Ron Paul...Ugh, will he ever grow up?

[Pa(b)st Prime]

I was a Paul contributor (2002) before 99% of ET knew who he was.

Palin, Paul and Pat Buchanan trade at around a 95% serial correlation.

In fact-and I had an associate work high level on her campaign-the GOP was concerned that if Paul had indeed run Third Party that he was going to pick her as Veep and the Paul/Palin combo would render McCain's chances to zero. Many believe that if Sarah herself didn't vote for Paul in the Alaska primary-most certainly her husband did.

Palin is as close as you'll ever get to a Ron Paul type on a national ticket.

Use your heads. If Big Left Media didn't look upon her as an anti-Federal government, anti-up Israel's ass candidate then the attacks on her would've been minimal. Like Biden's not a kook?

Whoever the Leftist Media is against is who I'm for. The day Olberman or the NYT run a puff piece on Palin is the day I look somewhere else. I'm not worried though. That day will never come.

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

How's this for a novel idea. Don't borrow money from someone else and you won't need worry about what return they want on THEIR capital.

I'll give you a clue. Credit card lenders know that folks with truly pristine finances, pay down their balances.

If you don't like it then pay cash for dinner, rent your residence and drive a beater. That dynamic worked here for generations, eh?

Quote from Sandybestdog:

Oh my gosh what a typical stupid Republican response. You’d much rather have the big rich multinational corporations and the Fed control everything than God forbid the government step in and set some rules. Credit cards jacking the interest rates to 25% on people with perfect payment history, oh no we don’t want any government control of that. Reckless mortgage company’s, oh no that’s the free market, we can’t mess with that. Why don’t you stop listening to Sean Hannity with all your little textbook market theory’s and get back into the real world for a change?

 

[gigsup]

Quote from Sandybestdog:

Oh my gosh what a typical stupid Republican response. You’d much rather have the big rich multinational corporations and the Fed control everything than God forbid the government step in and set some rules. Credit cards jacking the interest rates to 25% on people with perfect payment history, oh no we don’t want any government control of that. Reckless mortgage company’s, oh no that’s the free market, we can’t mess with that. Why don’t you stop listening to Sean Hannity with all your little textbook market theory’s and get back into the real world for a change?

I am older than Sean Hannity and have seen a hell of a lot
more go down in this country than either you(assuming you
are below 40) and him.

I am well aware that regulation has progressively become
more lax since the 80's.

This administration is using that weakness to grab even
more power beyond what is necessary, something that
appears to be going over your head.

 

[insider trading]

I like Ron Paul believe in a free market,But it has to be all the way free.Bush's idea of a free market was no regulation,let them be free and reckless,but when they fail bail them out

In a free market there is no bail outs,if you fail you fail and someone else will replace you and do a better job by learning from the mistakes of those who failed.

If you want the goverment to save you when you fail then you have to have gov regulation

 

[gigsup]

Quote from insider trading:

I like Ron Paul believe in a free market,But it has to be all the way free.Bush's idea of a free market was no regulation,let them be free and reckless,but when they fail bail them out

In a free market there is no bail outs,if you fail you fail and someone else will replace you and do a better job by learning from the mistakes of those who failed.

If you want the goverment to save you when you fail then you have to have gov regulation

Of course, you just don't want it to go too far and that is

precisely what is happening. A power grab by a bunch of low-

lifes.

 

[ARealGannTrader]

Quote from gigsup:

I am older than Sean Hannity and have seen a hell of a lot
more go down in this country than either you(assuming you
are below 40) and him.

I am well aware that regulation has progressively become
more lax since the 80's.

This administration is using that weakness to grab even
more power beyond what is necessary, something that
appears to be going over your head.

If ur over 50, gigs, then u would have to know that the position the party of Rush has taken is untenable.

U guys are attacking the man.

This is a critical error.

Attack the plan, praise the man. That is how u defeat a cult of personality.

If u attack the man, ur attacking everyone who voted for the man, and that means there is no way to win. Few voted for the plan, because they didn't know what the plan was.

Hannity, Rush, et al are digging a grave for the pubs.

 

[NeoRio1]

Quote from a_person:

It's a shame that you and Ron Paul are stuck in the 18th century. The world has moved on, its a totally different place in every respect and what might have worked then is hopelessly obsolete now.

Besides you're not that correct either, while there indeed was no resolutions during the French revolution, the American political elite and political parties did take sides...

"Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson became the leader of the pro-French Democratic-Republican party that celebrated the republican ideals of the French Revolution. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton led the Federalist Party, which viewed the Revolution with skepticism and sought to preserve existing commercial ties with Great Britain. With the two most powerful members of his cabinet locked in mutual opposition, President George Washington tried to strike a balance between the two."
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/nr/88108.htm

In this case there is no division, the entire population of the US and both political parties are siding with the demonstrators... that is with the exception of Ron Paul of course.

So your saying the definition of government now is not what it was in the 18th century?

Two main things have changed sense the 18th century when it comes to the government. One is the massive increase in government power and the second is the increase in tax rates.

How do you know a truly conservative government with low taxes that abides by the constitution is Obsolete? You have never seen one...

 

[Cutten]

Quote from a_person:

The resolution did not take sides, it condemned violence against demonstrators.

The resolution expressed support for "all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and rule of law" and affirms "the importance of democratic and fair elections." Lawmakers also condemn what they call "the ongoing violence" by the government and pro-government militias against demonstrators, and the Iranian government's "suppression of independent electronic communications through interference with the Internet and cell phones."

Come on Ron Paul, this should have been a no-brainer.

You assume the role of government is to pass resolutions expressing opinions. Ron Paul doesn't think that's an appropriate role for the government.

 

[Scataphagos]

Quote from NeoRio1:

"... Two main things have changed sense the 18th century when it comes to the government. One is the massive increase in government power and the second is the increase in tax rates.

How do you know a truly conservative government with low taxes that abides by the constitution is Obsolete? You have never seen one...

Think about all of the governments you've ever read about or currently experienced.

In virtually every case, it's a matter of "government first, government most important... the people's [apparent] function is to support the government".

America in the 18th century was a grand experiment. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"... Rule of law, limited government power and influence in people's lives. The Founding Fathers tried their best to assure our way of life could be defended and maintained. They gave us a Constitution... and guarantees granted by a Bill of Rights.

Yet, over the last 200 years.... the Power desires and the nature of government have chewed at and eroded all of the Constitution's promises and guarantees.

Therefore... what we have today in the USA is similar to all government-centric societies in the past and present.

Without revolution, America will become just another oligarchy with a huge proportion of peasants.... depending upon the government for handouts and subsistence.

 

[NeoRio1]

Quote from ARealGannTrader:

If ur over 50, gigs, then u would have to know that the position the party of Rush has taken is untenable.

U guys are attacking the man.

This is a critical error.

Attack the plan, praise the man. That is how u defeat a cult of personality.

If u attack the man, ur attacking everyone who voted for the man, and that means there is no way to win. Few voted for the plan, because they didn't know what the plan was.

Hannity, Rush, et al are digging a grave for the pubs.

You're blowing things out of proportion.

Lets look at the average person who is not heavily biased when it comes to politics. It would be fair to say that those people make up the majority of the country. This average person voted for Obama because he thought he seemed like a good guy. After all the majority of people vote for candidates based on first impressions. Also he voted for Obama because he was associated with the opposite party that was currently in control. He did this because of course the country was currently in trouble. Now this average person all of a sudden listens to Limbaugh one day on the radio when he's driving. Limbaugh as usual is going off on Obama. This man will either agree with Limabaugh or disagree. If he agrees then he will most likely have a different attitude towards Obama in the future. If he disagrees with Limabaugh than he will most likely have a negative attitude towards limbaugh in the future. The average person will not all of a sudden despise an entire party because of one loud mouth who is related to that party.

The average person will not correlate Limbaugh with an entire party because unlike biased people normal people care about one thing when it comes to politics. They care about what policies the political system creates that either negatively or positively affects their own lives. Just look at how the unemployed have voted in the last 100 years. It doesn't matter which party caters more to the unemployed. The unemployed will always vote for the party not in power because of their current position in life.

In a democracy the importance and political impact of "talk" is minuscule compared to how people interpret the affect of the political system when it comes to their own lives.