Research says media ignores Ron Paul - Polidicks

[QUOTE=beanhead;31830062]ron paul said we was going to pardon every criminal thats in jail on a non-violent drug crime[/QUOTE] ...Good?

[QUOTE=Lambeth;31825148]Poor people wouldn't be able to afford it.[/QUOTE] Poor people should control themselves about fucking then.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;31827510]idk I definitely changed my outlook on Obama after I found this on Reddit: -list of points-[/QUOTE] I admit, there's a lot of criticism to go around from the Left, and Obama's no gem. However, Ron Paul, Bachmann, or Perry would be [B]far[/B] worse. Ron Paul specifically may have policies that I somewhat agree with, but I agree with them in a different way. -I'd like to see the Fed gone, but I doubt very much that Ron Paul would replace it with a Federal system. -While he doesn't explicit stand against gay marriage, it'd probably be another one of those "let the states decide" issues. -And I simply could not vote for him on the fundamental disagreement that I know the absolute free market will not save our economy. [editline]19th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31830253]Poor people should control themselves about fucking then.[/QUOTE] Are you kidding me?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31830253]Poor people should control themselves about fucking then.[/QUOTE] appox on the poor lest i be expected to pay gggruesomely for theirrr punishment by god

[QUOTE=thisispain;31830472]appox on the poor lest i be expected to pay gggruesomely for theirrr punishment by god[/QUOTE] 'cause I'm arguing on religious grounds :v:

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31823866]why does everybody fucking like this guy he's a creationist anti abortion anti gay marriage libertarian idiot who's only redeeming facet is that he's actually thick enough to believe the shit he spouts[/QUOTE] Given our current state, that stuff really isn't important as long as we get an honest president who knows the government and has a sound economic plan. I'm not saying that Ron Paul necessarily is that guy but I'm saying that someone shouldn't be overlooked because of their beliefs that don't really hurt or help but you just disagree with.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31830577]'cause I'm arguing on religious grounds :v:[/QUOTE] i couldn't care less even if I tried really hard to i'd much rather have the government provide for the wealth-fare of its citizens like it's supposed to than suggest poor people shouldn't have sex which is like one of the most mental things i've ever heard in a while. are you feeling okay? i think you need a lie down.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;31829242]That fucking excuse 'baww the republicans are blocking everything we do' doesn't fly when the fucking Democrats had majorities in both god damn chambers of congress for 2 years and he still didn't get shit done[/QUOTE] Did you even look at the link? He kept 3 promises for every 1 that he didn't.

[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;31830619]I'm saying that someone shouldn't be overlooked because of their beliefs that don't really hurt or help[/QUOTE] how does that not hurt or help? that's pretty important to some people

[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;31830619]Given our current state, that stuff really isn't important as long as we get an honest president who knows the government and has a sound economic plan.[/QUOTE] "sound economic plan" If by sound you mean getting rid of income, capital gains, and death taxes, returning the US to its early-1900s economic laws, and getting rid of countless Federal agencies, then yeah, I guess that is "sound". [editline]19th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;31830663]how does that not hurt or help? that's pretty important to some people[/QUOTE] Like to homosexuals.

[QUOTE=thisispain;31830663]how does that not hurt or help? that's pretty important to some people[/QUOTE] True but I don't really think it should be treated as a deal breaker until we're back on our feet economically

[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;31830717]True but I don't really think it should be treated as a deal breaker until we're back on our feet economically[/QUOTE] well good for you that you don't think that but i find it a pretty big deal breaker and a lot of other people do so ignoring his social policies is a amazingly shallow thing to do. he's also the representative to the nation fyi, that's not someone who i want representing me i know that.

[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;31830717]True but I don't really think it should be treated as a deal breaker until we're back on our feet economically[/QUOTE] Which Ron Paul does not have a plan to do.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31830805]Which Ron Paul does not have a plan to do.[/QUOTE] Well honestly I agree that neither of them really seem to have one and even if they did, it probably wouldn't happen anyways. My point is just that our economy continuing down the shitter is pretty urgent where social issues like gay marriage don't really match up in importance. Really, the best thing they could do is cut and reform all this crap they're spending on like a) Social security because even though it's a good thing to have, the baby boomer generation is taking money from the government they don't have and it's our biggest debt b) Military which everyone already complains about needs to be cut largely c) Medicaid and Disability need to be seriously looked at and reformed because people abuse the shit out of them and it's costing big bucks to fund these people who say they can't work because they have a slight pain in their back

[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;31830961]Well honestly I agree that neither of them really seem to have one and even if they did, it probably wouldn't happen anyways. My point is just that our economy continuing down the shitter is pretty urgent where social issues like gay marriage don't really match up in importance.[/quote] Alright, well I'll address them one by one. [QUOTE=Meller Yeller;31830961]a) Social security because even though it's a good thing to have, the baby boomer generation is taking money from the government they don't have and it's our biggest debt[/quote] They've paid into it their whole tax-paying life, how can you justify cutting things from it? [QUOTE=Meller Yeller;31830961]b) Military which everyone already complains about needs to be cut largely[/quote] Fair, but where and how much? [QUOTE=Meller Yeller;31830961]c) Medicaid and Disability need to be seriously looked at and reformed because people abuse the shit out of them and it's costing big bucks to fund these people who say they can't work because they have a slight pain in their back[/QUOTE] I'm going to need a source on this "people abuse the shit out of them" nonsense, because last I checked the percentage of cases that had abuse involved were less than 2% overall. Even if it was 5%, that doesn't justify major cuts, because a lot of sick and elderly people still depend on these programs, and you'd be effectively throwing them under the bus.

He's not really being ignored anymore. Thing is, over the past few days I've seen Ron Paul all over CNN and such. It's like, once it got out that he was kind of being ignored, they have given him lots of coverage to make up for it.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31831161]Alright, well I'll address them one by one. They've paid into it their whole tax-paying life, how can you justify cutting things from it? Fair, but where and how much? I'm going to need a source on this "people abuse the shit out of them" nonsense, because last I checked the percentage of cases that had abuse involved were less than 2% overall. Even if it was 5%, that doesn't justify major cuts, because a lot of sick and elderly people still depend on these programs, and you'd be effectively throwing them under the bus.[/QUOTE] a) Either we cut from it now or future generations will have to have even less or basically none b) It could use a lot of trimming everywhere except maybe in research programs like DARPA c) That 2% is people that were caught abusing and cheating this broken system. The problem is that you can qualify for disability for almost anything and if you meet those qualifications (no matter how ridiculous) you won't be recorded as someone abusing it Honestly every single person I know on disability is abusing it even if they technically meet qualifications. The one I've seen this most is mild arthritis. They have jobs and then they quit them because they have some sort of mild arthritis that barely effects them in any way and because of the broken disability system, then they get to live the rest of their lives sitting on the couch while the government funds their existence from our tax dollars even though they're perfectly healthy despite having slight pain doing certain things.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31823866]why does everybody fucking like this guy he's a creationist anti abortion anti gay marriage libertarian idiot who's only redeeming facet is that he's actually thick enough to believe the shit he spouts[/QUOTE] He reminds me of Marty from Frasier. I'd vote for him.

[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;31831397]a) Either we cut from it now or future generations will have to have even less or basically none[/quote] And you know this how? [QUOTE=Meller Yeller;31831397]b) It could use a lot of trimming everywhere except maybe in research programs like DARPA[/quote] Sure. [QUOTE=Meller Yeller;31831397]c) That 2% is people that were caught abusing and cheating this broken system. The problem is that you can qualify for disability for almost anything and if you meet those qualifications (no matter how ridiculous) you won't be recorded as someone abusing it Honestly every single person I know on disability is abusing it even if they technically meet qualifications. The one I've seen this most is mild arthritis. They have jobs and then they quit them because they have some sort of mild arthritis that barely effects them in any way and because of the broken disability system, then they get to live the rest of their lives sitting on the couch while the government funds their existence from our tax dollars even though they're perfectly healthy despite having slight pain doing certain things.[/QUOTE] Well isn't that a grand display? You know, I do not care if 99% of the people on it abuse it, so long as there is one person who genuinely benefits, it is worthwhile. For example, my mom is in dire health straits right now and without disability we would lose the house, and probably not be able to afford food on a regular basis, so I don't want to hear about how "literally every single person I know is abusing the system" because I can guarantee you right now that's false and that it's somewhat offensive.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31823866]why does everybody fucking like this guy he's a creationist anti abortion anti gay marriage libertarian idiot who's only redeeming facet is that he's actually thick enough to believe the shit he spouts[/QUOTE] Well he is the best republican candidate in decades.

[QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;31831553]Well he is the best republican candidate in decades.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but that's not saying much.

Social Security isn't a savings account. It's not a "I've paid into it all my life, where's my money I gave you?" All that money they paid into it back then went to retirees BACK THEN. The money they're asking for is from people working TODAY.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31831611]Social Security isn't a savings account. It's not a "I've paid into it all my life, where's my money I gave you?" All that money they paid into it back then went to retirees BACK THEN. The money they're asking for is from people working TODAY.[/QUOTE] No, it's a "I paid into it for the retirees of my day, the current generation should pay into mine as well". [editline]19th August 2011[/editline] And that's just fine.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJow2ALVirk&feature=related[/media] Here is a Fox News about Ron Paul!

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31831641]No, it's a "I paid into it for the retirees of my day, the current generation should pay into mine as well". [editline]19th August 2011[/editline] And that's just fine.[/QUOTE] When SS was made, there were 10 workers for every retiree. It worked great. Now there are roughly 2 1/2 workers for each retiree (maybe even less) AND the government keeps using SS as a piggy bank to break when they care to. They can demand all they want, even without the government thieving, it's difficult to give money out to every single retiree like they did in the 40s and 50s.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31831744]When SS was made, there were 10 workers for every retiree. It worked great. Now there are roughly 2 1/2 workers for each retiree (maybe even less) AND the government keeps using SS as a piggy bank to break when they care to. They can demand all they want, even without the government thieving, it's difficult to give money out to every single retiree like they did in the 40s and 50s.[/QUOTE] Source? [editline]19th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=plokoon9619;31831690][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJow2ALVirk&feature=related[/media] Here is a Fox News about Ron Paul![/QUOTE] And even Gary Johnson made a good point.

A better title for this thread would have been, "Voters say, 'we are ignoring Ron Paul.'"

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31831959]Source? [/QUOTE] Number of workers paying: [release] [img]http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2010/chart35.gif[/img] Source: [url]http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2010/fast_facts10.html#financing[/url][/release] About the government stealing money: [release]And so, Social Security was from its first day of operation a fully self-supporting program, without any general revenue funding. But FDR's sense of purity was ultimately left behind when Congress voted the first subsidy provisions to be added to Social Security. Ever since World War II it was recognized that there was a problem for people who entered the service of their country in the military. Immediately following World War II Congress passed a brief change to Social Security which provided some small general revenues to pay benefits to WWII veterans who had become disabled in the years immediately following the War and who did not qualify for a veterans benefit. From 1947-1951 a total of $16 million was transferred into the Trust Funds for this purpose. Continued reading: And so, Social Security was from its first day of operation a fully self-supporting program, without any general revenue funding. But FDR's sense of purity was ultimately left behind when Congress voted the first subsidy provisions to be added to Social Security. Ever since World War II it was recognized that there was a problem for people who entered the service of their country in the military. Immediately following World War II Congress passed a brief change to Social Security which provided some small general revenues to pay benefits to WWII veterans who had become disabled in the years immediately following the War and who did not qualify for a veterans benefit. From 1947-1951 a total of $16 million was transferred into the Trust Funds for this purpose. Source: [url]http://www.ssa.gov/history/genrev.html[/url][/release]

I disagree with many of Ron Paul's views but I think Ron Paul himself is a good man.

[QUOTE=FPtje;31825657]Ron Paul says he will, but Obama's plans were to pull out as well. Everyone seems to have forgotten that.[/QUOTE] I want you to try to pull every single solider out of a country with out destabilizing it