ron paul=awesome/kickass?

[Dr. Love]

Ron Paul, in 2002, with his predictions for the next 10 years (which are drawing to a close)

[Nickdfresh]

Ron Paul is just a self deluded anarchist, hypocrite fuckwit. I don't get the dewy, masturbatory adoration for this fucking guy. Yeah, I get he's a "libertarian" (unless you happen to be a women with an unwanted pregnancy, that's different apparently. The gov't can tell you what to do then). But the idiots that run around with bumper-stickers fornicating for this guy haven't the slightest clue of what actually implementing his policies (via gov't BTW) would actually entail, because often they're trust fund rich kids unable to actually earn the wealth their parents did...

[FORD]

Bottom line is that we need to elect a Liberal veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress. And I mean Bernie Sanders - Dennis Kucinich Liberals, not a bunch of Clinton Reid Pelosi Nelson Lieberman "centrist" frauds.

I doubt Ron Paul will be "allowed" to win the nomination, but if he did, and then somehow won the general election, only a solid Liberal Congress would save this country from a Randtard nightmare which would make the BCE blood orgy of Chimp & Cheney seem like the "good old days". If we got an end to all the stupid wars - and that means Iraq, Afghanistan, AND Hemp, and a serious audit/overhaul of the "Federal" Reserve, it would still be the best accomplishments of government since 1981, even if there was nothing but complete gridlock after that.

And if Obama gets re-elected, a Liberal congress is even better. He's not about to veto Liberal legislation after he somehow talks Democrats into voting for him again. And if he did, fucking override the veto. Get all the good things we could get from Ron Paul PLUS Single Payer Health Care and some real infrastructure/jobs programs.

We have seen what a right wing Congress gets us. And don't kid yourself, it didn't stop being right wing in 2006, and it only got more right wing in 2010 because Kennedy and Byrd died, and Grayson & Feingold got screwed by the assholes who claimed to be on "their side" (useless Tim Kaine and the once again DLC corrupted national Democratic party) You can shuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic all you want, but Pelosi was just as useless as Boner.

Best place to fight back is the congressional primaries. If you have a right winger in office - whether they have an (R) or a (D) after their name - kick them the fuck out and vote in someone who represents the 99%.

[Dr. Love]

Ron Paul is just a self deluded anarchist, hypocrite fuckwit. I don't get the dewy, masturbatory adoration for this fucking guy. Yeah, I get he's a "libertarian" (unless you happen to be a women with an unwanted pregnancy, that's different apparently. The gov't can tell you what to do then). But the idiots that run around with bumper-stickers fornicating for this guy haven't the slightest clue of what actually implementing his policies (via gov't BTW) would actually entail, because often they're trust fund rich kids unable to actually earn the wealth their parents did...

I can't answer for why other people like him, but I can for why I like him.

I'm not on board with every one of his points of view, but I do believe that he's the only candidate that represents an actual different direction for the nation. I don't think he'd be able to do everything he wanted but I do believe he'd be better than Obama, Romney, Santorum, Perry or Newt.

I don't believe a word the other candidates tell me. They are in this for themselves, and they will lie, cheat, steal and manipulate things to get into office. Obama lied to people. We have to accept that. I thought he would take things in a different direction, but in a lot of ways, he's been worse than Bush was. In other ways, not as bad. But on the balance, it's more of the same.

Santorum, Perry, Newt ... those guys would be just as bad as Obama in different ways. None of them want to change the course we're on. None of them would even try. Things would simply get worse, slowly and inexorably.

For me, that leaves Paul. I look at him, read about him, watch his positions now and in older interviews, and the guy is consistent. I don't agree with all of his points of view, but they are logical and thought out. And he believes it. I know what I'm getting. I know what he'll try to get done. And a lot of it is good.

I don't care about abortion, so that isn't a disqualifier for me. I don't care about this racism nonsense, either. Every single presidential candidate gets accused of being a racist. Obama, Perry, Newt, Paul, Romney... all of them.

I do care about the nations budget and finances. I do care about how much we go to war (without authorization) and push the rest of the world around. I do care about the expanding intrusiveness of the federal government, spying on me, telling me what I can and can't do, exerting more and more control over my life, and now, being allowed to arrest me and hold me indefinitely. I care about the principles of freedom that the country was founded on that are being eroded by Obama and Bush and all the other douchebags that have served in the congress. Do you think Romney will be any better? Perry? Do you think Obama will suddenly say, "no, this is wrong, we have to change it?" Those ships sailed a long time ago. They are lying to you.

You can call Ron Paul a nutbag all you want, but consider this:

When did it become "crazy" to say that we should only have the federal government do what it's allowed to do in the Constitution? If you want to give the federal government more power, amend the constitution. Give all the states the ability to say yes/no. Don't let the federal government legislate itself an every expanding set of powers.

When did it become "crazy" to say that we don't want to go to war all the time. How many wars do you want to see happen in your lifetime? When is enough, enough? We can bring our troops home, use that money domestically (or here's a shocking idea, we can stop taking it from our citizens) and improve the situation here. I don't believe for a second that we wouldn't be able to get back into a conflict if we needed to anywhere in the world. But it would take something that drove the entire nation mobilize and push congress to declare war ... no more presidents just deciding they want to drag us into yet another conflict. What is so crazy about that?

I don't believe for a second that Paul would get everything he wanted. But he would do something Obama doesn't do. He'd start saying "no" and start arguing for a different direction. With that platform, he could change the mindset and direction of the country. We could make some actual progress. I thought Obama would do that, but he's nothing more than a liar. I am a lot more skeptical about politicians as a result. Obama is a failure. Paul is consistent and you know what you'll get.

That doesn't sound crazy to me at all.

[Combat Ready]

Ron Paul, in 2002, with his predictions for the next 10 years (which are drawing to a close)

RP got it right, for the most part.

[Pink Spider]

But the idiots that run around with bumper-stickers fornicating for this guy haven't the slightest clue of what actually implementing his policies (via gov't BTW) would actually entail, because often they're trust fund rich kids unable to actually earn the wealth their parents did...

Trust fund rich kids?

Top contributors to Ron Paul: US Army, US Air Force, US Navy


You can look these up too on the same site, but Romney's top contributor are Goldman Sachs employees.

Obama's are Microsoft and Comcast.

I'm sure there's no trust funds involved there.

[Nitro Express]

The reason Ron Paul is popular is he's the only guy running who isn't bought off and he isn't a liar or flip flopper. If any of the other Republicans win or Obama wins it will be more war and more bailout and more taxes for us people who actually pay them.

I don't agree with Ron Paul on making abortions illegal. I just think the government should stay out of that issue completely. Let's say your daughter gets raped and gets pregnant from it. It's a bad enough situation and do we really need the government involved when it should be the family and their chosen physician. You can't legislate morals; especially, with the den of corruption we have as a government now.

I do agree with him on ending the Federal Reserve. It's nothing more than a grand ponzi scheme and it's actually our biggest creditor. We wipe out a lot of debt getting rid of it and it was nothing but bankers rigging interest rates to manipulate the markets so a few connected bankers could make money. The depression we are now in is simply the result of Alan Greenspan dropping the interest rates and keeping them low. They wanted to do that so they could generate the demand to trade a lot of derivatives and make money so they could buy things up cheap when the economy finally crashed.

Whoever the big money was that had the idea to run Barrack Obama as president was very cleaver. They knew a black president would be untouchable due to political correctness. That means if you can get Obama in office he can get away with things that would be impossible for another president to get away with. You run him as a game changer and make him a media darling and people buy into it because Bush was so terrible but then you just have Barrack run the Bush agenda but at an even larger scale.

Ron Paul might not be perfect but at least he's the only one who might bring a stop to the banking/corporate abuse and stop the endless wars for money game. For me that's better than the Goldman Sach's/General Electric/Big Pharma/Monsanto/Insurance industry fascism going on right now. If you like monopolies and government thugs enforcing their corruption vote for the others.

[Nitro Express]

I'm tired of this kind of shit.

Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chairman and chief executive of General Electric Co. tapped by President Barack Obama as his next top outside economic adviser, will be asked to guide the White House as it attempts to jump-start lackluster job creation and spur a muddled recovery.

Immelt's firm stands as Exhibit A of a successful and profitable corporate America standing at the forefront of the recovery. It also represents the archetypal company that's hoarding cash, sending jobs overseas, relying on taxpayer bailouts and paying less taxes than envisioned.

The move is the latest salvo in the White House's continued aggressive and very public outreach to corporate America. Earlier this month, Obama appointed a top executive at JPMorgan Chase as his chief of staff, and this week he granted a longtime wish of business interests by promising to review federal regulations perceived as onerous.

Immelt's appointment raises fresh questions about Obama's courtship and future policy proposals. Firms like GE say good jobs will come from lower taxes and less regulation. Immelt told analysts Friday that he'll focus on tax policy and regulation, among other topics.

"A clear problem in the recovery is that it's been a much stronger recovery for business in terms of their profit and earnings than for those folks who work and earn a living in the U.S.," said Gary Burtless, a former Labor Department economist and now a fellow at the Brookings Institution, a research and policy organization in Washington.

Burtless said Immelt was likely hired to reassure corporate America. Political opponents have cast the Obama administration as unfriendly to business interests, and the administration has had difficulty rebutting that theme. Immelt's hiring was yet another step in that direction.

"It's a significant piece of outreach to the business community," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and top economic adviser to Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. The appointment could mean business has a "genuine liaison" at the White House, Holtz-Eakin said.

"Business folks will trust an Immelt much more than an academic or a politician with academic experience," said Burtless.

Whether GE's chief executive should represent the White House in those discussions, though, is another matter. He will continue to serve atop GE while advising the Obama administration.

The corporate chieftain's experience running GE, one of the world's biggest companies, may shed light on the kinds of recommendations he'd make behind closed doors.

The company is sitting on $79 billion in cash, tops worldwide among non-financial publicly-traded companies, according to a Jan. 10 note by analysts at Standard and Poor's. In fact, GE's cash holdings are about 62 percent more than the next company, Toyota Motor Corp.

"We feel good about that," Immelt said in noting the "flexibility" the surplus cash gives the firm. GE generated a $11.6 billion profit last year, a six percent increase from the previous year.

Non-financial corporations sit atop a record $1.9 trillion in liquid assets, according to the Federal Reserve. Relative to their short-term liabilities, U.S. corporations haven't been this flush with cash since 1956. The administration has been critical of corporate cash-hoarding.

GE's improving fortunes reflect the general trend in corporate America. In the quarter ending Sept. 30, corporate profits reached an all-time high of $1.66 trillion on an annual basis, according to the Commerce Department.

Yet nearly one in ten American workers is jobless. The unemployment rate has been stuck above nine percent for 20 consecutive months, the longest such streak since records began in 1948, according to the Labor Department. When Barack Obama took office, joblessness stood at 7.8 percent.

And the rate isn't forecast to significantly decrease anytime soon. During the firm's Friday call with analysts, Keith S. Sherin, GE's vice chairman and chief financial officer, described the nation's unemployment situation as "sticky."

The diverging fortunes of big business and households reflect the central challenge faced by the Obama administration: What kind of policies can it implement to incentivize profitable firms to spend and hire at home?

As the administration struggles to prod businesses to create jobs at home, GE has been busy sending them abroad. Since Immelt took over in 2001, GE has shed 34,000 jobs in the U.S., according to its most recent annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. But it's added 25,000 jobs overseas.

At the end of 2009, GE employed 36,000 more people abroad than it did in the U.S. In 2000, it was nearly the opposite.

Unions are worried. Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, said he hopes the Immelt-led White House panel won't be dominated by big business.

"It has to have more than CEOs that are already operating offshore," Gerard said.

Foreign work has proven lucrative to GE. In 2007, it derived half of its global sales from work abroad. In 2009, that share increased to 54 percent. U.S. sales have shrunk.

And rather than invest in the U.S., the company has decided to look elsewhere. In 2008 and 2009, GE decided to "indefinitely" reinvest prior-year earnings outside the country, according to SEC filings. That's helped the firm lower its tax rate.

In 2009, the Connecticut-based firm effectively had a negative tax rate, thanks to the $498 million loss it booked on U.S. operations versus the $10.8 billion in earnings it booked abroad. GE realized a $1.1 billion tax benefit in 2009.

In 2008, it paid $1.1 billion in taxes for a 5.3 percent tax rate. In 2007, it paid $4.2 billion in taxes for a 15.1 percent tax rate.

By comparison, during those three years -- 2007 through 2009 -- the firm reported combined net income of $50.6 billion.

The corporate tax rate in the U.S. is supposed to be 35 percent.

"I am so proud and pleased that Jeff has agreed to chair this panel -- my Council on Jobs and Competitiveness -- because we think GE has something to teach businesses all across America," Obama told a crowd of GE workers Friday at a plant in Schenectady, New York.

Immelt's appointment makes all but certain that the administration will focus on cutting corporate tax rates as part of the tax code overhaul Obama is reportedly considering, said Thomas Ferguson, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and a senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a New York-based research organization.

"It's hard to see corporate tax cuts as a problem for the U.S. right now," Ferguson said. "But those cuts are clearly coming. They've signaled that already," he said about the Obama administration.

Immelt, who's long had influence with the Obama White House -- he's visited the White House at least 16 times, meeting with Obama on at least five occasions -- is among an influential group of executives who want to see lower corporate tax rates. Corporate executives say lower taxes will lead to job creation as businesses would focus their cash on expansion.

And as Immelt takes over a council that had been dedicated to advising Obama on how to heal the economy and financial sector after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, observers noted the extent to which Immelt's firm benefited from various bailout programs.

While the previous council was led by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, whose warnings about the growth of the financial sector and the increasing riskiness it poses to the economy made him a hero to reformers, the current incarnation will be led by a chief executive who serves on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's board of directors. His firm continues to benefit from lower costs thanks to the $55 billion of outstanding taxpayer-backed debt its finance unit has issued under a crisis-era program that was supposed to be for banks.

All told, GE and its subsidiary, GE Capital, accessed nearly $100 billion through programs created by the Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to combat frozen credit markets.

"There are two problematical issues for folks who are not sympathetic to the president," said Burtless. One, "GE was intimately connected to the financial crisis," and two, "GE may have shifted a bigger proportion of its output outside the U.S."

On Friday, though, Immelt's hire was nearly universally praised by business groups.

Thomas J. Donohue, president and chief executive of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, called Obama's move a "promising step toward a renewed focus on creating jobs, boosting economic growth, and enhancing America's global competitiveness." He added that Immelt was an "excellent choice."

Sam Stein and Marcus Baram contributed reporting.

At least Mitt Romney admits he loves corporations. Obama painted this big vision of social utopia and then fucked everyone over running up a huge tab bailing out his buddies on Wall Street and destroying more jobs in the process. In short, if you vote for a liar and buy the hype, this is what happens.

[Dr. Love]

Ron Paul might not be perfect but at least he's the only one who might bring a stop to the banking/corporate abuse and stop the endless wars for money game. For me that's better than the Goldman Sach's/General Electric/Big Pharma/Monsanto/Insurance industry fascism going on right now. If you like monopolies and government thugs enforcing their corruption vote for the others.

Yep. That's what it comes down to for me.

If you like the direction this country is going in,
If you like having your freedoms taken away,
If you like Americans being assassinated by their own government,
If you want your own government to be able to hold you indefinitely,
If you want your own government to be able to spy on you,
If you want your government to give your money to the banks,
If you want your government to go to war after war after war,
If you want the 1% to continue to do whatever they want with your money,
If you want everything that is wrong with the direction of this country to continue...

Then yeah, vote for Romney. Vote for Obama. Vote for Perry. Vote for Santorum. Vote for Gingrich. They are all offering you the same thing.

If you want someone that won't be bought and paid for, someone that you know what they believe in, someone that will absolutely stand up and change the direction of this country, then vote for Paul.

[Nitro Express]

When did it become "crazy" to say that we should only have the federal government do what it's allowed to do in the Constitution? If you want to give the federal government more power, amend the constitution. Give all the states the ability to say yes/no. Don't let the federal government legislate itself an every expanding set of powers.

When did it become "crazy" to say that we don't want to go to war all the time. How many wars do you want to see happen in your lifetime? When is enough, enough? We can bring our troops home, use that money domestically (or here's a shocking idea, we can stop taking it from our citizens) and improve the situation here. I don't believe for a second that we wouldn't be able to get back into a conflict if we needed to anywhere in the world. But it would take something that drove the entire nation mobilize and push congress to declare war ... no more presidents just deciding they want to drag us into yet another conflict. What is so crazy about that?

Great points. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It's above the congress and it's above the president. They just can't pass laws that contradict the constitution and say it's legal and we better obey it. That's illegal. You only can change the constitution by going through the amendment process spelled out in the constitution itself or by having a constitutional convention. So alarmingly what has happened is the government is out of control. It's been hijacked by the big money that can afford to bribe the politicians. It's running the largest military in the history of the world all over the place on one crazy mission after the next. The biggest superpower in world history has just gone ape shit nuts.

What has happened if corporations figured it was more profitable to buy influence in Washington DC and outsource the jobs to cheap labor markets than it was to actually make a better product here. It's less work buying off politicians and they will bail your incompetent ass out. Then we have all these military contractors that need constant war to justify their existence. Since the cold war ended they needed something to replace it with. So let's have a war on terror that will be the next cold war. The problem is they are running out of countries to invade and the world is getting tired of it. Meanwhile all of this short sighted greed has moved the real manufacturing economy and wealth over to Asia while the west needs printed money, war, and banking shenanigans to keep going. It also needs an oil reserve currency. The financial system in the west has gotten itself so out of whack from reality thanks to the return of what should have been illegal derivative trading. When you can trade 100 times leverage you have a problem. If business as usual continues all the little people will lose everything while the fat cats steal it all and then their house of cards collapses because it's mathemetically impossible to sustain. We've been kicking the can down the road for the last 40 fucking years and now the camel's back has snapped. Politicians still think they can continue the same game because they have done it for so long but now it's brought in an even bigger depression than what we had in the 1930's. It just that they can paper over the reality with government subsidies but they can't do that forever. The day the food stamps and welfare debit cards no longer work is the day the reality hits. We can wait for that or we can change it now. The thing is the politicians aren't going to change shit, the people will have to step up and do it. The bunch currently in Washington have demonstrated they have not only proven their corruption but they are the domestic enemies of the constitution itself. The enemy isn't in Iran or Iraq. None of those countries attacked us on 9/11. The enemy are those in power who are ignoring the constitution and using terrorism as the excuse to grab more power for themselves and trash us.

[Nitro Express]

The shocker for me was Mitt Romney. I was living in Salt Lake City and doing volunteer work for the olympic committee. Salt Lake had an incredibly corrupt mayor and some business people and so much money had been mismanaged and stolen that it was looking like the olympics were not going to happen. It would be a first in olympic history and Utah would have egg all over it's face. Out of desperation the guy called to come in and fix things was Mitt Romney. He came in and did an excellent job. I personally was in some meetings with him. He was an excellent manager and could get things done in a meeting in 15 minutes in what would take the average person over an hour to do. The olympics would have been one big fucking disaster if Mitt hadn't come in.

I know Mitt enough to know he's not stupid. He's not like going duh, I didn't know there was so much corruption and these institutions and corporations I'm in bed with. He knows what he's doing. He knows he's selling his country out. Even more sickening it's a Mormon prophecy that the US Constitution would hang by a thread. The Mormons believe the United States was set up by God to be a bastion of freedom for the world and the constitution was sacred. They pretty much consider it almost like scripture and the US of course is zion the new Jerusalem.

What does Mitt do? He sides with the corporate fascists that are trashing the constitution and killing innocent people in wars to make money. Not only is that lousy from a patriot side of view, he's spitting in the face of the religion he claims to be a good member of. Money and power makes people do funny things. One reason Washington DC is such a cess pool it's full of both.

Could Mitt be a good president? Sure. He's got the managerial skills and is smart enough to learn the presidency. The problem is Mitt has no integrity and allows himself to be manipulated by those who have money and influence. One problem we have had for years is our presidents have just been puppets. The last one that had any balls was Kennedy. We need a president who is the fucking president and knows he works for the citizens who voted him into office, not a few people with very deep pockets.

[Nitro Express]

Bottom line is that we need to elect a Liberal veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress. And I mean Bernie Sanders - Dennis Kucinich Liberals, not a bunch of Clinton Reid Pelosi Nelson Lieberman "centrist" frauds.

I doubt Ron Paul will be "allowed" to win the nomination, but if he did, and then somehow won the general election, only a solid Liberal Congress would save this country from a Randtard nightmare which would make the BCE blood orgy of Chimp & Cheney seem like the "good old days". If we got an end to all the stupid wars - and that means Iraq, Afghanistan, AND Hemp, and a serious audit/overhaul of the "Federal" Reserve, it would still be the best accomplishments of government since 1981, even if there was nothing but complete gridlock after that.

And if Obama gets re-elected, a Liberal congress is even better. He's not about to veto Liberal legislation after he somehow talks Democrats into voting for him again. And if he did, fucking override the veto. Get all the good things we could get from Ron Paul PLUS Single Payer Health Care and some real infrastructure/jobs programs.

The thing is we can debate healthcare and how the budget is spent but when you see the whole US senate except for seven vote to give domestic police powers to the US military and allow them to detain US citizens indefinitely with no due process it's a way bigger fucking deal. I don't care if you are a liberal or a conservative, we both enjoy freedom of speech, being innocent until proven guilty, the right to a public trial, and assurance that your own military won't be used to turn the country into a police state.

That's a congress that has no regard for constitutional rights at all. Either they want to abuse their power or they are so incompetent they just vote the way someone tells them to vote. Either way they don't belong in office.

I mean we can debate who gets what and how much but we all know what are rights are and when you see the elected officials trash them there should be no debate. We should all agree a big wrong has been done. That is how bad things have gotten. It's beyond the petty politics now, it's about the survival of our nation. It's a big fucking deal because if we can't fix this through the political process it gets real messy beyond that point.

We have seen what a right wing Congress gets us. And don't kid yourself, it didn't stop being right wing in 2006, and it only got more right wing in 2010 because Kennedy and Byrd died, and Grayson & Feingold got screwed by the assholes who claimed to be on "their side" (useless Tim Kaine and the once again DLC corrupted national Democratic party) You can shuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic all you want, but Pelosi was just as useless as Boner.

Best place to fight back is the congressional primaries. If you have a right winger in office - whether they have an (R) or a (D) after their name - kick them the fuck out and vote in someone who represents the 99%.

If the Democrat party was decent it would run Kucinich or Sanders instead of anti-constitution Barrack. I would love to see those guys run. I hate to say it but the Democratic and Republican parties have both been hijacked. They both are corrupt. I don't even see them as different parties anymore. I agree. Fire them all.

[FORD]

Ron Paul might not be perfect but at least he's the only one who might bring a stop to the banking/corporate abuse and stop the endless wars for money game. For me that's better than the Goldman Sach's/General Electric/Big Pharma/Monsanto/Insurance industry fascism going on right now. If you like monopolies and government thugs enforcing their corruption vote for the others.

You know why GE, MonSatan, Gold Mansacks and the other criminals you mentioned are getting away with so much?

30 years of fucking deregulation which has now re-enabled these criminals to do everything they got away with doing in the 1920's, which caused the Depression. Or in MonSatan's case, do even worse things which weren't even possible then, like putting mutant toxic artificial crap in the grocery stores, and calling it "vegetables"

Ron Paul thinks we still have too MUCH regulation. He wants to destroy what little of it remains. The teabaggers currently in Congress not only want to eliminate everything FDR accomplished, they also want to wipe out all the good his cousin Teddy did. Including eliminating the National Parks and selling them off to the goddamned energy companies. Remember that "Super Volcano" that you live right next door to? I guarantee you that the minute those douchebags start fracking Yellowstone, you'll wake up one morning to a wall of molten lava coming down on your ass.

Ron Paul won't stop corporate abuse. He'll accelerate it, because his blind obedience to Ayn Rand fairytales keeps him from realizing that you cannot trust these fucking bastards to act like goddamn decent human beings and compete fairly in a so-called "free market" (which basically no longer exists anyway)

[Nitro Express]

It won't be lava oozing out of Yellowstone if it goes. It will be a huge fucking explosion with a pyroclastic flow of hot gas going out to a radius of 150 miles. Every tree, every house, every building here will be leveled and incinerated. I will be dead before I even knew what hit me. Then the place gets covered up with a few feet of volcanic ash. The good news is I won't have to worry about this political bullshit anymore.

The mother of corporations is the Federal Reserve Bank. Last I checked Ron Paul sure wanted to regulate that mother fucker.

[Pink Spider]

You know why GE, MonSatan, Gold Mansacks and the other criminals you mentioned are getting away with so much?

Because GE and Goldman Sachs were bailed out by the federal government. These companies wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the federal government and the taxpayers by force subsidizing every one of their failures. You credit this government for holding them back when they're doing the opposite. Big businesses like these would have a hard time in a fair market where no one gets free money.

30 years of fucking deregulation which has now re-enabled these criminals to do everything they got away with doing in the 1920's, which caused the Depression. Or in MonSatan's case, do even worse things which weren't even possible then, like putting mutant toxic artificial crap in the grocery stores, and calling it "vegetables"

I don't trust Monsanto and perhaps they're a bit evil, but genetic engineering and selective breeding of crops has saved BILLIONS of lives and will possibly save billions more in the future. Organic is not sustainable with the current population and the forests that would have to be cut down to plant organic crops which produce lower yields would create even more environmental trouble.

Ron Paul thinks we still have too MUCH regulation. He wants to destroy what little of it remains. The teabaggers currently in Congress not only want to eliminate everything FDR accomplished, they also want to wipe out all the good his cousin Teddy did. Including eliminating the National Parks and selling them off to the goddamned energy companies. Remember that "Super Volcano" that you live right next door to? I guarantee you that the minute those douchebags start fracking Yellowstone, you'll wake up one morning to a wall of molten lava coming down on your ass.

Ron Paul doesn't want to do anything beyond the federal government. State governments would take over all of this theoretically. Pollution laws and things like would fall under the laws of private property and I would say would be more strict if their were actual consequences for polluting instead of a slap on the hand from the federal government. Anyway, this is pointless to argue since this isn't probably going to happen anytime soon.

Ron Paul won't stop corporate abuse. He'll accelerate it, because his blind obedience to Ayn Rand fairytales keeps him from realizing that you cannot trust these fucking bastards to act like goddamn decent human beings and compete fairly in a so-called "free market" (which basically no longer exists anyway)

She had some decent ideas on religion, but Ayn Rand was an objectivist and HATED libertarians. Link. I would agree with you about the Randtard term, you're just targeting the wrong group.