Author Topic: who are you voting for?  (Read 1860 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3561
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #58 on: January 28, 2012, 02:28:04 PM »
I know that you didn’t ask me, and I am new to these forums.  But may I offer up my personal experiences with what you call “the defining features of a third world country?” 

<clip>

Every single Republican candidate is proposing policies that would continue to whittle away at these systems and services, and the very infrastructure that we all depend upon without even thinking about. 

<snip>


Welcome to the forum Quesi.  Yes, posts on this forum, unless specified as a formal debate are always open for response by anyone.
If you see something you'd like to respond to feel free to jump right in.

That was a reasonable breakdown of the third world.  The thing you didn't mention is that most of them also have a fairly steep income disparity gap.
There really isn't a reliable way to get from poor to rich, and the middle is mostly non-existent.  It's the middle class, that appears to be the most important factor.  Does the government serve that middle, or the wealthy few?

This highlights a lot of the problems with modern Conservative politics.  The things they're trying to slash under the guise of fiscal conservatism, or calling 'Socialist' are many of the very things that differentiate us from third world countries.  Dr. Paul is the most blatant about it, but all of the modern field echoes the same sentiments to one degree or another.  NONE of them have addressed the income disparity issue.

In the headlong rush and fear of Socialism they've forgotten that they themselves are shifting away from democracy toward a Plutocratic Republic.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #59 on: January 28, 2012, 03:07:24 PM »
In the headlong rush and fear of Socialism they've forgotten that they themselves are shifting away from democracy toward a Plutocratic Republic.

In many ways is it not true that we already have and have had for some time what can best be described as a plutocratic democracy where the wealthy and influencial rule the day and policy is determined my the most vocal majority within the class of the wealthy and politically influencial?
For the masses, our government is a respresentative republic in a America, but within the ranks of the elected representatives, there is a democratic "mob rule" structure that is greatly influenced by various idealologies of not only the representatives, but mainly by the idealologies and interests of those powerful enough and financially capable of influencing the elected reps. That is why the lobbiests with the most cash and clout tend to prevail over lobbying groups that may actually have better ideas, solutions, and more pressing needs than the rich and powerful.
The public has been forced into blindly participating in a shell game designed to garner more and more power for the already wealthy and powerful. Those individuals constantly solicit our participation in their game by positioning themselves a benefactors that work in a quid-pro-quo manner as they "help" the masses to insure that the masses are can remain in play to be manipulated into backing X Rich and Influential Entity so that X Entity can grow and maintain it power and influence. In many ways it would appear that the citizen is ultimately no more than fodder being used to fight a battle for power and control the citizen is not even aware exists. 

Offline pingnak

Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #60 on: January 28, 2012, 03:55:05 PM »
And here I though we were in a state of corporatism.

After all, aren't corporations 'people', and deserving of every right and privilege of a citizen, including funneling unlimited funds into political campaigns?  The supreme court said so.

Offline Death over Life

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 675
  • Darwins +25/-4
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #61 on: January 28, 2012, 10:57:23 PM »
Gave me a ton to reply to, so I’ll have to go at it little bit by little bit.

He's got a plan.  But the plan consists of the sort of cuts that would, as screwtape said, be pretty catastrophic if implemented. 

Some of them like Social Security would at first, but what exactly would be catastrophic about foreign aid or homeland security? What is bad about removing the irs? A lot of these ideals within our government were implemented less than 100 years ago, so in a way, like the federal reserve, they are still new.

Luckily we'll never have to find out since these are also cuts that, in their totality, have no real support from any corner of Washington or from the public more broadly.

Valid point. It is a good reason why I do wish to research as to who supports Paul’s views.

With that in mind, I'm not sure that it's right to say that he's actually interested in shrinking our debt.  At best, I think it would be fair to say that he's been interested in changing the way we talk about the issue, which is a step in the same direction but not quite the same thing.

So from my perspective, I ask how do you know?  I am going by what he spouts, not by a thought.

See, people that are serious about changing things tend to actually build coalitions and get things passed, often times incrementally.  Ron Paul hasn't been interested in that.  It's no surprise then that he is one of the least accomplished legislaters in the House despite his long tenure.  Don't get me wrong though, I don't think that's even necessarily a knock against him.  I think that he sees what he's been doing as sort of laying the necessary intellectual ground work to make it possible for current and future politicians to change things--his son in particular.  And that's fine but it's not really the same as being the only one on the stage serious about debt reduction as you seem to want to frame it.

I was going to have a post on this, but taking this in as a whole, I agree.  There are some points I would disagree with, but it’s pointless semantics. A big reason why He is still doing what he is doing, as he said so many times is to “spread the message”. A big thing of interest though is in him spreading the message, he is causing the other candidates to re-approach the topics that the rest of the Pubs seem so gung-ho on.

Like everyone else, he's only serious about the idea of debt reduction.

From what within his records has shown this? What do you have to prove this per say?


I don't.  As a person of color I look at this issue with a particular concern in mind.  The states have proven historically and continue to prove that the notion that states rights will somehow translate into a freer citizenry is fundamentally flawed.  You can see it when you look back at poll tests and taxes prior to the Voting Rights Act and you can see it in these new voter ID laws, which are aimed at supressing minority turn out in the name of fighting the almost non-existent crime of voter fraud.  This is not to say that the federal government can't do bad things too.  It does.  I just don't buy the argument that we ought to leave everything to the states.

Very True. Indeed there is corruption from all abroad. What I do want from within the state rights, is more of a say in how the govt. is run. These politicians that are supposed to represent us, do not represent us, so they go in and do whatever they want.

Whether or not this is good or bad, I am willing to take the risk. Under the current system of govt. things are just going to be the same and only get worse. It is a saying about scientists, do not do the same thing over and over expecting different results.

I see Obama, Gingrinch, and Romney as more of the same. I see Santorum as a guy who needs to see a doctor.

The only guy who brings “change” is Paul, because as you see, we are arguing over how much of a difference he will make or lack thereof in our govt. No other candidate is being talked about over any of this.


A couple of things here.  To begin with, I just don't think that our national debt is the most important issue we're facing right now.  It's an issue in the short term only insofar as creditors believe or don't believe that we'll eventually get our house in order.  In the mean time, folks seem to think that US treasury bonds are a safe bet and are therefore willing to finance our debt for the time being.  With that being the case, I just don't think you can justify treating our debt as our first priority.  There are more pressing matters. 

Mind naming a few?


And really, I think that if we're serious about reducing our debt, foreign aid is a bad place to start. 

On the subject of foreign aid. A big reason why to get rid of it, is to get back on track with the money. Even take monetary budget out of the equation, this is my question. Why is the USA obsessed with helping the poor of the entire planet when it gives it’s own people the finger in terms of help?

We talk a lot about Africa (very valid, and keep talking about it to raise awareness), but I think that we in helping out everybody else, we forget those exact same people are actually living in our own backyards, yet we give no aid to them, except through volunteer services only. So, if we have to volunteer to help out others, why do we need the federal government to help out others while shunning our own?


It's a drop in the bucket of the federal budget.  In the immediate term, reducing the unemployment rate would be perhaps the single most effective thing we could do to move our budget into balance.  And if that's our goal, we'd do well to do a bit of deficit spending.

This I do agree on. However, this is a problem that no candidate can solve (maybe except Obama). I am describing my own back yard, so if there is a different kind of situation in the area, I’m not talking about it. Where I am around, the problem isn’t unemployment, but the fact that everybody that has a job, has to have 2 or 3 jobs to survive. This isn’t 1 or 2 people, this is literally almost everybody. The problem to this, is the fact that nobody wants to pay any of the workers for the hard work they do, never mind are the reason they even have the money to begin with. If we could have a minimum wage that means minimum amount needed to have a decent life, and thus in turn caused everybody to work 1 job instead of 2 or 3, the amount of jobs that would open up could be astronomical and there would be a greater incentive of reducing unemployment. I do know that could be hard on some companies, which I don’t know about how to solve that I admit. But companies like Wal-Mart and McDonalds, they need to just suck it up and stop abusing people for their vast profits.

I am moving the third world country remark as I still owe MadBunny an explanation, and the fact that it goes with such, I think it would be better to put it together instead of going back and forth.


If he doesn't think that he is going to be able to do this overnight, why is he advertising his plan to do this overnight as a selling point?

I haven’t heard him outright say that he would immediately cut such and such overnight. I know he said cut 1 trillion in national debt in the 1st year. That’s about it. I’ve heard him specifically say cut, but never attributed a length of time. Since there is so much going on, I may have missed something. Mind showing me 1 video just to make sure and possibly correct me?


 And if you know that he doesn't plan on doing this overnight, then why are you crediting him for saying that he has a plan to do this overnight?

Mind showing me the post where I said He was going to do this overnight?


To begin with, the fact that you felt the need to rebut screwtape's post demonstrates that this point is false.  There are plenty of places where we dreaded Ron Paul haters can disagree with him pointedly. 

This may be true, but it is always portrayed as bigotry. Saying things like odd-ball and quack don’t indicate any of his policies or views. Calling Santorum a theocrat or pope directly shows you what he plans on doing in office. Calling Romney a flip-flopper implies that he says anything and everything to get people behind him just to get a vote. Gingrinch also follows that, but calling him a serial adulterer and his political records, show him as very untrustworthy. To maybe get the point across instead of just saying racist, say something like what screwtape said as well as what you said below, Paul is pro-civil war, or something of the sort to make it seem like it is not blind hatred.


The long and short of it for me is this.  Ron Paul seems to want to live in a pre-New Deal, pre-Civil Rights legislation America.  I don't want to live in that America.  My black ass couldn't vote in that America.

Back then, the blacks didn’t have rights, and nowadays, they do. It is a great concern that there are people trying to run in office today that are trying to take your rights and women’s rights away. And that is a great idea about Ron Paul’s idea.

I have said it in the past about RP’s ideas are going to cause us to need to speak up and make a difference instead of more relaxed like we are now. With the way the National Government is, let’s be honest, we have next to no say in anything that goes. If we really did, the Patriot Act wouldn’t have been passed twice, neither would No Child Left Behind, nor the new NDAA. We still have a fear that either SOPA/PIPA or even ACTA will pass despite our voices.

With this being said, this is what I feel about Paul’s ideas on a strong state government. The Truth is, our government nowadays is about government being a huge part of our lives. That is not where we need to continue. What we need is for us to be a huge part of the government’s life. That’s what it’s supposed to be, but it has left that ideal a long time ago. For better or worse, I am willing to give the strong state government, weak federal government a chance. At worst, it would be only 4 years, or less depending upon impeachment etc.


More importantly, I really fail to see how this is a "stupid claim."  What exactly is stupid about the claim?  Is it untrue?

First off, to begin, to just spout Paul is a racist, is to simply accept what some of the anti-Paul people have been saying. That is fine, because those that usually do, are uneducated about it. So, the anti-Paul people go and pull up the ads written by somebody else well over 20 years ago. Now you have a valid claim that Paul needs to answer. Paul answers, not only very boldly and honestly, but has also showed that the opposite is true and I’m sorry to say, but also show nobody is perfect. Now that the rebuttal has been shown, instead of explaining the rebuttal and how it is incorrect, we go all the way back to square 1, and now instead of claiming uneducated, it’s now ignorance. If you don’t like what Paul had to say about the claims, instead of just putting the fingers in ears and calling racist, why not attack the rebuttal?

Let us say he is still racist as a hypothesis. Since most of the military is behind him, and since there are a lot of black people in and not in the military supporting Paul, does that make the black people racist against themselves? Why or why not?


It wasn't one racist claim in a magazine.  It was a series of racist magazines.  It was years and years worth of bile preaching impending race wars, misinformation about homosexuals, AIDs, anti-Jewish conspiracy theories etc. 

Mind specifically pointing which magazine prints? The only one anybody has said is about the blacks in LA.


And Ron Paul made a hefty profit from it.  The idea that I should excuse it or ignore it because it was written by someone else just doesn't make a lot of sense as a defense. 

Then, guilty by association should still be a valid way of persecuting criminals or would-be criminals then. Me being around black people doesn’t make me a black person. Me wearing blue doesn’t make me a Crip. Me owning a copy of Mein Kampf doesn’t make me a neo-Nazi. However, I am all the above, just because I’m around it, which is guilty by association, which I honestly view as a fallible accusation. It’s not a bad defense that’s the problem. The problem is the racist claim from the get go is a weak attack once everything is put into perspective and is solely a claim of ignorance to drift away from the issues that we are facing today.


Going back to my previous post, that just means that he either 1.) approved of this or he 2.) was unable to control what went out under his name.  Neither possibility really makes me pine for a Ron Paul presidency.

Paul has already stated it wasn’t him, so it has to be #2. I don’t view this as a slash against Paul because this thing happens all the time. Just look at the music, the movie, and all the other forms of entertainment industry out there. Despite it being in their name, the artists, authors, and directors, don’t get the final say in what goes on in their artwork. Usually the only way that they do, is if they are in a more underground kind of industry instead of being involved with the giant corporations. To say that it’s Paul’s fault that racism got into his magazine is like saying it’s Shaffer’s fault that the Pentagon censored his book Operation Dark Heart.


On a side note, Obama promised to veto a version of the NDAA because of a provision in the bill that would have forced his administration to turn terrorism supsects over to military custody.  The language of the bill was changed to accomidate this.  He signed the bill.  You can debate whether or not he should have signed the bill, which everyone should remember funded the entire military, but on this one, I don't think it's right to say he flip flopped.

So yeah....nah...


Peace and Love

He didn’t flip-flop. He compromised. I’m not calling him Romney now. I can’t completely blame all of it on Obama since this was the Republicans who did the atrocity to begin with. What get’s me is the direct lie to the people.

In continuation on voting, if it isn’t Obama vs. Paul, then I am going to vote for Obama. In addition, I at least think that Obama vs. Paul would at least be an interesting turn for Presidential candidacy as opposed to any of the other Repub candidates. I’m not even talking about wins and losses here, I am just referencing the debates themselves.

And since so many put up some replies, it's going to take me a little bit to reply to, so be patient if there is something anybody wants answered.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3561
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #62 on: January 28, 2012, 11:48:06 PM »
And since so many put up some replies, it's going to take me a little bit to reply to, so be patient if there is something anybody wants answered.

I tried to keep it simple, but I would like to know your thoughts on this:

If you don’t want them cut so badly, then I recommend start spending your money on that national debt that is going to remove all of that and more because we can’t pay our debt off and is going to make USA bankrupt and a third-world country eventually.


I'm curious, Death Over Life.

Can you tell me what the defining features of a third world country are?
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline shnozzola

Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #63 on: January 29, 2012, 10:17:34 AM »
Regionalization of government is something that should be more strongly considered.
Just a thought here - It is interesting the way we bash the federal government.  I noted in another thread  that a local township officer, admitting that taxes had to be raised, received death threats.  So the Twp will tend to expect the state to raise the taxes for local grants for work that locals refuse to pay for, and the states, unable to pay for, well, let’s say all the bridges that need rebuilt, or the many outdated city storm water systems, defer to federal grants and programs, and the federal government, while getting bashed, ends up printing the money to do the things that need done that no one wants to pay for.  Oh, we cry, why should the federal government continue to raise taxes – that’s why – easier to blame Washington than see the township supervisor get death threats.

The eurozone, the world economy, the previous government, even bad weather.

Frank, it seems to me that the US wall street derivatives / mortgages / Lehman Bros. , etc. investments meltdown is the main cause of the world economic crises.  Do you agree?  Or does Europe view the Greece / Italy / Spain economic problems unrelated to the US and the main drag on the UK / Europe economy?
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +658/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #64 on: January 29, 2012, 04:32:30 PM »
Death Over Life,

Let me back up a step.  Thank you for answering my question.  I should have said that before I got all argumentative.  I do appreciate that you took the time and effort. 

Second, I do get where Paul can seem attractive.  He seems to hold a lot of positions I like too - defunding wars, repealing the patriot act, etc. When it comes to the areas where I disagree with his position, I find him to be so far out of the ballpark that I could not ever vote for him.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Death over Life

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 675
  • Darwins +25/-4
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #65 on: January 29, 2012, 10:06:01 PM »
And since so many put up some replies, it's going to take me a little bit to reply to, so be patient if there is something anybody wants answered.

I tried to keep it simple, but I would like to know your thoughts on this:

If you don’t want them cut so badly, then I recommend start spending your money on that national debt that is going to remove all of that and more because we can’t pay our debt off and is going to make USA bankrupt and a third-world country eventually.


I'm curious, Death Over Life.

Can you tell me what the defining features of a third world country are?

I apologize for not getting to that sooner since you did ask that before Timo.

Concerning third world country, let me post the wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_world_country

Quote
The term Third World arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned with either capitalism and NATO (which along with its allies represented the First World), or communism and the Soviet Union (which along with its allies represented the Second World). This definition provided a way of broadly categorizing the nations of the earth into three groups based on social, political, and economic divisions. Due to many of the Third World countries being extremely poor, it became a stereotype such that people commonly refer to undeveloped countries as "third world countries".[citation needed] Third World countries included most of Africa, Latin America, and Asia. The term is often used in a pejorative way.

Alright. I’m admitting I’m using this as a template. Since there are 2 definitions of such, I’m going to use the latter meaning poor as our future. This idea is coming from 2 different problems in the governmental life, which is the debt, and the infringement of the rights that it took forever to bestow upon whites initially from the Brits, to the blacks, and to the women, and now, to the gays (when they come slowly but surely).

In terms of us being poor, it will be due to the national debt. Although perfectly irrelevant atm, let me post the debt clock from the US National Treasury:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Why the national debt is so important is because of who we owe it to, which is not towards China, but towards the very bank Ron Paul want’s to pretty much eliminate, The Federal Reserve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Bank

What is unique about the Federal Reserve is indeed the fact that the Department of Treasury is the Dept. that prints the money. Despite this, the Federal Reserve is actually a corporate bank. It is a bank owned by a certain amount of individuals, or co-owners. Who they are specifically I have no clue. Now, since they are a bank, they can do just about any and all things all banks do currently. There is no difference between Federal Reserve and Bank of America or Chase or whatever. Now, with the current system of rapid spending we are doing, thus increasing the amount of money we the people owe to this bank as shown above, we are thus eventually going to end up as a broke country.

Since the Fed Reserve is a bank, let us act like the Govt. is a person instead of a government. The Govt. is using a “credit card” to pay for everything, like it is now. We have already come past the expiration date that we owe our money to the Feds. Just like everybody else who can’t pay back their credit card bills, we are now officially in debt. Now, the money that we are getting, needs to go back to the bank we owe the money. Our govt. isn’t doing this, but instead continuing to spend needlessly. It is still not going through the heads, and for the moment, the Federal Reserve is still allowing this. As a person who would never pay back the debt, there will eventually come a time where the bank is going to get pissed and start demanding the money. We haven’t hit that point yet, but if we keep doing what we are doing with the spending, the Federal Reserve legally and by law can bash down the doors and officially say, everything you have now belongs to us. It’s legal, because we owe that money that we aren’t paying back. It may be 20 or even 50 years till that actually happens, but when it happens, you are talking of a literally bankrupt nation in seconds.

Part #2 is the removal of our personal rights. Yes, Bush is the one who started this all with the Patriot Act, but Obama has trickled in the revised NDAA bill. This removal of our rights will not be in our face due to the fact that if it was, you are talking about mass riots out of the blue that will devastate the govt. So, what is going on is the removal of our rights in a cunning sort of way, like 9-11 for the Patriot Act, and  under the table, or "terrorism" for NDAA. It may not even be passed by Obama, but the next step with the next president is of course the SOPA/PIPA/ACTA bills. They are doing this slowly but surely so that way, when they remove the rights, we don’t actually notice anything, so by the time we do realize we’ve lost our rights, it’s to late.

Now, with everybody poor, and nobody has rights anymore (this could happen around the guess of 20-50 years with the Fed bankrupting USA. I admit it’s just a hypothesis and is only a thought) we will have a system of life that is similar to the current Mexico or the starving Africa like we see so much.

If the government is so hell-bent on taking our rights away, what is to eventually stop them from a dictatorship, or theocracy, or Martial Law, or a combination of such? Realistic wise, none of this would happen from a 2nd term Obama election, or any Repub as President, but there are movements today that are trying to achieve this, 7 Mountains movement being one example.

Maybe I’m paranoid, but I’m trying to see our future in a realistic possibility that happens depending upon who becomes President, and whether or not Paul is sane is one question, Paul is indeed the only candidate who is providing an alternative to such atrocious possibilities for America’s future. That is why I mentioned in a reply to Screwtape about none of the other candidates except Paul (not even Obama except for the Military/National Defense) even speak of a reduction of spending or even attempting to take on a debt.

I may be paranoid, but let us say that we continue and eventually the Feds do get fed up? In addition, at the same time, we keep the Patriot Act, the new NDAA bill, and SOPA/PIPA/ACTA and if a Repub becomes president (sans Paul), Homosexuality now being a crime punishable by death, and if Santorum is Pres, non-Christianity essentially being a crime, do you see what I am thinking? That is why I made that comment of USA becoming a third-world country.

Although I have mentioned nothing of it, a form of evidence that does help my case is indeed Social Security, which Paul is letting those who have it keep it, but those who are young like me, can have the option to opt out of it. The problems of social security are so bad atm that in watching all the Republican debates, they are making a pretty big deal out of it, and rightfully so.

So, all this explanation going on, the answer to question in this sentence is a country that is not only poor for the vast majority of the citizens (1% vs. 99%), but has given it’s citizens a lack of freedom. Examples of what I personally classify as a third world country are Mexico and Africa. It was looking into a subject like this did I finally realize, no wonder why so many people are migrating into the USA from Mexico.

Death Over Life,

Let me back up a step.  Thank you for answering my question.  I should have said that before I got all argumentative.  I do appreciate that you took the time and effort. 

Anytime! I do not blame you being argumentative, as I was the exact same way when I made that one post earlier. As long as we do indeed keep it civil and respectful, it is encouraged.

Second, I do get where Paul can seem attractive.  He seems to hold a lot of positions I like too - defunding wars, repealing the patriot act, etc. When it comes to the areas where I disagree with his position, I find him to be so far out of the ballpark that I could not ever vote for him.

I have heard this quite frequently as well. You did tackle on some of this with that list of things he wishes to cut. However, for me, I think there is way more than just cuts that makes him unattractive. Since I am a big supporter of Paul, I honestly don’t see any of it except for a couple like the removal of EPA entirely.

I forgot Paul’s position, but the giving free reign to oil companies I’m also against. I support Obama’s decision in saying NO to XL Keystone Pipeline, because of things the Pubs are doing like stripping away EPA’s power.

Anyways, in not seeing the main gripes about Paul other than fear of possible state-theocracies, and being against removal of many of the Federal govt. programs in place, I would like to be further educated to think about Paul’s stances. Maybe to give me a 2nd look.

Simply saying he is a looney or he has far out there ideas, doesn’t necessarily make me look at him differently. And thanks to the recent 2 debates, I think Newt Gingrinch has that championship label sealed in, especially wanting a colony on the Moon to be the 51st State and wanting to fire workers to make 30 children work their jobs for them at 25 cents an hour. You have mentioned some of why Paul is looney. I encourage you to continue so I can see where everybody is coming from.

And since I am doing a very long post, 1 final thought. Ron Paul's power isn't of his own, but in Congress. We are seeing this power struggle with Obama's Presidency and the Republican House. The key to solving the problems you may have with Paul isn't His presidency if elected, but rather, who is in the House and the Senate. In my opinion, this is why I think it is great to talk about the Presidential Candidates, but it may be just as or even more important to be speaking of our potential Congressmen who will or will not be supporting the President. We tend to concentrate so much on this 1 person, that we sometimes forget that there are 2 different sects of Congress that has to approve of something before it is even brought up to the President.

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1316
  • Darwins +102/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #66 on: January 29, 2012, 11:00:15 PM »
Peace.  I know this is a lot to chew on.  Take your time responding, fam.

Some of them like Social Security would at first, but what exactly would be catastrophic about foreign aid or homeland security? What is bad about removing the irs? A lot of these ideals within our government were implemented less than 100 years ago, so in a way, like the federal reserve, they are still new.

I'm talking about the effects of these cuts in their totality.  So I'm not sure how commenting on the relative newness of the Federal Reserve or the Department of Homeland Security relates to this point.  (And besides, in his 2013 budget, Ron Paul only proposes auditing the Fed, which I'm not in principle opposed to.)

As far as my claim that Ron Paul is not really interested in attacking our debt, I guess I should clarify.  I don't doubt that he sincerely wants the debt to be reduced.  I don't even doubt that he believes in the budget he's been campaiging on.  But believing in something isn't the same as doing something.  And Ron Paul has, thus far, not been doing something.  Point me to the legislation he's passed to deal with our debt and I will reconsider my position.  So yeah, you ask what part of his record I'm referencing.  That's it right there.  I'm talking about his legislative record.  As far as I can tell, the evidence would suggest that he's only interested in talking about our debt.

Again, this isn't a knock against him.  He's proposing a vision of governance that is different from what the major parties are promoting.  You can't just hop from the status quo to that vision without first persuading the public to make that jump with you.  That being said, I just don't think that a person like this should get to be held up as the only "consistent" person or whatever you like.  President Obama and Paul's opponents in the Republican primary are people that, for better or worse, were actually interested in passing and implimenting legislation.  That means that these people have had to sacrifice ideological purity on the alter of legislative and electoral success from time to time.

What I do want from within the state rights, is more of a say in how the govt. is run.

You do and you don't.  I mean, yes, you have an easier time influencing the race for the governor of your state than you do the president of the United States.  But that also means that interest groups and corporations are that much more influential as well.

These politicians that are supposed to represent us, do not represent us, so they go in and do whatever they want.

Is that any less true at the state level?  I mean right now, the governor of Wisconson is facing a recall because he and the Republicans in the legislature chose to make attacking public sector unions one of their primary goals.  This despite the fact that it was something that they did not campaign on.

Whether or not this is good or bad, I am willing to take the risk. Under the current system of govt. things are just going to be the same and only get worse. It is a saying about scientists, do not do the same thing over and over expecting different results.

Couldn't we say the same thing about expecting better results from the states?  We've tried that before too.  And it didn't work out too well. 

And as I've already pointed out, even under the current system, state capitals are working at things like suppressing minority turn out through voter ID laws.  Then there's the new immigration laws of states like Arizona and Alabama.  I just don't see any reason to believe that things would be better if only we gave people like Jan Brewer more power.

Forgive me, but as a black man, I'm immediately suspicious of claims that power needs to be returned back to the states.

I see Obama, Gingrinch, and Romney as more of the same. I see Santorum as a guy who needs to see a doctor.

The only guy who brings “change” is Paul, because as you see, we are arguing over how much of a difference he will make or lack thereof in our govt. No other candidate is being talked about over any of this.

Not really.  Romney, Gingrich and Santorum are all in favor of savaging the social safety net.  They support the Ryan budget.  And they, like Ron Paul, are opposed to a woman's right to choose.  The idea that they're more of the same, as if there's complete continuity between Republican and Democratic administrations is just nonsensical.

Mind naming a few?

Unemployment, underemployment and mortgage debt overhang

On the subject of foreign aid. A big reason why to get rid of it, is to get back on track with the money. Even take monetary budget out of the equation, this is my question. Why is the USA obsessed with helping the poor of the entire planet when it gives it’s own people the finger in terms of help?

We talk a lot about Africa (very valid, and keep talking about it to raise awareness), but I think that we in helping out everybody else, we forget those exact same people are actually living in our own backyards, yet we give no aid to them, except through volunteer services only. So, if we have to volunteer to help out others, why do we need the federal government to help out others while shunning our own?

Is that really even true though?  In this country, we have all sorts of programs ranging from Medicaid and section 8 housing to the earned income tax credit and Pell Grants designed to help the lower middle and lower classes.  With this in mind, I'm not sure how using a little under one percent of our budget to assist other nations constitutes shunning our people. 

...The problem to this, is the fact that nobody wants to pay any of the workers for the hard work they do, never mind are the reason they even have the money to begin with. If we could have a minimum wage that means minimum amount needed to have a decent life, and thus in turn caused everybody to work 1 job instead of 2 or 3, the amount of jobs that would open up could be astronomical and there would be a greater incentive of reducing unemployment.

Right here I suppose it's worth pointing out that Ron Paul supports abolishing the minimum wage and that he contends that this would actually lower unemployment.

I haven’t heard him outright say that he would immediately cut such and such overnight. I know he said cut 1 trillion in national debt in the 1st year. That’s about it. I’ve heard him specifically say cut, but never attributed a length of time. Since there is so much going on, I may have missed something. Mind showing me 1 video just to make sure and possibly correct me?

Bold mine.  You've answered your own question.  The cuts that we were calling "catestrophic," that 1 trillion you're referencing here, are the cuts in Ron Paul's 2013 budget.  While I suppose cutting 1 trillion dollars over 1 fiscal year isn't technically overnight, I'd hope that you would excuse the colloquialism.

This may be true, but it is always portrayed as bigotry. Saying things like odd-ball and quack don’t indicate any of his policies or views...<snip>...To maybe get the point across instead of just saying racist, say something like what screwtape said as well as what you said below, Paul is pro-civil war, or something of the sort to make it seem like it is not blind hatred.

Given his high praise of and association with the Birchers, I'm not sure that titles like "quack" or "odd-ball" are unearned.  And nah, when Ron Paul talks about the Civil War he tends to talk about it as if it were avoidable and/or the result of overzealousness on Lincoln's part.  But I don't want to get into that.  If you're interested in some discussion of how Ron Paul's views of the Civil War square with reality, I'd suggest heading over to Ta-Nehisi Coates' blog at the Atlantic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/ta-nehisi-coates/

Let us say he is still racist as a hypothesis. Since most of the military is behind him, and since there are a lot of black people in and not in the military supporting Paul, does that make the black people racist against themselves? Why or why not?

And now we're getting silly.  To begin with, no, Ron Paul does not have most of the military behind him.  I'm guessing you're referring to the fact that he has raised the most money from people who work for the military of any candidate.  But that's not quite the same thing as having a majority of military support.  If you're aware of a poll that suggests that Ron Paul has majority support, I'd love to see it.

But moving on, if I'm following you're argument, you're saying that Ron Paul enjoys support from the armed services and in the armed services blacks are overrepresented, so there are black people support Ron Paul?  Okay.  But you didn't need to mention the military for me to concede this point.  One of my best friends from college is a very strong, black Ron Paul supporter.  In his case, he, like you, simply brushes off the issue when we've discussed the issue of these newsletters.  Like you, he thinks that this was settled some time ago. 

I don't think that any of that makes him, or for that matter you, racist against anyone.  There's nothing in Ron Paul's curent platform that's racist.  In fact, he's the only major political figure that's speaking out against one of the greatest ongoing racial injustices in this country--our drug war.

On a side note, to go back to Ta-Nehisi Coates, I'd recommend this piece:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/the-messenger/250685/

It's kind of where I'm coming from with Ron Paul.

Back then, the blacks didn’t have rights, and nowadays, they do. It is a great concern that there are people trying to run in office today that are trying to take your rights and women’s rights away. And that is a great idea about Ron Paul’s idea.

I don't know man, I doubt Ron Paul wants to do anything to specifically target blacks but he's pretty staunchly anti-choice.  And for me, that's one of those disqualifying issues.  Furthermore, I don't trust the states to protect the rights of homosexuals or religious and/or ethnic minorities.

I have said it in the past about RP’s ideas are going to cause us to need to speak up and make a difference instead of more relaxed like we are now. With the way the National Government is, let’s be honest, we have next to no say in anything that goes. If we really did, the Patriot Act wouldn’t have been passed twice, neither would No Child Left Behind, nor the new NDAA. We still have a fear that either SOPA/PIPA or even ACTA will pass despite our voices.

Both the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind enjoyed overwhelming, bipartisan support when they were initially enacted.  Both pieces of legislation had more than enough support to overcome a veto, so I'm not sure how Ron Paul was going to save us from ourselves there.  In the case of SOPA/PIPA, there isn't enough support to pass either measure as they're currently written.  And the new NDAA doesn't really do as much to change existing law as its opponents would like to suggest.

First off, to begin, to just spout Paul is a racist, is to simply accept what some of the anti-Paul people have been saying. That is fine, because those that usually do, are uneducated about it. So, the anti-Paul people go and pull up the ads written by somebody else well over 20 years ago. Now you have a valid claim that Paul needs to answer. Paul answers, not only very boldly and honestly, but has also showed that the opposite is true and I’m sorry to say, but also show nobody is perfect. Now that the rebuttal has been shown, instead of explaining the rebuttal and how it is incorrect, we go all the way back to square 1, and now instead of claiming uneducated, it’s now ignorance. If you don’t like what Paul had to say about the claims, instead of just putting the fingers in ears and calling racist, why not attack the rebuttal?

That's really not how things happened.  To begin with, Paul has never answered these claims "boldly and honestly."  He's been pretty inconsistant and sometimes downright cowardly and dishonest on this topic.

In 1996, he defended his newsletters against attacks from a Democratic challanger.  He claimed that quotes were being taken out of context and argued that the claim that ""Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal" is something like a cold statistical fact.  You can read more about that here:

http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

By 2008 he was going on CNN claiming to have had no knowledge of who wrote those newsletters--a strange claim given his previous defense of the newsletters and this old bit from the Dallas Morning News, which is referenced in that Matt Welch piece above:

Quote from: Dallas Morning News
Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff.

This fits with more recent reporting from the Washington Post that has, to my satisfaction, demonstrated that Ron Paul was very much aware of what was going on with those newsletters:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-signed-off-on-racist-newsletters-sources-say/2012/01/20/gIQAvblFVQ_story.html

So nah....

Let us say he is still racist as a hypothesis. Since most of the military is behind him, and since there are a lot of black people in and not in the military supporting Paul, does that make the black people racist against themselves? Why or why not?

And now we're getting silly.  To begin with, no, Ron Paul does not have most of the military behind him.  I'm guessing you're referring to the fact that he has raised the most money from people who work for the military of any candidate.  But that's not quite the same thing as having a majority of military support.  If you're aware of a poll that suggests that Ron Paul has majority support, I'd love to see it.

But moving on, if I'm following your argument, you're saying that Ron Paul enjoys support from the armed services and in the armed services blacks are overrepresented so there are black people support Ron Paul?  Okay.  But you didn't need to mention the military for me to concede this point.  One of my best friends from college is a very strong Ron Paul supporter.  In his case, he, like you, simply chooses not to really grapple with the fact that Ron Paul used to traffick in racial resentment when we've discussed the issue.  I don't think that makes him, or for that matter you, racist against anyone.  But I'm not sure how Ron Paul having black supporters is supposed to change the fact that he used to traffick in racial resentment.

Mind specifically pointing which magazine prints? The only one anybody has said is about the blacks in LA.

Yeah the one about rioting only stopping because the blacks had to pick up their welfare checks.  That's the most frequently cited quote.  But it's just one of many examples.  If you're interested, I'd check out the piece that sparked this whole thing again back in 2008:

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

It was behind a pay wall but now it looks like they're letting everyone check it out, probably since it's in the news again.  And here's an update with links to pdf files of the original newsletters themselves:

http://www.tnr.com/print/article/politics/99666/ron-paul-newsletters-part-two

Then, guilty by association should still be a valid way of persecuting criminals or would-be criminals then. Me being around black people doesn’t make me a black person....<snip>....The problem is the racist claim from the get go is a weak attack once everything is put into perspective and is solely a claim of ignorance to drift away from the issues that we are facing today.

C'mon dude.  To begin with, you've proven in this post that you're in no position to judge the claim of racism if all you know about the letters was that they once said something bad about black people in Los Angeles.  That's just the tip of the ice berg.  Again, there are years and years of this stuff.  So no, this is not a guilt by association argument.  This is about what we should take away from the fact that Ron Paul put this garbage out in his name for so many years.

I don’t view this as a slash against Paul because this thing happens all the time. Just look at the music, the movie, and all the other forms of entertainment industry out there. Despite it being in their name, the artists, authors, and directors, don’t get the final say in what goes on in their artwork. Usually the only way that they do, is if they are in a more underground kind of industry instead of being involved with the giant corporations. To say that it’s Paul’s fault that racism got into his magazine is like saying it’s Shaffer’s fault that the Pentagon censored his book Operation Dark Heart.

Those just aren't valid comparisons.  To begin with, it was Ron Paul's company.  These newsletters went out under his name.  I see no reason to think that he did not have the final say, whether or not he actually exercised that level of control.  The people that wrote these things were his employees.  Secondly, we're not talking about one oversight here and there.  We're talking about years and years of inflamatory material being put out for years.  The newsletters cited in that TNR piece I link span from 1978 to 1994.  (Though most of the really nasty stuff is in the ones from after 1985.)

Anyway, all that said, I don't know that any of this makes Ron Paul a racist.  But it does show that he was willing to traffic in racism for his own financial gain.  This really isn't a problem for me.  Ron Paul's politics are not mine.  I feel no need to defend him.  But I think I can understand what grappling with this issue must be like for someone who does share Paul's views.  It's tough.


Peace
Nah son...

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3561
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #67 on: January 29, 2012, 11:46:35 PM »
Edit: Some of the images are hotlinked PM me if they go dead and I'll repair them.


Thanks for your reply.

First, lets get something out of the way.  The Fed is not the cause of the debt.  It has nothing at all to do with it.
Our national Budget is where we get our debt and deficit from.
That's these guys.



For what it's worth the President submitted a plan that would have cut a lot more spending and increased a lot more revenue than the one that was eventually passed after a bitter acrimonious battle.

The Fed, as you rightly pointed out is a collection of private banks, as an agency it does have a fair number of important duties, which you should look up since you apparently support the cessation of those duties.  What's overlooked by Dr. Paul and the people who want to close it is that doing so does not remove the obligations upon the nation to pay for securities and bonds.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm

Current conservative ideology seems to hold that austerity is the solution for reducing the size of the budget, and expenditures.  The problem is that the only thing I'm hearing from the right, and this includes Dr. Paul, is that they also want to reduce taxes and revenue.  It's a net wash.  There are many things we could do to save this country a lot of capital over the long run, very few are under discussion since they get swept under the rug and called 'Socialism'.  Single payer, or nationalizing oil reserves, or a massive infrastructure level push for solar.

What I also see is that pretty much everyone is ignoring the interest on that debt, which effectively means the longer we take to pay it down the more it will cost over time.




Remember when Bush started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?  That was a radical increase in spending. (direct to debt since it was done via supplemental chunks rather than added to the budget.)  What he, and the rest of the administration, including Democrats should have done is to increase taxes to compensate for this.  He didn't.  He did the exact opposite by cutting them.

THE ONLY WAY TO FIX THE PROBLEM IS TO HAVE A BUDGET WITH A LARGE SURPLUS IN IT.  Sorry, for the caps but this is something that needs to be shouted a lot.

We made those poor choices, and now we have to live with them.  Pretending that they're the current Presidents choice, or the next one does nothing to alleviate that issue.



Second, Debt and Deficit are two different things, it's important to understand the distinction.

The United States is nowhere close to a condition that anybody in their right might can consider 'poor'.  We are not even in a condition which anybody in their right mind would consider 'broke'.  Nowhere close.

I've seen that debt clock.  You know what?  It's misleading.



Take a look at this and tell me that blathering on about welfare, teachers and building better fences is really the problem.

What defines us as a nation is how we treat each other.  Right now I see that people are being treated as less worthy than profits.
The things that define our nation, are being torn apart and shredded in an effort by the very wealthy to get more wealth.

As for the NDAA, that goes back decades.  The one that Obama signed is honestly no worse than many of the others, it's just been taken up as a political point by his counterparts.  It certainly didn't start with the Patriot Acts[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act#External_links





Now, with all that in mind, why did you ignore the aspect of income disparity in the question about third world countries?






 1.  they merely made the problems more public.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5379
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #68 on: January 30, 2012, 04:07:11 AM »
>snip for space<

What defines us as a nation is how we treat each other.  Right now I see that people are being treated as less worthy than profits.
The things that define our nation, are being torn apart and shredded in an effort by the very wealthy to get more wealth.

>snip for space<
Now, with all that in mind, why did you ignore the aspect of income disparity in the question about third world countries?
my bold

Again    ...........stating the strange obvious

.....strange because it is so glaringly obvious, yet a very significant percentage just cannot (or choose not) to see it

good post MB   the only hope is to continue to drive the obvious home  +1

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline BustaBrown54

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #69 on: January 30, 2012, 09:48:14 AM »
Wow I really got some very informative stuff on the government and canditates on this thread. Im not much of a debator on politics but I liked where Death over Life is coming from but still there are some cons to Paul(his views on homosexuality, abortion, etc) as any canditate, including the president himself.
However, I think we should focus on how much power Congress gets, seems like it's basically a Oligarchy now as they hardly listen to any of what we protest now. I know we must give up some rights to form a government but it seems like theyre taking away too much that's not even needed; I mean The government never needed to pass those acts for "Terrorism" they could do the things listed in that bill already! They, basically, just want it printed on paper so they could get anyone and say "Well this bill says we can."

 How bout they stop focusing on stopping this terrorist hunt and focus on our debt. I dont like some of Paul's views, but he seems like the only one that can get stuff done with congress, but then again I dont really know. You guys are helping things get a little clearer on the whole grand scale of it all.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2012, 09:51:42 AM by BustaBrown54 »
"Sweat saves blood, blood save lives, Brains save both."---Desert Fox

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +658/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #70 on: January 30, 2012, 10:21:32 AM »
How bout they stop focusing on stopping this terrorist hunt and focus on our debt.

The debt is a red herring.  The debt was created by repubs[1].  It is a crisis they manufactured as a pretense to reduce the size of governement and funnel more $$ to the rich.  There were no repubs hollering in 2003 when bush was waging two wars and cutting taxes.  What did they think the result of such a budget deficit would be?
 1. yeah, yeah, dems were complicit, but they were in an impossible spot, politically
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Death over Life

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 675
  • Darwins +25/-4
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #71 on: January 31, 2012, 04:17:47 PM »
I'm talking about the effects of these cuts in their totality.  So I'm not sure how commenting on the relative newness of the Federal Reserve or the Department of Homeland Security relates to this point.  (And besides, in his 2013 budget, Ron Paul only proposes auditing the Fed, which I'm not in principle opposed to.)

Well, the newness comment is about how devastating such and such will be if even the thought of removing it will cause, despite the fact that at least 75% of the history of the USA never had it or needed it. A ton of stuff we have today is because of the Great Depression. I wonder what USA would be like had that never happened. By the end of the night though, it’s all about budgeting, which Paul’s the only person who’s even bringing that up.

As far as my claim that Ron Paul is not really interested in attacking our debt, I guess I should clarify.  I don't doubt that he sincerely wants the debt to be reduced.  I don't even doubt that he believes in the budget he's been campaiging on.  But believing in something isn't the same as doing something.  And Ron Paul has, thus far, not been doing something.  Point me to the legislation he's passed to deal with our debt and I will reconsider my position.  So yeah, you ask what part of his record I'm referencing.  That's it right there.  I'm talking about his legislative record.  As far as I can tell, the evidence would suggest that he's only interested in talking about our debt.

I admit that this is something I’m researching on. I know that Paul has a bad legislative record only in terms of bills being passed, so it’s not what’s passed, but what he has supported that needs to be looked at. In that term, he has a pretty great record for the people.

Here are quite a few bills from links that state what he has supported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul

http://ronpaulcountry.com/content/legislation-ron-paul-tried-pass

http://www.dailypaul.com/81920/a-list-of-ron-paul-legislation-question-have-any-of-rons-bills-been-passed

http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-08-02/ron-paul-introduces-bill-to-cancel-americas-ficticious-1-6-trillion-debt-to-the-federal-reserve-lower-the-debt-limit-by-the-same-amount/

This one bill up above, directly deals with what you are asking, and it indeed is recent and new, but it’s still there. The other 3 however, are bills that he has pushed but were rejected, however, they were for exactly what we are discussing about among other areas. I apologize that I go well beyond the debt and post the entire history, but at the same time, it seems anything and everything we do is going to be related to the debt in some way, shape, or form so it makes sense to post everything.

If needs be, we can talk about individual bills that he personally supported or tried to pass to get a better understanding of such.

And a video that is interesting to me is predictions that Ron Paul made based off of his observations to what we were doing:



Again, this isn't a knock against him.  He's proposing a vision of governance that is different from what the major parties are promoting.  You can't just hop from the status quo to that vision without first persuading the public to make that jump with you. 

Very true. I am going to also say that even if you don’t like Paul himself, the media is helping him in persuading the public to join him, because he’s the only candidate who is being bullied by the big corporations and by the mainstream media. Even when he was non-existent in 2008, he still had the strongest internet support, which at the time was his only support. Now that they have to show him, notice the huge impact he has been making.

It is what you said, different governance from the majority parties, that makes me support him, because I personally despise the current form of government. If you wish, I’ll make a rant that has nothing to do with Ron Paul or candidates as to why I said such.

That being said, I just don't think that a person like this should get to be held up as the only "consistent" person or whatever you like. 

Consistency is a sign of character, honesty, and trustworthiness. At this point, Obama and Paul are the only trustworthy ones for Presidency. Obama and Paul both have a couple skeletons under their closets, but in comparison to Pope Santorum, Polyamorous Gingrinch, and 1% Romney, those 2 are pretty much “saints” compared to the rest of Presidential candidates.

President Obama and Paul's opponents in the Republican primary are people that, for better or worse, were actually interested in passing and implimenting legislation.  That means that these people have had to sacrifice ideological purity on the alter of legislative and electoral success from time to time.

However, just because those can pass legislation, doesn’t mean that is a good thing. The proof is in the paper and ink. Some of the things that our govt want to pass will indeed have devastating effects. The Keystone Pipeline is a huge example for today. The whole anti-environment status the current Repubs represent will eventually have us breathing smog instead of air, drinking tar instead of water, and will be broke because we are having to go to their doctors all the time, because our environment in no longer habitable.

Sometimes, stagnation is better than heading in a downward spiral. Sometimes, it’s better than no legislation to pass, than to have negative legislation pass. It all depends on what is on that paper with the ink, and the signatures.

You do and you don't.  I mean, yes, you have an easier time influencing the race for the governor of your state than you do the president of the United States.  But that also means that interest groups and corporations are that much more influential as well.

Is that any less true at the state level?  I mean right now, the governor of Wisconson is facing a recall because he and the Republicans in the legislature chose to make attacking public sector unions one of their primary goals.  This despite the fact that it was something that they did not campaign on.

Couldn't we say the same thing about expecting better results from the states?  We've tried that before too.  And it didn't work out too well. 

And as I've already pointed out, even under the current system, state capitals are working at things like suppressing minority turn out through voter ID laws.  Then there's the new immigration laws of states like Arizona and Alabama.  I just don't see any reason to believe that things would be better if only we gave people like Jan Brewer more power.

Very True, but what does that tell you about the current state of government? This is why I feel that the remarks about RP’s government to be of the 1800s not necessarily a bad thing.

The fact that this happens on both a state and federal level is just sickening. This is the reasons for the downward spiral and the whole 1% vs. 99% that’s going on today, since it’s the 1% who control everything.

All this talk about bribes and such, let us check out guys like George Washington. How much was his pay as the 1st President of the US? What kind of bribes did he accept?

Point being the question: What does that tell you about today’s government?

Forgive me, but as a black man, I'm immediately suspicious of claims that power needs to be returned back to the states.

I don’t blame you neither. Certain states are still filled with racists who look down on minorities, and our govt. is still not favorable towards minorities. However though, it is a game of risk, but the question is, are you willing to take the risk?

Not really.  Romney, Gingrich and Santorum are all in favor of savaging the social safety net.  They support the Ryan budget.  And they, like Ron Paul, are opposed to a woman's right to choose.  The idea that they're more of the same, as if there's complete continuity between Republican and Democratic administrations is just nonsensical.

Of course you are going to see some forms of similarities between everybody, a big one Santorum is using lately is Obamacare vs. Romneycare, which as Santorum says, is the same thing!

Despite Paul’s stance on abortion, he feels that it should be up to the states and not him to accept, reject, support, or abolish abortion. He is not letting his beliefs get in the way of the states. He is probably the closest pro-choice candidate of the 4 repubs, since Gingrinch, Santorum, and Romney oppose abortion on all fronts, and want’s a national abortion ban pretty much. If abortion alone is the subject, Obama is the best choice since he’s the pro-choice candidate.

Is that really even true though?  In this country, we have all sorts of programs ranging from Medicaid and section 8 housing to the earned income tax credit and Pell Grants designed to help the lower middle and lower classes.  With this in mind, I'm not sure how using a little under one percent of our budget to assist other nations constitutes shunning our people.

This is True. We do have federal programs that help us out as well. What the shunning that I’m thinking of is the whole “welfare” thing. It’s pretty imbalanced at the moment. Right now, we are at the extremes, either live off of the govt free and clear, or let them starve and die. Our govt atm is the live free and clear, which is costing us money. The ideal is in the right place, but the expense is not on the corporations, but on those who are trying to make it to live. Pretty much the ones who should take care of these people are the ones sucking up the money, while those who should not be taking care of them, are, which in turn, is turning us into the exact same people that we are trying to take care of whether we were asked to or not.

Right here I suppose it's worth pointing out that Ron Paul supports abolishing the minimum wage and that he contends that this would actually lower unemployment.

Personally, I would disagree with Paul here. In my opinion, the Minimum wage means the minimum amount needed to live a decent life without excess. In my opinion, the Minimum Wage would be at least $10 per hour, not the current $7.25 like today. But, this is a double edged sword here.

To begin with, Ron Paul demanding or getting rid of minimum wage of it’s own does nothing. It is the corporations who deem it worthy to give you $2 an hour or $20 an hour. If Paul rids minimum wage, and the corporations start paying you $3.25, it’s the corporation’s fault not Pauls.

In addition though, this goes in line with us opting out of Social Security, no Taxes at all, no requirement for insurance etc. Every job I have ever gotten that pays taxes, with all the benefits I have to pay into, I get around $100-$200 taken out of my paycheck every single paycheck. I get paid bi-weekly so you are talking about $200-$400 that I have earned, I have taken away from me. It does not matter whether I was at minimum wage McDonalds or where I’m making a decent paycheck now at my current job. So, depending on what goes on, if everything is abolished the way Paul wants it, you could actually be making more money than the current standard.

This is the problem though, this is merely a game of risk with the corporations holding all the cards, but your life on the line. What Minimum wage is, is a safety net, but with most middle-poor class people and they’ll tell you, the safety net isn’t so much a safety net, as they still have to get food stamps to be able to even get to eat a meal. Many of our people have to make a choice, either pay the rent for a roof over the head, or pay a few bucks for a meal so you won’t starve.

Although I’m trying to see the benefit of what Paul’s talking about if EVERYTHING is cut and not just minimum wage, I ultimately think we do need a minimum wage and should be at least $10 an hour.

This will be one of those things that I disagree with Ron Paul on, as it will not help the poor as he claims.

Bold mine.  You've answered your own question.  The cuts that we were calling "catestrophic," that 1 trillion you're referencing here, are the cuts in Ron Paul's 2013 budget.  While I suppose cutting 1 trillion dollars over 1 fiscal year isn't technically overnight, I'd hope that you would excuse the colloquialism.

Very True. However, after doing some research that you asked me to do, I now see what you meant, and it actually may be literally overnight, and is shown by that one bill in the link above, that I will re-post here.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-08-02/ron-paul-introduces-bill-to-cancel-americas-ficticious-1-6-trillion-debt-to-the-federal-reserve-lower-the-debt-limit-by-the-same-amount/

Given his high praise of and association with the Birchers, I'm not sure that titles like "quack" or "odd-ball" are unearned.  And nah, when Ron Paul talks about the Civil War he tends to talk about it as if it were avoidable and/or the result of overzealousness on Lincoln's part.  But I don't want to get into that.  If you're interested in some discussion of how Ron Paul's views of the Civil War square with reality, I'd suggest heading over to Ta-Nehisi Coates' blog at the Atlantic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/ta-nehisi-coates/ 

I haven’t had the time, but I’ll look into it. Thank you.
And now we're getting silly.  To begin with, no, Ron Paul does not have most of the military behind him.  I'm guessing you're referring to the fact that he has raised the most money from people who work for the military of any candidate.  But that's not quite the same thing as having a majority of military support.  If you're aware of a poll that suggests that Ron Paul has majority support, I'd love to see it.

Looking, I can’t find any polls on anything. But it is True though about the raised the most money from the people who work for the military. It looks like I was mixing the 2, so I concede.


But moving on, if I'm following you're argument, you're saying that Ron Paul enjoys support from the armed services and in the armed services blacks are overrepresented, so there are black people support Ron Paul?  Okay.  But you didn't need to mention the military for me to concede this point.  One of my best friends from college is a very strong, black Ron Paul supporter.  In his case, he, like you, simply brushes off the issue when we've discussed the issue of these newsletters.  Like you, he thinks that this was settled some time ago.

Well, I brought military into it to not pigeon-hole the argument into a certain sect. Perhaps I shouldn’t have done such. My bad.


I don't think that any of that makes him, or for that matter you, racist against anyone.  There's nothing in Ron Paul's curent platform that's racist.  In fact, he's the only major political figure that's speaking out against one of the greatest ongoing racial injustices in this country--our drug war.

I agree. But every time somebody mentions racism, he points to the drug war, which is correct. Watching all these prison shows like Jail, Police Women of ___ County, Beyond Scared Straight, you are talking about a HUGE black people population, and helps show there is something up with the racism in our govt. system. Even if he comes from a racist past, he is wanting to do something about the racism today within our government.

This statement here, I agree with you.


On a side note, to go back to Ta-Nehisi Coates, I'd recommend this piece:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/the-messenger/250685/

It's kind of where I'm coming from with Ron Paul.

I’ll look into it eventually. Thank you.


I don't know man, I doubt Ron Paul wants to do anything to specifically target blacks but he's pretty staunchly anti-choice. 

How so? His campaign, and records show the opposite.


And for me, that's one of those disqualifying issues.  Furthermore, I don't trust the states to protect the rights of homosexuals or religious and/or ethnic minorities.

But then what is your opinion on the Federal level? Do you think the Feds are doing a better job protecting your rights than the possibility of the states?


Both the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind enjoyed overwhelming, bipartisan support when they were initially enacted.  Both pieces of legislation had more than enough support to overcome a veto, so I'm not sure how Ron Paul was going to save us from ourselves there.  In the case of SOPA/PIPA, there isn't enough support to pass either measure as they're currently written.  And the new NDAA doesn't really do as much to change existing law as its opponents would like to suggest. 

Knowledge is power. What needs to be done, is to have an unbiased media that is about the facts alone, kind of like how we filter the bullshit of religion. We need to be up-to-date with the facts and Truth, and not with these political agendas. That is the only way we can save us from ourselves so that way we look at things with logic and reason rather than emotions. Had we not been so emotionally attached to Patriot when it was enacted, it wouldn’t have passed. Fear was the leader when it passed, not reason.

That's really not how things happened.  To begin with, Paul has never answered these claims "boldly and honestly."  He's been pretty inconsistant and sometimes downright cowardly and dishonest on this topic.

In 1996, he defended his newsletters against attacks from a Democratic challanger.  He claimed that quotes were being taken out of context and argued that the claim that ""Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal" is something like a cold statistical fact.  You can read more about that here:

http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

By 2008 he was going on CNN claiming to have had no knowledge of who wrote those newsletters--a strange claim given his previous defense of the newsletters and this old bit from the Dallas Morning News, which is referenced in that Matt Welch piece above:

Quote from: Dallas Morning News
Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff.

This fits with more recent reporting from the Washington Post that has, to my satisfaction, demonstrated that Ron Paul was very much aware of what was going on with those newsletters:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-signed-off-on-racist-newsletters-sources-say/2012/01/20/gIQAvblFVQ_story.html

So nah....

You have given me much to look into, so I’ll back off on the racism till I can get this answered. If I bring this up, just re-post this or re-direct me.


Yeah the one about rioting only stopping because the blacks had to pick up their welfare checks. 

To be honest, I didn’t see that as a racism quote towards blacks. I think that was more attacking the corporations that despite we have laws forbidding racism when it comes to employment, many companies are still very racist against blacks in hiring them, so since the companies won’t hire blacks, they have to go on welfare and eventually seeing this.

I think that was a knock on the racism towards blacks by the corporations than saying black people cause riots. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting it, so I won’t say this is what he meant. I’ll have to look more into it.


That's the most frequently cited quote.  But it's just one of many examples.  If you're interested, I'd check out the piece that sparked this whole thing again back in 2008:

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

It was behind a pay wall but now it looks like they're letting everyone check it out, probably since it's in the news again.  And here's an update with links to pdf files of the original newsletters themselves:

http://www.tnr.com/print/article/politics/99666/ron-paul-newsletters-part-two

Giving me to much stuff to look into. Thank you! :)

C'mon dude.  To begin with, you've proven in this post that you're in no position to judge the claim of racism if all you know about the letters was that they once said something bad about black people in Los Angeles.  That's just the tip of the ice berg.  Again, there are years and years of this stuff.  So no, this is not a guilt by association argument.  This is about what we should take away from the fact that Ron Paul put this garbage out in his name for so many years.

Perhaps, but I’m only going off the info the racist claims are coming from. The only one I hear about at all is the LA blacks one. It would be a much easier argument for you to post multiple sources, as you did. So now I got to take a break, step back and look at what you have presented.

It may be a correct statement, but the side claiming racism is only using 1 little source, instead of many differing sources.


Those just aren't valid comparisons.  To begin with, it was Ron Paul's company.  These newsletters went out under his name.  I see no reason to think that he did not have the final say, whether or not he actually exercised that level of control.  The people that wrote these things were his employees.  Secondly, we're not talking about one oversight here and there.  We're talking about years and years of inflamatory material being put out for years.  The newsletters cited in that TNR piece I link span from 1978 to 1994.  (Though most of the really nasty stuff is in the ones from after 1985.)

Anyway, all that said, I don't know that any of this makes Ron Paul a racist.  But it does show that he was willing to traffic in racism for his own financial gain.  This really isn't a problem for me.  Ron Paul's politics are not mine.  I feel no need to defend him.  But I think I can understand what grappling with this issue must be like for someone who does share Paul's views.  It's tough.


Peace

It’s about stating the facts. By the end of the night though, it’s all speculation since we weren’t there printing articles for the RP newsletter. We will need to look into Paul’s history during this time to see if he was really overseeing things, or if he demanded they be placed, or if it was only allowed for monetary gain.

Although I do share most of Paul’s views, I am no Ron Paul. I am simply myself, so I do know I am going to have differing views from him at times.

It does make you think however. But in the worst case scenario, if Paul’s actually a KKK member for example, the majority of what he says does need to be heard. It is difficult though because of the racism being involved however.

Not ignoring MadBunny. I’ll get to his next.