Ron Paul says he'll push through to convention no matter what
213 replies, posted
What criteria is needed for military action to be taken? Is it just when NATO has interests in the region and decides to get involved(Libya), or do you do it for moral reasons, in which case we need to be occupying a large part of Africa.
Oh that's right, I never said that because you don't fucking read.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35708690]I never said invasion anywhere. Where did I say invasion?[/QUOTE]
"Iraq was a cluster fuck, as was every CIA fuck up across the world with their coup's and arming of rebels. This all comes down to motive. The motive for these are all political and for resource gain. But when you intervene for a ethical reason for the reason to help people, then it becomes necessary. Again with Ron Paul's absolutely fucking brilliant Stalinist idea of taking a problem and just removing it. If there is genocide going on, it is the DUTY of other nations to put a stop to it. If there is a dictator who is controlling a stable nation, then it's the duty of its people to rise against them, and if they do, you then assess it. That is why this fallacy of isolationism is a complete failure. Ron Paul is the type of person who would stand by while genocide occurs. And for that, it's unforgivable. "
This heavily implies military action. I.E. an invasion.
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
FUCK YOU Governer Goblin let me automerge my fucking posts!
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
:v:
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35708693]Is it just when NATO has interests in the region and decides to get involved(Libya)[/QUOTE]
You know what's funny? I said in my post, this is when interventionism is bad. When you bypass basic human empathy for an agenda.
Yet here you are, saying this is an argument I'm making.
You're a very bad joke, yawmen.
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35708700]
This heavily implies military action. I.E. an invasion.[/QUOTE]
Then you should learn how to read.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35708708]You know what's funny? I said in my post, this is when interventionism is bad. When you bypass basic human empathy for an agenda.
Yet here you are, saying this is an argument I'm making.
You're a very bad joke, yawmen.[/QUOTE]
Ok, so then we shouldn't have supported Libya, we should be supporting an invasion into Sudan. This is exactly the conclusion your logic leads to. Genocide in Sudan NEEDS to be stopped, so we should use military intervention to stop it.
What part am I not getting? The part where you never said the word invasion yet heavily implied it through your post? The part where you outlined a 12 step program to get genocidal maniacs to kick the habit?
Seriously, your post implies we should bomb or invade countries committing genocide.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35708720]Ok, so then we shouldn't have supported Libya, we should be supporting an invasion into Sudan. This is exactly the conclusion your logic leads to. Genocide in Sudan NEEDS to be stopped, so we should use military intervention to stop it.
What part am I not getting? The part where you never said the word invasion yet heavily implied it through your post? The part where you outlined a 12 step program to get genocidal maniacs to kick the habit?
Seriously, your post implies we should bomb or invade countries committing genocide.[/QUOTE]
You know there's this group, an organisation if you will, that specialises in keeping peace, although not perfect, if we were to use a hypothetical and used correctly could help curb the spread of genocide, it's a particularly small group. so small no one has ever heard of it before so i don't blame you for over looking it. Hell, I think i'm the only person who seems to remember the group.
i doubt you've heard of them, they go by, oh darn what's the name again, i keep forgetting it - oh yeah! [B]The UNITED FUCKING NATIONS[/B]
Lets take the Rwandan model. You could have curbed the spread of that with a very low chance of conflict if the western governments protected the refugee zones as per Romeo Dallaire's request. Hell, the genocide could have been avoided if the security council didn't vote against taking down interwahame weapon cache's.
So no, I don't support YOUR black and white answer of not getting involved or just randomly bombing. You get peacekeepers in there and if this doesn't stop, you protect the group being slaughtered. The west should not be players or coaches, but referees. The job of the west is to protect the affected groups. I don't care what party you're from or what you label it, if you defend a group of fellow human beings from being killed and make that your priority, than I don't give a fuck about how it's viewed.
Let me point out that I'm not batting for or against complete military intervention. I'm supporting intervention, in any way that doesn't turn the area into a war zone and protects people
your "we should bomb or invade countries committing genocide." implication fails to take into account that this A: will not work and B: will cause MORE people to die.
This is why you don't understand my post, because you don't understand the concept. It's sheer bloody ignorance on your part.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35708763]You know there's this group, an organisation if you will, that specialises in keeping peace, although not perfect, if we were to use a hypothetical and used correctly could help curb the spread of genocide, it's a particularly small group. so small no one has ever heard of it before so i don't blame you for over looking it. Hell, I think i'm the only person who seems to remember the group.
i doubt you've heard of them, they go by, oh darn what's the name again, i keep forgetting it - oh yeah! [B]The UNITED FUCKING NATIONS[/B]
Lets take the Rwandan model. You could have curbed the spread of that with a very low chance of conflict if the western governments protected the refugee zones as per Romeo Dallaire's request. Hell, the genocide could have been avoided if the security council didn't vote against taking down interwahame weapon cache's.
So no, I don't support YOUR black and white answer of not getting involved or just randomly bombing. You get peacekeepers in there and if this doesn't stop, you protect the group being slaughtered. The west should not be players or coaches, but referees. The job of the west is to protect the affected groups. I don't care what party you're from or what you label it, if you defend a group of fellow human beings from being killed and make that your priority, than I don't give a fuck about how it's viewed.
Let me point out that I'm not batting for or against complete military intervention. I'm supporting intervention, in any way that doesn't turn the area into a war zone and protects people
your "we should bomb or invade countries committing genocide." implication fails to take into account that this A: will not work and B: will cause MORE people to die.
This is why you don't understand my post, because you don't understand the concept. It's sheer bloody ignorance on your part.[/QUOTE]
Ahaha you support a bunch of child molesters going over into third world countries to fucking sell aid food for sex?
Have you heard about the travesties that the UN has fucking committed? Sri Lanka and Haiti are two very major ones, but I'm sure there's more if you want to look. Sending a UN Peacekeeping force is akin to telling a holocaust joke at a Jewish advocacy group function, except people are actually physically hurt by the UN Peacekeeping force.
Not to mention the UN is not completely altruistic, and made up of nations who have their own agendas and interests.
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
The problem with your posts is that they are talking about hypotheticals and idealism that isn't truly possible with the systems set up. If the UN was actually a worthwhile organization, and the US wasn't interested in exploiting other countries for natural resources and labor, we might be able to go in your direction.
However, the best next thing to your fantasy land is non interventionism.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35708803]Ahaha you support a bunch of child molesters going over into third world countries to fucking sell aid food for sex?[/quote]
Yeah EVERY SINGLE last person in the UN are child molesters. Great fucking thinking, I'm glad you exist on this planet to tell us brilliant things like that.
[quote]Have you heard about the travesties that the UN has fucking committed? Sri Lanka and Haiti are two very major ones, but I'm sure there's more if you want to look. Sending a UN Peacekeeping force is akin to telling a holocaust joke at a Jewish advocacy group function, except people are actually physically hurt by the UN Peacekeeping force.[/quote]
Romeo Dallaire should punch you in the throat, and you would be very deserving of it.
Peacekeeping has been a success when the UN countries actually pay attention to it. You don't even know the people who make up PKF's are actually not from the UN, but their countries military - how do you expect me to take you seriously?
How do you not forget to breath? You have no intelligence in any facet of anything, but you still manage basic biological functions and that scares me.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35708844]Yeah EVERY SINGLE last person in the UN are child molesters. Great fucking thinking, I'm glad you exist on this planet to tell us brilliant things like that.
Romeo Dallaire should punch you in the throat, and you would be very deserving of it.
Peacekeeping has been a success when the UN countries actually pay attention to it. You don't even know the people who make up PKF's are actually not from the UN, but their countries military - how do you expect me to take you seriously?
How do you not forget to breath? You have no intelligence in any facet of anything, but you still manage basic biological functions and that scares me.[/QUOTE]
Jesus christ you're ignorant. Soldiers are not the most wholesome people on this planet, especially when stationed halfway across the fucking world guarding people who they now hold great power over.
You support an armed incursion into other countries because you think its moral. I'm saying that's the exact fucking reasoning we went to Iraq in the first place.
Interventionism failed this country, and made us a target for terrorist attacks. We don't need more of it.
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
Seriously come back to this thread when you actually have the ability to think critically about subjects. It must be nice living in your fucking fantasy world, but don't try and tell people in the real world what to think when you've never even read up on the place.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35708888]Jesus christ you're ignorant. Soldiers are not the most wholesome people on this planet, especially when stationed halfway across the fucking world guarding people who they now hold great power over.[/quote]
No shit, wasn't even close to my point
[quote]You support an armed incursion into other countries because you think its moral. I'm saying that's the exact fucking reasoning we went to Iraq in the first place.[/quote]
You don't know what an incursion is and you're over simplifying my point, as well as skimming past what I'm saying.
[quote]Interventionism failed this country, and made us a target for terrorist attacks. We don't need more of it.[/quote]
You don't know how this whole... reality thing works, do you?
[quote]Seriously come back to this thread when you actually have the ability to think critically about subjects. It must be nice living in your fucking fantasy world, but don't try and tell people in the real world what to think when you've never even read up on the place.[/QUOTE]
You are way too fucking arrogant for not understanding the point.
Did you drink draino as a child?
This is the only man who truly deserves to be elected. Shame that he won't ever will be thanks to the current carcinogenic establishment. Some of his policies are asinine and a massive step backwards but atleast it seems like he's the only candidate that will give the public a democratic chance to put everything back in order again where as all other candidates are completely ok with the national agencies running amok and turning the state into an orwellian nightmare.
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35708888]
Interventionism failed this country, and made us a target for terrorist attacks. We don't need more of it.
[/QUOTE]
This tbh.
I know intervention against a ruthless dictator sounds like a really humane hug-a-tree idea but in the end its killing people who are killing people who are killing people who are killing and so on. Non-interventionism worked really well for america until people figured out that war is one of the best capital generating activities humanity can ever indulge in and suddenly america kept being pulled from one war to the other and the only people who are benefitting from it are clever finance analysts, the military industrial complex, private mercenaries and some other people behind the curtains but never the originally oppressed. Saying that Iraq and Afghanistan's living conditions have improved now is a horrendously arrogant thing to say and acknowledging that it hasn't puts the whole pro-interventionalism argument in jeopardy. American Interventionalism has benefitted virtually no one except a tiny group of powerful peope with special interest.
Ron Paul most definitely does not deserve to be elected, and he is most certainly not going to fix anything. He's just going to bury us deeper in the grave and insure that no one who isn't already well off will ever get the chance to be anything more than dirt farmers. The man deserves to be sent to a hospital, preferably one with good anti-psychotic medication.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35709392]Ron Paul most definitely does not deserve to be elected, and he is most certainly not going to fix anything. He's just going to bury us deeper in the grave and insure that no one who isn't already well off will ever get the chance to be anything more than dirt farmers. The man deserves to be sent to a hospital, preferably one with good anti-psychotic medication.[/QUOTE]
I too listen to fox news soundbites for information.
[QUOTE=Isuzu;35709395]I too listen to fox news soundbites for information.[/QUOTE]If only I watched Fox News. But I don't, because I actually learn about these people and how batshit fucking crazy they are. Fox News is a shit excuse for a news network and Rupert Murdoch can go swallow a bag of dicks. And anyone who's seen me talk about either of them before on here would be well aware of what I think of them. No, they have no impact on what I think of Ron Paul, and I quite honestly don't give a damn what they say. The man is a lunatic with no grasp on reality and is about as likely to make things better as a Pterodactyl is to swoop up Rosie O'Donnel and drop her off in Tibet. It will not happen, ever.
Yet the only words that could be considered of argumentative value, next to all the self-explaining filler in which you swear to god you don't listen to sensationalist news making, are "lunatic", "no grasp on reality".
•endorses defederalization of the health care system.
•"access to health care is not a right, but a good whose value should be determined by the free market."
This man, will turn America into a giant corporation shit-fest that will fuck everything over. I'm not kidding, he has this on his own site. He's a complete moron.
[QUOTE=Stonecycle;35706338]But the sad part is that he won't get the party nomination, especially against Romney. Sad, but true. I've been seeing stickers and ads for him everywhere down here. Lawn ads, stickers on speed limit signs, [i]everywhere[/i].[/QUOTE]
Ron Paul wouldn't get the nomination if all of the other runners died and all the GOP was able to substitute in was a ham sandwich with dijon mustard on rye, and the ham sandwich would still win the Jewish vote despite being hounded as elitist for its unamerican Dijon mustard.
Paul has a small portion of the voters, they just happen to be the loudest and most obnoxious.
Haven't won anything yet they say? Let me just put these videos here.
[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR8qud4SqLQ[/MEDIA]
[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBx__69pkpY[/MEDIA]
[QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;35710240]
This man, will turn America into a giant corporation shit-fest that will fuck everything over. I'm not kidding, he has this on his own site. He's a complete moron.[/QUOTE]
uuuuh haha okay, welcome to post 9/11 america! we are already there.
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Omali;35710292]
Paul has a small portion of the voters, they just happen to be the loudest and most obnoxious.[/QUOTE]
I love how one can pin this statement to literally every social movemement one doesn't fancy :)
[QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;35710240]\This man, will turn America into a giant corporation shit-fest that will fuck everything over. I'm not kidding, he has this on his own site. He's a complete moron.[/QUOTE]
Welcome to Reagan
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35708465]
If there is genocide going on, it is the DUTY of other nations to put a stop to it. If there is a dictator who is controlling a stable nation, then it's the duty of its people to rise against them, and if they do, you then assess it. That is why this fallacy of isolationism is a complete failure. Ron Paul is the type of person who would stand by while genocide occurs. And for that, it's unforgivable. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, like Rwanda. Or the Guatemalan Civil War (we put the bad guys in charge). Or the Bangladesh atrocities (we supported the perpetrators)? Or the Sabra and Shatila massacre? Then of course there was the massacre of Kurds in Iraq which you seem to imply we were going to stop, but it stopped about 14 years prior? And how about recently in Darfur?
Sorry boy-o, but other American presidents have a worse history than Paul would -- actively establishing dictatorships and largely ignoring atrocities.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;35706537]That's because the delegates aren't required to vote as their people did. In some states they can pledge their vote to whomever they please.
Just one of the many problems with the Electoral College. [B]Cue the CGPGrey video![/B]
[video=youtube;7wC42HgLA4k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k[/video][/QUOTE]
This video highlights issue with the electorial college yes, but its solution (pure democracy) is an awful one. The problem isn't the electorial college itself, it's how delegates are determined and how much power a respresenative has in actual federal government.
Pure democracy is a terrible idea, because you generally have very ill informed and non-political people who don't know how to handle certain political issues (being that they are not politicitions) having a direct say on what Politicians should do. That's what we are a republic - or... a representative democracy, NOT a pure democracy. Because pure democracies have been PROVEN to fail far more than representative ones, once they get larger than a certain size population.
A better solution would be to adopt similar systems to what UK and Europe do in many countries.
In that, if your party gets 10% of the votes on an election, you get 10% of the seats in the house of represenatives. If your party get 50% of the votes in a public election, your party get 50% of the seats in the house. Effectively, this means everyone has an accurate say, and we still get to get to have a superior representative democracy system.
How the US currently operates, is that individuals, NOT parties, get seats, and the way you get a seat is by winning the popular vote. Ohio has 18 "districts" so it gets 18 seats, and people belonging to those districts will vote in people to this seat every so many years. So who wins seats? Whoever gets the popular vote. Even if you win by only a 51% margin, you'll get the seat to the house and the other guy will not. Each district in a state works like this, till eventually all 18 people for that state are voted in.
This worked well when the US was smaller and more localized (so representatives had a more personal relationship with their distrcts they are from), and when the US wasn't dominated entirely by political parties. But it doesn't work as well now that the US is larger, more globalized, political-party driven and interconnected. The idea is that represenatives would "represent" their district, but it really just ends up meaning a person with political party X gets voted over a person with political party Y, and shit like being able to win preseidency with a popular vote of 20% is allowed to happen.
Or, we could switch to what europe does and delegate seats nationally based on how many votes your party gets. There are some downsides to this system too, but its generally more effiecnt, people get a stronger say in government, and things end up being far more balanced and less wacky.
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=NuggetWarmer;35708235][IMG]http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/wp-content/blogs.dir/1944/files/ron-paul-and-his-bicycle/ron-paul-bike-bicycle-michael-maresco-lake-jackson-texas-photo.jpg[/IMG]
Ron Paul is actually one of the most in-shape of the presidential candidates and has a great attitude towards just about everything. He seems to be the nicest/most zen of the presidential candidates, at least.
I'm glad he's still pushing through. I hope things start changing in Washington because of his run.[/QUOTE]
The reason I like Ron Paul is that he's the only candidate in years who doesn't appear to have ulterior motives and isn't a sleaze ball. He's also a republican that is actually republican/conservative in mindset, instead of having the wrong idea of what it means to be republican like every other one. As a human being and a poltician, he'd make an EXCELLENT president. The problem is, his ideaology is a little to far out there and very impractical in this day and age.
In other words I'd love to see more people like Ron Paul, but with different political ideals instead of his extremist-libritarian ones.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;35706996]Considering his policies there are many dangerous what-ifs. Axing the Department of Education, for example. This would mean an end to Pell Grants as they're the ones who sponsor them. My public school is already managed (and somewhat funded) by our town, so his idea the Department of Education is directly hampering schools is, from my perspective, misled. I'm not sure of the situation in other states, but for CT I can safely say the State and Locals have quite good control over its schools.
Despite that, still better than Romney...
Getting rid of John Huntsman [B]what the FUCK were you thinking Republicans?[/B][/QUOTE]
Before the 1970's the school system was better...BEFORE the Department of education. The EPA? Thats gotta go, its making it fucking hard for my family to sell Hay because the EPA UNDER OBAMA said it was a pollutant. Ron Paul believes in States rights and individual freedom, believes the military should be here and not spread out abroad. He is a Non-interventionist and believes in opening talks with other nations and trading with them.
[QUOTE=KorJax;35711720]This video highlights issue with the electorial college yes, but its solution (pure democracy) is an awful one. The problem isn't the electorial college itself, it's how delegates are determined and how much power a respresenative has in actual federal government.
Pure democracy is a terrible idea, because you generally have very ill informed and non-political people who don't know how to handle certain political issues (being that they are not politicitions) having a direct say on what Politicians should do. That's what we are a republic - or... a representative democracy, NOT a pure democracy. Because pure democracies have been PROVEN to fail far more than representative ones, once they get larger than a certain size population.
A better solution would be to adopt similar systems to what UK and Europe do in many countries.
In that, if your party gets 10% of the votes on an election, you get 10% of the seats in the house of represenatives. If your party get 50% of the votes in a public election, your party get 50% of the seats in the house. Effectively, this means everyone has an accurate say, and we still get to get to have a superior representative democracy system.
How the US currently operates, is that individuals, NOT parties, get seats, and the way you get a seat is by winning the popular vote. Ohio has 18 "districts" so it gets 18 seats, and people belonging to those districts will vote in people to this seat every so many years. So who wins seats? Whoever gets the popular vote. Even if you win by only a 51% margin, you'll get the seat to the house and the other guy will not. Each district in a state works like this, till eventually all 18 people for that state are voted in.
This worked well when the US was smaller and more localized (so representatives had a more personal relationship with their distrcts they are from), and when the US wasn't dominated entirely by political parties. But it doesn't work as well now that the US is larger, more globalized, political-party driven and interconnected. The idea is that represenatives would "represent" their district, but it really just ends up meaning a person with political party X gets voted over a person with political party Y, and shit like being able to win preseidency with a popular vote of 20% is allowed to happen.
Or, we could switch to what europe does and delegate seats nationally based on how many votes your party gets. There are some downsides to this system too, but its generally more effiecnt, people get a stronger say in government, and things end up being far more balanced and less wacky.
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
The reason I like Ron Paul is that he's the only candidate in years who doesn't appear to have ulterior motives and isn't a sleaze ball. He's also a republican that is actually republican/conservative in mindset, instead of having the wrong idea of what it means to be republican like every other one. As a human being and a poltician, he'd make an EXCELLENT president. The problem is, his ideaology is a little to far out there and very impractical in this day and age.
In other words I'd love to see more people like Ron Paul, but with different political ideals instead of his extremist-libritarian ones.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with that solution either but I do agree that direct democracy is a horrible idea, and also just wanted to point out my own issues with that video. Politicians would just focus on the big states with large populations and the small states would not be fairly represented. The point of the electoral college is to ensure small states are fairly represented in elections. It seems that guy is still raging because he felt George W. Bush should not have won the 2000 election. I somehow get the idea that if George Bush turned out to be a great president, he would not have had a problem with the electoral college and this video would not exist, but that's just my guess.
As for "this is not democracy, this is indefensible", he's just talking shit, the electoral college is democracy, just not direct democracy. If we had no electoral college you'd have people making youtube videos about how it's bad that politicians only care about big states with large populations and that small states don't get represented fairly, and that it's not democracy, indefensible, etc.
Instead of candidates ignoring states they are winning with huge margins, they would just ignore states with insignificant population to worry about wasting time and money to campaign for their votes.
There's tons of variables that come into play with these election systems, it's fallacious to judge it at face value ("I want my vote to matter!" rhetoric) and ignore the widespread effects that aren't immediately obvious.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Ben Franklin
[url]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1351222/posts[/url], Im pro-choice, but i support Paul because he said its not the Federal governments right to tell people if they can or cant. It is the States right. Its the States right for Gay Marriage as well. States right for education, etc. I will not sit here all day to discuss this, but when mentioning Ron Paul, the guy is the best chance we got. i tried 4 years of Obama, I disliked him more than i disliked Bush... Under Paul the US wouldn't turn into a huge corporatist entity...he believes in True Capitalism, which doesn't believe in Monopolies, it believes that everyone should work for what they want, Some make it better than others... The guys changed his mind somewhat since DOMA... he hasn't lied in 30 years though. I personally like him better than the rest. If you don't, that's your own personal belief, and I respect that.
He doesn't "believe" in monopolies? Without government intrusion, there's going to be a lot of monopolies
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;35711908]Before the 1970's the school system was better...BEFORE the Department of education. The EPA? Thats gotta go, its making it fucking hard for my family to sell Hay because the EPA UNDER OBAMA said it was a pollutant. Ron Paul believes in States rights and individual freedom, believes the military should be here and not spread out abroad. He is a Non-interventionist and believes in opening talks with other nations and trading with them.[/QUOTE]
how was the school system better
[QUOTE=sp00ks;35712279]He doesn't "believe" in monopolies? Without government intrusion, there's going to be a lot of monopolies[/QUOTE]
Well from Ron Paul's school of economics (I don't mean it's actually "his") they say the exact opposite, that monopolies form as a result of government intrusion in the first place.
[quote]
According to professor Milton Friedman, laws against monopolies cause more harm than good, but unnecessary monopolies should be countered by removing tariffs and other regulation that upholds monopolies.
[i]A monopoly can seldom be established within a country without overt and covert government assistance in the form of a tariff or some other device. It is close to impossible to do so on a world scale. The De Beers diamond monopoly is the only one we know of that appears to have succeeded (and even De Beers are protected by various laws against so called "illicit" diamond trade). – In a world of free trade, international cartels would disappear even more quickly.[/i]
[/quote]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Countering_monopolies[/url]
Possibly. Have you ever heard of Monsanto, GE, GM, etc? They are monopolies that lobby the government and with GM are partially owned by the government, Government intruded by preventing them from failing, altho they had made several risky endeavors and in true capitalism would've failed, allowing for small car companies to fill the niche. Government took partial ownership, they came out with the Volt, which was supposed to put em back on their feet, and instituted Cash for Clunkers, in which MANY great older cars( old cars were better made) were traded in for a new car... The Volt failed, and Cash for clunkers didnt exactly do as well as it was claimed. To me personally the government has no rights in business, especially since its already proven, they get lobbied from said businesses that they are involved with. back in the 90's the FDA and EPA simply ignored the facts from Monsantos own scientists who said the GMO food was harmful... Why? Monsanto was Lobbying... and we were taking bribes, etc.
Also, check out the Austrian school of economics.
On Education. [url]http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-failure-of-american-public-education/[/url]
Ron Paul wants to [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597:]define life as starting at conception[/url], [url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll446.xml]build a fence along the US-Mexico border[/url], [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:]prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced)[/url], [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:]pull out of the UN[/url], [url=http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr033004.htm]disband NATO[/url], [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46:]end birthright citizenship[/url], [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:]deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,[/url], [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:]and abolish the Federal Reserve[/url] in order to [url=http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm]put America back on the gold standard[/url]. He was also [url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-764]the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.[/url]
Oh, and he [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html]believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas[/url], he's [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html]against gay marriage[/url], [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html]is against the popular vote[/url], [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html]opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964[/url], [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul328.html]wants the estate tax repealed[/url], [url=http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/]is STILL making racist remarks[/url], [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.con.res.231:]believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States[/url], and [url=http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/ron_paul_first_bush_was_working_towards_nwo.htm]believes in New World Order conspiracy theories[/url], not to mention [url=http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007:]his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control.[/url]
faaaaaaaaaaart beep boop faaaaaart
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.