ron paul=awesome/kickass?

[Dr. Love]

[kwame k]

As the richest country in the world.....why shouldn't we take care of our own?

Why shouldn't we have disaster relief?

Affordable health care.

Decent schools that educate and prepare our children for the future.

Safe food, air, and water.

Reasonable housing.

Stable employment.

A living wage.

Ron Paul isn't for these things, he's for throwing away any of the decent things we have left and frankly, it's insulting and repulsive.

Just because government has fucked it up with greed, corruption, and inept management doesn't mean these services and program can't work.

It's utter bullshit and the ramblings of a nutty old man saying we shouldn't have disaster relief. When he wants to allow the free markets to regulate themselves.......I assume he means insurance companies who are notorious for refusing to pay claims to disaster victims, too.

The government needs to be fixed but to say every humane program and every decent thing government could do is wrong is stupid.

We as a people seen a need for this and have supported these programs.....the programs are fine it's the idiots that are in charge of them.

Get rid of special interests group, super PAC's and change how campaigns are allowed to be funded.

Get the lazy and apathetic American People off their asses and involved in the government we have and you'd solve 90% of the problems we have.

The problem is.....the American people can't be bothered and want fixes that don't require effort, involvement, or thought. We the People fucked this country up....not government.

[Dr. Love]

As the richest country in the world.....why shouldn't we take care of our own?

Why shouldn't we have disaster relief?

Ron Paul agrees: with a combination of local and state oversight coupled with dedicated charities like the red cross and other organizations.

Affordable health care.

Ron Paul agrees: allow health insurance to be actual insurance that is competed upon, and let regulation occur at the state level.

Decent schools that educate and prepare our children for the future.

Ron Paul agrees: this should be provided at the state level.

Safe food, air, and water.

Again, Ron Paul agrees: With protected property rights, no one has the right to pollute anyone else's land or water, and this should be strictly controlled. Again, by the states.

Reasonable housing.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, again ... Ron Paul agrees: The problem with the housing market was that the Federal Reserve inflated it by printing money and artificially keeping interest rates low. There's nothing wrong with housing, except that it was abused by the Fed.

Stable employment.

I'm starting to think you agree with Ron Paul on a lot of issues, kwame. Ron Paul argues this occurs due to the bubble and bust nature of the economy, again, created by the Fed

A living wage.

Are you sure you understand RP's positions and aren't a secret supporter? He fights for this every day: Each person has a right to the fruits of their labor, and the way the monetary system is used, your living wage decreases every year as inflation increases and your money becomes worth less until it becomes worthless.

Ron Paul isn't for these things, he's for throwing away any of the decent things we have left and frankly, it's insulting and repulsive.

I don't think it's possible to be any less correct...

Just because government has fucked it up with greed, corruption, and inept management doesn't mean these services and program can't work.

wut

Did you read that before you hit 'post'?

It's utter bullshit and the ramblings of a nutty old man saying we shouldn't have disaster relief. When he wants to allow the free markets to regulate themselves.......I assume he means insurance companies who are notorious for refusing to pay claims to disaster victims, too.

Ron Paul argues that one of the primary functions of government is to enforce contract law. Anyone who breaks contracts should be gone after with extreme prejudice.

The government needs to be fixed but to say every humane program and every decent thing government could do is wrong is stupid.

You really need to think about these things not in terms of how things "should be" but how things are.

We as a people seen a need for this and have supported these programs.....the programs are fine it's the idiots that are in charge of them.

ಠ_ಠ

Get rid of special interests group, super PAC's and change how campaigns are allowed to be funded.

I agree (though I don't think RP does)

Get the lazy and apathetic American People off their asses and involved in the government we have and you'd solve 90% of the problems we have.

How do they do that, again?

The problem is.....the American people can't be bothered and want fixes that don't require effort, involvement, or thought. We the People fucked this country up....not government.

So you're saying ... the government isn't to blame at all?

[Dr. Love]

[Nitro Express]

I have to assume you read the article since you bolded the part where Paul makes his point (and makes it well, I think) against bureaucracies and the charitability of Americans.

I don't see anything objectionable here? He's saying the Federal Government sucks at doing things, and that it should let people that are good at it do it instead. If anything, we should return the money to the states to be able to manage this because they'll do a better job of mobilizing the people to get it done.

At no point does he say "fuck 'em", what he does say is that you have to live intelligently. If you want to live in a disaster zone, fine ... get insurance like any responsible person.

Why do you think the government should subsidize recklessness and poor decision making, jhale?

Why do you think the government should take care of everyone instead of letting people take care of themselves, or charities help when they can't, jhale?

Why does the government have to be the answer to everything, jhale?

I can tell you our grandparents and great grandparents never expected the government to give them a new house if it was destroyed. Of course many of them lived in communities that would help each other. Now everyone has been conditioned on thinking the government should do everything for them. It sounds good at first but it changes people in a bad way. Just look at communities that have multiple generations of people on welfare and ask yourself if the government is really helping them.

[Dr. Love]

yep!

[Nitro Express]

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-gets-endorsement-five-members-romney-family-181551623.html

Looks like members of Mitt's family are backing Ron Paul. That's saying something because nepotism runs pretty thick in Mormon families.

[kwame k]

Ron Paul agrees: with a combination of local and state oversight coupled with dedicated charities like the red cross and other organizations.

I still see a need for the government to step in and aid when it's a major disaster......do I agree with FEMA? I do in principle....... FEMA fucked up Katrina but I attribute that more to who Bush appointed and not the agency itself. If we can marshal millions of people overseas to fight wars and do it effectively, why can't we mobilize people and resources here?

Ron Paul agrees: allow health insurance to be actual insurance that is competed upon, and let regulation occur at the state level.

With Federal oversight......it goes back in my belief that Washington should decide the bigger issues that involve every American.....let the States decide the dumb shit like gay marriages but regulate health care and have a national benchmark set.......then let the States take it from there.

Ron Paul agrees: this should be provided at the state level.

Nope.....when issues like integration, segregation and other standards have routinely been abused by the States government should step in. There should be a set standard, set by the government to insure that a minimum is being met.

Again, Ron Paul agrees: With protected property rights, no one has the right to pollute anyone else's land or water, and this should be strictly controlled. Again, by the states.

Look at how many environmental disasters have been allowed by the States. Here again, enforce a minimum standard and let the Sates take it from there.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, again ... Ron Paul agrees: The problem with the housing market was that the Federal Reserve inflated it by printing money and artificially keeping interest rates low. There's nothing wrong with housing, except that it was abused by the Fed.

I agree with the abolition of the Fed but banks got us there, too and that was from free market non regulation........fair lending practices and Wall Street regulation should have a Federal minimum standard and let the States decide from there.

I'm starting to think you agree with Ron Paul on a lot of issues, kwame. Ron Paul argues this occurs due to the bubble and bust nature of the economy, again, created by the Fed

As I've said numerous times, I agree with a lot of what Grandpa Paul has to say......it's the stuff I don't that means I can't support him.

Are you sure you understand RP's positions and aren't a secret supporter? He fights for this every day: Each person has a right to the fruits of their labor, and the way the monetary system is used, your living wage decreases every year as inflation increases and your money becomes worth less until it becomes worthless.

Not when a corporations get so big it dictates the market and not the market dictating it. From the railroads, steel, oil companies, Wall Street and on and on. There needs to be government regulations safeguarding us when it effects every American.

I don't think it's possible to be any less correct...

I think he's less correct about health care, government's role and the free market.

wut

Did you read that before you hit 'post'?

Yes I did.....if government can amass millions of people effectively and wag war......why can't they marshal people and resources to help in our own country

Ron Paul argues that one of the primary functions of government is to enforce contract law. Anyone who breaks contracts should be gone after with extreme prejudice.

I agree.

You really need to think about these things not in terms of how things "should be" but how things are.

I could ask you the same thing about your support for a man that'll never be President

ಠ_ಠ

?

I agree (though I don't think RP does)

Does that mean the engagement is off between you two

How do they do that, again?

Considering who's in Washington and who's running for election.......it appears the American people don't know either.

So you're saying ... the government isn't to blame at all?

We get the government that we deserve, you know that.

[Nitro Express]

What ever politicians owned part of the trailer dealerships that sold to FEMA made out like bandits. Maybe these can be used to house tornado victims, that's of course if they haven't rotted away yet.

[ELVIS]

it goes back in my belief that Washington should decide the bigger issues that involve every American.....

That's a major problem with your line of thinking...

But you're not alone...

There are countless other idiots who believe the same bullshit...

[Dr. Love]

I still see a need for the government to step in and aid when it's a major disaster......do I agree with FEMA? I do in principle....... FEMA fucked up Katrina but I attribute that more to who Bush appointed and not the agency itself. If we can marshal millions of people overseas to fight wars and do it effectively, why can't we mobilize people and resources here?

Fine, have the military provide assistance under local civilian direction. Which they sort of do when they send in the national guard.

With Federal oversight......it goes back in my belief that Washington should decide the bigger issues that involve every American.....let the States decide the dumb shit like gay marriages but regulate health care and have a national benchmark set.......then let the States take it from there.

I don't know that I agree.

Nope.....when issues like integration, segregation and other standards have routinely been abused by the States government should step in. There should be a set standard, set by the government to insure that a minimum is being met.

Look at how many environmental disasters have been allowed by the States. Here again, enforce a minimum standard and let the Sates take it from there.

Sure, if someone is infringing on your property rights or causing you harm, the government should defend your rights. But there is a difference between taking someone to court over a violation of rights and giving the federal government the power to police everyone.

On the education thing, think of it this way: When you get the federal government involved (or government at all), then you have to make it fair, because the government can't push an ideology. Can't teach creationism. Can't teach evolution without intelligent design. Can't teach either without flying spaghetti monsterism.

If you don't involve the government, and give choice back to the people, then they can teach whatever they want.

I agree with the abolition of the Fed but banks got us there, too and that was from free market non regulation........fair lending practices and Wall Street regulation should have a Federal minimum standard and let the States decide from there.

There's hope for you yet!

I agree (as does RP, actually) that there should be some regulation and that government should protect free markets. What we have right now, with all its abuses, is not a free market.

As I've said numerous times, I agree with a lot of what Grandpa Paul has to say......it's the stuff I don't that means I can't support him.

I think he can do a better job of explaining his positions. A lot of people take a cursory glance at what he says and thinks "oh he's crazy/horrible/whatever". You can see jhale pop his head in here every once in a while and call the guy a racist and say something like "he didn't want to give rosa parks a medal" or "he didn't support civil rights".

And on the face of it you say, "Oh my! He's a bad person! Who wouldn't support that?"

But when you listen to him, and understand why he does what he does, you see a consistency that there is a lot more depth to his reasoning than "this will be hard to explain to voters." I don't know everything you disagree with him on, but I hope you have taken the time to listen and understand what he is saying. I thought he was a crackpot, and got my initial exposure to him doing a little research to get some stuff to post on why I thought he was crazy.

But, I started listening to what he was saying, reading more on it and started to realize the guy was making a lot of sense (to me).

Not when a corporations get so big it dictates the market and not the market dictating it. From the railroads, steel, oil companies, Wall Street and on and on. There needs to be government regulations safeguarding us when it effects every American.

The government doesn't do that. Government creates monopolies these days. Look at the Credit Bureaus. They have a monopoly that no one else can compete with (by law!) and control your financial future. Heck, look at the biggest monopoly of them all: The Federal Reserve. A privately-owned institution (by some of the nation's largest banks) that controls the creation and infusion of money. Nothing is allowed to compete with it.

Yes I did.....if government can amass millions of people effectively and wag war......why can't they marshal people and resources to help in our own country

'Effectively' is probably the sticking point. I agree that government can achieve a lot of things. It's just that I don't think it does hardly any of them very well, and they are controlled by and serve the wealthy.

I could ask you the same thing about your support for a man that'll never be President

I support the cause; RP is just the man in front right now. There will be others after him.

I look at it this way. Most of what RP thinks we should do is going to happen 1 of 2 ways:

1. The way we choose to do it
2. The way we're forced to do it

I'd rather have a choice in the matter

?

It's the look of disapproval

Does that mean the engagement is off between you two

Not at all...

[kwame k]

Says the man that believes in fairy tales and voted for Bush how many times?

Glass houses, E

[Nickdfresh]

That's a smart baby kissing up to grampops, because he knows that Ron Paul doesn't give a shit about kids once they're out of the vagina...

[kwame k]

Fine, have the military provide assistance under local civilian direction. Which they sort of do when they send in the national guard.

You still need a FEMA type program to be able to have the resources to help. Here's a simplistic analogy, you store a flashlight and some batteries in case the lights go out. Shouldn't we have a national storage and staging area? I'd pay that tax.

I don't know that I agree.

When insurance companies and illegal billing practices are running rampant. When a small business owner can't afford to insure it's workers, let alone himself, you have an immediate and national problem. The States have failed at this.......when did it become against the law for States to enact it's own health care system? When the States can't govern themselves it's time for the Federal government to step in.....like during Civil Rights era, for example.

Sure, if someone is infringing on your property rights or causing you harm, the government should defend your rights. But there is a difference between taking someone to court over a violation of rights and giving the federal government the power to police everyone.

Not when huge companies have rigged the system to the point of poisoning people for decades with slow developing diseases like cancer. It's happened 100's of times and in countless places in this country and by having better national regulations it could of been stopped. It's because big corporations play a numbers game......profits verses punitive damage. If the profit exceeds the loss, companies will take the profit. They do it every day.

On the education thing, think of it this way: When you get the federal government involved (or government at all), then you have to make it fair, because the government can't push an ideology. Can't teach creationism. Can't teach evolution without intelligent design. Can't teach either without flying spaghetti monsterism.

If you don't involve the government, and give choice back to the people, then they can teach whatever they want.

To my knowledge no one is outlawing private schools but if you can't afford a private school, a public school should be available.....it should be a basic right to get a decent education. As much of a right as free speech. If private schools were such a better choice then why hasn't the market adjusted that and why haven't public schools failed by market demand? We need educational reform, for sure.....just not the abolition of it. Each State should manage it's educational budget but the Federal government should set a standard and mandate that every State offers an education.

There's hope for you yet!

I agree (as does RP, actually) that there should be some regulation and that government should protect free markets. What we have right now, with all its abuses, is not a free market.

Hope for me yet? I've debated ad nauseam the evils of the Federal Reserve.....have linked numerous sources about the evils of that entity. Debated here to death in the FL.

I think he can do a better job of explaining his positions. A lot of people take a cursory glance at what he says and thinks "oh he's crazy/horrible/whatever". You can see jhale pop his head in here every once in a while and call the guy a racist and say something like "he didn't want to give rosa parks a medal" or "he didn't support civil rights".

But when you listen to him, and understand why he does what he does, you see a consistency that there is a lot more depth to his reasoning than "this will be hard to explain to voters." I don't know everything you disagree with him on, but I hope you have taken the time to listen and understand what he is saying. I thought he was a crackpot, and got my initial exposure to him doing a little research to get some stuff to post on why I thought he was crazy.

And on the face of it you say, "Oh my! He's a bad person! Who wouldn't support that?"

But, I started listening to what he was saying, reading more on it and started to realize the guy was making a lot of sense (to me).

I listened to the man when he ran last time and researched him then. I've listened to the debates and read/listened to his speeches now. I've never followed the media's spin on him....mainly because I don't watch it and would rather read the news. So implying I'm some Johnny on the band wagon of 30 second soundbites is kinda lame, bro!

The government doesn't do that. Government creates monopolies these days. Look at the Credit Bureaus. They have a monopoly that no one else can compete with (by law!) and control your financial future. Heck, look at the biggest monopoly of them all: The Federal Reserve. A privately-owned institution (by some of the nation's largest banks) that controls the creation and infusion of money. Nothing is allowed to compete with it.

Reform and regulations......obviously they haven't been doing their jobs or we wouldn't be in this mess. Just because it isn't working now doesn't mean there's not a need for it. We need reform like we got during the Great Depression.....to ensure it never happens again. The the markets can do whatever they will after that.

'Effectively' is probably the sticking point. I agree that government can achieve a lot of things. It's just that I don't think it does hardly any of them very well, and they are controlled by and serve the wealthy.

Neither do I.......we need real campaign reform. To the point where people running for the House or Senate can not take national money. No national money from Demos or Repukes. All local level financing, period. Corporate donations can't exceed public donations in the national, too. A level playing field. Just because Grandpa doesn't take money from them doesn't change the fact the rest of them do.

I support the cause; RP is just the man in front right now. There will be others after him.

I look at it this way. Most of what RP thinks we should do is going to happen 1 of 2 ways:

1. The way we choose to do it
2. The way we're forced to do it

I'd rather have a choice in the matter

I thought the same thing when Perot had his run and his 3rd party but in the end it was a pipe dream

Until the majority speaks up we'll never have the best and the brightest running for office.

One only needs to look at the current GOP candidates and the Demos to see that.

[Nitro Express]

I've been hearing these same old arguments for the last 40 years. The federal government is regulating more than ever now and is bigger than ever now. Have things gotten better than they were 40 years ago? I'm a little wary of having even more regulation and even more government. Somehow I just don't see the advantages everyone is claiming are in it.