Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?

[whodare]

You take even simple concepts to new extremes. When folks find themselves spinning their wheels as opposed to working toward what we know was our best effort, we recall we're a democracy and unfortunately everyone isn't satisfied.

The root of your misunderstanding, only our election process is supposed to be democratic, the elected officials then govern under the RULE OF LAW...

Otherwise we have mob rule, but then again you are pro violent robbery, murder, and defining fair to benefit you reletive to your situation...

A belief in mob rule seems reasonable considering your other positions

 

[ShroomDr]

I personally believe jobs went overseas due to a high corporate tax rate, high cost of labor (spurred to rise by inflationary monetary policy), lack of costly regulations in other countries, cheaper to corrupt governments, and a high percentage of people in poverty (hard to get out with the dollar as the reserve currency and the fed running an inflationary policy) who will gladly take a buck an hour.

And what good will another round of this do for AMERICAN.

just because they get richer does not mean they dont pay their fair share..
the two are not exclusive.

They are certainly intertwined when there is a closed monetary system. (Fiat Currency).

This is not the 1700's century where the gold you mine is the cash you keep.

There is a closed system of money. Money is used to approximate bartering terms.

When one player in Monopoly has 85% of the property and cash, it fucks the rest of the players (and eventual the 'winner' too when everyone quits [or brings them to the people razor]).


-

 

[ShroomDr]

Louis XVI, nor Nicholas II understood what their concentration of wealth was buying them either...

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Yea depending on which "fair" YOU want to use



I'm sure you are referring to equitable though right :rolleye:

Now apply that to math. Where you vs the next guy draw the line may and probably will differ. Extrapolate this to 310 million living under representative democracy and you may quantify your personal equity. If things are going your way, chances are the majority is aligned in your favor. Never get your way and one might imagine your opinions as out of the mainstream, maybe even against the gain.

Along come the rich guys to buy their interests and all the sudden the system that actually worked is now the spook on internet, cable and am radio.

Tax cuts didn't spawn Alex Jones, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh et al. The fear of tax increases spawned this multi-billion dollar industry. They have to manufacture dialog.

Only so many 99%ers will vote for pop top lawmakers. So the party has to cater to religion, fear and loathing and government conspiracy to even the score.

IMO, fair is what the majority of the electorate says. FDR kicked rich asses and was elected more than any president before or since. Even if you make it all about the war, Americans were happy with New Deal reforms.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The root of your misunderstanding, only our election process is supposed to be democratic, the elected officials then govern under the RULE OF LAW

Otherwise we have mob rule, but then again you are pro violent robbery, murder, and defining fair to benefit you reletive to your situation...

A belief in mob rule seems reasonable considering your other positions

Then why do lawmakers seek majority, (uh... democratic) consensus? So their bills will become law.

Let's try something new. When your supporting elements don't support your fundamental argument, we can move on to something else. After all, we're not here to sustain argument for the sake of. Primarily, we offer our opinions and sometimes support them with fact.

Beyond that, there's little reason to spit ball others unless you just happen to likey.

 

[whodare]

And what good will another round of this do for AMERICAN.

-

it wouldn't do any good that's why I'm voting for Dr. Paul.

 

[whodare]

Then why do lawmakers seek majority, (uh... democratic) consensus? So their bills will become law.

All three branches of gov have been operating outside the constitution(the law) for quite some time.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

just because they get richer does not mean they dont pay their fair share..
the two are not exclusive.

I believe the Buffet/ secretary example demonstrates our top-friendly setup.

It appears your discussion of fairness has taken several directions. First you suggest the system isn't fair by offering the fairtax plan. Then you suggest raising the rates didn't bolster the middle class. Now it appears you're suggesting that the nominal rate shouldn't be raised, even though it's lower than our historic, sustained expansion low.

We've back where we started so consider another look at the historic statistics and try not to let idealism substitute for math.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

All three branches of gov have been operating outside the constitution(the law) for quite some time.

The democratic process isn't unconstitutional. Feel free to remind me where we're going.

 

[whodare]

The democratic process isn't unconstitutional. Feel free to remind me where we're going.

Not as long as the democratic process the law(constitution) allows, operates within the confines of the constitution that regulates it(democratic process).

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I'm glad you cleared that up.

 

[dagnabit]

I believe the Buffet/ secretary example demonstrates our top-friendly setup.

It appears your discussion of fairness has taken several directions. First you suggest the system isn't fair by offering the fairtax plan. Then you suggest raising the rates didn't bolster the middle class. Now it appears you're suggesting that the nominal rate shouldn't be raised, even though it's lower than our historic, sustained expansion low.

We've back where we started so consider another look at the historic statistics and try not to let idealism substitute for math.

my point remains the same...
the progressive income tax is inefficient,punitive,ineffective and not 21st century thinking.
it does nothing to promote growth or equality.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

[YOUTUBEIF]TqFzhm89LEU[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[ShroomDr]

it wouldn't do any good that's why I'm voting for Dr. Paul.

Dr Paul is going to give them another round of tax cuts. They will label it 'tax cuts for the job creators' (in Asia).

Same way 'The Patriot Act' was a wolf labeled a sheep.

Instead of Romney paying 13.9% now, he would pay ZERO under Dr Paul

I agree with many things dr paul says, but i think this policy is wacko.



Santorum brought up another interesting fact i would LOVE a (blind) Paul supporter to explain. Why is Dr Paul running attack ads against Santorum in MI when Dr Paul is not campaigning there?

 

[MadBuddhaAbuser]

.

I agree the tax rate needs to be raised on the wealthy. At the very least the rate on capital gains needs to be bumped up to at least 30% for the upper tier.

But even if we raised income taxes on the rich back to 90% that wouldn't return us to 50s era prosperity. There are so many other factors involved.

We were pretty much the only game in town when it came to cars, our biggest competitors , germany and japan were bombed out shells.

Outsourcing didnt exist, and china and india were third world farmland.

The dollar got you a lot father.

Gas didn't consume such a large percentage of income.

Healthcare didn't bankrupt people.

We were the preeminent Manufacturing superpower.

Education was cheaper.

Most importantly, we cared about building a strong middle class.

The middle class didn't explode when income tax rates were 35% and cap gain rates were 15%. Reference the post WWII tax rates (including the marginal 91%)


You can argue about where to draw the line but there's little argument that higher rates established and sustained the best middle-class era in our history.

 

[Cojito]

All candidates on deck agree with this so.......... NEXT! or there are some that are less wrong about the Big Sky Guy?

they're all wrong to believe in a sky god given the paucity of evidence. so are some more wrong? sure. believers in sky gods are not all the same. there's a kind of a continuum. the more educated (re: less wrong) tend to move away from fundamentalism.

there are believers that wage jihad, fly planes into buildings, throw acid in the faces of young school girls. and then there are believers who shoot abortion doctors, want fake science (creationism) taught in schools, seek to deny homosexuals their civil rights, derail life saving stem cell research, stop condoms being handed out to AIDs torn Africa, and call healthy sexually active adults "immoral."

and some feign belief, or refuse to take religion all that seriously. they may identify with it to get elected, they just don't follow it because it's silly and impractical. i really can't know how seriously the republican candidates are about their religion. or if they really believe the same things. does Mitt believe in magic underwear? does he think blacks can get to heaven? given how often Gingrich lies and cheats on his women, is it likely he takes his faith all that seriously? and what about that douche Santorum? he seems unusually pious.

so, in answer to your question, yes, i'd say some are less wrong about the big sky guy.

 

[MadBuddhaAbuser]

they're all wrong to believe in a sky god given the paucity of evidence. so are some more wrong? sure. believers in sky gods are not all the same. there's a kind of a continuum. the more educated (re: less wrong) tend to move away from fundamentalism.

there are believers that wage jihad, fly planes into buildings, throw acid in the faces of young school girls. and then there are believers who shoot abortion doctors, want fake science (creationism) taught in schools, seek to deny homosexuals their civil rights, derail life saving stem cell research, stop condoms being handed out to AIDs torn Africa, and call healthy sexually active adults "immoral."

and some feign belief, or refuse to take religion all that seriously. they may identify with it to get elected, they just don't follow it because it's silly and impractical. i really can't know how seriously the republican candidates are about their religion. or if they really believe the same things. does Mitt believe in magic underwear? does he think blacks can get to heaven? given how often Gingrich lies and cheats on his women, is it likely he takes his faith all that seriously? and what about that douche Santorum? he seems unusually pious.

so, in answer to your question, yes, i'd say some are less wrong about the big sky guy.

A. Despite evidence for evolution, there is no evidence there is no god, and there never will be. You can't prove a negative.
B. Sliding ron paul into a run on sentence mentioning people who shoot obstetricians was slick. Wrong but slick.
C. Since ron paul is the only one not trying to block homosexuals rights, while others like rick scrotum wants a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to ban same sex marriage, youre off base there.
D. Since mitt gave 4 million dollars to the church of mormon, id bet he takes it pretty seriously. Including the garden of eden and the place where jesus will return is in missouri(yeah, fucking st louis). And that alcohol, caffeine, tea and tobacco are immoral.

maybe you should just keep waiting for a promiscuous atheist to run for prez.

 

[whodare]

Dr Paul is going to give them another round of tax cuts. They will label it 'tax cuts for the job creators' (in Asia).

Same way 'The Patriot Act' was a wolf labeled a sheep.

Instead of Romney paying 13.9% now, he would pay ZERO under Dr Paul

I agree with many things dr paul says, but i think this policy is wacko.



Santorum brought up another interesting fact i would LOVE a (blind) Paul supporter to explain. Why is Dr Paul running attack ads against Santorum in MI when Dr Paul is not campaigning there?

He wants to cut all individuals income tax burden to zero

Cut cap gains to zero( which would spur enormous amounts of investment)

Lower the corporate tax rate to 15% and cut all loopholes that make it possible for only fortune 500 companies to navigate the tax code.

allow companies to repatriate their overseas money without fees.

And I'm far from blind I drove to see the man speak to an overflow crowd at CMU and he is speaking in Dearborn, MSU, and a Detroit public school.

 

[itisme]

I'm not blinded by shit. That's just some of the nonsense that's been posted in this thread. Did you post any of this nonsense or are you just running interferance so they don't have to answer and give me a chuckle....

I wonder if we went through and removed all the smartass comments and rudeness how many pages there would be?

First there would be a 15% corporate tax that we would collect on and end the loophoes. They would actually bring in 15% of net earnings. The lowest rate now is in Switzerland and it is 15%, most US Corps hide there money there. Ron Paul would allow them to move the money they are hiding over there, back here with no fines or taxes. Cisco had like 400-600 million they woul bring back, only one Corp big wig would speak on the matter. Billions would come back here.

Second he would end the DRUG WAR. If the states want to break themselves, let them. The drug war funding creates the insanity. More arrest, more problems, More FEDERAL MONEY. He would also free the 2 million non violent drug offerders and send the security gaurds home packing. Saving billions.

Then last but not least......Shut down the NEOCON WAR MACHINE!!! CNN, FOX, & all other MSM are nothing but liars. I posted a video from youtube under MEDIA WARMOGERS and they say, if Ron Paul gets president, 2/3 of them get fired. Good, I'll pink slips. Setember 10, 2001 Rumsfeld said they had stolent 25% of Nat'l Defense budget, 2.3 TRILLON. The next day 9/11. Since that date defense spending has increased 81%. YOU GOTTA CUT THIS STUFF OUT!!!


The question you need to ask is how can we run this country and not drasitically cut spending...Increase the national debt another 1.3 trllion every other year. Let the FED keep that 14 trillion they stole? I say take all that back and if they go broke, serves them right.

RP would axe 155,000 Gov't workers. He would start the ending of the FED/IMF control over our money. He would end foreign aid. He would get us out of the UN and NATO. He would secure our borders. He would drastically reduce the UN Agenda elements of FDA, EPA, FAA (drones), and give us our LIBERTY BACK!!!

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

9/10/2001: Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU

November 16, 2011

Partial Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts — $16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and FOREIGN banks everywhere from France to Scotland. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is “only” $14.5 trillion.

http://tobefree.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/partial-audit-of-the-federal-reserve-reveals-16-trillion-in-secret-bailouts-16000000000000-00-had-been-secretly-given-out-to-us-banks-and-corporations-and-foreign-banks-everywhere-from/

Why the Warmongering Media Fears a Ron Paul Presidency
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxzdfv13tGo

RON PAUL THIS IS IT!!! BIGGEST AWAKENING IS HAPPENING!!! - Alex Jones Infowars 2012-01-11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkv221-KTXQ

 

[draztik]

A. Despite evidence for evolution, there is no evidence there is no god, and there never will be. You can't prove a negative.
B. Sliding ron paul into a run on sentence mentioning people who shoot obstetricians was slick. Wrong but slick.
C. Since ron paul is the only one not trying to block homosexuals rights, while others like rick scrotum wants a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to ban same sex marriage, youre off base there.
D. Since mitt gave 4 million dollars to the church of mormon, id bet he takes it pretty seriously. Including the garden of eden and the place where jesus will return is in missouri(yeah, fucking st louis). And that alcohol, caffeine, tea and tobacco are immoral.

maybe you should just keep waiting for a promiscuous atheist to run for prez.

I've been trying to point out cojito's distorted logic and apparent confusion. He seems to just ignore reason, yet believes he is on the path to enlightenment. Here's a quote from an earlier post.

and yet there's a rather embarrassing video of Ron Paul saying this:

""I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that i know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side."

this is silly, cringe-worthy. Ron Paul (a doctor) has rejected reason, evidence, and science for a fucking myth.

Son the theory of evolution is a theory! It's not scientific fact! Science is full of theories that are proven wrong all the time that is what science is all about. The theory of relativity is a theory.You keep bringing up religion. To me religion is just a word. It's a word often used to describe someone's theory of what all of this is, reality, the universe and beyond. I'm agnostic but I have an open mind and I can't disprove Dr. Pauls theory because in reality your theory about what is going on makes as much sense as Dr. Paul's because NO ONE REALLY KNOWS WHAT ALL OF THIS IS. If your all about science then enlighten us on what is really going on.