Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Evidently we can do nothing. Bend over and take it like a good zom--I mean citizen. Everyones crooked. Everyone's fucked. Nothing can be done. Nothing to see. Nothing to discuss. It's over. Go home and rest. Solutions? Don't mention that shit again as long as you live.

 

I do not believe you. Please provide the quote or reference.

 

The purpose of environmental regulations is not to "reign in big business", but to protect the environment. And they have been largely successful in that. If you deny that, you are guilty of revisionist history.

 

This poll selection sucks ... Personally with dealing with this monetary system we have now, Ron Paul is all we have. The Rest are in it for their own hides and wouldn't help anything other then slaughter the rest of the economy in pure greed and idiocy.

Is he a perfect choice ? No .... Unfortunately what we should be doing is dismantling this current monetary greed system we have and working towards a real one thats more resource based. Which would actually improve this world rather then cripple it. However that is still a pipe dream since all most can think about is wall street and keeping the delusion that money actually has a relevance.

And the only way to clearly fight that is get back to the core of what the system was .. which was a republic ... and no not a conservative BS economy system. Ron paul is the closest at this point to this.

 

Sunfighter--

Let's say you have plastic surgery, and the surgeon royally fucks your face up. He then tells you that it's ok, he'll fix it...Are you going to trust that same surgeon to fix your face, if they fucked it up to begin with? I wouldn't. Nor would I trust the corpovernment to give 2 shits about the environment. Any environmental policy that is in place is merely a result of NIMBY syndrome. It's why all our electronic waste ends up in overseas dumps so poor people can rummage through the toxic sludge. It's why rich neighborhoods are never put near power plants. The environment may affect us all eventually, but it will affect the wealthy the last.

If you care that much, all you can do is use little, live simply, produce your own energy, grow your own food or use CSAs, and when the shit hits the fan, at least you'll know it's not your fault.

It is sad what we have done to the Earth, but don't look to the parties that ruined it to fix it. Even in the last decade, when many Americans started to care about the environment, and there may have been a chance for consumers to demand change in the form of purchasing power, what did the corporations AND government do? They do what any good capitalist does--capitalize on it. Hence everything is suddenly "green," and now the government/corporations have a new way of selling us meaningless junk all while using the handy "green" label to prevent us from feeling any guilt.

Btw...are you saying you don't believe this country's been bought by corporate interest? Ever see "The Corporation?"

Anyway, back to the Ron Paul issue...I don't know. I do like a lot of things about him, but after the Obama hangover, I really don't have faith in any of them. I'm writing in Stewart and Colbert.

 

Rat

Forget the Club of Rome that’s small fry if you want something to base a good conspiracy theory on try the Mont Pelerin Society it has had a much greater impact, and it’s been real not imagined.

Virtual all the most influential right wing and neo-liberal think tanks founded since the society first meet in 1947 can trace their origins back to that group.

As someone has pointed out “When the Mont Pelerin Society first met, in 1947, its political project did not have a name. But it knew where it was going. The society’s founder, Friedrich von Hayek, remarked that the battle for ideas would take a least a generation to win, but he knew that his intellectual army would attract powerful backers. Its philosophy, which later came to be known as neoliberalism, accorded with the interests of the ultra-rich, so the ultra-rich would promote it.”

The Heritage Foundation (founder by the MPS member Edwin Feulner), Cato Institute (foundered by the MPS member Edward H Crane), all the Koch backed groups (Charles Koch is a member), Milton Friedman was a member, I could go on and on…

But as I’ve pointed out in the thread Conspiracy or lobbying
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=314393

“The wealthy elites of the US (and most of the world) fearing the rise of communist ideology and the an increased interest in left wing political ideas around the globe began to support anti-left wing groups and policies, which by definition were conservative or even further to the right.

It wasn’t so much a conspiracy as a group’s conscious reaction to a perceived threat to it ideological and material position.”


*

The big problem today is that they succeeded, they succeeded so well that many people are so indoctrinated that they seem to think the neo-liberal Ron Paul is the answer to the problem of too much neo-liberalism (e.g. having wealth pulling the strings); it would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic.

 

It seems to me that the problem is a political system that has given too much power and influence to wealth - it is a problem of governance that needs reform.

The problem as I see it is that those that proclaim that it is all the fault of ‘big government’ are actually trying to bamboozle people into giving even more power and influence to wealth.

What is needed is not big government or small government but good governance we need a balanced government that works in the interests of all society and people are not going to get that with right wing libertarians like Ron Paul, if anything they’ll just find themselves serfs in a system dominated by a plutocratic oligarchy.

 

That isn't what I have found in my research.

The rise of communism was funded by the big banks and US corporations, as professor Antony Sutton explains in the video below, which I put up on YouTube about 2 and a half years ago. This is all laid out in plain English in Sutton's books, which are based on actual state department documents. No fucking conspiracy theory here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H3ucvm3x_A"]The Capitalist-Communist Connection - YouTube

Also, how is Ron Paul a neoliberal exactly? He is a textbook libertarian, and libertarianism is, by definition, classical liberalism -- not corporate neoliberalism which the Democrats and Republicans support. Ron Paul openly speaks against corporatism. Please get your facts straight and stop spreading lies.

 

Conversely, the corporate system has given too much power and influence to government as well, hence the ever-increasing police and surveillance state, and the loss of freedoms and liberties. This is corporatism. Once you understand how things work, you see the corporations and the government exist as one insidious entity. It's their propaganda that makes you believe they're somehow separate and that the government is working for you to stop those evil capitalist badguys on Wall Street.

 

I would definitely vote for ron paul 90% of what he says is the stuff america sounds like it needs.

 

I regretfully agree with this. Other than just trying to spread your ideals in your close social circle, but NEVER pushing your beliefs on someone, is really all one can do right now. Until there are enough people to overcome the greed of the Human Species, no system of politics will ever actually work.

The best we can do is suck it up on a national level (unless of course for severe transgressions like the jailing of Bradley Manning and things like holding SOME responsibility for the Wall Street Fat-Cats...) and try to change things on a local level. I mean, when it comes down to it, local government is the most important factor. People have just forgotten such things.

And I DO believe that my Democratic Socialist beliefs can be applied directly to local (state and below) government although many other Dem Socialists disagree.

Arguing of politics is as pointless as arguing over religion. Some, if not most, people, are SO confident in their beliefs that nothing you can say will change things. And there really is NO objective scale for measuring if a certain political schema is 'better' than another. It really comes down to preference. That is why I never tell people my political orientation except for 'fun' debates like this one (and others on the Forums) and with my best friends, with whom I know I can argue with without 'hurting' their feelings!

 

Rat

Ron Paul is a right wing libertarian, a very right wing libertarian – remember he’s a great supporter of those extreme right wing fantasists in the John Birch Society.

He’s a free marketeer a believer in deregulation, an opponent of progressive taxation and he’s argued against welfare and social programmes.

Low or no taxation would give the already rich an advantage

Few regulations again would help the wealthy

Little or no state welfare provision would seem to make it more difficult to get out of poverty and lead to exploitation of workers.

Having to pay for healthcare, education or training would also give the richer an advantage.

And repeal of all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and the abolition of employment laws would all seem to put the poorer at a disadvantage.

In short a system that would only seem to help out the richer and more advantaged in society?

 

Well, I am not going to get into defending Ron Paul since I am not a supporter of his and don't vote. However, a few things I feel need to be addressed....

Really? How? Most of the ultra rich (not the upper middle class most of the left consider "rich") don't even pay taxes, and the same can be said for the largest corporations. Instead, the tax money the working and middle class makes is given to the corporations as corporate welfare.

Also, I am curious to know what your definition of "rich" is.

Regulations mean little in terms of doing what is claimed when the ones doing the regulating are in the pockets of big business. All the regulations do is hurt small business, leaving only the biggest, most parasitic corporations left standing. So in that regard, regulations help big business by putting the smaller ones out of business.

No, it keeps people dependent on the state while robbing others of the money they rightfully earned. Socialism only breeds poverty and dependence, it never eliminates it.

When big government Republicans (which is 99% of the Republican Party) get into office, the money spent on the welfare state sees no real change. Certainly the Republicans all support the welfare state as much as the Democrats, though many will claim otherwise when it tarnishes their image ahead of a re-election.

Education has only gotten worse since the Department of Education was formed in 1980. The US used to be one of the top countries for education. Now it doesn't even come close. The more money the federal government gives to education, the worse that education becomes. The government should serve no role in education, which these days amounts to little more than brainwashing kids while they're young and impressionable to love the state and big brother. The government also should serve no role whatsoever in healthcare, much less forcing people to buy healthcare from the government. Instead we should be addressing the reason why healthcare is so unaffordable to begin with, which is because when the government gets involved competition is eliminated and costs soar.

 

Rat

LOL – you are not going to defend Ron Paul - just his right wing libertarian viewpoint?

And you admit its all true -

Low or no taxation that would give the already rich an advantage

Few regulations again would help the wealthy

Little or no state welfare provision would seem to make it more difficult to get out of poverty and lead to exploitation of workers.

Having to pay for healthcare, education or training would also give the richer an advantage.

And repeal of all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and the abolition of employment laws would all seem to put the poorer at a disadvantage.

In short a system that would only seem to help out the richer and more advantaged in society.

Do those people that think Ron is so good understand all this?

 

Way to ignore everything I said.

You have no argument. You simply keep repeating talking points.

 

etkearne

Well you could ‘prefer’ the failed ideologically neo-liberal based politics that caused the present financial crisis and much other misery besides or….

 

Rat

LOL oh you know me I’m not going to ignore it, I haven’t ignored it before – but come on it’s the same right wing libertarian shit that you’ve never been able to defend before – will you promise me this time you won’t just run away like you have so many times before?

 

There's a lot of truth to what you say. I certainly don't trust the government, as you can tell by reading my other posts. I dislike the Democrats and I hate the Republicans and I think the Libertarians will not protect the environment.

But my main point is that anyone who says we should get rid of existing environmental regulations is failing to acknowledge the very real benefits of most of those regulations. They are imperfect, but very much better than no regulations at all. And many of them should be strengthened.

 

My post was sarcasm and was a response to the idea that nothing can be done,as expressed by some posters,particularly Rat ,and not to be taken literally.

 

Rat

To reply to the points you raise.

You agree - as many of us here do - that the problem is that wealth has too much power and influence in US society and therefore its governance.

But your answer to this problem is to give wealth vastly more power and influence.

Which doesn’t make any sense.

*

Because there is some tax avoidance by wealth your answer would be to just stop taxing them at all.

Because regulation has been weakened by deregulation and constant attacks by ‘business’ your idea would be to just stop regulating at all.

Because welfare recipients are just lazy ‘dependents’ and a burden on society all such programmes should be cut so that they have to either work for crap wages or stave.

Because neo-liberalist ideas have undermined state education then it should be scraped and only those that have parents that can afford it should have the chance at an education.

Because neo-liberalist ideas have undermined state healthcare and tried to stop it being reformed then it should be scraped with only those that can afford it having the chance at medical help.

*

To back up these ‘solutions’ you present a number of the very neo-liberal arguments that have brought about the problems.

Push the idea for tax cuts (which always favour the wealthiest) by claiming it is about helping the middle classes.

Push deregulation (which always favour the wealthiest) by claiming it is about helping ‘small businesses’.

Claim all welfare recipients as feckless and lazy and therefore undeserving of help and push the idea that it is ‘socialist’ which is un-American.

Push the idea that the whole problem with such things as education and healthcare is that they are not open enough to the ‘competition’ of the ‘free market’.

It is the same position been pushed and promoted my neo-liberals everywhere.