your twitter feed.

so...as much as I like the theory behind the libertarians, what they practice isn't anywhere near the reality. and they really really gotta dump the racists.


Those 'libertarians' you speak of don't sound like real libertarians. Those just sound like Fark Republicans™ with a new political affiliation.

I'm libertarian and distrust corporations as much as I do the government, and I'm VERY anti-consumerist. But at the end of the day- corporations have to face the people they serve...or else they go out of business (which goes against the principles of being in business in the first place). Government, not so much. Which is why it's so easy for your legislators to propose new taxes, tariffs, fees, restrictions, or obligations- even with significant opposition, and STILL pass the law. So my bet as to whom is better equipped to serve the public trust lies with the corporations.
 
2012-11-11 12:30:19 PM  
Semi-related question: does anybody else always hear "RON PAUL" in the voice Danny Torrance used when saying "RED RUM!!" over and over?
 
2012-11-11 12:38:49 PM  
Won't his followers just move to his son?
 
2012-11-11 12:39:06 PM  
The article calls him a Libertarian. He's a Republican at heart and registry.
If he wasn't, he would have endorsed Gary Johnson "for the cause".
Two time partisan quitter.
 
Displayed 50 of 135 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report