100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Ron Paul Senator from Texas | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Ron Paul has been a steady voice of reason... But his delivery fell on deaf ears because he was bucking the system. However he will never be more than a 'nut case' as far as mainstream politics is concerned. because he is a bit extreme in the rest of his views. Extreme? Not really. I WISH he were extreme, but he's more conservative than libertarian. Better than nothing, tho. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Sat 02/19/11 11:30 PM
|
|
Paul's proposed a number of court-stripping measures, shutting the courthouse door to discrimination suits based on sexual discrimination;
he's tried to prohibit the government from mandating a minimum wage; he's tried to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act, which guarantees that workers on federal projects be paid a prevailing wage, and the Copeland Act, which bars kick-backs on federal projects; he has proposed freezing Social Security benefit levels and making the program fully optional, which would effectively destroy it; he has opposed measures that promote more voter participation; he would repeal key parts of American anti-trust law, gutting it; he's tried to deauthorize most federal agencies' regulatory powers; he's tried to eliminate all affirmative action programs; he's proposed altering the 14th Amendment to prohibit the children of immigrants from gaining citizenship; he's proposed eliminating or gutting a variety of environmental legislation; he's tried to kill the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and submitted legislation that would pull the United States out of the United Nations 12 different times; he has tried to eradicate the Department of Education, offered legislation to end federal involvement in educating kids; and he has proposed, at various times, the abolition of most taxes on wealth as well as income and the establishment of a flat tax. All of this is legislation that he not only supported, but proposed or co-sponsored. Very Extreme! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The best thing he could do for America is win the Republican nomination for President in 2012!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
boredinaz06
on
Sat 02/19/11 11:46 PM
|
|
he has opposed measures that promote more voter participation;
he has opposed measures that promote more voter participation; he's proposed altering the 14th Amendment to prohibit the children of immigrants from gaining citizenship; he's tried to kill the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and submitted legislation that would pull the United States out of the United Nations 12 different times; he has tried to eradicate the Department of Education, offered legislation to end federal involvement in educating kids; and he has proposed, at various times, the abolition of most taxes on wealth as well as income and the establishment of a flat tax. I agree with what he says on these issues. Now if he would attack the money in DC and propose legislation to abolish lobbyists, that would ****in rock! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AdventureBegins
on
Sun 02/20/11 08:18 AM
|
|
Ron Paul has been a steady voice of reason... But his delivery fell on deaf ears because he was bucking the system. However he will never be more than a 'nut case' as far as mainstream politics is concerned. because he is a bit extreme in the rest of his views. Extreme? Not really. I WISH he were extreme, but he's more conservative than libertarian. Better than nothing, tho. If you measure the perception of all citizens by percentage across the the population of the United States you get a nice bell curve (most of the time) of what all citizens consider proper and 'just' governance. The majority of that population falls within the range of the 'hump' of such a curve and accounts for roughly 60% of the population. This 60% 'bell' contains a nicly distrubited 1 third Liberals, 1 third Centerists, and 1 third Conservatives... The other 40% percent of the population falls either on the EXTREME LEFT... or the EXTREME RIGHT. Ron Paul (by statements and actions) falls at roughly the middle of the EXTREME RIGHT. as a cross example... Senator Reid (by statements and actions) falls at roughly the mid part of the EXTREME LEFT. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Paul has been a steady voice of reason... But his delivery fell on deaf ears because he was bucking the system. However he will never be more than a 'nut case' as far as mainstream politics is concerned. because he is a bit extreme in the rest of his views. Extreme? Not really. I WISH he were extreme, but he's more conservative than libertarian. Better than nothing, tho. If you measure the perception of all citizens by percentage across the the population of the United States you get a nice bell curve (most of the time) of what all citizens consider proper and 'just' governance. The majority of that population falls within the range of the 'hump' of such a curve and accounts for roughly 60% of the population. This 60% 'bell' contains a nicly distrubited 1 third Liberals, 1 third Centerists, and 1 third Conservatives... The other 40% percent of the population falls either on the EXTREME LEFT... or the EXTREME RIGHT. Ron Paul (by statements and actions) falls at roughly the middle of the EXTREME RIGHT. as a cross example... Senator Reid (by statements and actions) falls at roughly the mid part of the EXTREME LEFT. "Extreme right"? LOL! First of all, libertarianism is neither left nor right, and secondly, Ron's views have much more in common with classical liberalism ala Bastiat, Mises, Jefferson, et. al. than the modern "Right" or "Left" (a false dichotomy anyway). This is one big reasons that he was mostly ignored until he became widely popular during the 2007-8 campaign and why he has appeal to people throughout the political spectrum. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simplified version of 'right/left'...
Extreme left - total government. Extreme right - No government. aye... Ron Paul falls to the mid part of the Extreme Right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
heavenlyboy34
on
Sun 02/20/11 09:06 AM
|
|
Simplified version of 'right/left'... Extreme left - total government. Extreme right - No government. aye... Ron Paul falls to the mid part of the Extreme Right. That's not the simplified version of "left/right". (it's a common myth, though) The proper definition of it in the modern era is extreme left=utopian socialism, extreme right=fascism. Both of these necessitate total government, but different styles. Anarchists (no government) don't fit into the traditional spectrum at all. They fit into the broad category of libertarianism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simplified version of 'right/left'... Extreme left - total government. Extreme right - No government. aye... Ron Paul falls to the mid part of the Extreme Right. That's not the simplified version of "left/right". (it's a common myth, though) The proper definition of it in the modern era is extreme left=utopian socialism, extreme right=fascism. Both of these necessitate total government, but different styles. Anarchists (no government) don't fit into the traditional spectrum at all. They fit into the broad category of libertarianism. Dude I am not a 'proper' person... and what I posted above is the 'model' I use when I feed polling (and other) data into an analysis... Moreover my 'analysis' has been very accurate (more so than the pollsters) when I reference actuall events back to the 'analysis'. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simplified version of 'right/left'... Extreme left - total government. Extreme right - No government. aye... Ron Paul falls to the mid part of the Extreme Right. That's not the simplified version of "left/right". (it's a common myth, though) The proper definition of it in the modern era is extreme left=utopian socialism, extreme right=fascism. Both of these necessitate total government, but different styles. Anarchists (no government) don't fit into the traditional spectrum at all. They fit into the broad category of libertarianism. Dude I am not a 'proper' person... and what I posted above is the 'model' I use when I feed polling (and other) data into an analysis... Moreover my 'analysis' has been very accurate (more so than the pollsters) when I reference actuall events back to the 'analysis'. At least you admit that you don't understand the subject. Although you may feel that your analysis is correct in comparison to the subjective opinions of pollsters, it is incorrect relative to objective history. This is one of many reasons I don't pay much attention to polls. Hardly any pollsters use a truly scientific method anymore. One can be more accurate than most pollsters simply by charting historical trends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simplified version of 'right/left'... Extreme left - total government. Extreme right - No government. aye... Ron Paul falls to the mid part of the Extreme Right. That's not the simplified version of "left/right". (it's a common myth, though) The proper definition of it in the modern era is extreme left=utopian socialism, extreme right=fascism. Both of these necessitate total government, but different styles. Anarchists (no government) don't fit into the traditional spectrum at all. They fit into the broad category of libertarianism. Dude I am not a 'proper' person... and what I posted above is the 'model' I use when I feed polling (and other) data into an analysis... Moreover my 'analysis' has been very accurate (more so than the pollsters) when I reference actuall events back to the 'analysis'. At least you admit that you don't understand the subject. Although you may feel that your analysis is correct in comparison to the subjective opinions of pollsters, it is incorrect relative to objective history. This is one of many reasons I don't pay much attention to polls. Hardly any pollsters use a truly scientific method anymore. One can be more accurate than most pollsters simply by charting historical trends. Where did you get that I don't understand the subject? My analysis is not 'correct' in comparison to the pollsters... in fact it most often put their 'expert opinions' where they belong... in the trash heap. Realitive to actual history in the past three years I have been right on nearly every point of my analysis... yet my analysis is ahead of the actual events... Sometimes by as much as three months. but of course most simply ignore it... When they see it... Because my analysis does not follow the standards used by the 'experts'. What now brown cow. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
KerryO
on
Sun 02/20/11 04:11 PM
|
|
Ron has never advocated the quasi-free (fascist) market system. He has talked about sound money, but he has also said that free market monetary systems are superior. A truly free market develops spontaneously as voluntary interactions between market actors. "just say no" (your words-a more proper, accurate term is "laissez-faire") is in fact the best system. Numerous economists, historians, and praxaeologists have demonstrated this. [\quote] Bollocks. HISTORY has demonstrated that, left to its own devices, the system will, in a cyclic manner, go off the rails in boom and bust cycles. If you REALLY want a valid economic principle that you can take to the bank, forget Lew Rockwell, Paul, Rand, Mises and all the rest and go with this one: Trees never grow into heaven. When someone tells you that something is so all-fired wonderful that there's no end in site? The End, at least of that cycle, is just around the corner. If you really believe that the "free market" exploded GM, you don't know your history. The failure of GM was a massive, disgusting display of corporatism (so far removed from capitalism it's not even funny). (See DeCoster/Englund's analysis here-http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster133.html, North's here-http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north370.html, and Reisman's here-http://blog.mises.org/10066/general-motors-rip/ ) [\quote] No, I don't need to read Gary North's outgassings. He's a religious kook. If ANY of these guys were the Oracles they claim to be, they'd be quietly getting filthy rich prognosticating where the market is going, NOT cranking on the Internet to a miniscule audience of True Believers. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
which is why I don't post my work on here. It has value elsewhere. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now if he would attack the money in DC and propose legislation to abolish lobbyists, that would ****in rock! Obama did! Then the Pubes sued in the SC and had all restrictions on lobbyist lifted. Even those against lobbying by foreign corporations. Did you support him? Now foreign corporations have more power in our government than we do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balderdash...
More than 40 former lobbyists work in senior positions in the Obama administration... Politicians have a tendency to put forth something they don't want knowing it will be defeated. It happens all the time. It makes them look good to the voters while not actually damaging the status quo. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please list all the things Ron Paul stood on the Senate Floor begging them to listen like well all the way back to the Patriot act to in 2006 about the Budget and where t5his country was heading if they did not act now. Looney Ron Paul is a Congressman not a Senator. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ron has never advocated the quasi-free (fascist) market system. He has talked about sound money, but he has also said that free market monetary systems are superior. A truly free market develops spontaneously as voluntary interactions between market actors. "just say no" (your words-a more proper, accurate term is "laissez-faire") is in fact the best system. Numerous economists, historians, and praxaeologists have demonstrated this. [\quote] Bollocks. HISTORY has demonstrated that, left to its own devices, the system will, in a cyclic manner, go off the rails in boom and bust cycles. If you REALLY want a valid economic principle that you can take to the bank, forget Lew Rockwell, Paul, Rand, Mises and all the rest and go with this one: Trees never grow into heaven. When someone tells you that something is so all-fired wonderful that there's no end in site? The End, at least of that cycle, is just around the corner. If you really believe that the "free market" exploded GM, you don't know your history. The failure of GM was a massive, disgusting display of corporatism (so far removed from capitalism it's not even funny). (See DeCoster/Englund's analysis here-http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster133.html, North's here-http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north370.html, and Reisman's here-http://blog.mises.org/10066/general-motors-rip/ ) [\quote] No, I don't need to read Gary North's outgassings. He's a religious kook. If ANY of these guys were the Oracles they claim to be, they'd be quietly getting filthy rich prognosticating where the market is going, NOT cranking on the Internet to a miniscule audience of True Believers. -Kerry O. Who claimed to be an "oracle"? They apply sound economic theory and make accurate forecasts (as accurate as one can be considering the nature of the world), but making EXACT predictions of the future is not their business (this is the business of Keynesian monetary cranks and establishment politicians). And FYI, they aren't just "cranking on the internet". Their books and articles have been published for peer review. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please list all the things Ron Paul stood on the Senate Floor begging them to listen like well all the way back to the Patriot act to in 2006 about the Budget and where t5his country was heading if they did not act now. Looney Ron Paul is a Congressman not a Senator. "Looney"? So, anyone who disputes your point of view is "looney"? I personally disagree with him on several issues, but he certainly isn't "looney". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please list all the things Ron Paul stood on the Senate Floor begging them to listen like well all the way back to the Patriot act to in 2006 about the Budget and where t5his country was heading if they did not act now. Looney Ron Paul is a Congressman not a Senator. "Looney"? So, anyone who disputes your point of view is "looney"? I personally disagree with him on several issues, but he certainly isn't "looney". Nope, just someone who is certifiably insane and paranoid. |
|
|
|
|
