Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

After recently viewing "Atlas Shrugged Pt 1" I'm looking forward to Part 2, and hoping that Part 3 will not become a real life experience.

It looks like Ron Paul may be the last hope for my generation, and probably for most generations alive today.

 

Indie

Again I do wish you’d read the posts – POST 192 this thread

“The thing is that the thread is about the right wing libertarian and neo-liberalist Ron Paul, so it seems fitting to debate the validity or not of right wing libertarian and neo-liberalist ideas.

You promote right wing libertarian and neo-liberalist ideas and your inability to defend them from criticism seem to question their validity and Ron Pauls platform”

 

Again the same problem with Ron and the Paulettes, they don’t seem capable of defending his and their right wing libertarian/neoliberal message.

Many criticisms of these deeply flawed ideologies have been made in the thread and what do we get from the Paulettes mainly a rift on the theme of – ‘he’s the man’ – he’s great, he’s the only honest politician, he’s not conserving his own pockets like the others, he’s full of minty goodness etc etc

They might as well be choosing the candidate with the most luscious hair or pert buttocks.

Rather than these facile comments why not actually try and address the criticism levelled at Ron and you.

 

Balbus:

You've posted nothing but complaints, and offer nothing to improve what you constantly complain about.

You're a complete waste of my time, and represent the problem we need to solve. As such I feel it would be best to ignore you and others like you and concentrate more on those who would really like to find some achievable solutions.

 

Indie

I’ve explained at length and in detail and multiple times my complaints with your right wing libertarian and neoliberal ideologies - criticisms that you seem unable to address.

Why is that?

So to you addressing criticisms that seem to fundamentally undermine the whole of your chosen ideology is a waste of time? It seems to me that many problems in the history of the world have come about due to the unquestioning obedience of followers to crackpot beliefs and ideologies that they couldn't defend against criticism.

So again – you think it a good idea to ignore any criticisms you are unable to address but instead only mix with people that are as unquestionably loyal as you are to your chosen ideological cause?

As I’ve said there are worrying precedents for that in history.

*

 

I'll give Ron Paul credit, he definitely handled being mic checked rather well.

 

The ‘mic check’ incident for those wishing to know –

http://theopenglobe.org/wiki/%27Mic_check%27:_OWS_protesters_heckle_Obama,_Ron_Paul_at_speeches

to quote from it -

Again I think this is disingenuous at best – because there seems to be a contradiction between the ideas Ron Paul promotes (which would vastly increase the power and influence of the 1%) and what he is claiming he wants to achieve, as pointed out here by the critics of Ron Paul.

The problem is that his supporters don’t seem able to defend the ideas being promoted and instead pump out a stream of vacuous propaganda.

 

You know what a pathetic attempt at dodging having to answer this is.

"Can you answer my legitimate critisism"

"YOU ONLY HAVE PROBLEMS, WAAA"

Well no, you have the problem, which is a position you can't defend. He just wants an answer. A problem is accepting the nice easy sounding answer without considering what the evidence really points to, it got us into this mess and it fuckin' well won't get us out.

 

And the legitimate criticism is what?
What is the evidence you're talking about?
How would you describe the "mess" we're in?
What would get us out of the "mess" you see us in, without putting us into an even worse mess in the immediate or distant future?
Try putting ALL the facts out for examination if you are sincere in looking for an 'achievable' solution.

 

We are surely doomed without Ron Paul
──────────────────╔═══╦═══╗╔╗╔═══╗
╔╦╦═╦═╦╗╔═╦═╗╔╦╦╗─║╔═╗║╔═╗╠╝║║╔═╗║
║╔╣╬║║║║║╬║╬╚╣║║╚╗╚╝╔╝║║║║╠╗║╚╝╔╝║
╚╝╚═╩╩═╝║╔╩══╩═╩═╝╔═╝╔╣║║║║║║╔═╝╔╝
────────╚╝────────║║╚═╣╚═╝╠╝╚╣║╚═╗
All of the rest and we will just keep falling further into a pit of hell that won't stop till we are all hungry and cold and finally realize that we must once again fight the powers that be.

 

Ron Paul is an extreme rarity in modern American politics, someone who is right of center, and understands the purpose of the Constitution as a restraint upon the Federal government.

 

Indie

The threads in this forum are full of legitimate criticisms of right wing libertarian/neoliberal views, pretending they are not their doesn’t make them go away it just seems to confirm that their supports have no counter argument, beyond bluster and evasion.

The fact that right wing libertarians and neoliberals don’t seem able to address criticisms levelled at their ideology.

To me it is a mess brought on because of neoliberal ideas and policies, an argument I’ve explained in detail and at length many times – arguments which you seem unable to counter.

I and others have pointed out the dangers and pitfalls of neoliberalism and you seem unable to address those criticisms. And I and others have pointed out there are many alternatives to neoliberal ideas but your only counter arguments seems to be to call them all socialist (but then you seem to call anything socialist that is to the left of your rather extreme version of neoliberalism)

Problem is that when people do present criticisms you evade – just as you are evading now.

 

Again the same problem with Ron and the Paulettes, they don’t seem capable of defending his and their right wing libertarian/neoliberal message.

Many criticisms of these deeply flawed ideologies have been made in the thread and what do we get from the Paulettes mainly a rift on the theme of – ‘he’s the man’ – he’s great, he’s the only honest politician, he’s not conserving his own pockets like the others, he understands the purpose of the Constitution, he’s full of minty goodness etc etc

They might as well be choosing the candidate with the most luscious hair or pert buttocks.

Rather than these facile comments why not actually try and address the criticism levelled at Ron and you.

 

Balbus:

What label would you use to identify your ideology?

 

Indie

LOL – I refer you to Post 149 of the thread - What to do in the mad, mad world?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=425761&page=15

When you used a similar evasion tactic before –

Some five years ago I gave this reply -

As I’ve already said I’m not an ideological Socialist, but socialist ideas and thought have influenced my own views as have many others political philosophies. But even amongst those that definitely call themselves socialists there is a wide degree of diversity

As the wikipedia writer on socialism says “It is difficult to make generalizations about the diverse array of doctrines and movements that have been referred to as "socialist." The various adherents of contemporary socialist movements do not agree on a common doctrine or program. As a result, the movement has split into different and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between moderate socialists and communists. Since the 19th century, socialists have differed in their vision of socialism as a system of economic organization. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, or decentralized ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers councils. Others have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies. Stalinists insisted on the creation of Soviet-style command economies under strong central state direction. Others advocate "market socialism" in which social control of property exists within the framework of market economics and private property”

Communism even Stalinism have supporters on the left but they are parts (and for Stalinism a very small part) of a larger idea.

One of the problems that I detect in many Americans is that they seem to believe any type of socialism is akin to full blown Stalinistc communism, however patently silly and illogical that viewpoint is. It means that for some they fear and loath any politics that is to the left of Anne Coulter or leads them up the rather dangerous cul de sac of right wing libertarianism.

I have and do call myself a ‘pragmatic socialist with strong green influences’ for want of a better term.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...d.php?t=179448

Today I’d think I’d add some more and point out that I’m an advocate of democracy and that I’m a supporter of Keynesian economic ideas as well as internationalism - some global problems need global answers.

I have nothing against private ownership or wealth and I’m not even against a market system, although I hope that human beings might one day grow up and leave those childish things behind.

But I do believe in balance and that a political system should work in the best interests of all people in a society.

*

OK indie – that is how it works in an honest debate – you ask a question of me and I have tried to give an honest reply with no evasion, and if you want clarification guess what I’ll give it.

So now you know how it works maybe you will begin debating in an honest and open way, without evasion – I mean that is what your question was just another way of trying to get out of answering or addressing the things I’ve raised.

 

Indie

So can you address the criticisms or not? Or are you just going to carry on with the evasion?

 

Balbus:

I believe in a political system that treats all members of society equally, however I do not believe any political system should assume the responsibility or have the power to redistribute anything from/to members of society.

You might achieve some answers simply by asking a question directly.

 

Indie

1) But you would want a society where wealth would dictate status and power and therefore treatment.
2) But as pointed out you do believe governments should be able to raise taxes.

You might achieve some answers simply by asking a question directly.

LOL – I’ve tried direct and indirect, I’ve tried simple and I’ve tried explaining at length and I’ve tried asking while hopping on one foot – it makes no difference you just evade – as you are doing now.

 

I don't understand how you can think that. Ron wants to create sound money which would make us a learn to understand our personal worth and the worth of our currency. People have lost their understanding of value. Prices are going up everyone wants a raise which will only make the costs rise more and cancel out the wage increase.

An example how the value of our dollar has changed in the early part of the 1900's people could live on $5 a week if they made $10 a week they could save money. In the 50's a family of 4 could live on $10,000 a year.
is that during the 60's a person making $100 a week could pay their bills now a person making $10 an hour is having difficulty paying their bills.

During the 70's I spent $20 a week on food for 2 people, Now it cost almost $100. I do not eat junk food, dairy, or meat although I do feed my dog meat. If I bought everything I really want to eat it would cost me twice as much. When I spent $20 I had a lot of food now when I spend $100 my basket is not full.

This rise in cost of everything is because the dollar is not worth very much. The dollar is rapidly loosing value the devaluation of the currency is happening all over the world. The people can't pay their way. Ron is very concerned about the middle class. He wants to pull us out of this mess and reset the economy. It is not really as complicated as it might seem. Ron Paul is very angered by how the banks and Wall St have been allowed to screw the people.

He is tired of people like Trump creating phony companies an selling stock and then declares bankruptcy an screws his stock holders an goes on to create another phony company,. He is tired of the federal reserve giving our money to big banks and foreign banks at no interest and charging the interest back to the American tax payer. This devalues our currency. This is why we are in the mess we are in. This is why we our loosing our industries.

The wars cost us trillions. Why is it that we have to police the world?

Why can't people make their own choices about what they put into their body? Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body? Why is there a war on whole foods and natural medicine? Ron Paul's stand on being able to have pure foods and natural medicine is a very important issue and Ron gets much of his support from health professionals and individuals who use natural foods and medicines. Why is this choice being stripped from us? Europe and India are standing up for natural foods an medicines why are we allow this to happen here?

He sees much wasteful spending on regulating foods and medicines that is way wrong. Of course foods need to be handeled properly. But when GMO crops take president over natural crops and big agra can come in and crush independent farmers with FDA police units something is wrong with this picture.

He wants to allow the so called too big to fails to go down. Yes it could cause some temporary pain instead of pouring endless amounts of dollars into these failed systems let them go. Our money is debt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_B2STQuUXA"]RON PAUL Interview on economics - part 2 - YouTube

 

Yo

We’ve been through this stuff all before can you actually address the criticism of it rather than just repeating it?

*

For example – you said in post 97 of the Why do people like Ron Paul? Post 97
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=7025816&highlight=half#post7025816

I pointed out - Average annual earnings in the US in 1920 was in the range of $688 to $1236. Which works out at about 13 to 23 dollars a week. So $10 a week would be most to half a person’s wages and then there would be rent/mortgage etc - so in fact it doesn’t sound so good.

Maybe you should take off the rose tinted glasses and see history rather than nostalgia?

*

As I’ve said saying he is concerned and what he’d propose to do are two different things and seem to be contradictory. I’ve explained this several times could you please address those criticisms rather than making unsubstantiated assertions?

*

Yet he would push ideas that brought that situation about –

Try reading – Free market = plutocratic tyranny.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

*

We’ve covered drugs

Rightwing libertarians and drugs
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=368871

*