The difference is Obama was always a lying politician who rose to power by serving special interests. This idea that he's being held back by powerful forces within the government is pure liberal fantasy, he's a puppet plain and simple. All of his actions seen as positive by the 'progressives' are for political purposes, such as putting solar panels on the roof of the white house or unbanning stem cell research. Ron Paul would actually shake the establishment.
In political discussion special interests are synonymous with corporate interests, it's not to be taken literally. I'm guessing you knew that though.
I don't agree that it's synonymous. Are evangelical christians a corporate interest? What about veterans? What about groups of people who share the same illnesses like autism or cancer? What about the frikkin american public and their need for constant subsidization?
When people say special interests they mean corporate or minority interest... rather than public interest, or majority interest, or just regular interest... whatever you call it. All those groups you mentioned are powerful voting groups that have the voting numbers to influence elections. Special interest generally means a small, yet powerful, group that has the ability to turn elections through financial means and propaganda rather than actual votes. Like the banking industry, or the Military Industrial Complex. Obama promised to serve the corporatocracy so he was heralded by corporate media and allowed to be the next spokesman for special interests.
Well, if you think about it, the general consensus amongst so-called political minded types seems to be that "common sense" is lacking in the general public. I think a long long time ago, some people realized that a straight democracy would be an ineffective way of serving national interests, (plato maybe?). Then you've got to face the fact that typically, small groups of people have always led societies to greater goals and better standards of living. I'm not even gonna try and cite a source for that, I think it's commonly known to anyone who studies history. I still disagree however, with your distinction between a voting block and a "special interest", at least in how it pertains to the pandering ways of politicians. Also, your criticism of Obama, while naming him directly, sort of applies to every president, so I'm confused as to why you would single him out.
Wait... it sounds like you're saying the goal of special interests it to serve national interests? Just from the two examples of special interest groups I listed, the military industrial complex has influenced a foreign policy that is detrimental to national security interests, and the banking interests have influenced an economic policy that is detrimental to national economic interests. I'm not even gonna try and cite a source for that, I think it's commonly known to anyone who studies history. Because I'm a racist, duhhhh.
I made no implication whatsoever that you were racist. Do you feel that the country would be better served without our banking and military systems? Rather than simply state that you disagree with what's going on, why not give a better solution?
Then how is it confusing that I should reference Obama in a question about Obama? Yes, keynesianism and foreign military intervention are both destroying our economy and making us less safe. I think it'd be redundant to lay out my ideas for improvement with every criticism, but I have better solutions; sound currency, a free banking system and strong national defense instead of preventive wars and nation building.
Were you responding to me? What question about Obama? You're not getting out of this by implying that I called you a racist! I simply did not. Stable currency? That's the plan? How do you figure that's gonna happen? Help me to understand, since you think that you understand. "Destroying our economy and making us less safe"? Scare tactic much?
I was responding to, "Do you think ron paul will actually beable to change anything if elected? Sounds a lot like the hope liberals had for obama". Then I said how Obama is backed by the corporate elite, or special interests, as opposed to Ron Paul who is supported by people who don't want anything from the state but to be left alone. You accused me of singling him out from all the rest of the figureheads, as if to say I have something against him personally. His detractors have been race baiting me since day 1 with this argument. I said sound currency, otherwise known as hard money. As opposed to fiat money which is backed by faith, hard money is backed by something tangible. The plan is to end central banking, ie the Federal Reserve. Instead of having one monopoly on legal tender, we open it up to competition. Currently we are only allowed to use a currency that depreciates in value so that the political class may spend without limits. If we were allowed to use an alternate currency, like say the Liberty Dollar, then nobody would choose the US dollar, and the state wouldn't be able to live beyond its means. I'm of the kooky line of thinking that considers debt, deficits and inflation to be harmful to an economy.
I agree with all of that, but im saying that if he was elected he still would not beable to do anything different. I can guarantee that he would be shot or impeached the second it looked like he might start actually changing things. If you want to change America, it should not be done through the white house.
I just want to make it clear that Ron Paul supporters do not have all of the answers. What do we have? A huge list of examples of things not to do. Like how we should not build nations. What costs our young men their lives? What has cost us over $1 trillion? What incites blowback terrorist attacks? What increases resentment towards the US? Building nations. Or like how we should not bail out banks. What caused our housing bubble? What has also cost us well over $1 trillion? Bailing out banks. (And aaronman's words on sound money (and our lack of it) is what allows these people to make out like the fucking bandits they are) This is not hard stuff, and it is not fear mongering. It is simply pointing out the problems that are so fucking apparent in this country that no one seems to see. The question isn't about what to do, it is about why the fuck we continue to do the same shit over and over again, time after time seeing the same fucking result. Lost time, lost money, lost lives. We have ensured a poor quality of life for all of our children and their children. And you're going to question someone who says stop all of this insanity? What the hell...
Good to see fox news giving Dr. Paul some time to speak. I think the only reason he stays with the repubs is because he knows it will increase his chances of being elected. I could tell from the end that he wants to run in 2012, he just isn't ready to break the news yet Also, after aaronman mentioned the liberty dollar I looked it up, and the whole operation was closed by the US gov't after a FBI raid and court case. Just shows how nervous it makes the gubment to lose control over anything.