Come on now you can't make the decision of who you're going to vote for based on abortion, it's one of the most contradicting subjects out there to talk about, and most politicians got their tail between their legs when asked about it. But you have to realize that even though RP believes government shouldn't be involved, he is still going to express his opinion because we're still in America.
And yet he's willing to force his opinion on those who don't agree with him. So much for no government intervention.
I could be wrong but it sounds like you might secretly be voting for him and you're just here for the laughs. Show me a more respectable candidate and I'll give you the time of day =D
I'd prefer Obama over Ron Paul. Why must you assume that Paul is everyone's lord and savior? He's a kook.
Thank goodness, I'm glad you feel this way. THIS thread could really use your help, knowledge, and expertise because so far it looks like no one has presented anything remotely negative about Ron Paul. Go go go go go!!! http://forum.grasscity.com/politics/802743-ron-paul-crazy-loon-thread.html Isn't it fun saying whatever you want on the internet without having to back any of it up? [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez5robAWmu4]YouTube - Ron Paul's Message to OBAMA![/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVKSfwfy0h8]YouTube - The Difference: Barack Obama & Ron Paul[/ame]
Well considering I just got done reading another article on here about how Obama is threatening to step up the medical marijuana raids (he already has been) I won't be voting for him this upcoming year. Again show me someone with more favorable policies than Ron Paul and I will listen
Obama's economic policies are a lot more sane because they less explicitly benefit the wealthy. We're at a critical time. We don't need the income disparity between the middle class and the wealthy to grow more than it already has. And believe me, over the past three decades it has grown dramatically. Ron Paul would accelerate that process even more quickly with his mythical belief in omnipotent free market forces and his sociopathic doctrine of "survival of the fittest". For one, the worst thing we could do right now is remove entitlement programs. It would only work to expand the size of corporate and wealthy bank accounts. A lot of hard working wage earners, veterans, and seniors absolutely depend on these programs. Yet Ron Paul proposes to remove them alltogether. I know a lot of you libertarians don't like him, but FDR is regarded by scholars and historians as one of the greatest presidents of all time. He contributed an honestly great and novel idea - an economic bill of rights to guarantee the American people employment, freedom from unfair competition, housing, medical care, education, and social security. I know a lot of you disregard this policy as welfare handouts, but I think it's one of the principles that have made our country so great and so strong over the past century. Our country was, in fact, economically viable and proseprous in the years after Roosevelt's ideas were implemented - but more importantly, we were compassionate to our fellow citizens and had an understanding that a strong middle class and a strong base of working Americans would lead to a strong economy. A strong corporate class does not equate to a strong economy - that would be an oligarchy. So how did we get to the mess we are in now? It started when we began stripping regulation to allow for this free market philosophy to rear it's ugly head - this 'free market/no regulation' idea that Ron Paul so very much believes in (essentially Reaganomics). Here's one great example: the Glass-Steagall act was passed by FDR in 1933. It effectively removed the separation that previously existed between Wall Street investment banks and depository banks. It was solid regulation. Under this legislation, our country held a period of great economic growth and power. It was repealed in 1980. This repeal effectively allowed banks to run rampant and directly attributed to the recent financial and banking crisis of 2007. Without regulation, corporations are allowed to pull off these grandiose scams that have effectively bankrupted this country (and subsequently necessitated our need to bail them out). Even further, no regulation allows for corporations to screw the average American out of wages, lower the overall working standard, and ship jobs overseas. An omnipotent and beneficent market god doesn't always materialize to filter out that bad. It just doesn't work that way. Free market philosophy is so mythical in ideology, it's unreal. Over the past three decades of low government regulation (combined with tax cuts for the rich and spending cuts), income disparity in this country has grown explosively and the overall economy has tanked. This is why I will never vote for Paul. I agree with him on a lot of social issues, but he is just dead wrong on his economic policies.
Feel free to respond. But make sure it has substance. I'm not watching any videos and I'm not clicking any links.
Obama and you are promoting the status quo, Socialist/ Keynesian theory that hasn't worked, ever. Ron Paul knows more about economics than Obama and everyone Obama surrounds himself with, combined. Obama + Goldman Sachs (campaign $, Henry Paulson) + Federal Reserve (Bernanke, Geithner) + Treasury (Paulson, Geithner, Goldman Sachs - former lobbyist is top aid) ... Those things are not a combination to even slightly justify saying: "Obama's economic policies are a lot more sane because they less explicitly benefit the wealthy." How about Obama + GE? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't General Electric's CEO Jeffrey Immelt the head of President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness? Aren't the notorious for shipping jobs overseas and not paying taxes? How is that good for the middle class and poor again? Military Industrial-Complex Contract Values Per Company - General Electric The Military-Industrial-Media Complex In reading the rest of what you said, I simply disagree with everything you say. If you have any proof to backup your claims, share them. Otherwise, for those interested in anything he is claiming, here is some reading for you: Paragraph 1, wealth expansion - shrinking middle class - concentration of wealth? [ame=http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/0446549193]Amazon.com: End the Fed (9780446549196): Ron Paul: Books[/ame] Paragraph 2, if entitlements alone now represent MORE than the government takes in for all taxes - $2,100,000,000,000 - $2,500,000,000,000 + / year, how can they continue the programs? Paragraph 3, FDR: Three New Deals: Why the Nazis and Fascists Loved FDR - David Gordon - Mises Daily Did FDR Make the Depression Great? - David Gordon - Mises Daily The Free Market: How FDR Made the Depression Worse The Myth that Is FDR - Garet Garrett - Mises Daily It's not Reaganomics. You can't have a free-market when you have a Banking Cartel manipulating the currency, interest rates, etc. INFLATION is what is really hurting the middle class and poor. You can thank a past socialist progressive friend of yours for that - The Federal Reserve System, aka our Central Bank, aka Banking Cartel - Woodrow Wilson. Why is our dollar of 1913 worth about 2 - 4 cents today? Who do you think was hurt the most by that?? [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE]YouTube - Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve[/ame] Glass–Steagall Act Does It Make Sense to Resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act? - Frank Shostak - Mises Daily https://mises.org/Community/forums/p/14347/305057.aspx The Free Market: Banks on the Dole http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae1_1_1.pdf Okay, how about FDR's Executive Order 6102 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Does that benefit the poor or middle class? Stealing their gold, their property, their wealth from them? You can't blame the free-market for anything you are claiming over the past decades because we haven't had one. We have had a large centralized power and bureaucracy in Washington DC. We have had a large amount of corruption. We have had a fair amount of socialism. We have had companies privatize the profits and socialize the losses. Yep - Keynesian economics. Gotta love it! Wait, that's not Ron Paul? He promotes the Austrian School. The Forgotten Depression of 1920 - Thomas E. Woods, Jr. - Mises Daily [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI]YouTube - Why You've Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.[/ame]
Not everyone plagiarizes. http://forum.grasscity.com/politics...tion-control-internet-forum.html#post10521739 http://forum.grasscity.com/politics/805803-republican-economic-policy.html Republican Economic Policy | Republican Economic Policy Insurance | Health Insurance, Healthy Living, Healthy Eating, Sickness Symptoms
So you choose to ignore the bulk of my post because it doesn't align with your ideology? What I stated is fact - their is nothing to disagree with because it doesn't necessitate an opinion. I'm not clicking on your collage of irrelevant links because it's a waste of my time. If you can't coherently formulate your argument using your own words, than obviously the argument doesn't have any merit to begin with. Suffice to say, I'm disappointed in Obama's choice of economic advisers, but as a whole, his policies are a LOT more sane than those that Ron Paul propose - for the reasons you chose to ignore in my post above. As for the Federal Reserve, I agree that this institution is no good. However, there ARE better politicians out there that are in favor abolishing the Fed (without the extra baggage of having extreme, radical policies that explicitly benefit the wealthy).
I just don't care about you. You are wrong and a waste of my time. What I post is for the benefit of OTHERS.
When you can't debate, retreat! I rest my case. As far as the link you posted being evidence of my 'plagiarism', you are DEAD wrong. That is an obvious spam site - littered with ads - that crawls pages and copies articles from posts on other websites. Although I'm flattered that they found my post worthy of inclusion, I am the original author. That's why on that link, there is no name of any writer, no name (or date) of any publication, and NOTHING that separates it from my post at all. I don't plagiarize. I write my own words, which is less we can say for you.
We have nothing to debate. You present no facts, evidence, or anything substantive. You think Obama is the greatest - GOOD FOR YOU. Get out and educate people on the wonders of Obama. Get a bumper sticker for your car and November 2012 - pull that leaver, mark that box, or hit that touchscreen with his name on it. YES WE DID, AGAIN! All you have is "faith" in Obama. He's an empty suit with no beliefs. He's a corporatist. He's a warmonger. He's a Neocon. He's more of the same... People are tired of the status quo. They want some "real" change and that's what Ron Paul is. He's been as consistent as anyone can be for all of his time in office. If there was ANYTHING you could produce that would discredit him in any way, you would. But you don't have that, all you have is your opinions based on assumptions and misinformation, it's un-debatable. What you present isn't true. If my accusation regarding your plagiarism is unfounded please do expect my sincerest apologies.
When did I ever say Obama was the greatest? Do you think only in black and white? You ignore the entirety of my post (a long fucking post that I put a lot of research into) and then they say it has no substance. All you do to address my points is rattle off a list of talking points and links (all from biased pro-free-market organizations). You are so narrow-minded, it's unbelievable.