Ron Paul Thread. "Farewell Address" Pt.1 Vid and text.

[rashi]

Originally Posted by Essential1

EVERY MAN IS CORRUPTIBLE...

It's pretty easy for him to be principled as an insignificant (even in his own party) member of the House of Representatives.... As president half of it would go out the window day 1....

Little bit of REALISTIC pessimism for your Utopian Fantasy...

Like that murderer Obama said about closing Gitmo, right? Ron Paul's record is bullet proof. You should actually read his books instead of just watching clips. With these comments, you are doing exactly what the media does. Try to marginalize his views because "every politician is corruptible" and "if he got elected he would reverse on Day 1". Please, bro.




Guys keep the thread focused on Ron Paul, not the housing bubble unless you are posting videos from YouTube where he predicted pretty much everything 30 years ago, thanks.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by Essential1

EVERY MAN IS CORRUPTIBLE...

It's pretty easy for him to be principled as an insignificant (even in his own party) member of the House of Representatives.... As president half of it would go out the window day 1....

Little bit of REALISTIC pessimism for your Utopian Fantasy...

Like that murderer Obama said about closing Gitmo, right? Ron Paul's record is bullet proof. You should actually read his books instead of just watching clips. With these comments, you are doing exactly what the media does. Try to marginalize his views because "every politician is corruptible" and "if he got elected he would reverse on Day 1". Please, bro.




Guys keep the thread focused on Ron Paul, not the housing bubble unless you are posting videos from YouTube where he predicted pretty much everything 30 years ago, thanks.

 

[bonde111]

From the bit that I've read in this topic, and the videos posted, it really does show that Ron Paul knows what the hell he's talking about. I'm a registered Democrat, and I'm not one of those who voted for Obama and then now complains about him, b/c there is only so much he can do with opposition from the other party. Anyways, I will do more research into RP, but I am strongly considering him for 2012. I do believe Obama is a good president, but maybe RP is what we need to get out of this mess.

It is funny though how the media ignores him, and people in both parties think he's a nut, and just give a stupid smirk when he's speaking the truth, and then years later this crap happens, but yet he still gets pushed aside and taken as a joke. Makes sense since all each party wants to do is force their agenda, say the same stupid things "pork barrel, lipstick on a pig, earmarks, status quo, change washington" but after it's all said and done, nothing ever gets changed, or if you want someone to make a change, then you have those same people in each party not budging an inch for compromise for the better of our nation. Let's just let this debit ceiling playout to the last possible minute because we are too stupid to actually find a way to get America back to it's Glory Days.

Sorry for the rant, but I guess this is the place for it.

 

[bonde111]

From the bit that I've read in this topic, and the videos posted, it really does show that Ron Paul knows what the hell he's talking about. I'm a registered Democrat, and I'm not one of those who voted for Obama and then now complains about him, b/c there is only so much he can do with opposition from the other party. Anyways, I will do more research into RP, but I am strongly considering him for 2012. I do believe Obama is a good president, but maybe RP is what we need to get out of this mess.

It is funny though how the media ignores him, and people in both parties think he's a nut, and just give a stupid smirk when he's speaking the truth, and then years later this crap happens, but yet he still gets pushed aside and taken as a joke. Makes sense since all each party wants to do is force their agenda, say the same stupid things "pork barrel, lipstick on a pig, earmarks, status quo, change washington" but after it's all said and done, nothing ever gets changed, or if you want someone to make a change, then you have those same people in each party not budging an inch for compromise for the better of our nation. Let's just let this debit ceiling playout to the last possible minute because we are too stupid to actually find a way to get America back to it's Glory Days.

Sorry for the rant, but I guess this is the place for it.

 

[AEA18]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

I have no faith in Ron Paul..because it's not the president.think BIGGER..its the whole system itself man...

 

[AEA18]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

I have no faith in Ron Paul..because it's not the president.think BIGGER..its the whole system itself man...

 

[mo matik]

Originally Posted by AEA18

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

I have no faith in Ron Paul..because it's not the president.think BIGGER..its the whole system itself man...

That defeatist attitude helps solve nothing. It gives the impression to politicians that they can do whatever they want because the people simply don't care or are in silent agreement with their policies. Getting involved is how you get your voice heard.

I support Ron Paul because I greatly care about foreign policy and his makes the most sense by far. I also find it ironic that people try to paint him as a racist when his policy on drugs could prove to be the most successful strategy for getting drugs out of the inner cities.

 

[mo matik]

Originally Posted by AEA18

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

I have no faith in Ron Paul..because it's not the president.think BIGGER..its the whole system itself man...

That defeatist attitude helps solve nothing. It gives the impression to politicians that they can do whatever they want because the people simply don't care or are in silent agreement with their policies. Getting involved is how you get your voice heard.

I support Ron Paul because I greatly care about foreign policy and his makes the most sense by far. I also find it ironic that people try to paint him as a racist when his policy on drugs could prove to be the most successful strategy for getting drugs out of the inner cities.

 

[-Red-]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

It didn't have a lot to do with it.
How did deregulation have a lot to do with:

-  low fed funds rate from about 02-06

- fraudulent MBS sold by banks

- rating agencies stamping doo-doo as triple A

- "are you breathing?"..."OK. Here's hundred of thousands of USD in loans"

- The "American Dream Downpayment Act"

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]- China and Japan buying up our treasuries (without them it wouldn't of been possible)
[/font]

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]- The savings rate going negative[/font]

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]
[/font]

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]What do these have to do with deregulation? [/font]

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]
[/font]

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]The repeal of Glass-Steagal did contribute ...to the blowing up of the banks (due to insane leverage) and the never regulated CDS market. Not to the burst of the housing bubble. [/font]

You're right, I got mixed up. 

No, he's not right.  You did not get mixed up.  Deregulation and lack of regulation played a TREMENDOUS role in the financial crisis.

 

[-Red-]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

It didn't have a lot to do with it.
How did deregulation have a lot to do with:

-  low fed funds rate from about 02-06

- fraudulent MBS sold by banks

- rating agencies stamping doo-doo as triple A

- "are you breathing?"..."OK. Here's hundred of thousands of USD in loans"

- The "American Dream Downpayment Act"

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]- China and Japan buying up our treasuries (without them it wouldn't of been possible)
[/font]

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]- The savings rate going negative[/font]

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]
[/font]

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]What do these have to do with deregulation? [/font]

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]
[/font]

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]The repeal of Glass-Steagal did contribute ...to the blowing up of the banks (due to insane leverage) and the never regulated CDS market. Not to the burst of the housing bubble. [/font]

You're right, I got mixed up. 

No, he's not right.  You did not get mixed up.  Deregulation and lack of regulation played a TREMENDOUS role in the financial crisis.

 

[deuce king]

Either way, Ron Paul and his staff is really going to have to get his campaign into gear if he plans to compete and stay relevant in the next few months with the way the media seems to be looking over him.

 

[deuce king]

Either way, Ron Paul and his staff is really going to have to get his campaign into gear if he plans to compete and stay relevant in the next few months with the way the media seems to be looking over him.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by Deuce King


Either way, Ron Paul and his staff is really going to have to get his campaign into gear if he plans to compete and stay relevant in the next few months with the way the media seems to be looking over him.

That's one of the reasons why he's not seeking re-election for Congress. He's getting a lot more support. He can make a lot of noise now considering our situation, people are seeing through all of the Republican warmongoring-Christian-muslim hating rhetoric.

Check parts of this vid out.





What's great about the supporters is that they do not need to be organized by his campaign, they are always making signs, putting up bumper stickers, ect. It's just more and more people are catching on.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by Deuce King


Either way, Ron Paul and his staff is really going to have to get his campaign into gear if he plans to compete and stay relevant in the next few months with the way the media seems to be looking over him.

That's one of the reasons why he's not seeking re-election for Congress. He's getting a lot more support. He can make a lot of noise now considering our situation, people are seeing through all of the Republican warmongoring-Christian-muslim hating rhetoric.

Check parts of this vid out.





What's great about the supporters is that they do not need to be organized by his campaign, they are always making signs, putting up bumper stickers, ect. It's just more and more people are catching on.

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by RustyShackleford

Originally Posted by SonOfTony

Originally Posted by Oh YoU MaD


This

sad, but true

SMH

. I'm a liberal, why would I vote for a Libertarian.

  Let me help you out Rusty... This is why you should vote for him

1)      Voted against Unemployment Benefits Extension

2)      Supports the Bush Tax Cuts

3)      Does not support a woman’s right to choose and have control over her body

4)      Opposes Roe vs. Wade

5)      Signed a petition that states life begins at inception

6)      Opposes abortion for woman who have been raped or are victim of incest

7)      Supports Abstinence-Only Education

      Opposes federal funding for birth control

9)      Doesn’t believe in Public Education

10)   Thinks vouchers are the best route

11)   Thinks the free market will regulate pollution and would keep from pollutants in our air and water

12)   Denies global warming

13)   Denies evolution

14)   Opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act

15)   Does not believe in same-sex marriage

16)   Mr. Constitution wants to get rid of the 14[sup]th[/sup] amendment.

17)   Wants to get rid of Department of Ed

1   Wants to get rid of Dept. of Energy

19)   Voted against giving a Congressional Medal of Honor to Rosa Parks, and Mother Teresa (but Reagan was a good guy to give it to) By the way was the only one to vote against Rosa & Teresa. Saying they were “undeserving

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by RustyShackleford

Originally Posted by SonOfTony

Originally Posted by Oh YoU MaD


This

sad, but true

SMH

. I'm a liberal, why would I vote for a Libertarian.

  Let me help you out Rusty... This is why you should vote for him

1)      Voted against Unemployment Benefits Extension

2)      Supports the Bush Tax Cuts

3)      Does not support a woman’s right to choose and have control over her body

4)      Opposes Roe vs. Wade

5)      Signed a petition that states life begins at inception

6)      Opposes abortion for woman who have been raped or are victim of incest

7)      Supports Abstinence-Only Education

      Opposes federal funding for birth control

9)      Doesn’t believe in Public Education

10)   Thinks vouchers are the best route

11)   Thinks the free market will regulate pollution and would keep from pollutants in our air and water

12)   Denies global warming

13)   Denies evolution

14)   Opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act

15)   Does not believe in same-sex marriage

16)   Mr. Constitution wants to get rid of the 14[sup]th[/sup] amendment.

17)   Wants to get rid of Department of Ed

1   Wants to get rid of Dept. of Energy

19)   Voted against giving a Congressional Medal of Honor to Rosa Parks, and Mother Teresa (but Reagan was a good guy to give it to) By the way was the only one to vote against Rosa & Teresa. Saying they were “undeserving

 

[sundoobie]

I found a great article about Ron Paul that motivated me to change my Voter Registration from Democrat to Republican 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html?page=1

[h1]If You Love Peace, Become a "Blue Republican" (Just for a Year)[/h1]
The world lost its goodwill toward the USA when Americans voted for George W. Bush the second time around.

I don't endorse the idea that American politics should be dictated by foreign opinions but a reading of the foreign press over the last six years reveals that the first election of President Bush Jr. was largely excused around the world since no one could have known what this new president was going to do. 
Moreover, America arguably didn't vote for him anyway in 2000.

However, the second election President Bush was not excused, because by 2004, the modus operandi of the Bush administration was clear. He wanted to 1) conduct wars against countries that did not threaten us (e.g. Iraq), 2) oversee large financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were close (e.g. Halliburton), 3) establish a legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act), and 4) establish a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g. domestic wiretapping, TSA etc... )

The more-or-less global delight upon Obama's election in 2008 followed largely from the hope that Americans had realized what a mistake they had made with Bush's second term and were therefore voting against the egregious actions of the then Republican establishment.

When most Americans voted for "Hope" and "Change," the above four objectives were at the top of their list of what they "hoped" would be "changed."

After two years, however, we now see that Obama 1) conducts wars against countries that do not threaten us (e.g. Libya, Yemen etc.), 2) oversees large financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were close (e.g. Goldman Sachs), 3) supports the legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act), and 4) is growing a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g. domestic wiretapping, TSA etc.. )

Put another way, when it comes to such things as the killing of innocent people, taking from the common man to support cronies, and the elimination of the basic values that make our lives worth living, we had the hope, but we haven't had the change.

Just as in 2000, Bush hadn't shown his true colors, in 2008, Obama had not either. A vote for either in those years was fair enough. But in 2012, if you vote for the Democratic nominee for president, you better have a moral justification that is SO good that it is a) worth killing innocent people who don't threaten you, b) transferring wealth to the rich and well connected, and c) the complete suspension of your right to privacy and such basic rights as protecting your child from being touched by a government official with the full force of the law behind him as he just follows his orders.

Do I labor the point? Good.

I don't believe that such a justification exists. I'm having difficulty seeing how a Democrat who voted for Obama (whom I supported) for the right reasons in 2008 can in good conscience do so again given that there is another candidate who has been consistent in his opposition to all of these things -- not just in words but in deeds.

If you've read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if not, you should also know thatRon Paul has voted to let states make their own laws on abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals follow their own social conscience -- even when he disagrees with them (as I disagree with him on some of these issues). In other words, he is consistent in his beliefs in civil liberty.

If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again "because you've always been a Democrat" or because you think that some group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well. But don't you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by peace, civil rights or a government that treats people equally.

That Ron Paul, who has been standing up for these principles quietly for half a lifetime, happens to be a member of the Republican party is a lot less important than the principles that we should be voting on. The fact that he is not a party guy should be obvious from his extensive differences in policy from his party and the fact that many think, given his views, he should not run as a Republican at all.

As Dr. Paul often points out, however, we live in a country with a corrupt political party duopoly... and the system is stacked against anyone who would run outside the two party system. So he's doing what he has to do. And so should we as Americans who love peace and freedom. It really isn't complicated.

Now, I know that the Republican party stinks to many Democrats and Independents who care about social justice and civil rights, but we all need to be smart and play the system to get the political outcomes we seek: you don't have to like a party or even identify with it to sign up as a Republican for a year to help make sure that the Republican primaries are won by the one representative who has always been for peace, has always voted against bailouts, and has always opposed the reach of government into your bedroom, your relationships and your person.

And if you are a Democrat or socially progressive Independent, you can't tell me you weren't hoping for all that from Obama.

Perhaps you see too much small-mindedness, or mean spirit or religious craziness in the Republican party. Sure you do. You can find all of them in spades. But since you can't change the Democrat ticket for 2012, why not act where you can make a positive change -- by telling the Republican party where you really want it to go... in the direction of peace and civil liberty (both of which, if you go back just a little way, can be found in the traditions of republicanism).

Just in case you need to make it absolutely clear for your friends at work that you have not gone to the dark side, I offer you a special moniker to set yourselves apart and give yourself a way back once you've done what needs to be done -- the "Blue Republican" -- to signify, of course, your liberal sensibilities and perhaps even your history as a Democratic voter. (Or why not just tell your friends that Bill Maher and Jon Stewart seem to have already gotten the message?)

I am aware that the main objection to Ron Paul from the left concerns his belief that private charities and individuals are more effective in maintaining social welfare than the government. To this I ask one question. Do you believe so much in the effectiveness of our current centralized delivery of social welfare that it is worth the war making and the abrogation of civil rights supported by both Bush and Obama's administrations? Moreover, while Ron Paul would look to transition out of the huge federally run welfare programs in the long-run, that's not where he wants to start: his immediate fight would be to bring our forces back to the USA and to re-implement the Bill of Rights.

Ron Paul's electoral weakness is not a difficulty in winning a presidential election. It is in winning a primary in a party with a Conservative constituency that includes the religious right and neo-cons. An influx of peace and freedom-loving independents and Democrats would change the math on the Republican side and potentially the future of America by setting up a presidential contest with a pro peace, pro-civil rights candidate (who could outflank Obama on those issues, at least, from the left).

Again, this isn't an endorsement of the Republican party or a claim that the Republican record is better than the Democrat on any of the issues discussed in this article. (It isn't.) It is not even a statement that Dr. Paul is some kind of panacea of American politics. Rather, it is to recognize simply that the one potential Presidential candidate who wishes to stop killing innocent people in foreign wars and stop transferring the wealth of poor and working Americans to the corporate elites happens to be -- this time around -- a Republican. 

It is also to recognize that any other political choice is for a status quo in which all the issues that really matter (war and peace, civil rights) are settled for the military industrial complex and the interests of the State over the individual.

So what'll it be -- same old team allegiance or new, Blue Republicans? 

 

[sundoobie]

I found a great article about Ron Paul that motivated me to change my Voter Registration from Democrat to Republican 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html?page=1

[h1]If You Love Peace, Become a "Blue Republican" (Just for a Year)[/h1]
The world lost its goodwill toward the USA when Americans voted for George W. Bush the second time around.

I don't endorse the idea that American politics should be dictated by foreign opinions but a reading of the foreign press over the last six years reveals that the first election of President Bush Jr. was largely excused around the world since no one could have known what this new president was going to do. 
Moreover, America arguably didn't vote for him anyway in 2000.

However, the second election President Bush was not excused, because by 2004, the modus operandi of the Bush administration was clear. He wanted to 1) conduct wars against countries that did not threaten us (e.g. Iraq), 2) oversee large financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were close (e.g. Halliburton), 3) establish a legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act), and 4) establish a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g. domestic wiretapping, TSA etc... )

The more-or-less global delight upon Obama's election in 2008 followed largely from the hope that Americans had realized what a mistake they had made with Bush's second term and were therefore voting against the egregious actions of the then Republican establishment.

When most Americans voted for "Hope" and "Change," the above four objectives were at the top of their list of what they "hoped" would be "changed."

After two years, however, we now see that Obama 1) conducts wars against countries that do not threaten us (e.g. Libya, Yemen etc.), 2) oversees large financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were close (e.g. Goldman Sachs), 3) supports the legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act), and 4) is growing a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g. domestic wiretapping, TSA etc.. )

Put another way, when it comes to such things as the killing of innocent people, taking from the common man to support cronies, and the elimination of the basic values that make our lives worth living, we had the hope, but we haven't had the change.

Just as in 2000, Bush hadn't shown his true colors, in 2008, Obama had not either. A vote for either in those years was fair enough. But in 2012, if you vote for the Democratic nominee for president, you better have a moral justification that is SO good that it is a) worth killing innocent people who don't threaten you, b) transferring wealth to the rich and well connected, and c) the complete suspension of your right to privacy and such basic rights as protecting your child from being touched by a government official with the full force of the law behind him as he just follows his orders.

Do I labor the point? Good.

I don't believe that such a justification exists. I'm having difficulty seeing how a Democrat who voted for Obama (whom I supported) for the right reasons in 2008 can in good conscience do so again given that there is another candidate who has been consistent in his opposition to all of these things -- not just in words but in deeds.

If you've read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if not, you should also know thatRon Paul has voted to let states make their own laws on abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals follow their own social conscience -- even when he disagrees with them (as I disagree with him on some of these issues). In other words, he is consistent in his beliefs in civil liberty.

If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again "because you've always been a Democrat" or because you think that some group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well. But don't you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by peace, civil rights or a government that treats people equally.

That Ron Paul, who has been standing up for these principles quietly for half a lifetime, happens to be a member of the Republican party is a lot less important than the principles that we should be voting on. The fact that he is not a party guy should be obvious from his extensive differences in policy from his party and the fact that many think, given his views, he should not run as a Republican at all.

As Dr. Paul often points out, however, we live in a country with a corrupt political party duopoly... and the system is stacked against anyone who would run outside the two party system. So he's doing what he has to do. And so should we as Americans who love peace and freedom. It really isn't complicated.

Now, I know that the Republican party stinks to many Democrats and Independents who care about social justice and civil rights, but we all need to be smart and play the system to get the political outcomes we seek: you don't have to like a party or even identify with it to sign up as a Republican for a year to help make sure that the Republican primaries are won by the one representative who has always been for peace, has always voted against bailouts, and has always opposed the reach of government into your bedroom, your relationships and your person.

And if you are a Democrat or socially progressive Independent, you can't tell me you weren't hoping for all that from Obama.

Perhaps you see too much small-mindedness, or mean spirit or religious craziness in the Republican party. Sure you do. You can find all of them in spades. But since you can't change the Democrat ticket for 2012, why not act where you can make a positive change -- by telling the Republican party where you really want it to go... in the direction of peace and civil liberty (both of which, if you go back just a little way, can be found in the traditions of republicanism).

Just in case you need to make it absolutely clear for your friends at work that you have not gone to the dark side, I offer you a special moniker to set yourselves apart and give yourself a way back once you've done what needs to be done -- the "Blue Republican" -- to signify, of course, your liberal sensibilities and perhaps even your history as a Democratic voter. (Or why not just tell your friends that Bill Maher and Jon Stewart seem to have already gotten the message?)

I am aware that the main objection to Ron Paul from the left concerns his belief that private charities and individuals are more effective in maintaining social welfare than the government. To this I ask one question. Do you believe so much in the effectiveness of our current centralized delivery of social welfare that it is worth the war making and the abrogation of civil rights supported by both Bush and Obama's administrations? Moreover, while Ron Paul would look to transition out of the huge federally run welfare programs in the long-run, that's not where he wants to start: his immediate fight would be to bring our forces back to the USA and to re-implement the Bill of Rights.

Ron Paul's electoral weakness is not a difficulty in winning a presidential election. It is in winning a primary in a party with a Conservative constituency that includes the religious right and neo-cons. An influx of peace and freedom-loving independents and Democrats would change the math on the Republican side and potentially the future of America by setting up a presidential contest with a pro peace, pro-civil rights candidate (who could outflank Obama on those issues, at least, from the left).

Again, this isn't an endorsement of the Republican party or a claim that the Republican record is better than the Democrat on any of the issues discussed in this article. (It isn't.) It is not even a statement that Dr. Paul is some kind of panacea of American politics. Rather, it is to recognize simply that the one potential Presidential candidate who wishes to stop killing innocent people in foreign wars and stop transferring the wealth of poor and working Americans to the corporate elites happens to be -- this time around -- a Republican. 

It is also to recognize that any other political choice is for a status quo in which all the issues that really matter (war and peace, civil rights) are settled for the military industrial complex and the interests of the State over the individual.

So what'll it be -- same old team allegiance or new, Blue Republicans? 

 

[bilingue23]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by RustyShackleford

Originally Posted by SonOfTony

sad, but true

SMH

. I'm a liberal, why would I vote for a Libertarian.

  Let me help you out Rusty... This is why you should vote for him

1)      Voted against Unemployment Benefits Extension

2)      Supports the Bush Tax Cuts

3)      Does not support a woman’s right to choose and have control over her body

4)      Opposes Roe vs. Wade

5)      Signed a petition that states life begins at inception

6)      Opposes abortion for woman who have been raped or are victim of incest

7)      Supports Abstinence-Only Education

      Opposes federal funding for birth control

9)      Doesn’t believe in Public Education

10)   Thinks vouchers are the best route

11)   Thinks the free market will regulate pollution and would keep from pollutants in our air and water

12)   Denies global warming

13)   Denies evolution

14)   Opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act

15)   Does not believe in same-sex marriage

16)   Mr. Constitution wants to get rid of the 14[sup]th[/sup] amendment.

17)   Wants to get rid of Department of Ed

1   Wants to get rid of Dept. of Energy

19)   Voted against giving a Congressional Medal of Honor to Rosa Parks, and Mother Teresa (but Reagan was a good guy to give it to) By the way was the only one to vote against Rosa & Teresa. Saying they were “undeserving

 

[bilingue23]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by RustyShackleford

Originally Posted by SonOfTony

sad, but true

SMH

. I'm a liberal, why would I vote for a Libertarian.

  Let me help you out Rusty... This is why you should vote for him

1)      Voted against Unemployment Benefits Extension

2)      Supports the Bush Tax Cuts

3)      Does not support a woman’s right to choose and have control over her body

4)      Opposes Roe vs. Wade

5)      Signed a petition that states life begins at inception

6)      Opposes abortion for woman who have been raped or are victim of incest

7)      Supports Abstinence-Only Education

      Opposes federal funding for birth control

9)      Doesn’t believe in Public Education

10)   Thinks vouchers are the best route

11)   Thinks the free market will regulate pollution and would keep from pollutants in our air and water

12)   Denies global warming

13)   Denies evolution

14)   Opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act

15)   Does not believe in same-sex marriage

16)   Mr. Constitution wants to get rid of the 14[sup]th[/sup] amendment.

17)   Wants to get rid of Department of Ed

1   Wants to get rid of Dept. of Energy

19)   Voted against giving a Congressional Medal of Honor to Rosa Parks, and Mother Teresa (but Reagan was a good guy to give it to) By the way was the only one to vote against Rosa & Teresa. Saying they were “undeserving

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

It didn't have a lot to do with it.
How did deregulation have a lot to do with:

-  low fed funds rate from about 02-06

- fraudulent MBS sold by banks

- rating agencies stamping doo-doo as triple A

- "are you breathing?"..."OK. Here's hundred of thousands of USD in loans"

- The "American Dream Downpayment Act"

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]- China and Japan buying up our treasuries (without them it wouldn't of been possible)
[/font]

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]- The savings rate going negative[/font]

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]
[/font]

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]What do these have to do with deregulation? [/font]

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]
[/font]

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]The repeal of Glass-Steagal did contribute ...to the blowing up of the banks (due to insane leverage) and the never regulated CDS market. Not to the burst of the housing bubble. [/font]

You're right, I got mixed up. 

No, he's not right.  You did not get mixed up.  Deregulation and lack of regulation played a TREMENDOUS role in the financial crisis.

Illegal acts and non enforcement of regulation (which was on the books) played a tremendous role. 
There were enough regs to stop what was happening. 

All of the bullets listed were either against the law, had regs against abuse, or can't be regulated in the first place (fed funds rate and savings rate).  

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

It didn't have a lot to do with it.
How did deregulation have a lot to do with:

-  low fed funds rate from about 02-06

- fraudulent MBS sold by banks

- rating agencies stamping doo-doo as triple A

- "are you breathing?"..."OK. Here's hundred of thousands of USD in loans"

- The "American Dream Downpayment Act"

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]- China and Japan buying up our treasuries (without them it wouldn't of been possible)
[/font]

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]- The savings rate going negative[/font]

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]
[/font]

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]What do these have to do with deregulation? [/font]

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]
[/font]

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]The repeal of Glass-Steagal did contribute ...to the blowing up of the banks (due to insane leverage) and the never regulated CDS market. Not to the burst of the housing bubble. [/font]

You're right, I got mixed up. 

No, he's not right.  You did not get mixed up.  Deregulation and lack of regulation played a TREMENDOUS role in the financial crisis.

Illegal acts and non enforcement of regulation (which was on the books) played a tremendous role. 
There were enough regs to stop what was happening. 

All of the bullets listed were either against the law, had regs against abuse, or can't be regulated in the first place (fed funds rate and savings rate).  

 

[rocsole]

Originally Posted by Essential1


  Let me help you out Rusty... This is why you should vote for him

1)      Voted against Unemployment Benefits Extension

2)      Supports the Bush Tax Cuts

3)      Does not support a woman’s right to choose and have control over her body

4)      Opposes Roe vs. Wade

5)      Signed a petition that states life begins at inception

6)      Opposes abortion for woman who have been raped or are victim of incest

7)      Supports Abstinence-Only Education

      Opposes federal funding for birth control

9)      Doesn’t believe in Public Education

10)   Thinks vouchers are the best route

11)   Thinks the free market will regulate pollution and would keep from pollutants in our air and water

12)   Denies global warming

13)   Denies evolution

14)   Opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act

15)   Does not believe in same-sex marriage

16)   Mr. Constitution wants to get rid of the 14[sup]th[/sup] amendment.

17)   Wants to get rid of Department of Ed

1   Wants to get rid of Dept. of Energy

19)   Voted against giving a Congressional Medal of Honor to Rosa Parks, and Mother Teresa (but Reagan was a good guy to give it to) By the way was the only one to vote against Rosa & Teresa. Saying they were “undeserving

 

[rocsole]

Originally Posted by Essential1


  Let me help you out Rusty... This is why you should vote for him

1)      Voted against Unemployment Benefits Extension

2)      Supports the Bush Tax Cuts

3)      Does not support a woman’s right to choose and have control over her body

4)      Opposes Roe vs. Wade

5)      Signed a petition that states life begins at inception

6)      Opposes abortion for woman who have been raped or are victim of incest

7)      Supports Abstinence-Only Education

      Opposes federal funding for birth control

9)      Doesn’t believe in Public Education

10)   Thinks vouchers are the best route

11)   Thinks the free market will regulate pollution and would keep from pollutants in our air and water

12)   Denies global warming

13)   Denies evolution

14)   Opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act

15)   Does not believe in same-sex marriage

16)   Mr. Constitution wants to get rid of the 14[sup]th[/sup] amendment.

17)   Wants to get rid of Department of Ed

1   Wants to get rid of Dept. of Energy

19)   Voted against giving a Congressional Medal of Honor to Rosa Parks, and Mother Teresa (but Reagan was a good guy to give it to) By the way was the only one to vote against Rosa & Teresa. Saying they were “undeserving

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by RustyShackleford

Originally Posted by SonOfTony

sad, but true

SMH

. I'm a liberal, why would I vote for a Libertarian.

  Let me help you out Rusty... This is why you should vote for him

1)      Voted against Unemployment Benefits Extension

2)      Supports the Bush Tax Cuts

3)      Does not support a woman’s right to choose and have control over her body

4)      Opposes Roe vs. Wade

5)      Signed a petition that states life begins at inception

6)      Opposes abortion for woman who have been raped or are victim of incest

7)      Supports Abstinence-Only Education

      Opposes federal funding for birth control

9)      Doesn’t believe in Public Education

10)   Thinks vouchers are the best route

11)   Thinks the free market will regulate pollution and would keep from pollutants in our air and water

12)   Denies global warming

13)   Denies evolution

14)   Opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act

15)   Does not believe in same-sex marriage

16)   Mr. Constitution wants to get rid of the 14[sup]th[/sup] amendment.

17)   Wants to get rid of Department of Ed

1   Wants to get rid of Dept. of Energy

19)   Voted against giving a Congressional Medal of Honor to Rosa Parks, and Mother Teresa (but Reagan was a good guy to give it to) By the way was the only one to vote against Rosa & Teresa. Saying they were “undeserving