Was Ron Paul Right All Along?

[eots]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaFaOfiOWtI[/ame]

 

[eots]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkqkzHfWuSM&feature=related[/ame]

 

[raceright]

Ron Paul supporters are largely very youthful. I'm only 20 and I think Ron Paul's message is extremely hip. From the tea parties, the blimp, the money bombs, and everything else I'd say Ron Paul probably had the hippest campaign in 2008.

Can you dig that, holmes?

so your contention is that the tea baggers and ron paul movements aren't 99.99999999% white?

I don't think that's an honest answer. Video tape doesn't lie, and those tea bagging crowds are white as the driven snow. You won't be a viable party in 21st century america, by being a white party.

Why does race matter for you? I'm not white, and I still believe in RP's message. It's very shallow to base an argument entirely on race... And, to answer your quesiton..

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSh6kVT4UL0[/ame]

Liberty brings people together. Fascism and grouping people as collectivist groups divides them. We're not African-American, Irish-American, Gay-American, Mexican-American, Polish-American... we're American, and that's it. Our inalienable rights are for each individual and guaranteed as such. One group of people do not have more or less rights than another group.

Also, we're not tea baggers. I know you're trying to be derisive and witty, but it's failing miserably. Show our founders some respect.

So answer me this why did 90% of African Americans vote for Obama--Because they thought he was the best for the job--Hardly
Me thinks it was a racist vote.

 

[eots]

so your contention is that the tea baggers and ron paul movements aren't 99.99999999% white?

I don't think that's an honest answer. Video tape doesn't lie, and those tea bagging crowds are white as the driven snow. You won't be a viable party in 21st century america, by being a white party.

Why does race matter for you? I'm not white, and I still believe in RP's message. It's very shallow to base an argument entirely on race... And, to answer your quesiton..

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSh6kVT4UL0[/ame]

Liberty brings people together. Fascism and grouping people as collectivist groups divides them. We're not African-American, Irish-American, Gay-American, Mexican-American, Polish-American... we're American, and that's it. Our inalienable rights are for each individual and guaranteed as such. One group of people do not have more or less rights than another group.

Also, we're not tea baggers. I know you're trying to be derisive and witty, but it's failing miserably. Show our founders some respect.

So answer me this why did 90% of African Americans vote for Obama--Because they thought he was the best for the job--Hardly
Me thinks it was a racist vote.

I don't agree the man is charismatic as much as i don't support him a different black candidate would not of done as well

 

[raceright]

Why does race matter for you? I'm not white, and I still believe in RP's message. It's very shallow to base an argument entirely on race... And, to answer your quesiton..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSh6kVT4UL0

Liberty brings people together. Fascism and grouping people as collectivist groups divides them. We're not African-American, Irish-American, Gay-American, Mexican-American, Polish-American... we're American, and that's it. Our inalienable rights are for each individual and guaranteed as such. One group of people do not have more or less rights than another group.

Also, we're not tea baggers. I know you're trying to be derisive and witty, but it's failing miserably. Show our founders some respect.

So answer me this why did 90% of African Americans vote for Obama--Because they thought he was the best for the job--Hardly
Me thinks it was a racist vote.

I don't agree the man is charismatic as much as i don't support him a different black candidate would not of done as well

Uh HUH don't believe it this will turn into a Black White thing the left is already working it that way you'll see

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Here’s a helpful marketing tip.

Don’t base a political movement on ideas or metaphors like “tea parties”.

That sounds like something out of the guilded age of 1880’s Victorian England. Only white people over age of 50 think “tea parties” sound hip. No person of color, and probably most white people under the age of 30 can remotely get down with the concept or metaphor of “tea parties”.

Its horrible marketing. It definitely sounds like a theme and a concept dreamed up by a movement made up of all elderly white people from the country club.

Ron Paul supporters are largely very youthful. I'm only 20 and I think Ron Paul's message is extremely hip. From the tea parties, the blimp, the money bombs, and everything else I'd say Ron Paul probably had the hippest campaign in 2008.

Can you dig that, holmes?

so your contention is that the tea baggers and ron paul movements aren't 99.99999999% white?

I don't think that's an honest answer. Video tape doesn't lie, and those tea bagging crowds are white as the driven snow. You won't be a viable party in 21st century america, by being a white party.

My contention was that you're incorrect in labeling Ron Paul's supporters as middle-aged or old people, as a large number of us are in our twenties or thirties.

Also, many different races supported Ron Paul.

 

[raceright]

Ron Paul supporters are largely very youthful. I'm only 20 and I think Ron Paul's message is extremely hip. From the tea parties, the blimp, the money bombs, and everything else I'd say Ron Paul probably had the hippest campaign in 2008.

Can you dig that, holmes?

so your contention is that the tea baggers and ron paul movements aren't 99.99999999% white?

I don't think that's an honest answer. Video tape doesn't lie, and those tea bagging crowds are white as the driven snow. You won't be a viable party in 21st century america, by being a white party.

My contention was that you're incorrect in labeling Ron Paul's supporters as middle-aged or old people, as a large number of us are in our twenties or thirties.

Also, many different races supported Ron Paul.

Good he will not get elected for two reasons 1 he is not a racist and 2 he would be the best man for the job

 

[editec]

He's definitely right about one thing, Jill...the sham that we call the Federal Reserve needs to be fixed.

I think his solutions are straight out of a Dickens novel, (like most libertarians' solutions tend to be) but his complaints about what the masters aren't without merit.

Seriously, Jill, if you were designing a society, would what we have (and are attempting to keep going) now be your solution?

I rather doubt it.

Good ideas, and valid complaints are worth reconizing even if you can't get entirely on board with everything people say.

So what is wrong with the Fed system and how would you fix it.

Take BACK the private banks right to add NEW money into the system.

We DO need to cpontrol the money supply.

But the operative word is WE, meaning we the people.

WE, meaning our government, gave that power to the banking class.

And america, and most obviously AMERICANS have been suffering ever since.

 

[mash107]

He's definitely right about one thing, Jill...the sham that we call the Federal Reserve needs to be fixed.

I think his solutions are straight out of a Dickens novel, (like most libertarians' solutions tend to be) but his complaints about what the masters aren't without merit.

Seriously, Jill, if you were designing a society, would what we have (and are attempting to keep going) now be your solution?

I rather doubt it.

Good ideas, and valid complaints are worth reconizing even if you can't get entirely on board with everything people say.

So what is wrong with the Fed system and how would you fix it.

Take BACK the private banks right to add NEW money into the system.

We DO need to cpontrol the money supply.

But the operative word is WE, meaning we the people.

WE, meaning our government, gave that power to the banking class.

And america, and most obviously AMERICANS have been suffering ever since.

Agreed. Abolish the Federal Reserve and let the people (free market) handle money. That issue is way too important for incompetent dimwits in Washington to handle.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Ron Paul supporters are largely very youthful. I'm only 20 and I think Ron Paul's message is extremely hip. From the tea parties, the blimp, the money bombs, and everything else I'd say Ron Paul probably had the hippest campaign in 2008.

Can you dig that, holmes?

It's young people that realize that all the excess spending of Bush and Obama is going to make it impossible to earn a decent living when they grow up. Who'd want to pay 70% on taxes and get 1/10th the services we have now, because all of our money will pay off debt that was borrowed to line the pockets of those that failed?!

If they are knowledgeable they'll realize the pass the buck generation elected pandering policitians like Ron George and George who slashed everyone's taxes and borrowed trillions and that's why they'll have to pay 70% (like their grandfarther did) to pay off the Republican debt.

Kevin --
Was not aware you were so young. You seem to have a good head on your shoulders and write well. You also seem to pick up much of the ideologue propaganda (both sides).

So, on this sleepy Sunday morning, have a good day. And keep it up.

 

[editec]

So what is wrong with the Fed system and how would you fix it.

Take BACK the private banks right to add NEW money into the system.

We DO need to cpontrol the money supply.

But the operative word is WE, meaning we the people.

WE, meaning our government, gave that power to the banking class.

And america, and most obviously AMERICANS have been suffering ever since.

Agreed. Abolish the Federal Reserve and let the people (free market) handle money. That issue is way too important for incompetent dimwits in Washington to handle.

If only it were that simple.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Ron Paul supporters are largely very youthful. I'm only 20 and I think Ron Paul's message is extremely hip. From the tea parties, the blimp, the money bombs, and everything else I'd say Ron Paul probably had the hippest campaign in 2008.

Can you dig that, holmes?

It's young people that realize that all the excess spending of Bush and Obama is going to make it impossible to earn a decent living when they grow up. Who'd want to pay 70% on taxes and get 1/10th the services we have now, because all of our money will pay off debt that was borrowed to line the pockets of those that failed?!

If they are knowledgeable they'll realize the pass the buck generation elected pandering policitians like Ron George and George who slashed everyone's taxes and borrowed trillions and that's why they'll have to pay 70% (like their grandfarther did) to pay off the Republican debt.

The Reps did, indeed, leave us with more debt and were derelict in their domestic governance in general. Don't get me started on Iraq. The concept of lowering taxes as being revenue negative, however, is in direct opposition to the evidence of history that lowering taxes stimulates growth which correspondingly increases tax receipts.

As a concept that served our society well for over 20 years. The trouble came when as many colossally stupid and socially criminal things were carried out by the bank-government cabal - at the same time, Life's pendulum swung too far in one direction and had to come back.

It is difficult under these circumstances not to think that all that we previously embraced from an economic theory standpoint was wrong. I see it differently and feel that man's fallen nature, the bank-government cabal, and an unthwarted 'me' culture led us to this place. Realize that is a pretty high level view, but that is how it looks to me.

With all this talk about prosecuting the Bush 43 crowd around Iraq, I would suggest an alternative. Let's hunt, find and prosecute everyone in Washington who held any position during the period where deregulation was being considered and who did not publically oppose it thereafter.

Some on this forum seem to be angry people. I am not. But I strongly believe that the only thing that will actually right our ship is to clean house in this deliberate manner.

 

[Paulie]

You'd have a good basis for protesting -- if I had claimed you said it. Since the post I was responding to was referring to Paul, my "he" referred to him. It was from Paul's article in the OP. I was explaining my apparant misapprehension that Paul planned to raise revenues from tariffs.

Which I've been informed he does not.

So I'm still in the dark about his plan to raise revenues if the income and SS taxes are eliminated and there are no tariffs.

Pan for gold perhaps.

You aren't listening, Iriemon. Paul's tax position can not simply be misstated by saying he wants to cut all taxes, and leave revenue generation in the dumpster. If you cut spending to responsible levels, you wouldn't NEED to generate the revenue lost by cutting the taxes he advocates cutting.

That's the answer you've BEEN getting, but like I said last night, it wasn't what YOU wanted to hear. Christ, talk about banging your head against a wall!

Let's do this one more time, and either move on to something new or just abandon this thread, your choice: Paul wants to cut spending significantly, in which case the government wouldn't have to be concerned with making up for lost revenue via tax cuts. He has REPEATEDLY said that by cutting spending merely to the levels they were at pre-year 2000, the income tax wouldn't even be necessary. I honestly can't say I completely agree with that, as I don't know the exact numbers he's going by, but he is GENERALLY correct that spending levels before the year 2000 required a SIGNIFICANTLY lower amount of taxes.

You loved it during the Clinton years, so I would have to imagine you'd be fine with us cutting spending back to those levels. After that, we'd be able to make drastic cuts in taxes.

Are you satisfied, or are you still missing something?

Yes. I don't want to know how he is going to destroy the safety net that keep tens of millions out of poverty. I get that.

How is he going to generate revenues. I want to know what taxes or plan he has to generate revenues. 8th time.

All I hear is how he is going to eliminate taxes but unless you are saying there will be no government he has to raise some revenues. How.

Ok, you're starting to appear rather dumb now. The answer, FOR THE 8TH TIME, is he doesn't need to generate the lost revenue because he would cut spending to accompany the tax cuts.

You seem like you were pretty satisfied with how it was during the Clinton admin, so if we were to cut spending back to those levels, we could siginificantly reduce the tax burden on all citizens.

Make no mistake, my primary area for spending cuts would start in defense. We wouldn't be in 200 countries, we'd be in a fraction of that at the MOST. I'd prefer we jusst stayed out of the affairs of other sovereign nations, and armed and defended our OWN country rather than let illegal immigrants waltz on in with the potential to do us harm while we're off thousands of miles away bombing someone elses infrastructure and then rebuilding it. Armed neutrality, a la Switzerland, is how I'd run things, and it's how Paul would as well. When's the last time anyone attacked Switzerland? I'll wait.

Do you understand now, or do we have to keep going in this circle? One, he wouldn't eliminate "all" taxes, and two, he'd reduce spending to accompany the tax cuts appropriately.

We wouldn't have to start right off by taking food out of poor people's mouths. There are hundreds of billions of dollars, even TRILLIONS, being spent on things that don't do us one bit of good, mainly foreign interventionism.