Quote :

"Obama has come through on more major campaign promises than any president since hoover."

i can't think of any. i can think of a bunch he did a 180 on though.

11/5/2011 12:22:16 AM

Awesome.



[Edited on November 5, 2011 at 3:40 PM. Reason : inb4 garage snobs]

11/5/2011 3:23:01 PM

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Ron Paul was declared the winner on Saturday of a weeklong Republican presidential straw poll in Democratic President Barack Obama's home state of Illinois.

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-declared-winner-illinois-republican-straw-poll-034241472.html

11/6/2011 2:56:11 AM

LOL, check out this article written after Ron Paul won the straw poll. It doesn't even mention that he was in it!

http://www.stltoday.com/news/state-and-regional/illinois/illinois-gop-holds-straw-poll-for-president/article_a5bf380a-a413-5df6-b3f6-033e619b3952.html

11/6/2011 11:13:54 AM

That's a bunch of bullshit.


Seriously, our country is fucked if we can't depend on the associated press to report correctly.

11/6/2011 12:26:55 PM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AP) — GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul says "offering friendship" to Iran, not sanctions, would be a more fruitful to achieving peace with the nuclear-armed nation. The Texas congressman said Sunday that Iran's nuclear weapons program has been "blown out of proportion." He said tough sanctions are a mistake, because in the case of Iraq, they only hurt the local population and still paved a path to war. When asked on "Fox News Sunday" what he would do to deter Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions, Paul said "maybe offering friendship to them." Paul's remarks put him at odds with both the Bush and Obama administrations; U.S. policy has relied heavily on sanctions and diplomacy to try to convince Tehran to abandon its atomic program. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful."

http://news.yahoo.com/paul-says-friendship-best-way-deal-iran-165913503.html

11/6/2011 12:29:08 PM

Sanctions don't work. The leadership of Iran doesn't give a shit about sanctions, they're living a life of luxury either way. The people are getting hurt, so they hate us. And, really - put yourself in the shoes of an Iranian. The United States has been fucking with them for at least fifty years. If I was an Iranian, I'd consider the United States my worst enemy.

When will people wake up and recognize that our foreign policy has failed?

11/6/2011 4:24:12 PM

what does OWS think about paul?

11/6/2011 8:49:31 PM

Quote :

"When will people wake up and recognize that our foreign policy has failed?"

Dude, Domestic and foreign policy failed. America is game over, unless we have a regime change

11/6/2011 10:08:38 PM

Ron Paul gets disqualified from Bill O'reilly's straw poll because supporters "slammed the poll". You'd think that would invalidate the entire poll, right? Wrong. He just mentions everyone else that was included in the poll, even candidates that most certainly got fewer "real" votes than Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pJPtA2w62c

11/7/2011 10:16:51 PM

if someone wins the presidential election, can we just say their supporters (i.e. people who vote for them) "slammed the poll"?

what kind of nonsensical bullshit is that?

11/7/2011 11:31:15 PM

I wish I know a way to put all of this into one video so it could go viral.


Unless you're following along, it's hard to prove to someone who is unaware of the situation that the media is transparently censoring this man from coverage.

11/8/2011 1:18:06 AM

I've been thinking of a way we could help Ron Paul.

But we need a volunteer to host a website called "videoyourselfvotingforronpaul.com"

Of course, the title says it all.

You take a cellphone movie, digital video, or still shots, of you voting for ronpaul and post it to the website so that if there is any corruption in voting, we'll know (if we get enough people)

We'd have plenty of time to spread the word and it'll actually get people out to vote knowing their vote is going to count.

11/9/2011 11:59:48 AM

That's against the law in many states.

11/9/2011 1:07:45 PM

What isn't illegal? You know what I'm saying?

[Edited on November 9, 2011 at 1:19 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2011 1:19:02 PM

Quote :

"if someone wins the presidential election, can we just say their supporters (i.e. people who vote for them) "slammed the poll"? what kind of nonsensical bullshit is that? "

It's nonsensical that they didn't filter or prevent their poll from being slammed by bots. It's also nonsensical for you to compare an online poll to an actual election.

Quote :

"But we need a volunteer to host a website called "videoyourselfvotingforronpaul.com""

You honestly think that a majority of Americans will vote for Ron Paul but be suppressed by election fraud? You think this is a real issue?

[Edited on November 9, 2011 at 1:33 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2011 1:32:22 PM

It's well documented that the voting machines are hackable.


http://youtu.be/aZws98jw67g

[Edited on November 9, 2011 at 1:43 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2011 1:37:02 PM

I'd ask for a citation but it doesn't even matter. Even if they were, the oversight for an actual election is light years beyond an online poll from Bill O'Reilly.

I think it's fucking stupid for him to have "disqualified" a candidate and not just remove the manufactured votes. *THAT* smacks of an agenda.

11/9/2011 1:43:26 PM

^Don't take what o'reilly did at face value, man. There is bigger mechanisms involved that have dictated that o'reilly do it. It's job preservation.

11/9/2011 1:51:01 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/09/ron_paul_obama_presidency_on_the_verge_of_being_a_dictatorship.html

Quote :

" Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) says President Obama's continued use of the executive order "brings the modern presidency dangerously close to an elective dictatorship." "That is arrogant," Paul said of Obama frequently using the executive order function as of late. "It is flaunting the Constitution and the whole principle of how we’re supposed to operate. The idea they can just do this and take over the legislative function and brag about it -- and Congress does nothing and the courts do nothing about it, it's very, very bad.""

Let's take a look at executive orders:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

Here's the last 5 Presidents ranked according to Executive Orders Per Year

1. Reagan - 47/year
2. Clinton - 45/year
3. Bush Sr. - 41/year
4. Bush Jr. - 36/year
5. Obama - 34/year

11/11/2011 9:55:16 AM

Quote :

"It's nonsensical that they didn't filter or prevent their poll from being slammed by bots. It's also nonsensical for you to compare an online poll to an actual election."

No, O'Reilly hasn't mentioned bots at all. Listen to what he said.

"Now, what 'slamming' a poll means is that they put out an internet warning that they're supposed to do a certain thing at a certain time. Alright? That's how it works. They put it out.... all the Ron Paul people talk amongst themselves and they all come in."

Sure, O'Reilly could have no idea that bots are being used, but we're discussing his argument that they "slammed" the polls using his definition of slamming a poll.

So.... the argument he is making is it's against the rules to gather up support for something and vote on it? And you don't find that silly?

11/11/2011 10:07:28 AM

^^What's your point? Ron Paul specifically says in that interview that executive orders have been abused for some time. You're not one of those assholes that thinks executive overreach is fine as long as it's "your guy", are you?

11/11/2011 10:11:37 AM

Quote :

"So.... the argument he is making is it's against the rules to gather up support for something and vote on it? And you don't find that silly?"

That's not really silly. Those polls are designed to act as a representative sample. When one group slams it, by his definition, it's not really a representative sample anymore, unless every other group was also slamming it.

That's why Ron Paul does fan-fucking-tastic on internet polls, they have a whole network that swamps every one they find with pro-Ron votes. So rather than a FoxNews.com poll being a poll of FoxNews.com readers, it's instead a poll of FoxNews.com readers plus 15,000 ronpaulforums.com members.

11/11/2011 10:14:07 AM

Quote :

"^^What's your point? Ron Paul specifically says in that interview that executive orders have been abused for some time. "

My point is Obama has used the executive order less than any President in the last 30 years. Please point me to a video of him criticizing Bush Sr, W, or Reagan back when they were doing it.

Quote :

"You're not one of those assholes that thinks executive overreach is fine as long as it's "your guy", are you?"

No, but Ron and most of the rest of the right wing is. He's an opportunist just like any other politician, but his stupid fans can't see that. What's most ironic is they mock Obama fans for being starstruck by his message of "change", but are themselves completely fucking duped by this soft-spoken kindly old man from Texas into thinking he's somehow different from the rest of the crop.

11/11/2011 10:19:52 AM

Just the fact that FOX News is censoring this guy makes me want to vote for him. He must be doing something right.

11/11/2011 11:27:46 AM

I like Ron Paul because he doesn't seem to be show boating like other candidates, and he knows what's up with the medical system. I would actually trust him with dealing with insurance and all that, because he's had first hand experience with it as a physician.

11/11/2011 11:30:21 AM

Who doesn't trust the scientific method to tell him whether evolution is true. I don't trust quacks.

11/11/2011 11:48:58 AM

Quote :

"My point is Obama has used the executive order less than any President in the last 30 years. Please point me to a video of him criticizing Bush Sr, W, or Reagan back when they were doing it."

You're asking me to find an old Ron Paul video where he's saying a very specific thing? I'm not taking the time to do that. Do you not know anything about Ron Paul? He was highly critical of Bush all throughout his Presidency. He was very critical of Clinton. He was very critical of Reagan. The guy doesn't give a shit about partisan politics and is hated by the Republican leadership.

Quote :

"No, but Ron and most of the rest of the right wing is. He's an opportunist just like any other politician, but his stupid fans can't see that. What's most ironic is they mock Obama fans for being starstruck by his message of "change", but are themselves completely fucking duped by this soft-spoken kindly old man from Texas into thinking he's somehow different from the rest of the crop."

He is different. He's very obviously different. He's been saying roughly the same thing for 30+ years, doesn't get corporate kickbacks, and is generally despised by the political establishment.

11/11/2011 11:53:07 AM

Quote :

"You're asking me to find an old Ron Paul video where he's saying a very specific thing? I'm not taking the time to do that. "

All I want to see is any Ron Paul quote, whether it be video, a speech, or a column from his racist newsletter, that mentions executive orders and, let's say, Reagan (the person who used them the most in the last 30 years).

Quote :

"Do you not know anything about Ron Paul? "

Yes, I was an extremely vocal supporter and even did some brief canvassing for him in 2008, when I was a libertarian.

Quote :

"He was highly critical of Bush all throughout his Presidency. He was very critical of Clinton. He was very critical of Reagan. The guy doesn't give a shit about partisan politics and is hated by the Republican leadership."

Yet he's now complaining about Obama for excessive use of executive orders, when Obama is in fact using them at a slower rate than any President in the past 30 years? He's clearly riding the hate-Obama gravy train, otherwise if he had a shred of integrity he might mention that little fact in his tyrade.

Quote :

"He is different. He's very obviously different."

-Obama fans, 2007

Quote :

" He's been saying roughly the same thing for 30+ years,"

Well, except all the racist and homophobic stuff, that shit he doesn't say out loud anymore at least. And please, there are tons of congressmen on both sides of the aisle that are stubborn mules about their ideology. It's not an admirable quality, it often just means a person is inflexible and shut off to intellectual growth.

Quote :

" doesn't get corporate kickbacks"

Every single person in congress gets corporate kickbacks, here's Paul's top contributing industries:

Retired $42,840
Real Estate $22,850 $12,850
Health Professionals $19,450
Oil & Gas $11,850
Crop Production & Basic Processing $11,030

Quote :

" and is generally despised by the political establishment."

No, not really. He's treated as a curiosity and a novelty, which he is, nothing more. "Despised" gives him way too much credit. They don't care what he does because he's not as different from them as you think.

[Edited on November 11, 2011 at 12:07 PM. Reason : .]

11/11/2011 12:00:41 PM

Quote :

"All I want to see is any Ron Paul quote, whether it be video, a speech, or a column from his racist newsletter, that mentions executive orders and, let's say, Reagan (the person who used them the most in the last 30 years)."

Yeah, I'm not going to find that. He ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988, railing against Reagan policies and federal overreach.

Quote :

"Yes, I was an extremely vocal supporter and even did some brief canvassing for him in 2008, when I was a libertarian."

Maybe you should have bothered to learn something about the man and his beliefs.

He's a strict constitutionalist. That means he thinks that each branch of government is only allowed to do what the Constitution explicitly states.

Quote :

"Yet he's now complaining about Obama for excessive use of executive orders, when Obama is in fact using them at a slower rate than any President in the past 30 years? He's clearly riding the hate-Obama gravy train, otherwise if he had a shred of integrity he might mention that little fact in his tyrade."

So, because Obama's not using executive orders at the same rate as past presidents, Ron Paul shouldn't be criticizing Obama? Obama is President now. Reagan isn't. Ron Paul says, in this interview even, that executive orders have been abused for some time. You know what matters today, though? What's going on today and in the coming months and years.

Quote :

"Well, except all the racist and homophobic stuff, that shit he doesn't say out loud anymore at least. And please, there are tons of congressmen on both sides of the aisle that are stubborn mules about their ideology. It's not an admirable quality, it often just means a person is inflexible and shut off to intellectual growth."

You'll never find a video or anything that Ron Paul actually wrote that is anti-gay or racist. That won't keep you from spreading the same misinformation, though, will it?

Quote :

"Every single person in congress gets corporate kickbacks, here's Paul's top contributing industries: Retired $42,840 Real Estate $22,850 $12,850 Health Professionals $19,450 Oil & Gas $11,850 Crop Production & Basic Processing $11,030"

Hahahaha. Those are seriously pathetic totals compared to, say, Obama or Romney. Ron Paul is known as "Dr. No". Corporations know that, by supporting Ron Paul, they can't expect any special back room deals, so why bother?

11/11/2011 12:18:43 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, I'm not going to find that. He ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988, railing against Reagan policies and federal overreach."

Which policies? Did he mention Ron's extremely frequent use of executive orders? Or by "Federal" did he mean congress?

Quote :

"Maybe you should have bothered to learn something about the man and his beliefs. He's a strict constitutionalist. That means he thinks that each branch of government is only allowed to do what the Constitution explicitly states."

I know exactly what his stated beliefs are backwards and forwards because I used to recite them to targeted voters. I probably know more about him than you.

Quote :

"So, because Obama's not using executive orders at the same rate as past presidents, Ron Paul shouldn't be criticizing Obama?"

Lol wow strawman ahoy

Quote :

"Obama is President now. Reagan isn't. Ron Paul says, in this interview even, that executive orders have been abused for some time. You know what matters today, though? What's going on today and in the coming months and years."

He said "Obama is using them at alarming frequency" but doesn't mention it's the lowest frequency in 30 years. If you can't see how he's being disingenuous by avoiding that tiny little detail of context, you're a total naive sap who's been snookered.

Quote :

"You'll never find a video or anything that Ron Paul actually wrote that is anti-gay or racist. That won't keep you from spreading the same misinformation, though, will it?"

It's not misinformation at all. He willingly supported and attached his name to a newsletter that published blatant racism and homophobia from a first person perspective. I never claimed he wrote it himself, he just happened to let this kind of rhetoric appear under his name for years and years and years on end.

Sure, Ron did not personally say those things, but the company he keeps did, and the people he pandered to in those days sure did. Now he panders to idealistic socially liberals youths so he changes his focus (even though his policies, in effect, would fuck blacks and gays anyway).

Quote :

"Hahahaha. Those are seriously pathetic totals compared to, say, Obama or Romney. Ron Paul is known as "Dr. No". Corporations know that, by supporting Ron Paul, they can't expect any special back room deals, so why bother? "

Corporations know that, by supporting Ron Paul, they can't expect shit, because it's clear to everybody except his retarded fans that he has a 0% chance of winning.

11/11/2011 12:48:51 PM

Ron Paul doesn't get corporate kick backs or campaign donations because they know he will never win the Presidency, or even a Senate seat. There is no benefit for them to dump money on a fringe candidate. More than anything, campaign donations from private business go to the guy they think has the best chance of winning. In an alternate universe where Ron Paul fit that criteria, you better believe he'd be raking in as much money as anyone else.

11/11/2011 12:52:56 PM

If you look at his congressional runs, where he's almost guaranteed to win each time, that's when the corps start kicking him cash.

11/11/2011 12:54:46 PM

I don't understand the fascination of him, or the character idolization of his fans. They seem to have him built up as an anti-establishment revolutionary, but I find that hard to believe when he's embedded in the same political party that is most closely connected with the political establishment. I'm not saying Democrats are any better, they're not. But I would at least respect Paul a lot more of he went the third party route. Still wouldn't vote for him, though.

11/11/2011 1:50:53 PM

Quote :

"Which policies? Did he mention Ron's extremely frequent use of executive orders? Or by "Federal" did he mean congress?"

Ron Paul was critical of the Reagan administration. He has frequently said this. Ron Paul supported Reagan in the late 70s and the early 80s, until he took office and expanded the size of government dramatically.

Quote :

"I know exactly what his stated beliefs are backwards and forwards because I used to recite them to targeted voters. I probably know more about him than you."

You've demonstrated in the last few posts that you know very little about him. I've been spoon feeding you this information for a couple of years now, so don't act like you've evolved intellectually or something. I'm just going to go ahead and say you're lying about supporting Ron Paul. No one goes from being a full fledged Ron Paul supporter to a straight up progressive in a year's time.

Conveniently, your first post is in 2008, at which point you were accusing people of being racist, right out of the gate. TSB veterans, can we get an alias report on this douche?

Quote :

"Lol wow strawman ahoy"

Is it a strawman? What exactly is your point? Ron Paul has criticized former presidents. Those presidents are no longer in office. As a candidate for President in 2012, he is challenging the current incumbent, which is Barack Obama. Barack Obama has used executive orders to undermine checks and balances as established by the Constitution.

Quote :

"He said "Obama is using them at alarming frequency" but doesn't mention it's the lowest frequency in 30 years. If you can't see how he's being disingenuous by avoiding that tiny little detail of context, you're a total naive sap who's been snookered."

Again, who cares? He's not being disingenuous by not mentioning the exact number of executive orders of every administration in the past century, because it's not relevant. What's relevant is the guy who is currently in office. You are incredibly dense.

Quote :

"Sure, Ron did not personally say those things, but the company he keeps did, and the people he pandered to in those days sure did. Now he panders to idealistic socially liberals youths so he changes his focus (even though his policies, in effect, would fuck blacks and gays anyway)."

Explain to me how his policies would, "in effect", "fuck blacks and gays". Ending the federal drug war would fuck blacks? Are you that stupid?

How would his policies hurt gays in any way? Elaborate on that.

Quote :

"Corporations know that, by supporting Ron Paul, they can't expect shit, because it's clear to everybody except his retarded fans that he has a 0% chance of winning."

Quote :

"Ron Paul doesn't get corporate kick backs or campaign donations because they know he will never win the Presidency, or even a Senate seat. There is no benefit for them to dump money on a fringe candidate. More than anything, campaign donations from private business go to the guy they think has the best chance of winning. In an alternate universe where Ron Paul fit that criteria, you better believe he'd be raking in as much money as anyone else."

What benefits could they expect to receive if he were to win? Here's a guy that, on a daily basis, emphasizes his desire to dismantle corporatism. He's got a 30+ year record showing that he will try to do just that. Do you really think Goldman Sachs would be pumping money into a campaign that is running on "End the Fed"? Get a grip.

Quote :

"I don't understand the fascination of him, or the character idolization of his fans. They seem to have him built up as an anti-establishment revolutionary, but I find that hard to believe when he's embedded in the same political party that is most closely connected with the political establishment. I'm not saying Democrats are any better, they're not. But I would at least respect Paul a lot more of he went the third party route. Still wouldn't vote for him, though."

We have a two party system.

You cannot win as an independent or third party.

It would be a waste of his supporter's money to even try.

He has consistently opposed the GOP in a litany of issues.

But it doesn't matter, because you'll still vote for Obama. We'll continue killing muslims. We'll continue putting people in prison for victimless crimes. We'll continue funneling money to the banks and the politically well-connected corporations. You'll support all of that...and I have no idea why.

11/11/2011 4:46:49 PM

Quote :

" We have a two party system. You cannot win as an independent or third party. It would be a waste of his supporter's money to even try. He has consistently opposed the GOP in a litany of issues."

Behave yourself.

You cannot win the GOP without standing lock-step with Republican talking points

It would be a waste of his supporter's money to even try.

You cannot consistently oppose the GOP in a litany of issues and expect to win their nomination.


And I'm thoroughly convinced that it doesn't matter who the president is, we're gonna keep killing eastern people as long as it keeps the balance of power heavily in favor of Western nations. It's an unfortunate reality. The last president to try otherwise got shot in the fuckin' face.

[Edited on November 11, 2011 at 4:56 PM. Reason : ]

11/11/2011 4:55:36 PM

You're on the fast track to apathy, my friend. I like to at least pretend that we have a shot at salvaging this nation of idiots.

11/11/2011 4:59:12 PM

I voted for a president who said he'd bring our troops in Iraq home (not reshuffle them into the Persian Gulf). I voted for a president who was going to close Guantanamo Bay and let the Patriot Act expire. I voted for a president who was going to end the Bush tax cuts and end our push toward austerity. That's not apathy. That's just me displaying my disgust.

If he couldn't do it, I doubt a Ron Paul type (who would have zero support from both Republicans and Democrats in congress) would be able to do that. I do, however, think Paul would be able to close multiple departments and cut spending, which would only accelerate our austerity push.


Feel free to vote for him, though. If I had to have a Republican president, I'd prefer Paul over the rest, to be honest.

[Edited on November 11, 2011 at 5:20 PM. Reason : ]

11/11/2011 5:13:37 PM

98 freaking seconds

That's how much time Congressman Paul received at the latest 90-minute CBS debate.

98 freaking seconds

as many times as the man has placed in first in who knows how many polls is amazing, and CBS only gives him 98 seconds

Paul-Gingrich

11/13/2011 9:05:25 PM

Quote :

"You've demonstrated in the last few posts that you know very little about him. I've been spoon feeding you this information for a couple of years now, so don't act like you've evolved intellectually or something. I'm just going to go ahead and say you're lying about supporting Ron Paul. No one goes from being a full fledged Ron Paul supporter to a straight up progressive in a year's time."

I went to Paul in 2007 because I was fed up with the Democrats and Republicans and his "third way" - socially liberal (sort of) and fiscally conservative - seemed like an appealing break from the same-old same-old. I was very socially liberal at the time (to the left of Paul easily) and as time went on I was turned off by his states-rightsing of issues I thought were matters of human rights (abortion, for instance).

And simply through self-study of economics I eventually divorced from the fiscally conservative end as well. So you might describe my transformation as libertarian -> libertarian socialism -> socialist

I know you find it hard to believe that people might undergo rapid transformations (it took about 2-3 years for the whole process to run,k not one) but some of us take in new information and actually change our worldview to accommodate it, not just entrench ourselves in rationalizations.

Quote :

"Conveniently, your first post is in 2008, at which point you were accusing people of being racist, right out of the gate. TSB veterans, can we get an alias report on this douche?"

This account is McDanger's side account that he gave to me less than a year ago.

Quote :

" Explain to me how his policies would, "in effect", "fuck blacks and gays". Ending the federal drug war would fuck blacks? Are you that stupid? How would his policies hurt gays in any way? Elaborate on that."

Lmao is this a joke? I say "some of his policies will fuck over gays and minorities" so you pick a policy yourself ask me how it does. Are you being serious or do you actually not see the bizarre tactic you're using?

Quote :

"What benefits could they expect to receive if he were to win? Here's a guy that, on a daily basis, emphasizes his desire to dismantle corporatism. He's got a 30+ year record showing that he will try to do just that. Do you really think Goldman Sachs would be pumping money into a campaign that is running on "End the Fed"? Get a grip."

He would lower taxes and smash regulatory frameworks, and ending the Fed would just give private banks a whole new market to profit from. You're delusional if you think the largest corporations don't want that stuff. Oh waaaait, I forgot the recent libertarian line that really came into vogue the past two years, "Big Business is only big because government regulates their competition." Well, I disagree with that, so maybe you can see why I think business would lavish him with cash if he actually had a shot at winning?

11/14/2011 11:00:41 AM

I might vote for Paul if he had a shot if only because his policies would accelerate the flow of wealth upward and the widening of the inequality gap so broadly that the US proletariat might actually revolt decades ahead of time.

11/14/2011 11:02:53 AM

If that were true, and it isn't, he would win for sure, and the rich would make sure of it.

11/14/2011 4:12:05 PM

Quote :

"Lmao is this a joke? I say "some of his policies will fuck over gays and minorities" so you pick a policy yourself ask me how it does. Are you being serious or do you actually not see the bizarre tactic you're using?"

I said elaborate on the point. Tell me how Ron Paul will "fuck over gays and blacks".

Quote :

"He would lower taxes and smash regulatory frameworks, and ending the Fed would just give private banks a whole new market to profit from."

Private banks go bankrupt when they don't have a lender of last resort allowing them to pyramid debt.

Quote :

"You're delusional if you think the largest corporations don't want that stuff. Oh waaaait, I forgot the recent libertarian line that really came into vogue the past two years, "Big Business is only big because government regulates their competition." Well, I disagree with that, so maybe you can see why I think business would lavish him with cash if he actually had a shot at winning?"

Big business will exist regardless, yes, but that's not really a bad thing. Mass production is good.

It's undeniable that corporations lobby Congress to obtain "regulatory capture". Just look at a company like Monsanto that writes up regulation to price out the competition. Sure, they can convince people like you that it's "for your own good", but behind closed doors, it's about them not wanting to compete in an honest way.

11/14/2011 7:17:07 PM

RON PAUL MOVES TO TOP TIER

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57324938-503544/new-poll-shows-4-way-tie-in-iowa-as-ron-paul-moves-to-top-tier/

11/16/2011 12:06:00 AM

Good info here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4KemjxO1w0&feature=related

[Edited on November 16, 2011 at 5:42 AM. Reason : .]

11/16/2011 5:41:41 AM

This is huge. It's almost as though people care about voting for someone who represents their interests for once.

Laughing my ass off at this idiot who said he stopped supporting Ron Paul because he read an economics textbook.

Newsflash you dope, the entire field of "economics" that you are just now learning about is a giant lie that has been proliferated by the Education system that has been bought and paid for by our government. The same government whose power depends on duping the people.

This "Economics" you speak of has only been in existence for like 50 years and it's got just as much science behind it as Creationism.

The fact that you are just now learning about a system that has been proven incorrect for decades and is failing spectacularly now should make you crawl back into that intellectual cave that you just came out of.


Now stop trolling the Ron Paul thread for attention you sad little creature. Go back to your Obama jerk off session and your $10/hr phone job.

11/16/2011 7:31:39 AM

best news i've heard in a while. i think there are a lot of people that would vote for RP if they believed he was a viable candidate, which a lot of people don't believe. hopefully this will get the snowball rolling now that he is firmly in the top tier. i would love to see a Paul/Gingrich ticket.

11/16/2011 8:32:19 AM

i dont think Paul would take on a running mate that is entrenched in the republican party. Kinda dims the message dont you think?

11/16/2011 8:35:56 AM

Paul/Huntsman 2012

11/16/2011 9:18:30 AM

Well I think it would give him a better shot as many Republicans think Paul is a fringe candidate already. Plus Gingrich is pretty smart and he has been adopting a lot of Paul's ideologies concerning the role of government and the Fed. But I will conceded, he probably isn't the best option.

11/16/2011 9:25:26 AM