- 2,303
- 11
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2006
my bad still reading through your post rightnow. im a slow reader
I dont think prisons should be privatized though....
my bad still reading through your post rightnow. im a slow reader
I dont think prisons should be privatized though....
- 5,842
- 9,180
- Joined
- May 20, 2006
Do you have any original thoughts on this? Can you use your own thinking and logic instead of just posting youtube video responses?
I thought this was supposed to be a mature discussion?
What is that video supposed to tell me? His economic positions are nothing short of insane.
Gold standard? You gotta be kidding me! Are you sure you studied econ?
If he were elected and implemented the policies he talked about he would go down as the
worst president in the history of america when its all said and done.
Not that he doesn't make smart, insightful and often unpopular remarks on the current state of affair,
which for the most part I can agree with. It's the fact that his response to these situations is clearly
fluff for anyone familiar with the subject matter. Utopian at best.
I thought this was supposed to be a mature discussion?
What is that video supposed to tell me? His economic positions are nothing short of insane.
Gold standard? You gotta be kidding me! Are you sure you studied econ?
If he were elected and implemented the policies he talked about he would go down as the
worst president in the history of america when its all said and done.
Not that he doesn't make smart, insightful and often unpopular remarks on the current state of affair,
which for the most part I can agree with. It's the fact that his response to these situations is clearly
fluff for anyone familiar with the subject matter. Utopian at best.
- 4,053
- 643
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
Originally Posted by sevit86
so i prove you wrong and u think im spamming?
You didn't prove me wrong you just posted videos of random black dudes who like Ron Paul .I just posted a video with actual quotes from Ron Paul admitting he wrote those articles .Im sorry I can't and refuse to vote for Ron Paul his policies are bad and he is backed by Stormfront something I can't get down with and most intelligent people shouldn't either.This de regulate privatize nonsense would leave many people disenfranchised in america
- 5,217
- 118
- Joined
- May 18, 2009
I could have swore the title of this thread was "RON PAUL mature Discussion."
Not "ITT I post every Ron Paul YouTube video I've come across and ignore actual discussion."
Anyway, carry on sir.
Not "ITT I post every Ron Paul YouTube video I've come across and ignore actual discussion."
Anyway, carry on sir.
- 2,506
- 109
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2005
I don't have time to wait for that. As a Muslim, my priority is foreign policy. So I'll vote for him. Because even if you're right about the issues in his social policies, I care more about women murdered than women denied worker's rights. Sue me. Frankly I think it's crazy that people can talk about worker's rights but then completely disregard the murder going on overseas in our names. People talk about the Nazi's and how it's shocking that the people could ignore the government while America has killed easily over a million innocent Muslims over the last 30 years. Source
That Tim Wise article is good, but he downplays the power of the free market in determining what is and isn't socially acceptable. Rush Limbaugh calls a college girl an insult people toss around everyday and loses all of his advertisers within a few weeks.
Paul can acknowledge the major issues today in drug policy and foreign policy and has pledged to change that. Good enough for me. For people that think he's a racist, the very fact that he is going to end the immensely racist drug war makes him less of a racist than any other politician that would let it continue. My opinion though.
- 2,303
- 11
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2006
- 2,303
- 11
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2006
starting writing, then decided videos would get the point across easier. plus Wall of texts are just opportunitys for "didnt read" gifs
- 6,227
- 238
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2006
Lol at the YouTube videos. Thought this was a ........discussion?
- 32
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2008
- 11,070
- 11,967
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2012
Originally Posted by sevit86
starting writing, then decided videos would get the point across easier. plus Wall of texts are just opportunitys for "didnt read" gifs.
No, it's I have no idea how to back up my points, so I'll just post a massive number of youtube videos... Like anyone is watching these lol
- 1,008
- 103
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
Why do I agree with Ron Paul and his economics? I didn't say that I necessarily agree with his economic theories...but...he's the only one that seems willing to shake things up instead of walking around acting like everything is fine and "nothings gonna change man". I worked on Wall Street during the good, weathered through the crash, and worked a couple of years through the bad. If anything, I'm a fan of shaking things up and bringing things a new perspective. It seems to me that the current economic state needs a shake up...and these guys Obama, Romney, Santorum, Gingrich...none of what they're saying (or doing) makes sense to me. As for his 'insane' economics, whether it be the gold standard or whatever the hell he's preaching about - it's something new, it's something drastic and it's something different. And to me, that's a good thing.
I'm not sure you could really say he's a 'shill career politician...praying on the ignorant...' Hasn't he voted for the same policies and unpopular theories for 30+ years? Who put him in place? Doesn't sound like much has changed with him but the environment. Considering that just about all of his ideas seem insane, that makes me think...'damn...no one else has made things work...why not try something crazy?'
Admittedly, he's got some rash ideas etc, but everyone I see is just more of the same. Romney or Obama? Same dude different suit. Bush or Obama? Same dude different suit. None of these people make any sense to me.
- 5,217
- 118
- Joined
- May 18, 2009
The inherent flaw in your logic is that anything different or new is good. That is absurd.
At the same time, I do agree that the current economic model is poor. This whole deficit-spending fiasco brought on by the Reagan administration needs to end. We need to bring production back home to the United States, stop outsourcing jobs and giving breaks to companies that outsource jobs, decrease defense spending, and increase investment in domestic affairs. That means education, infrastructure, health services, and businesses that want to create jobs here at home.
odog24
Banned
- 3,256
- 109
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2011
all the other candidates look as if they are going to be doing the same thing as obama and they have the same agenda.
the reason paul is more appealing to me is because he seems like he is more aware and not afraid to confront controversial topics and speaks out about all the wrong doings of the government. this is the reason he probably will not win. he is too real.
the reason paul is more appealing to me is because he seems like he is more aware and not afraid to confront controversial topics and speaks out about all the wrong doings of the government. this is the reason he probably will not win. he is too real.
- 12,703
- 71
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
Ron Paul lives in a fantasy world where all people are perfect.
- 1,008
- 103
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
well, when something that exists is currently 'bad', it makes sense that something different or new could be good. there is no absurdity in that assumption. it's a 50/50 chance, right? i'm not saying his solutions are necessarily 'good' or 'bad', but the very fact that he has different solutions is what is 'good'. his policies can fail and i don't think we'd be any worse off than we were today or yesterday.
i think that we are caught up in complicit complacency. we just accept that things are going to suck because all we have known is that they have sucked in the past. i think Ron Pauls theories (solutions), take us out of that box and allow us to think in a different realm of what could be good and what could not.
admittedly, i think ron paul is on the verge of appearing batsh*t crazy to the media, but at the same time the 'sane' powers that be are the ones that we have been complaining about since god knows when. i guess i just don't see the harm in putting someone batsh*t crazy in office...whether his administration is good or bad i think the country as a whole will inevitably be better off.
the obama campaign...the 'hope' thing...i don't really recall anything
- 17,677
- 7,963
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
Ron Paul and his supporters are wasting their time.
- 48,254
- 48,967
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2009
What are you talking about?
- 5,217
- 118
- Joined
- May 18, 2009
No, it's not a 50/50 chance. How did you make that logical leap? Few things in life are black and white and there is no exception in politics. There are various shades of grey. Obama might not be perfect and he might still appeal to the system in place. I don't however believe for a second that his politics are anywhere close to the corruption that was present in presidents such as George W. Bush or Ronal Reagan.
People like to dismiss his first term as a complete waste of time but if you actually look at the record, he's tried to accomplish a lot of what he campaigned on. A Republican dominated house doesn't help his cause of course. I'm not completely happy with Obama (no sane progressive could be) but he is the best man for the job right now. My views on politics tend to be shaped by foreign policy and a political shakeup right now would be incredible unsettling. Obama has responded well, so far, to the Syrian issue (by not committing troops) and it seems the drama with Iran is simmering down right now. I do acknowledge there is the fallout in Afghanistan and we need to pull out of that quagmire as soon as possible but that's not really an Obama administration fault now is it? I don't trust Ron Paul at all on foreign policy. I don't think we've ever had a president that can truly be called 'isolationist' (a misnomer) but Paul is about as close to one I've ever seen that actually supports that notion. Isolationism is not a policy I can get behind.
- 2,328
- 2,078
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2010
Ron Paul is the only logical choice (esp. foreign policy wise). He's not going to win (what do you expect when you state you will cut aid to Israel), and morons like Obama will continue to run the country into the ground.
- 32
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2008
- 2,303
- 11
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2006
so do u have anything to add the the conversation, instead of belittling my intelligence?
- 1,008
- 103
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
yeah but remember, the first two years obama had a democratic dominated house and still couldn't get anything done...
not trying to instigate but i am interested...what is it exactly about his Ron Paul's foreign policy that you don't like? i try not to spend too much time thinking about foreign policy cuz i don't really think we're meant to police the world...
Originally Posted by sevit86
so do u have anything to add the the conversation, instead of belittling my intelligence?
I wasn't insulting your intelligence. I was referring to the fact that you said "mature discussion" and only posted videos.
There is an official Ron Paul thread already.
Every few months there is a new Ron Paul thread in which the Paulbots will act as if they have uncovered a secret in Ron Paul, that will end all the world's problems and cure world hunger. They will also blame the media for the reason why Ron Paul doesn't have that much support. Wash, rinse, and repeat.
- 5,217
- 118
- Joined
- May 18, 2009
I disagree with the assertion that Obama didn't get anything done.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/22/1009420/--A-comprehensive-list-of-Obama-s-Accomplishments
I don't think we're meant to police the world either. Unfortunately, United States hegemony is ingrained in our nation's fabric and it's one of the direct reasons why we're the most powerful nation in the world (at least for now.) A lot of the flexing the United States does around the world would happen with either party at the helm. Ron Paul's foreign policy of non-intervention is utopian and unrealistic. Do I wish it were feasible? Sure. I'd LOVE a world in which the United States didn't intervene militarily or financially in other nations matters. Unfortunately that's not how this reality works. We're far too invested in different foreign interests and an exodus of these places would leave a power vacuum that would surely be filled by our "enemies." The powers that run the United States would never stand for that even if Ron Paul were president.
It's not so much that I think Ron Paul's foreign policy stance is "bad" so much as it is unrealistic. I feel like his supporters have a very simplified and narrow understanding of geopolitics and are drinking the utopian isolationist Kool-Aid.
