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

[SpasticGramps]

Here's where it gets interesting. Ending the fed ends the debt.

Better to throw your hands up and default than to monetize the debt. I'm under no illusions that will happen though. We will print until we can't anymore and then the Fed will have ended us.

 

[trichrider]

stiff the banks.

 

[ShroomDr]

No... no... we raise income tax, so all those, even the poor can pay something, we lower capital gains to ZERO. Then we buy all the gold/silver companies we can, run up the dept a little more, and leverage that shit into our own OLIGARCHY!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

stiff the banks.

That would be like cutting ourselves off from the space station umbilical.

 

[ShroomDr]

It wouldnt have been pre Sept 2008

Could have had the govt give the people THEIR money back, contingent of them paying off their homes.

Banks get paid, and the people dont own 3X what their home is worth....


The banks used the bailout to buy more dept, they doubled down, they were allowed to because REPUBLICANS wanted ZERO oversite of the bailout.

"We dont need Regulation".

Obama is not better, but he is only running the script laid down by the Rebubs earlier in the decade.

Politic$

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Interesting you bring up regulation. Last night, Mitt talked about regulated markets, i.e. minimum reserve requirements for private banks, etc. I was a little surprised since Republicans generally eschew bank regulations. It was one of the few eye openers of the night but nobody's mentioning it in the news.

Maybe because it's just another flip flop.

 

[ShroomDr]

Hard to get to the "Right" of Obama on MANY issues.

Thats why the GOP is fucked this election. Obama is putting bullets in terrorist heads WAY more effectively than GWB.

If i were him, i would get Zarhairi, and put him on ice until Oct.

It would be FDR v Hoover.

 

[trichrider]

yep. develop contingencies, cut the sucker!

 

[ShroomDr]

The 'bailout' was not used as a 'bailout' it was an 'infusion'.

No one was 'bailed out'. There was opportunity to say, "look, you bankers fucked YOURSELVES, your done. Here is the money for american mortgages, what you do from here is on your own accord, THAT IS CAPITALISM. You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

But we let the banks 'double down', they took the 'bailout' and bought more, 'infusing' their markets, instead of paying down.

Like when your buddy is down $500 in vegas, and you GIVE him $100 to get home, and he goes back to the craps table.

 

[SacredBreh]

The Fing BEST America has to offer?????????

The Fing BEST America has to offer?????????

Obama, Gingrich, Romney, Santorum
---- Are you kidding me? These are the best America has to offer for the top position in this country?

There is no other choice beside Ron Paul for our cause or any other cause. None!

Maybe the reason most Americans don't pay attention is because if they did, they would be scared shitless by what they saw. A BAD NIGHTMARE!

Peace

 

[sac beh]

Has anyone taken this quiz?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/candidate-match-game

It has limited usefulness since the questions are so limited, but its interesting nonetheless.

Ron Paul on the surface seems like the best cannabis-friendly candidate, but I see some problems. I think its very unlikely that major reforms will happen from the president's office, whoever it may be. The forces that maintain prohibition at the federal level--in terms of drug scheduling, DEA funding and enforcement, and national legislation--are so many that even the most militant advocate will find the task impossible once in office. It seems much more likely to me that the best reforms will continue to happen at state and local levels, forcing the federal government's hand at some point down the road when the weight of advocacy from more local levels becomes no longer manageable (at the moment its manageable) by the fed.

If I thought it more likely that Paul could help the cause effectively at the federal level, I might become a one-issue voter and support him. But given that I don't see it likely, I have too many other issues with Paul that I can't overlook. For example, he's made some really odd comments about climate science that reveal him not to be the sane and rational politician he purports to be on the surface.

I'm open to hearing more from Paul advocates though, and I'll be following along.

 

[ShroomDr]

That thing is a joke. I hate the wording, its awfully slanted with the healthcare questions. Did the insurance companies sponsor it? Every one of the Energy questions starts with Increase domestic oil and gas. Where is the fracking concerns?

FWIW i got a 41% with Obama agreeing on 2 outta 11, and BACHMANN and Newt were tied for SECOND with 33.5% and 1 outta 11.

somehow 2 outta 11 doesnt seem satisfying....

The only thing Bachmann ever said that caught wind with me.... 'The US interest on its debt is enough to pay all the employees of the worlds largest employer.... The Peoples Liberation Army' (Chinese Military).

But she was a wack job too, she was against Federal Student Financial Aid, but she has 28 children, (24 of which she got federal subsides for adopting them.)

 

[dagnabit]

keep in mind thew DEA was created by an executive order from a president.
the dir. of HHS and the AG whom are responsible for scheduling serve at the pleasure of the executive.
the next president will have several scotus appointments to deal with 10th issues.
if not the executive who appoints the directors of and created "the forces that maintain prohibition at the federal level" who then?

 

[dagnabit]

RP:59.1%

 

[ShroomDr]

Has anyone taken this quiz?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/candidate-match-game

The more i play with the sliders, i can move Dr Paul to #1, but it is quite sad. NO one even gets 3 outta 11.

I guess the questions have to be worded like that, for instance, i guess even Obama hasnt taken a stance against Fracking; there is no reason to present the questions option, if none of the candidates are presenting it either...

troubling....

I like my water table without hydrocarbons, call me crazy?

 

[SacredBreh]

Questions?

Questions?

I am really not a doomsday type person.... Ok, well, most of the time.

Does anyone really see anything different from any of the candidates, other than, what we had for the last 30 years?

Can doing anything remotely the same, end in anything but a national and most likely international melt down of the present currency?

If all the infusions (increased leveraged debt), as ShroomDr calls them, have not done any good do you see any candidate's stance as making a significant impact on the impending crisis?

Even with unemployment magically transformed into jobs would that even remotely help?

Does anyone doubt a crisis like we have never seen before?

Peace

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

... Does anyone doubt a crisis like we have never seen before?

Peace

Does anyone doubt a monetary system that no other country on the planet uses?

 

[CannaBunkerMan]

Has anyone taken this quiz?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/candidate-match-game

It has limited usefulness since the questions are so limited, but its interesting nonetheless.

Ron Paul on the surface seems like the best cannabis-friendly candidate, but I see some problems. I think its very unlikely that major reforms will happen from the president's office, whoever it may be. The forces that maintain prohibition at the federal level--in terms of drug scheduling, DEA funding and enforcement, and national legislation--are so many that even the most militant advocate will find the task impossible once in office. It seems much more likely to me that the best reforms will continue to happen at state and local levels, forcing the federal government's hand at some point down the road when the weight of advocacy from more local levels becomes no longer manageable (at the moment its manageable) by the fed.

If I thought it more likely that Paul could help the cause effectively at the federal level, I might become a one-issue voter and support him. But given that I don't see it likely, I have too many other issues with Paul that I can't overlook. For example, he's made some really odd comments about climate science that reveal him not to be the sane and rational politician he purports to be on the surface.

I'm open to hearing more from Paul advocates though, and I'll be following along.

Just curious, why is it that RP's shadow is the only one that looks like sloth from The Goonies?

Not Ron Paul:

Ron Paul:

 

[ShroomDr]

State of the Union tonight in 40 minutes.

Heard Prez is going to make the case for rich to pay more taxes, Fox news is currently tearing him apart.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

So much for the president taking the opportunity to bash rich people.