Ron Paul On The Record

[quote]storey420 wrote:
The sad thing about this country is that I think people like Mick are in the majority. Totally focused on why people outside the two parties can’t win and ensure that we will stuck in the same dysfunctional political system that we’ve been in for years.

I’m not saying that Ron Paul is the answer but hating on someone and feeling the need to gloat the fact that an honest man has no chance(ha,ha prove me wrong, bet me, etc.) is not only juvenile it is sad.[/quote]

Voting “for the lesser of two evils” has always been a stupid way of going about it, and never more so than now, when both parties are fundamentally the same.

Every 4 years, people convince themselves (with ample help from their political demagogues) that there is some new monster who absolutely cannot be allowed to win, lest the country fall apart. You’d think they’d wise up after a few decades of this game.

A Democratic admin bombs one country, while a Republican admin bombs another. “Bad” government policies are “improved” or replaced but never repealed. Nothing really ever changes. Idiots on the right think that planes will start exploding the minute that a Democratic admin takes office. Idiots on the left think the planet will burn up if another Republican is elected.

Harry Browne put it best:
Continually voting for the lesser of two evils ensures that you will never have anything but evil to choose from.

Paul denies report he compared NH tax evaders to Gandhi

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/06/paul_denies_rep.html

Ron Paul’s Bringing Home the Bacon

[quote]storey420 wrote:
The sad thing about this country is that I think people like Mick are in the majority. Totally focused on why people outside the two parties can’t win and ensure that we will stuck in the same dysfunctional political system that we’ve been in for years.
[/quote]

Unfortunately, as even Ron Paul as pointed out, political parties outside the Republican-Democratic oligopoly do indeed have an impossible task laid before them.

The Libertarian Party, for example, is forced to spend so much time and money just attempting to get on the ballot thanks to campaign laws that it is essentially a practice in futility for anyone outside the “Republicrat” system to run for public office at the state and federal levels. This appears to be the primary reason Ron Paul is a registered Republican representative as opposed running on the Libertarian ticket as a congressman.

Until these laws are somehow circumvented or repealed there appears to be little reason to vote outside the present “oligopolized” system. Ron Paul’s attempt to run for president on the Republican ticket however will prove an extremely difficult task.

Ron Paul’s campaign, win or lose, should nevertheless be supported, if at least to provide a platform to educate the masses economics, history, and to remind those who will listen that the government is hardly interested in the welfare of the people.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
storey420 wrote:
The sad thing about this country is that I think people like Mick are in the majority. Totally focused on why people outside the two parties can’t win and ensure that we will stuck in the same dysfunctional political system that we’ve been in for years.

Let me tell you just little about “people like Mick”.

Unlike you and your college buddies, I live in the real world as an adult. One who has worked in the area of advertising and marketing for many years. And during those years I’ve actually worked on political campaigns. I’m not claiming that I know all there is to know about running and winning a campaign. But I have learned a great deal.

With that said, you don’t have to be a political genius to know that Paul is never going to become President. But, you just about have to be in your 20’s and more than a little bit gullible to think that Paul could win.

Got it?

I’m not saying that Ron Paul is the answer but hating on someone and feeling the need to gloat the fact that an honest man has no chance(ha,ha prove me wrong, bet me, etc.) is not only juvenile it is sad.

LOL “hating on someone” they’re facts Bub!

Why don’t you reread the entire thread and then respond like someone who can recognize his ass from first base.

I’m not gloating over the fact that Paul can’t win. I’m laughing at Nominal for his starry eyed fucked up over zealous, unrealistic attitude toward the Paul campaign. He carries on like that and I find it amusing. Hey, this is all entertainment anyway right?[/quote]

First of all Mick, I am 31 and have been “in the real world” working for quite some time and am starting my own company as well. Technically I am in college doing an online MBA program while juggling my work. I make quite a good living and although my screen name has 420 in it, no I’m not sitting in my room playing video games or taking bong hits with my zany college buddies.
I too have worked a campaign and that is what turned me away from politics for quite some time.

The most important and telling piece of your rebuttal is the glaring fact that you inferred your response which in no way did I say that Paul has a chance. I wish he did, I wish the two party idiocy perpetuated by “people like Mick” would be thrown away and that people could elect leaders that would actually try to help people. Sadly this once great country is crumbling from the inside for many reasons, this being one of them. I am a patriot and proud to be an American but I think this country needs a massive enema to flush away the kind of BS that “people like Mick” spread.

I’m putting your words in quotes here “respond like someone who can recognize his ass from first base.” Priceless, now go get your wife(apparently she reads better) and have her explain to you that not only did you not respond to what I wrote but you proved the point of my thread that your behavior is juvenile and sad. Hopefully tooling “Nominal Prospect” will make your life complete.

[quote]doogie wrote:

Paul denies report he compared NH tax evaders to Gandhi

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/06/paul_denies_rep.html

Ron Paul’s Bringing Home the Bacon

Ron Paul has stated, I believe, at one of the debates that the first thing he’d do if elected president is abolish the IRS, so this first link shouldn’t be shocking. That is a whole other thread though on the unconstitutional nature of our income tax and the enforcement of it.

As for the second one I would think the “realists” in this forum would acknowledge that there is so much pork in the political system, that Muslim legislators must have a hard time:]
How could you get any of the legislature that you wanted through without having to take some pork too? I see that Paul wants to drastically change the system but I’m sure he is a realist as far as how the current system works too.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

  1. He has over 5 million dollars

He does? WOW!!

He sure has a lot of money huh?

LOL

Bloomberg spent over 160 million dollars to win the Mayors seat.

Do you have any idea how much it will take to actually win the Presidency?

The real candidates are bringing in tens of millions of dollars. And they have heavy duty organizations which are virtual money machines.[/quote]

I’m well aware of this. I’ve read the statistics for the other guys, as well. At the time that Ron Paul had received about 5.5 mil (mid June I believe), the leading Dems had pulled in something like 11-12 mil.

So about twice what he has. That is not an insurmountable gap. And you are neglecting to take into consideration the fact that the guys with name recognition had since the beginning of the year to pull in donations.

Ron Paul has basically had only the time since the first debate, in May. He is doing fantastic, relatively speaking. Nobody can rationally deny that.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Um…I think I covered that about 10 posts ago. If he doesn’t win or finish a real strong second or third he’s history. There is no more money and no more campaign. [/quote]

Are you aware that Patrick Buchanon took New Hampshire in 1996? His policies were not at all dissimilar to Ron Paul’s. On foreign policy and immigration, they are just about identical. In fact, Buchanon endorsed Ron Paul on MSNBC after the first debate.

So you see, it has happened in the past and it may well happen again.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=42148

2008 is the year.

I got home from summer school and no one in my family knew who Ron Paul was.

I live an hour outside of DC, everyone in my area is VERY aware of politics and political figures.

Ron Paul is not winning.

Saddens me too, but I think Mick is right.

I may still vote for him. Otherwise I won’t be voting at all.

-Gendou

well, Ron Paul drew more people by himself than the 6 Republican candidates at the Forum hosted by Iowans for Tax Relief.

Not bad for someone who is out there.

[quote]doogie wrote:

Paul denies report he compared NH tax evaders to Gandhi

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/06/paul_denies_rep.html

Ron Paul’s Bringing Home the Bacon
AOL - News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com [/quote]

Looks like Uncle Ron is an Oliver Cromwell-type opponent of government waste - oh, unless he needs some cheddar for a theater in Edna, Texas or buses in Galveston.

It’s cool, though - Uncle Ron has the 17-22 year old “rage against the machine” demographic locked up, so he should give Kucinich one hell of a run for his money.

Good point, thunderbolt. We should all be outraged that Dr. Paul went so far out of his way to secure some tax money for his own constituents as to mail off an actual form letter. Scandalous!

Notice that most of those requests had no dollar amounts attached? So wasteful, right? I’d put Paul’s record up against any representative that I know of when it comes to fiscal responsibility. He doesn’t participate in the pension, he doesn’t take fed dollars for his kids college bills, but shit people, he’s still a congressman.

Just to add:[quote]
Here’s what the AP reports:
"Tom Lizardo, a Paul aide, said Mr. Paul has always asked for spending for his district in response to local requests.

“He feels the IRS takes the money and so it’s [his] job to make sure money comes back in the district,” Mr. Lizardo said.

However, Mr. Paul usually votes against final spending bills containing his earmarks when they reach the House floor. So far this year he has voted against funding bills for military construction, veterans and state-foreign operations. He did not cast a vote when the Homeland Security and legislative funding bills were on the floor.

Many lawmakers feel they are better off requesting funding for specific projects in their districts rather than waiting for a bureaucratic agency to decide which project is funded. Mr. Paul agrees, Mr. Lizardo said." source: Tom Lizardo, a Paul aide, said Mr. Paul has always asked for spending for his district in response to local requests.

“He feels the IRS takes the money and so it’s [his] job to make sure money comes back in the district,” Mr. Lizardo said."[/quote]
SOURCE:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-ronpaul_27tex.ART.State.Edition1.43bdd5f.html

[quote]Ren wrote:
Not bad for someone who is out there.[/quote]

And completely unknown.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
storey420 wrote:

First of all Mick, I am 31 and have been “in the real world” working for quite some time and am starting my own company as well.

Good luck on that.

Technically I am in college doing an online MBA program while juggling my work. I make quite a good living and although my screen name has 420 in it, no I’m not sitting in my room playing video games or taking bong hits with my zany college buddies.
I too have worked a campaign and that is what turned me away from politics for quite some time.

Sorry, couldn’t tell by your post. It looked like yet another college kid expounding on things he knows nothing about. You leap to such grand conclusions that your post smacked of yet another 20 something pretending to understand the United States political system.

The most important and telling piece of your rebuttal is the glaring fact that you inferred your response which in no way did I say that Paul has a chance. I wish he did, I wish the two party idiocy perpetuated by “people like Mick” would be thrown away

And that last line is what lead me to believe that you were a kid. I’ve never stated that I was a “two party guy”. You “assumed” (which kids do a lot of) that because I was anti-Paul I was against someone running independent of a party. Or I was against someone who was more of a libertarian bent.

You were and are wrong on both counts!

Unless of course you’d like to show me in any of my many posts where I stated such a thing…you can’t.

I’m putting your words in quotes here “respond like someone who can recognize his ass from first base.”

I’m still waiting for you to respond like someone who can recognize his “ass from first base”. You’ve shown me nothing so far but more misinterpretations of what I’ve stated on this thread. The biggest one of course is your insistence that I’m against a third party candidate.

Congratulations for being out in the real world. But in your case you might want to go back to school for a reading comprehension course.

Priceless, now go get your wife(apparently she reads better)

She not only reads better than me, she comprehends what she reads way, way better than you.

Hopefully tooling “Nominal Prospect” will make your life complete.

Just as this post made your life complete?

I’ll repeat something that you might have missed:

I’m not gloating over the fact that Paul can’t win. I’m laughing at Nominal for his starry eyed fucked up over zealous, unrealistic attitude toward the Paul campaign. He carries on like that and I find it amusing. Hey, this is all entertainment anyway right?

And I’ll add you to the list.

Not for being an overzealous Paul supporter, as I don’t think that you are. But for assuming (like a kid) that simply because I don’t think Paul has a chance I automatically fall into the realm of a two party guy and would oppose anyone who marches to a different tune.

As I said earlier, your reading comp sucks.

Now try again.

[/quote]

I’ll concede the fact that I made an erroneous assumption based on your posts. If you want to know it is stuff like this "Schmucks like Ron Paul will be long gone by the time Florida rolls around, or shortly there after. That means we have to listen to his happy horse shit for about another 7 months.

I’m not trying to offend you. But as you move along in life you are going to find out that not everyone who stands up in front of the people jumping up and down with a few good ideas, and a few shitty ones, is going to lead the next revolution.

This crap has been going on long before you were a gleam in your fathers eye.

I tried to point out a few of them to you: John Anderson, Ross Perot etc. But you insist that this time it’s going to be different. Yet, you never really get around to explaining exactly how this will be different than the others.

For example:

-Does Paul have a great deal of money to try to pull this off? Perot is a billionaire and only captured 19% of the vote.

-Does Paul Posses some sort of extraordinary charisma? No, in fact he lacks even the charisma of a normal man.

-Does Paul have such new and unique ideas that are capturing the hearts and minds of all who listen to him? No he’s now been in a few debates and nothing special has come out of his mouth. And if it had why aren’t all of his followers lifting him up to number one in the polls? Or at least number three?

I honestly like debating political issues. It’s fun, free and it’s better for the brain than tv. So…you and I can keep this up for the next few months until Paul drops out. But for your own piece of mind I suggest that you get the stars out of your eyes and come down to planet earth.

Paul’s a dud bro, it ain’t happening. Unless of course you can specifically point out exactly why this man will somehow miraculously obtain the nomination beating all of the odds."

That make me think that. The two major points that I get from your post are that charisma and money are the two factors that are determinations for who is worthy of a nomination. True? Can’t argue the reality, it is still sad and what holds people into the two party system. I’m sorry but Kerry had negative charisma and GW was about 1 step higher, you know the kind of guy that would be cool to grab a beer with but not to run your company. Neither should have been offered up as a viable option for leader of this country.

I want to reclip this line “-Does Paul have such new and unique ideas that are capturing the hearts and minds of all who listen to him? No he’s now been in a few debates and nothing special has come out of his mouth. And if it had why aren’t all of his followers lifting him up to number one in the polls? Or at least number three?”

You are kidding here right? He is the ONLY one with new and unique ideas, period. Regardless of if you agree with those ideas, they are different from the rest of the pack.