Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Romney, yes. But how is Paul a pawn? The establishment doesn't want anything to do with him because he's NOT a pawn, and won't sell his votes to the highest bidder.

 

He's part of the koch right.

Those who believe in the absolute personal and corporate freedom to do whatever the fuck you want, regardless of who you step on, because hey, they should have worked harder and been you if they didn't want to be stepped on.

 

No he is not apart of Kock Bros. He is more like Goldwater. If he had been their willing puppet he would have probably beat Romney for sure. He is the only republican who says he would not knock people off of assistance and he is particularly concerned for the elderly and them not losing their benefits. You really don't know what Ron Paul is standing for if you only listen to the media.

http://www.fight.tv/videosection/video/CEjchyWrKmg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

Paul was employed by Koch at one time, but it's my understanding that they seperated on bad terms because Paul wouldn't be their puppet. I've read about Koch funding Santorum and other republicans running AGAINST Paul.

 

I've seen paul say many true and great things that need to be said.

I've also seen him say many batshit insane things that go against what I believe, I don't think he MEANS to be evil, he's just a bit out of touch.

The rest of them do mean to be evil.

 

Ron paul is the ONLY candidate proposing change. Lets face it, Obama is a miserable failure. Hes really done some nasty things in his 4 years and very little good. Hes a good Chicago liar. Romney is a turd too. I just keep moving further off grid becaues these fools are only interested in being sheep or cattle and have no clue theres OTHER PARTYS WITH CANDIDATES! Just keep voting the 2 party system while they lead you to slaughter...

 

People won't like me for saying this if they don't already, and that's fine. But I feel it is necessary to state my opinion, and it's my opinion that the Ron Paul paradigm is another false paradigm, and those who are falling into it are not really seeing the bigger picture. There was a time when I would have defended Ron Paul, and I do agree that he says a lot of things that sound good to people who believe in the illusion of politics and political change. However, Ron Paul is part of the same charade that Obama, Romney and all these other clowns are part of. Ron Paul is still playing the political game and misleading you, knowingly or unknowingly, to think there is such a thing as power to the people. The fact is Ron Paul is and never was a real threat the establishment, which actually promoted him via the media quite heavily for a number of years and still do. Sure, they may come across as being unfair to him, but that's part of the game, because it gives him further credibility as a "rogue" to a target segment of the population. They use people like Ron Paul to appease a certain target group in America that is fed up with politics, to actually draw them back into the illusion with a person who says everything they want to hear, offering them what they believe to be hope for a real change. The media takes a lot of what he says and they spin it, which discredits him so enough of the unthinking public won't vote for him, thus eliminating any threat. But first you would have to believe that elections are actually real and matter anything. They don't mean squat. They are designed to give the public the illusion that they have a say in their destiny and that of what they believe to be "their" country.

The entire system is rigged. Ron Paul is part of that corrupt system, whether he is an honest, well-meaning man or not. Anyone who thinks one man can effect change in a system that is owned by central bankers and administered by bureaucrats, doesn't really understand the power structure and how it works. They don't understand the nature of the beast we are up against.

I am sorry, but Ron Paul and his goofy looking son really kind of piss me off more than anything. His Israel-loving son Rand has shown his true colors over the years, and he is not a person I can trust. Then again, he is a politician, so I automatically didn't trust him from the beginning. If Rand Paul so obviously cannot be trusted, why should his daddy? And just how rich has Ron gotten from all the campaign donations he's received over the last two presidential campaigns, KNOWING he will not and cannot win? (Yes, he has stated this himself, but yet he still accepts your money anyway.) Doesn't this concern everyone?

Sorry to be so blunt, but Ron Paul can go fuck off along with the rest of them.

 

Indie

LOL – I’m sure you don’t but then you never seem to question your own ideas or statements. But I’m still not sure what you meant by –

Can you explain?

 

Indie

Well first does the US Constitution forbid people wanting to make a unfair system fairer?
Second as pointed out you have argued against democracy and even suggested that wealth be given more voting powers so it can block or veto the votes of the majority.

 

Indie

I’ve never claimed my ideas are not redistributive I’m asking what arguments have you against that kind of redistribution beyond just not liking it?

I mean you seemed to be arguing at one time that because an individual personally gained all their advantages then they were therefore entitled to keep all of them. But we have seen that a lot if not most advantage can be unearned.

Yes I know you dispute that but you have put up no rational or reasonable counter-argument so it seems to stand. And your only argument in defence of people getting such structural advantage is that is what you want.

You can rant and rile against what I say but you seem incapable of putting up any rational or reasonable argument against it.

 

Never said it did.

Democracy fails when it becomes used as little more than a tool for a majority to take from a minority.

 

How do you define theft?

While some may possess wealth that they themselves did not earn, if it was acquired legally and passed on to them it belongs exclusively to them.

The market place is where wealth should be redistributed, and all that requires is participation. Wealth is accumulated as a result of greater participation in the area of production and less in consumption.

 

Indie

We have been through this can you address the criticisms already made?

I prefer balance too the domination of advantage – in a well functioning democracy the power and influence that wealth brings in a money based economy should be balanced by the votes of the majority.

You however seem to want to give greater power and influence to wealth in a system where wealth is already too power in my opinion and many others. What I’ve been asking is have you any rational or reasonable argument to back up your view.

 

Indie

We have been through this can you address the criticisms already made?

If you are taking about taxation then you also believe in it.

Let us imagine a plague, a disease that could affect anyone but will actually end up only affecting half of the population* But nobody knows which half.

That is a societal problem.

In such a situation I think most sensible people would want the community’s government to try and do something about it and be willing to pay the taxes to tackle the situation.

Now lets say that half a population are born into disadvantage and half not. But since no one can choose beforehand to which half they are to be born, it basically means disadvantage could affect anyone.

So again it is a societal problem.

The difference is that there is the problem of hindsight, when those born into advantage are taxed to help the disadvantaged, they might not go ‘oh I could have been born disadvantaged myself’ they might go ‘why should I help’. It is like knowing who would be affected by the disease and who not.

(*And I’m not saying disadvantage is a disease, I’m just using the plague idea as an example)

 

Indie

We have been through this can you address the criticisms already made?

And if the law changes? I mean people once owned slaves then the law were changed and they couldn’t own slaves.

I know you are against it I’m asking you if you have any rational or reasonable arguments to back up your viewpoint.

We have been through this can you address the criticisms already made?

But market is fixed in favour of the advantaged, there is no ‘free market’ and there never ever will be a free market.

Only with regulation can the advantages of the advantaged be countered.

To go back to the race metaphor again - even if the disadvantaged participate those with the 50 metres advantage are always going to be ahead.

As to wealth accumulation being about participation in the market, can a baby participate in market?

Have you rational and reasonable counter arguemet that address the many outstanding criticisms of your ideas and if not why do you hold on to these ideas?

 

I see nothing I've not addressed, but nothing I can write will be acceptable to you as our differences are based on how we would like government to work, top down or bottom up.

You use the term democracy in a way that I find totally unacceptable as it is meant to be used in the American form of government.

I find those who have great wealth to be a great opportunity waiting for those who would like to acquire some wealth.

Okay, so you can't define theft. And taxation the people have consented to is not theft in my opinion. I don't think anyone believes a government can exist without some forms of taxation.

Your last post lacked anything rational or reasonable worth responding to. Care to try again?

 

Indie

LOL – not this again even you must be getting embarrassed by this obvious lie – ok once again – can you actually present any evidence of these rational and reasonable replies? I mean you’ve never ever been able to present them before.

And again it doesn’t matter if we have different viewpoints the problem here is that I seem able to defend my ideas from criticism and you seem incapable of doing so.

I’ll ask again - why do you hold onto ideas you don’t seem able to defend.

And my term and way are what exactly?

So taxation is not theft so why did you want me to define theft when I’m talking about taxation? Also only giving what you consent to – are willing to pay – is not taxation it is a voluntary contribution.

Oh Indie you are a hoot. OK again – just ignoring criticism doesn’t mean it goes away, it just indicates that your inability to address it means it’s very likely valid.

 

Bal,

You claim I have not given you a rational and reasonable response to what I have found to be no more than irrational and unreasonable criticisms.

Of course you would 'feel' you have defended your ideas from criticism, therefore everyone must agree with you, don't they?

Didn't I already make it plain, or maybe 'Government of the people' vs 'Government by the people' might help?

Taxation is not theft when those taxed have given their consent to be taxed for the purposes the tax is to be put to use. It's not a voluntary contribution when the amounts and purposes become political issues with no regard to consent and if you're unwilling to pay you can be prosecuted.

Okay Bal, you just keep believing what you wish, and to Hell with trying to put any effort towards actually attempting to find what all might accept to be rational and reasonable solutions to real problems that can be solved.

 

i don't mean to interrupt you guys but but...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIlYgIBS2nU"]Maddow: Ron Paul Could Be Nominated At The Republican National Convention - YouTube

What the fuck is going on? I thought Ron Paul was out? But now MSM is actually covering him... Apparently he just needs 1 more state to actually have a fighting chance in the GOP convention. Fuck, i just gained a little hope inside

 

I'm not sure what your point is there...

The US doesn't have government of or by the people. We have government of and by the corporate person. What other outcome would you expect from a system in which corporations are persons and money equals speech?

Which is why I couldn't vote for Ron Paul. Paul is a Libertarian. Libertarian policies would only more deeply entrench the corporate person into our daily lives. That doesn't sound like liberty to me.