Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Sad, Ron Paul, White House correspondent, political cartoons  
•       •       •

6152 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Nov 2012 at 9:19 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-11 01:17:08 AM  
sorry, Ron, there are reasons for having a Federal government
 
2012-11-11 01:40:13 AM  

lh4.googleusercontent.com

 
2012-11-11 02:39:47 AM  
Now he can go back to his chosen field of refusing to give women abortions.
 
2012-11-11 07:17:07 AM  
He certainly gets a lot of press for a fringe candidate.
 
2012-11-11 07:38:57 AM  
dtdstudios.com
 
2012-11-11 07:39:00 AM  

nekom: He certainly gets a lot of press for a fringe candidate.


He has Friends in High Places.

img374.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-11 07:41:29 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-11 07:53:18 AM  
Bawwww.
 
2012-11-11 08:50:27 AM  
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.
 
2012-11-11 09:18:39 AM  

nekom: Yet he gets more publicity than someone such as, say Jill Stein, who has a completely reasonable left wing platform.


But you don't see a sh*t load of Redditors running around shouting "JILL STEIN" do you?
 
2012-11-11 09:27:22 AM  
The fruit of his loins is in Senate so his awful ideas live on, they're just spouted from underneath a poodle toupe.
 
2012-11-11 09:31:15 AM  
So he's retiring? Guess he'll still tilt at Government windmills or something.

His fixation on having a government too weak to work is really strange.
 
2012-11-11 09:34:31 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-11 09:34:54 AM  

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
 
2012-11-11 09:38:38 AM  
This guy needs to go quietly away.

Quickly
 
2012-11-11 09:41:18 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.

 
2012-11-11 09:42:24 AM  
How can a doctor have such a cavalier attitude about the livelihood of thousands of people?
 
2012-11-11 09:45:30 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.


Sorry - let's try that again. You have a point there - but it kind of brings us back to the old "galt's gulch" conundrum. Very, very little of the world is tiny enclaves of wealthy people. In fact, almost none of the world can be that. The fact remains that a man like Ron Paul has very little practical application in the real world - at least in the field of governance. And in my reading of TFA, he acknowledges as much.
 
2012-11-11 09:45:50 AM  
FTFA: 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.'"

Consistent for a "libertarian" I guess. Aaaaand that's one of the reasons libertarians are useless at actually running a country. It's pretty much completely proven fact* that:
1 - Automakers could never have found the private money to go through bankruptcy without government help
2 - The domestic supply chains would collapse right after the automakers
3 - Millions more would end up unemployed than actually did

So fark you, Ron Paul, glad YOU'RE the one now unemployed.

* fact as accepted by the reality-based community, void in Republican circles and where otherwise prohibited
 
2012-11-11 09:46:41 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.


But how would he dodge answering questions on his personal socially conservative worldview on issues if he didn't have "States Rights" to fall back on? Are Lichtenstein and Monaco hotbeds of John Birch conspiracy theory worldviews and I just didn't know it?

No one finds Ron Paul appealing other than a tiny minority of American Republicans.
 
2012-11-11 09:48:10 AM  
Americans haven't heard the last of libertarian icon Ron Paul

There are only so many more election cycles after which this can likely be said. Dude's gettin' old. He isn't going to live forever.

/ knowing our luck he'll be the next Strom Thurmond and just hang around forever fart-walking around the halls
 
2012-11-11 09:49:27 AM  

Shaggy_C: He has a very strong understanding of the federal reserve system and various economic theories, particularly the Austrian school


I stand by my point. Understanding an idiotic economic system that has utterly failed to deliver in any economy doesn't mean you know something of value.
 
2012-11-11 09:52:39 AM  
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.
 
2012-11-11 09:53:56 AM  
Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul
 
2012-11-11 09:54:08 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.


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.
 
2012-11-11 09:55:25 AM  
Weaver, despite their loud minority status on the internets Libertarians are less than 1% of the population, and have been constantly so for 30 years. they can't afford to dump anyone. Racists, rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shiat-kickers or Methodists.
 
2012-11-11 09:55:30 AM  

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?
 
2012-11-11 09:56:27 AM  

toomuchwhargarbl: Weaver, despite their loud minority status on the internets Libertarians are less than 1% of the population, and have been constantly so for 30 years. they can't afford to dump anyone. Racists, rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shiat-kickers or Methodists.


Maybe the methodists.
 
2012-11-11 09:57:27 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.'"

fark you, Mr. Paul. That wasn't just about certain people "wanting to be taken care of." It was a measure to stop our economy, as in the U.S. economy, from completely melting down.
 
2012-11-11 09:57:47 AM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: This guy needs to go quietly away.

Quickly


Where is the fun in that? This guy needs to go away slowly, followed by a huge marching band.
 
2012-11-11 09:58:56 AM  

toomuchwhargarbl: But how would he dodge answering questions on his personal socially conservative worldview on issues if he didn't have "States Rights" to fall back on? Are Lichtenstein and Monaco hotbeds of John Birch conspiracy theory worldviews and I just didn't know it?


Lichtenstein didn't give women the right to vote until the 1980s, and abortion is entirely illegal in all circumstances. Their tax rate is 1.2%. It's about the closest to a Ron Paul ideal as you can get in the real world - aside from the fact that the country is almost entirely dependent upon external nations to keep the economy running.
 
2012-11-11 09:59:28 AM  

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


Some people just really hate the TSA.
 
2012-11-11 09:59:41 AM  

Ed Finnerty: [dtdstudios.com image 611x404]


Came here for that

/thank you for the morning giggle
 
2012-11-11 09:59:52 AM  

Snarfangel: Spanky_McFarksalot: This guy needs to go quietly away.

Quickly

Where is the fun in that? This guy needs to go away slowly, followed by a huge marching band.


And sparkles or glitter.
 
2012-11-11 10:03:12 AM  
What an idiot.
 
2012-11-11 10:07:06 AM  
www.freedomsphoenix.com
 
2012-11-11 10:08:45 AM  

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


www.clevelandleader.com

/It's not a Godwin if it's true.
 
2012-11-11 10:11:29 AM  

Shaggy_C: toomuchwhargarbl: But how would he dodge answering questions on his personal socially conservative worldview on issues if he didn't have "States Rights" to fall back on? Are Lichtenstein and Monaco hotbeds of John Birch conspiracy theory worldviews and I just didn't know it?

Lichtenstein didn't give women the right to vote until the 1980s, and abortion is entirely illegal in all circumstances. Their tax rate is 1.2%. It's about the closest to a Ron Paul ideal as you can get in the real world - aside from the fact that the country is almost entirely dependent upon external nations to keep the economy running.


So your perfect country example for Austrian economics has no applicable uses to other countries.

BRILLIANT.
 
2012-11-11 10:12:11 AM  

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.



If you bring up comcast they will retort "Well the only reason Comcast exists is because of Big Government in the first place". Which is a fair point I guess, because there's no way any cable companies would ever exist without the government.

They'll then go on about how competing cable companies would definitely exist because they'd be more efficient... completely ignoring how insanely difficult it would be to get easement rights from everyone on the planet to run their cable poles. In a free market system all it takes is one ahole claiming he wants 50% of your profits to use his property, then bam, no cable lines for anyone.
 
2012-11-11 10:22:11 AM  
The comments are full of automatons with poor reasoning skills and a dismal grasp on American history. I hate every single last one of them. Idiots being guided by someone because he shows them a "truth" that doesn't and has never existed.
 
2012-11-11 10:23:10 AM  

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.


I have been lurking on this board for more than six years. I've been there since the days of czarangelus and all the various alts of Afternoon Dog Delight.

You've changed a bit, Weaver, and the American right has gotten even further unhinged. The gulf between you and them is so vast now that I can't believe I considered you a right-winger then.

This is not a complaint :)
 
2012-11-11 10:23:38 AM  

Shaggy_C: "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.


The Austrian School is the Creationism of economics. He understands the Federal Reserve system so much, he wants to replace the system with the very thing it was created to replace due to the inadequacies of the old system.
 
2012-11-11 10:26:36 AM  

MithrandirBooga: In a free market system all it takes is one ahole claiming he wants 50% of your profits to use his property, then bam, no cable lines for anyone.


There's ways around that particular issue... 

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-11 10:27:10 AM  
I really feel the poor dude really got screwed at the GOP convention this year.
 
2012-11-11 10:31:50 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.


How dare you spout a non-mainstream-liberal idea in here. How DARE you, sir!
 
2012-11-11 10:33:14 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-11 10:34:11 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-11 10:35:09 AM  
Oppose the auto bailouts and watch mysteriously as manufacturing infrastructure permanently shifts to an asian country where their government is bailing out their auto industry.

Also, Mitt MAY not have lost as many points as he did over the auto industry if he hadn't lied so goddamn farking much about it. He is lucky he got a MI or OH vote at all after the final Jeep lie.

I can respect the solution of "fark everyone let the market sort it out" as a preferential alternative to government-assisted regulatory-capturing monopolies ruling the country. What I can't respect is when the proponents of such a solution are the first in line to support the latter anyways; something the Republicans have shown themselves to be right on top of every single time they get power.

Health care is the simplest example. It very obviously doesn't function well without regulations, but they don't deregulate it. Instead they give us part D. It's costs are hidden when its attached to businesses, but they don't care about that. Their states' rights attitude falls apart when they want one state to be able to sell insurance to the other 49, thus taking away their regulatory abilities, as well as any hope of transparency to the consumer. They can't even get on board with a health care exchange.

These people understand jack and shiat about the free market and are just a cobbled together mix of robber barons and an ignorant poor who skipped their history classes. Then they all get together and scream free market at us despite not having a clue what the invisible hand even is, how it functions, what externalities, what a tragedy of the commons is, etc.

fark that bullshiat, and Ron Paul and his gold standard can suck my balls.
 
2012-11-11 10:38:19 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-11 10:38:38 AM  

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.
 
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.
 
2012-11-11 12:39:42 PM  

TheEdibleSnuggie: I'm libertarian and distrust corporations as much as I do the government, and I'm VERY anti-consumerist.


Curious what you mean by that. For me, one of the earliest (and most important) forms of consumerism was food labeling. How much fat, cholesterol, salt and sugar is in this product? Not to mention a list of the horrible chemical preservatives and coloring agents used. My mom has to eat a very sodium-restricted diet. Forty years ago, she would just have to die, because she would be eating food loaded to the gills with salt. Now we can choose foods that are low- or zero-sodium. And as a result, there are many food producers who provide foods tailored for people with special dietetic needs.

Are you opposed to food labeling? God knows the corporations were when it was first pushed. "END OF LIBERTY," they screamed, "END OF AMERICA. GUBBMINT INTRUSION."

Same thing when the government required seat belts in all cars. How they screamed! "THEY CAN'T TELL US HOW TO RUN OUR BUSINESSES!"

Are mandatory seat belts something you oppose?
 
2012-11-11 12:49:44 PM  

Kibbler: Are mandatory seat belts something you oppose?


Wrong question to change a libertarian's mind - he'll answer instantly and unequivocally "yes". Because it should be our choice whether or not we die in a car accident, and if we don't, we will support car makers that put in seatbelts. Or some shiat.

Food, water, and air safety, on the other hand, are good arguments, as is deforestation and other resource depletion (big government approach: "ok, you can only cut this percentage of the trees and then leave it to regrow, or you can plant n trees for every one you cut"; libertarian approach: "well, we cut all the trees in the world down, now what?").
 
2012-11-11 12:55:25 PM  

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.


"Completely reasonable" was the first problem, "left wing" was the other. Neither one is ever "interesting" enough to get press because why should we return to the economic systems that worked in the 1950s?
 
2012-11-11 12:58:10 PM  

Shaggy_C: Lichtenstein didn't give women the right to vote until the 1980s, and abortion is entirely illegal in all circumstances. Their tax rate is 1.2%. It's about the closest to a Ron Paul ideal as you can get in the real world - aside from the fact that the country is almost entirely dependent upon external nations to keep the economy running.


There are more companies registered in Lichtenstein then there are people.

yousaywut: 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.


And before disavowing them he took full credit for them several times.
 
2012-11-11 01:01:35 PM  
there are bits and pieces of wisdom in Ron Paul, he just has a bad way of explaining it and comes across as a nut job to some.

He would be about the only republican I would vote for
 
2012-11-11 01:03:59 PM  

clambam: 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.


But you contradict yourself - Bush put the wars "off the budget" so that way he could look better fiscally than he actually did. By your definition, he did a great job of bringing the country near a surplus, since according the the allocated budget he was only a few hundred billion from even. The simple fact of the matter is that the budget is nothing but a sham projection, given that the President and Congress decide what is left in and what is left out. What matters is the cold hard dollars at the end of the year and whether the nation's debt has grown or lessened. In every year since Eisenhower's presidency, the debt owed by this nation has grown. Moreso under Republicans, I will add, though Barry O is doing his best impression of a Republican with his repeated tax cuts coupled with profligate spending. I have hope that as the economy improves the next few years that we'll reign in some of the stimulus mentality and start to see the real Democrat (i.e., the fiscally responsible) in Obama emerge.
 
2012-11-11 01:05:09 PM  

DemonEater: Kibbler: Are mandatory seat belts something you oppose?

Wrong question to change a libertarian's mind - he'll answer instantly and unequivocally "yes". Because it should be our choice whether or not we die in a car accident, and if we don't, we will support car makers that put in seatbelts. Or some shiat.

Food, water, and air safety, on the other hand, are good arguments, as is deforestation and other resource depletion (big government approach: "ok, you can only cut this percentage of the trees and then leave it to regrow, or you can plant n trees for every one you cut"; libertarian approach: "well, we cut all the trees in the world down, now what?").


It doesn't matter what you ask them. They all play the same game: 'I support the good regulations, but I don't support the bad ones'. So somehow there will magically be clean air and water, safe food, etc, while they simultaneously rant about the EPA, FDA, etc.

The issue is that anyone who supports even slightly more regulation than them is instantly put in the "authoritarian" box, while none of them, regardless of where they sit on the spectrum, allows themselves to be pinned down on any issues. It doesn't matter how crazy Ron Paul is, you can't hold them to that, but the guy you voted for fails to close gitmo? Well you are an ignorant sheeple.

Push the issue any further and you find yourself mired in a discussion about the intentions of the founding fathers and some cop-outs about states rights and how we can better control a state government than we can the federal government. It is an argument you can't win, because you can't punch the gaseous cloud that is their views.
 
2012-11-11 01:07:03 PM  

Stoker: 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.


Gary Johnson was a Republican who was a two-time partisan quitter. Lost the primary, went Libertarian.

Their goal is to steal votes from the democrats, it is uncertain if their outcome is more that, or more the opposite.
 
2012-11-11 01:12:09 PM  
I think Paul is a good "springboard" into challenging the GOP paradigm. But if you get hung up on him as a person, instead of him as someone who was able to question the GOP doctrine (how successfully is up for debate), then you get lost in some of his more... eccentric views.

Ron Paul got me off the GOP establishment's teat in 2007. But I continued to develop and rethink my political views; he is not the be-all end-all of libertarian leaning Republicans.

For example, I'm not a dogmatic libertarian. I don't think government is evil and has no place. I certainly believe in government's role in infrastructure, utilities, public services, safety net, defense, etc. The scale of that involvement, I think, is out of control right now. But that doesn't mean I think we need to start just slashing and burning without thinking through syllogistic effects or planning for mitigation and transitional measures.

I also am not really into the whole propensity for attracting racists. I don't think that libertarianism is racist, but I think that racists have the ability to hijack it a lot easier than we are comfortable admitting.

Any way, I respect the hell out of RP, and am grateful in his movement's role in breaking me out of the neoconservative hivemind. But I'm not exactly getting in line to eat a mile of his shiat just to see where it came from. And for some reason, that line seems to be very long, and has a lot of weirdos in it.
 
2012-11-11 01:12:40 PM  

Shaggy_C: clambam: 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.

But you contradict yourself - Bush put the wars "off the budget" so that way he could look better fiscally than he actually did. By your definition, he did a great job of bringing the country near a surplus, since according the the allocated budget he was only a few hundred billion from even. The simple fact of the matter is that the budget is nothing but a sham projection, given that the President and Congress decide what is left in and what is left out. What matters is the cold hard dollars at the end of the year and whether the nation's debt has grown or lessened. In every year since Eisenhower's presidency, the debt owed by this nation has grown. Moreso under Republicans, I will add, though Barry O is doing his best impression of a Republican with his repeated tax cuts coupled with profligate spending. I have hope that as the economy improves the next few years that we'll reign in some of the stimulus mentality and start to see the real Democrat (i.e., the fiscally responsible) in Obama emerge.


Split hairs much?
 
2012-11-11 01:13:18 PM  
i14.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-11 01:16:49 PM  

Smackledorfer: DemonEater: Kibbler: Are mandatory seat belts something you oppose?

Wrong question to change a libertarian's mind - he'll answer instantly and unequivocally "yes". Because it should be our choice whether or not we die in a car accident, and if we don't, we will support car makers that put in seatbelts. Or some shiat.

Food, water, and air safety, on the other hand, are good arguments, as is deforestation and other resource depletion (big government approach: "ok, you can only cut this percentage of the trees and then leave it to regrow, or you can plant n trees for every one you cut"; libertarian approach: "well, we cut all the trees in the world down, now what?").

It doesn't matter what you ask them. They all play the same game: 'I support the good regulations, but I don't support the bad ones'. So somehow there will magically be clean air and water, safe food, etc, while they simultaneously rant about the EPA, FDA, etc.

The issue is that anyone who supports even slightly more regulation than them is instantly put in the "authoritarian" box, while none of them, regardless of where they sit on the spectrum, allows themselves to be pinned down on any issues. It doesn't matter how crazy Ron Paul is, you can't hold them to that, but the guy you voted for fails to close gitmo? Well you are an ignorant sheeple.

Push the issue any further and you find yourself mired in a discussion about the intentions of the founding fathers and some cop-outs about states rights and how we can better control a state government than we can the federal government. It is an argument you can't win, because you can't punch the gaseous cloud that is their views.


You can try to hold them to the official LP platform, but that one has been sanitized and is often vague, and in the case of Paulestinians they aren't actually Libertarians.
 
2012-11-11 01:19:55 PM  

clambam: Split hairs much?


You're using bad numbers and drawing major conclusions from them; that's not splitting hairs, that's damning your very argument at its core.
 
2012-11-11 01:35:54 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'm fairly certain that real debt and debt-to-GDP ratio both fell at the very end of Clinton's presidency.
 
2012-11-11 01:55:52 PM  

Hanky: sorry, Ron, there are reasons for having a Federal government


Yes, you are absolutely right. . . .

Much in the same way that if there was no such thing as human stupidity, Standup comedians would have nothing to talk about.
 
2012-11-11 01:57:50 PM  

Kibbler: TheEdibleSnuggie: I'm libertarian and distrust corporations as much as I do the government, and I'm VERY anti-consumerist.

Curious what you mean by that. For me, one of the earliest (and most important) forms of consumerism was food labeling. How much fat, cholesterol, salt and sugar is in this product? Not to mention a list of the horrible chemical preservatives and coloring agents used. My mom has to eat a very sodium-restricted diet. Forty years ago, she would just have to die, because she would be eating food loaded to the gills with salt. Now we can choose foods that are low- or zero-sodium. And as a result, there are many food producers who provide foods tailored for people with special dietetic needs.

Are you opposed to food labeling? God knows the corporations were when it was first pushed. "END OF LIBERTY," they screamed, "END OF AMERICA. GUBBMINT INTRUSION."

Same thing when the government required seat belts in all cars. How they screamed! "THEY CAN'T TELL US HOW TO RUN OUR BUSINESSES!"

Are mandatory seat belts something you oppose?


1) I think you have anti-consumerist confused with anti-regulation. Those are two different things.

The simple libertarian basis behind government is this: Maximum freedom/ liberty/ whatever you want to call it; with minimal government intrusion. Government's role should be to a) Promote healthy competition by drafting policies that encourage growth and investment; b) Protect its citizens from corruption and coercion (regardless of the initial source).

I don't have a problem with food labeling. That's giving you, the consumer the power to make choices that affect your life and well being. No corporation should have the power to decide what, and how much of a substance you get to put into your body- unless you make the personal choice to do so.

Seatbelt laws work much the same way, though it's common sense that belts save lives; if you choose to go without and get into a serious accident- you have to deal the with consequences of that choice. I don't think seatbelt laws should be primary offenses, however.

So when I say I'm anti-consumerist, that means I'm against being force-fed dogma of always needing to have the 'next best thing.' To wear or use a certain brand because it's associated with a various lifestyle or personality type. I believe that if you have a brand- that's great, but so are many others. So I don't get caught up in all that riff-raff.

2) I'm not anti-regulation. I'm against OVER-regulation, or knee-jerk regulation. I believe in the 'invisible hand' theory of government regulation where state or federal policy is created and used as a guide by which safe, efficient, fair, and honorable business is conducted. I think there is too much of this mentality that government can solve all of our problems with the pen. As opposed to a much broader thought that perhaps all that is needed is a bit of self-control and moderation, COMBINED with simple regulation. When laws are simply drafted because of broad-based incompetency due to lack of federal oversight of laws already on the books...then that's just asinine.
 
2012-11-11 02:07:32 PM  

Alphax: So he's retiring? Guess he'll still tilt at Government windmills or something.

His fixation on having a government too weak to work is really strange.


You assume that a government that "works" is a good thing. That's the whole concept behind the checks and balances of our Federal system. . . You quite literally break government ON PURPOSE so that it CAN'T work any more than what is necessary to avoid chaos.

A government that "works" is pretty much any government in history that's decided it wanted to start "eliminating" it's own citizens, outlawing dissent, and doing it very efficiently (See: Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, North Korea, etc. . .). After all, government can't "work" very well when people are not lock step with it's policies.

And to feed your leftist views on a superficial level, this is also why we can't have a government that is "run like a business". A business is supposed to be as streamlined and effective as possible, while if a government attempted the same thing, it would end up as just a giant police state dystopia. If the government was 100% perfect at implementing it's policies we'd probably have at least half of the population in prison, with the other half of the population employed as jailers.
 
2012-11-11 02:08:11 PM  
Shaggy_C: "...but they[Ron Paul's ideas] don't work in a world where the United States is depended upon for both economic and military security worldwide."


It takes guts to examine one's own beliefs, and it's unfortunate for the rest of the world that the remaining superpower has many cowards among it's citizens who either willingly or through ignorance refuse to confront the way their nation has attained that power.The notion that The US is a "Global Force fo Good" is the perspective of people with their heads up their asses and no regard for the lives of the people around the world who've had their lives destroyed in the interests of protecting American corporate profits and access to cheap resources, mainly other people's. I think the majority of Americans are good and moral but many are clueless about how the "American Way" gets projected beyond your borders, and are incredibly quick to whine like absurd little biatches when someone suggests you perhaps stop being such fat, greedy sacks of shiat and maybe, perhaps kinda think about having some regard for the the way your consumption habits are fed and how it fundamentally affects the lives of people in the countries where your flatscreen tv's and running shoes come from. The only thing the US has been "depended upon...worldwide" is to undermine democracy and deny others what you cling to yourselves.
 
2012-11-11 02:20:41 PM  

daveUSMC: I think Paul is a good "springboard" into challenging the GOP paradigm. But if you get hung up on him as a person, instead of him as someone who was able to question the GOP doctrine (how successfully is up for debate), then you get lost in some of his more... eccentric views.


I'm not trying to attack you, but don't you find it a bit obtuse or insensitive to call his racist and homophobic opinions and actions merely "eccentric"?
 
2012-11-11 02:31:51 PM  
img818.imageshack.us

If you spend decades telling everyone that the world is going to end tomorrow unless we do what you say, eventually people will quit listening.
 
2012-11-11 02:32:33 PM  
That racist old farkstick needs to get the fark off of the national stage before embarrasses us anymore than he already has.

He's only interested in 'libertarian' values so long as it gives him the ability to be shiatty to non-white people and to get women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.
 
2012-11-11 02:35:10 PM  

austerity101: daveUSMC: I think Paul is a good "springboard" into challenging the GOP paradigm. But if you get hung up on him as a person, instead of him as someone who was able to question the GOP doctrine (how successfully is up for debate), then you get lost in some of his more... eccentric views.

I'm not trying to attack you, but don't you find it a bit obtuse or insensitive to call his racist and homophobic opinions and actions merely "eccentric"?


Since when is someone's "opinion" what you vote for? You vote for their policies. Now, we could actually debate his supposed "racist" opinions all day, but I never once saw anything even remotely racial in nature to legislation that he either voted for or proposed. Nobody is perfect, and I'm the first to admit that some people get into a bit of a messianic fervor regarding Ron Paul, rather than looking at his message, but it's so often that you find people trying to tell the truth are the ones smeared by the press, while real bad guys are left alone.

I mean, we had Democratic Senators that were former KKK members, and I saw nothing but apologetic responses by the media when it was brought up. Certainly, someone writing some idiotic things in a paper newsletter decades ago that merely put your name at the top to market it is no where near as bad as actually being a member of the KKK.

This whole "Libertarians are racists" meme is getting quite old, and is completely untrue. Libertarians are NOT Conservatives, NOR are they Republicans, although from time to time Republicans try to wear a "libertarian" banner. A Libertarian merely believes that people are all individuals and should never have violence initiated against them by any other organization/group/individual. Other than that, anyone who is a "Libertarian" can differ quite wildly how they interpret that.

/for the record.
 
2012-11-11 02:57:46 PM  

austerity101: daveUSMC: I think Paul is a good "springboard" into challenging the GOP paradigm. But if you get hung up on him as a person, instead of him as someone who was able to question the GOP doctrine (how successfully is up for debate), then you get lost in some of his more... eccentric views.

I'm not trying to attack you, but don't you find it a bit obtuse or insensitive to call his racist and homophobic opinions and actions merely "eccentric"?


Well, I think most of the racism/homo stuff floating around is pretty indirect or ancient when it comes to him. And, because I respect a lot of his ideas, specifically with regards to foreign policy (which is pointedly important to me...), I'm not willing to write him off and throw around insults at the guy.

Can't we save insults for LImbaugh, Coulter, and the turd pundits? And like I said, I'm not a Paulbot. He just planted the seed and pushed me out of the neocon door.
 
2012-11-11 03:14:54 PM  

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.


Yeah, I actually like a lot of his policies. They just ignore America's position in the world, as well as our population's culture. If our population were a little less insane, I'd be all for isolationism (who am I kidding, I'm for it now, within reason). The gold standard just mathematically doesn't work, but thinking a bit about our economy never hurts.
 
2012-11-11 03:19:05 PM  

daveUSMC: Can't we save insults for LImbaugh, Coulter, and the turd pundits? And like I said, I'm not a Paulbot. He just planted the seed and pushed me out of the neocon door.


I would argue that we should save our insults for the people who actually mean the hatred they spread and demonstrate and not waste it on a bunch of trolls, personally. Limbaugh, Coulter, and the like aren't actually vying for (or holding) public office.
 
2012-11-11 06:08:22 PM  
Ron Paul will be like Ross Perot. In 20 years, we will look back and realize that he was right about most things.
 
2012-11-11 06:25:34 PM  

machoprogrammer: Ron Paul will be like Ross Perot. In 20 years, we will look back and realize that he was right about most things.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-11 06:35:34 PM  

Shaggy_C: He has a very strong understanding of the federal reserve system and various economic theories, particularly the Austrian school.


The difference between Austrian School Economics and Astrology is that Astrology will occasionally get something right.
 
2012-11-11 06:38:19 PM  
I like his foreign policy and stance on the drug war.
 
2012-11-11 06:48:04 PM  

fenianfark: [i47.photobucket.com image 500x375]


I heart that.

And it is totally getting sent to the RON PAUL 08 kid I know... who was biatching about over-regulation killing his failed business... that is Dad funded and that was run like crap (an opinion I had before I knew him as a friend of a friend, then I found out *that* was the business he was griping about and had to run outside for a cigarette to hide my laughter, good times).
 
2012-11-11 06:52:27 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: machoprogrammer: Ron Paul will be like Ross Perot. In 20 years, we will look back and realize that he was right about most things.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x224]


A guy goes to see his barber, who's Italian, and says "Just want to let you know I won't be in for a few weeks. I'm going to Italy with the wife." The barber says "Really? What airline are you taking?" The guy  says "AirItalia." The barber says "AirItalia? Tha's a terrible airline. You would have been better off taking SwissAir. Where are you going in Italy?" The guy says "Rome." The barber sys "Rome? Bad mistake. Florence is much nicer. Where are staying in Rome?" The guy says "The Europa." The barber says "Another mistake. The Metropole is much nicer. Anything special you want to do while you're there?" The guy says "We were hoping to get an audience with the Pope." The barber says "An audience with the Pope? You'll be lucky to get within a half a mile of him."

A few weeks later the guy's back from his trip and he goes to get a haircut. The barber says "Oh, you're back. Tell me, was I right about what I told you?"The guys says "You know, you could not possibly have been more wrong about every single thing you said. First of all, AirItalia is a wonderful airline, I'd fly it again in a second. Secondly, Rome is the most beautiful city on earth, I can't wait to go back. Third, the Europa is a beautfiul hotel, we were waited on hand and foot, I'd recommend it to anyone." The barber says "What about your audience with the Pope?" The guy says, "Funny you should mention that. My wife and I were visiting the Sistine Chapel when a secret door opened in the wall and a priest beckoned to us. We followed him down a corridor to an exqusitie Renaissance chapel, and there was the Pope! I kissed his ring he blessed us and then gave us a private audience. When the audience was almost over I said to him, 'Your Holiness, you must see thousands of people every day. Why of all the people in St. Peter's did you choose to give us an audience?' The Pope answered 'Well, my son, I've been Pope for seven years now. Twice a day I go out and bless the pilgrims in St. Peter' Square. There are always at least 10,000 people there and half of them are men So how many men have I seen since I became Pope? You do the math. And in all that time, out of all those men, after all these years... that is the worst haircut I've ever seen in my life!'"
 
2012-11-11 11:31:09 PM  
Paul who?
 
2012-11-11 11:33:25 PM  

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


Doctors have no special claim to morality.
 
2012-11-12 04:22:15 AM  
One day America you will look back and feel stupid for not paying attention to this man.
 
2012-11-12 05:49:44 AM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: 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.'"

fark you, Mr. Paul. That wasn't just about certain people "wanting to be taken care of." It was a measure to stop our economy, as in the U.S. economy, from completely melting down.


That's also a very interesting position to take coming from a guy who has spent 3 decades collecting a government check.
 
Displayed 135 of 135 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report