Read The Forum Rules: We have a clear set of rules to keep the forum running smoothly. Click here to review them.

Post Reply 
Romney or Santorum?
Author Message
Iceinthewater Offline
Woodpecker
**

Posts: 314
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation: 8
Post: #76
RE: Romney or Santorum?
Paul makes me super nervous. He's right on foreign policy, ending wars (drug war included), and literal interpretation of Bill of Rights, but beyond that he's completely batshit.

He rejects Keynesian economics - look up what Paul Krugman thinks of him - Krugman has been right on just about everything on the economy in last ten years, while Paul has been wrong.

Also, Paul's social policies border on anarchism. He wants to dismantle public schools, the FDA, the Occupational Safety and Health Ac, membership in the UN, Federal Deposit Insurance, even the agency that oversees aviation - not sure what it's called. Also, if you're uninsured and something happens to you, who fucking cares - go die because that's what freedoms all about.

If you're really a Republican, look at Huntsman. He's the only sane one of the bunch.
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2012 02:38 AM by Iceinthewater.)
01-12-2012 02:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Deluge Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,995
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation: 76
Post: #77
RE: Romney or Santorum?
(01-12-2012 02:37 AM)Iceinthewater Wrote:  Paul makes me super nervous. He's right on foreign policy, ending wars (drug war included), and literal interpretation of Bill of Rights, but beyond that he's completely batshit.

He rejects Keynesian economics - look up what Paul Krugman thinks of him - Krugman has been right on just about everything on the economy in last ten years, while Paul has been wrong.

Also, Paul's social policies border on anarchism. He wants to dismantle public schools, the FDA, the Occupational Safety and Health Ac, membership in the UN, Federal Deposit Insurance, even the agency that oversees aviation - not sure what it's called. Also, if you're uninsured and something happens to you, who fucking cares - go die because that's what freedoms all about.

If you're really a Republican, look at Huntsman. He's the only sane one of the bunch.

Ron Paul's been harping about Weimar Germany style hyper-inflation for years. Any day now! -.- Personally I have a distaste for supply side economics, but the Austrian School (which Ron Paul subscribes to and has written six books about) is hogwash. Even Milton Friedman rips into the Austrian school, and he was the champion of free market economics and was an economic advisor to Ronald Reagan.
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2012 03:10 AM by Deluge.)
01-12-2012 03:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Iceinthewater Offline
Woodpecker
**

Posts: 314
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation: 8
Post: #78
RE: Romney or Santorum?
The tough decision for me IF I even decide to vote for one of these egomaniacs is to give Obama four more, when all his economic advisers are wall street fucks who belong in jail.

Like I said, I like Huntsman, if nothing else, his social policies make sense, and he's not radical. We are in a time when so many people are unhappy, radicalism could emerge in the white house. Back during W.'s first run, I remember saying "I just want a guy who keeps it together and doesn't start any wars." Sure enough...

I'm saying the same thing this year.
01-12-2012 03:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Deluge Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,995
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation: 76
Post: #79
RE: Romney or Santorum?
(01-12-2012 03:29 AM)Iceinthewater Wrote:  "I just want a guy who keeps it together and doesn't start any wars."

Sounds a lot like Bill Clinton, although he certainly isn't the most trustworthy President he did a pretty damm good job.
01-12-2012 10:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
vinman Online
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,371
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 68
Post: #80
RE: Romney or Santorum?
(01-12-2012 10:04 AM)P Dog Wrote:  
(01-12-2012 03:29 AM)Iceinthewater Wrote:  "I just want a guy who keeps it together and doesn't start any wars."

Sounds a lot like Bill Clinton, although he certainly isn't the most trustworthy President he did a pretty damm good job.

Sorry P Dog, but he kept the sanction and No fly Zone on Iraq.This to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. He also did air strikes in the Balkans, and had Delta Force rounding up "War Criminals". He was quick to throw Cruise Missile at a problem. He followed the Mafia Model of government as well.

"Feminism is a trade union for ugly women"- Peregrine
01-12-2012 10:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Deluge Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,995
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation: 76
Post: #81
RE: Romney or Santorum?
(01-12-2012 10:11 AM)vinman Wrote:  
(01-12-2012 10:04 AM)P Dog Wrote:  
(01-12-2012 03:29 AM)Iceinthewater Wrote:  "I just want a guy who keeps it together and doesn't start any wars."

Sounds a lot like Bill Clinton, although he certainly isn't the most trustworthy President he did a pretty damm good job.

Sorry P Dog, but he kept the sanction and No fly Zone on Iraq.This to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. He also did air strikes in the Balkans, and had Delta Force rounding up "War Criminals". He was quick to throw Cruise Missile at a problem. He followed the Mafia Model of government as well.

I'm well aware of the NATO intervention in the Yugoslav Wars, bear in mind the war criminals your referring to were tried for genocide in Bosnia and the Srebrenica massacre of 8000 Bosnian men and boys. The 500,000 Iraqi children deaths I was not aware of though. For those who didn't know either, Clinton pushed for UN sanctions in Iraq which over 10 years killed as many as 500,000 Iraqi children. The Mafia Model of government you speak of, is nowhere unique to Clinton, nor any other President or any political party.
01-12-2012 11:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
kosko Offline
Peacock
******
Gold Member

Posts: 6,840
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 146
Post: #82
RE: Romney or Santorum?
Clinton was a warmonger like the rest of them don't forget about the bombings in Somilia either.

Clinton gets a lot of hoopla but in retrospect he was a wreak. He repealed glass-stegall which then caused the formation of two of the largest credit bubbles in the history of man kind (dot-com, housing) he rode this inflated economic "prosperity" all throughout his 2 terms while engaging in typical Washington politik by bombing far off lands which Americans didn't know much about. The lack of the internet and fewer sources for news is the main reason most Americas have no idea Clinton pushed for the sanctions which killed 500K in Iraq. Those numbers seem light now to the estimated 1.3 million that have died at the hands of Obama and Bush.

Which Canidate won't continue this streak? Its obviously Paul but he will make all Americans pay a dear price for the resulting containment of American expansionism. People call the man an isolationist when those fools can't even remember that Americas best days is when it gave a big middle finger to the globe and worried about its internal well-being.
01-12-2012 12:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Hooligan Harry Offline
Kingfisher
***
Gold Member

Posts: 879
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation: 67
Post: #83
RE: Romney or Santorum?
(01-12-2012 02:37 AM)Iceinthewater Wrote:  He rejects Keynesian economics - look up what Paul Krugman thinks of him - Krugman has been right on just about everything on the economy in last ten years, while Paul has been wrong.





All the way back in 2002 if you prefer?





Belief in Keynesian economics and theory is tantamount to believing in unicorns.
(This post was last modified: 01-13-2012 12:15 AM by Hooligan Harry.)
01-13-2012 12:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
vinman Online
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,371
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 68
Post: #84
RE: Romney or Santorum?
The Austrians predicted all of the busts. Paul Krugman is a statist HACK. I thank the late Milton Friedman for helping me on the road to Libertarianism, but his monetarist policies in Britain were abominable. He was also the person that came up with withholding to pay for a war (shame on him), and Bernanke is his disciple. I'm not impressed with the University of Chicago economists. For my money I'll roll with the Austrians from the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

"Feminism is a trade union for ugly women"- Peregrine
01-13-2012 12:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
gringochileno Offline
Pelican
****

Posts: 1,255
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation: 25
Post: #85
RE: Romney or Santorum?
If you think Ron Paul (or Herman Cain for that matter, remember him?) ever had any chance of being the Republican nominee or becoming President you don't have a very sophisticated understanding of how American politics works. Romney has it in the bag, I'd bet on him at 100 to 1 at this point (the 1% odds against being accounted for mostly by the possibility that he'll turn out to be a child molester or something).

Ron Paul's wrong about the cause of the financial crisis too. Fannie and Freddie played no significant role.
(This post was last modified: 01-13-2012 12:52 AM by gringochileno.)
01-13-2012 12:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Iceinthewater Offline
Woodpecker
**

Posts: 314
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation: 8
Post: #86
RE: Romney or Santorum?
@Vinman - I can see disagreeing with him. Economics is a hard subject to have a basic grasp over, let alone be an expert. I'm wary of anyone who outright dismisses a whole school of thought.

@Hoooliganharry - that first video was surprising I wasn't aware of that. I knew of Ron Paul's stance on foreign policy from the second video. You already know I respect your economic insight, but equating Keynesian school of thought to unicorns...why do you think so?

Who are you guys thinking about voting for? (if at all)
(This post was last modified: 01-13-2012 01:37 AM by Iceinthewater.)
01-13-2012 01:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Iceinthewater Offline
Woodpecker
**

Posts: 314
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation: 8
Post: #87
RE: Romney or Santorum?
Deleted post
(This post was last modified: 01-13-2012 01:36 AM by Iceinthewater.)
01-13-2012 01:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Hooligan Harry Offline
Kingfisher
***
Gold Member

Posts: 879
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation: 67
Post: #88
RE: Romney or Santorum?
(01-13-2012 01:33 AM)Iceinthewater Wrote:  @Hoooliganharry - that first video was surprising I wasn't aware of that. I knew of Ron Paul's stance on foreign policy from the second video. You already know I respect your economic insight, but equating Keynesian school of thought to unicorns...why do you think so?

Who are you guys thinking about voting for? (if at all)

You cannot manipulate and legislate your way to prosperity. The belief that we should regulate markets to achieve some sort of social outcome is nothing more than loose Marxism. It does not work.

Keynesian economics is the reason why we are in the middle of a sovereign debt crisis and currency crisis around the world. It builds a dependence on government spending and welfare, not trade. This cant be sustained and it drains your markets of real liquidity. You have to let the chips fall. Governments cannot manipulate markets and business needs to know it will fail when it takes too many risks.

For any American who argues against supply and demand economics, look at prohibition. Look at Miami! Miami was built off cocaine and money laundering. Demand drove an economic boom in Miami that changed the face of the place in 15 years.

Of course drugs were bad and all that money laundering was impossible for big government to tax, so the put a stop to it. Imagine what Miami would look like today if they never clamped down on laundering. All that tax free money pouring into real estate and legitimate businesses sparked a massive economic boom, but because the fuckers could not trace or tax it they went in hard. This is Keynesian economics at its finest.

Why do you think that marijuana is illegal?
Why do you think its illegal to sell moonshine?
Why do you think prostitution is illegal or highly regulated?

Because they cant tax it.

Im Australian, so obviously wont be voting. If I could, I would be voting for Paul and I am praying enough people wake up to him. Another 4 years of Obama is going to be a disaster and the world economy cant afford to see the USA implode.

And we cant see one of these sick fucks like Santorum or Gingrich landing the nomination. Even if they had to beat Obama (dont think they could) they are just as likely to send troops into Iran as they are to continue blowing money like Obama has. Romney is Obama, there is no difference between the two. How are Americans not seeing this? It takes 10 minutes to read about his past policies and his current policies to see he is a snake.

The media is never going to support a candidate that is anti war and believes Israel needs to be left to sort itself out either. Paul is talking about cutting foreign aid, another major benefit Israel would lose out on. Then he wants to audit the fed. Now I am not going to turn this into some anti semetic rant, but Ill be blunt as always:

- Less support for Israel
- Less aid for Israel (and everyone else, why the fuck are you guys giving aid to China when you cant pay your bills?)
- Audit the fed (which looks like it borrowed 15 trillion to the banks but does not want to disclose this)

Is it any wonder that a Jewish run media and Jewish run banks are backing Romney like they are? Paul is bad news for them and they are going to act in their interests. The biggest contributors to the Romney campaign have been the very banks the fed bailed out. JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Citi Bank and the Republican media darling is none other than a moderate American who is nothing more than a white Obama.

Your democracy has been perverted by this crap. Pauls campaign is being funded by the tax paying public, not private enterprise. He is seeing the most donations from the military. The people are behind him while the media and big business marginalises him at every possible opportunity. His entire campaign is being run by volunteers. He is bringing in independent voters, democrats and younger kids.

Yet the media continues to ignore the will of the public and the voters turning out in droves as they attempt to discredit him when they dont ignore him.

How does this not ring any alarm bells?
01-13-2012 02:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
thegmanifesto Offline
Peacock
******
Gold Member

Posts: 9,980
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 147
Post: #89
RE: Romney or Santorum?
Good post Houligan.


Quote:Why do you think that marijuana is illegal?
Why do you think its illegal to sell moonshine?
Why do you think prostitution is illegal or highly regulated?

Because they cant tax it.

Well, they Can tax it, but they won't.

Too bad. America had so much potential.

Quote:Romney is Obama, there is no difference between the two.

No truer words spoken.

The two of them make for a perfect "divide and conquer" though, don't they?

- MPM
The Guide to Getting More out of Life
http://www.thegmanifesto.com

Twitter: https://twitter.com/michaelporfirio

Michael Mason's Facebook

The G Manifesto Facebook Page

Grew up with gorillas, you grew up on Twitter, don’t care if you follow me.

"Can't be like the rest", is the most I'll confess.
(This post was last modified: 01-13-2012 02:41 AM by thegmanifesto.)
01-13-2012 02:40 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Iceinthewater Offline
Woodpecker
**

Posts: 314
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation: 8
Post: #90
RE: Romney or Santorum?
Oh it does that's why I actually care. I've never paid this much attention to an election year.

My real fear of Paul is his social policies. It's almost like he wants to eliminate all social infrastructure. Letting the chips fall where they may...in terms of people dying because they literally can't afford insurance, or the snake ins. companies find loopholes to not cover etc...

Paul evaded this question in the debate. To my knowledge he doesn't have much of an answer - correct me if I'm wrong.

I absolutely think their needs to be some federal oversight in the economy but I also agree that too much prevents fluidity and that's where we are at now.

There are other factors not accounted for in either of the economic schools - corrupt political ties, idiotically getting into wars that make no sense, a whole segment of the population that's been at a disadvantage since day one because they were slaves (and I don't wanna hear shit about oh everyone has an equal chance in America - I will win that debate), etc.

My overall feeling is just unease. A lot of words getting thrown around. It's like I care because this is my country, but at the same time I just want to get the fuck out and see what happens.

(01-13-2012 02:27 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  
(01-13-2012 01:33 AM)Iceinthewater Wrote:  @Hoooliganharry - that first video was surprising I wasn't aware of that. I knew of Ron Paul's stance on foreign policy from the second video. You already know I respect your economic insight, but equating Keynesian school of thought to unicorns...why do you think so?

Who are you guys thinking about voting for? (if at all)

You cannot manipulate and legislate your way to prosperity. The belief that we should regulate markets to achieve some sort of social outcome is nothing more than loose Marxism. It does not work.

Keynesian economics is the reason why we are in the middle of a sovereign debt crisis and currency crisis around the world. It builds a dependence on government spending and welfare, not trade. This cant be sustained and it drains your markets of real liquidity. You have to let the chips fall. Governments cannot manipulate markets and business needs to know it will fail when it takes too many risks.

For any American who argues against supply and demand economics, look at prohibition. Look at Miami! Miami was built off cocaine and money laundering. Demand drove an economic boom in Miami that changed the face of the place in 15 years.

Of course drugs were bad and all that money laundering was impossible for big government to tax, so the put a stop to it. Imagine what Miami would look like today if they never clamped down on laundering. All that tax free money pouring into real estate and legitimate businesses sparked a massive economic boom, but because the fuckers could not trace or tax it they went in hard. This is Keynesian economics at its finest.

Why do you think that marijuana is illegal?
Why do you think its illegal to sell moonshine?
Why do you think prostitution is illegal or highly regulated?

Because they cant tax it.

Im Australian, so obviously wont be voting. If I could, I would be voting for Paul and I am praying enough people wake up to him. Another 4 years of Obama is going to be a disaster and the world economy cant afford to see the USA implode.

And we cant see one of these sick fucks like Santorum or Gingrich landing the nomination. Even if they had to beat Obama (dont think they could) they are just as likely to send troops into Iran as they are to continue blowing money like Obama has. Romney is Obama, there is no difference between the two. How are Americans not seeing this? It takes 10 minutes to read about his past policies and his current policies to see he is a snake.

The media is never going to support a candidate that is anti war and believes Israel needs to be left to sort itself out either. Paul is talking about cutting foreign aid, another major benefit Israel would lose out on. Then he wants to audit the fed. Now I am not going to turn this into some anti semetic rant, but Ill be blunt as always:

- Less support for Israel
- Less aid for Israel (and everyone else, why the fuck are you guys giving aid to China when you cant pay your bills?)
- Audit the fed (which looks like it borrowed 15 trillion to the banks but does not want to disclose this)

Is it any wonder that a Jewish run media and Jewish run banks are backing Romney like they are? Paul is bad news for them and they are going to act in their interests. The biggest contributors to the Romney campaign have been the very banks the fed bailed out. JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Citi Bank and the Republican media darling is none other than a moderate American who is nothing more than a white Obama.

Your democracy has been perverted by this crap. Pauls campaign is being funded by the tax paying public, not private enterprise. He is seeing the most donations from the military. The people are behind him while the media and big business marginalises him at every possible opportunity. His entire campaign is being run by volunteers. He is bringing in independent voters, democrats and younger kids.

Yet the media continues to ignore the will of the public and the voters turning out in droves as they attempt to discredit him when they dont ignore him.

How does this not ring any alarm bells?
01-13-2012 02:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Hooligan Harry Offline
Kingfisher
***
Gold Member

Posts: 879
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation: 67
Post: #91
RE: Romney or Santorum?
This is an example of how the media misrepresents him though

On cutting social security:

Paul Wrote:Yes, but not overnight. As a matter of fact, my program’s the only one that is going to be able to take care of the elderly. I’d like to get the young people out of it, just the younger generation, because there’s no money there, and they’re going to have to pay 50 years and they’re not going to get anything. I’d take care of all the elderly, all those who are dependent, but I would save the money from this wild spending overseas.

He wants to cut back on the war chest to pay for social security. The anti social security guy will spend more on it because he knows it cant be cut yet. But younger generations can be weaned off it.

And more, from Wiki

Quote:Paul has given 12 updates on his Texas Straight Talk archive on the issue of Social Security.[70] Paul says that Social Security is in "bad shape ... The numbers aren't there"; funds are depleting because Congress borrows from the Social Security fund every year to fund its budget.[71] He considers himself the rare member of Congress who has voted for such little spending that it has never required borrowing from existing Social Security funds. To stem the Social Security crisis and meet the commitment to elderly citizens who depend on it, he requires that Congress cut down on spending, reassess monetary and spending policies, and stop borrowing heavily from foreign investors, such as those in China, who hold U.S. Treasury bonds. Paul believes young Americans should be able to opt out of the system if they would not like to pay Social Security taxes, in order to protect the system

It makes me sick that the media has the influence it does. Paul is regarded as being fringe when his views are perfectly reasonable. He does not believe in social security, but knows he cant cut it straight away. So wants to pass policy that will do it gradually.

Have you seen the basics of the healthcare policy?

Note how he wants to drop taxes and offer rebates. You think the local pharma companies are happy about him wanting to allow the importation of cheaper drugs? Lol, they want the regulation to protect their monopolies. Its the same as this bullshit where I believe you guys cant buy healthcare policies from different states? Lol, this is regulation to protect business.

I would trust a doctors healthcare policies before I did a politicians who donations are coming from phara lobbyists. Here is a another more recent report. See why his healthcare plan is so dangerous?

Nothing more than media spin because they are scared of him. Its like this crap where they say Paul could not beat Obama. The vast majority of his votes are independents and democrat swing votes, along with younger people. This is Obamas demographic. Imagine when he gets up and starts talking about auditing the fed, ending the war and legalising drugs? Lol, half of Obamas liberal base is gone! He makes Obama look like a neo-con.

Romney? He is Obama, who has just as much support from the media as he does the big banks and lobbyists.

Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate who is not corrupt.
(This post was last modified: 01-13-2012 03:07 AM by Hooligan Harry.)
01-13-2012 03:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Iceinthewater Offline
Woodpecker
**

Posts: 314
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation: 8
Post: #92
RE: Romney or Santorum?
Ok here's where I think we are differing. I agree with the EFFECTS Paul wants, but there's this fundamental belief in the good of humanity that I think is just too idealistic. I agree that our foreign policy (wars, trade, etc) is DESTROYING us, and we are wasting a ton of money and lives.

But he starts to lose me on shit like this:
(http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Health_Care.htm)

Q: You say you'd leave regulation to the market. Would you then put it on the drug companies to say, "No, we're bringing this to market, trust us, it's a fantastic drug"?

A: Theoretically, it could be privatized, but who ends up doing the regulations on the drugs? (EVADES THE QUESTION) They do as much harm as good. (Not true. Ask anyone who uses pres. drugs for any serious condition) They don't take good care of us. Who gets--who gets to write the regulations? The bureaucrats write the regulations, but who writes the laws? The lobbyists have control, so lobbyists from the drug industry has control of writing the regulations, so you turn it over to the bureaucracy. But you would have private institutions that could become credible. (Businesses that tell the truth. I won't hold my breath.) And, I mean, do we need the federal government to tell us whether we buy a safe car? I say the consumers of America are smart enough to decide what kind of car they can buy and whether it's safe or not, and they don't need the federal government hounding them and putting so much regulations on that our car industry has gone overseas. (Regulations like safety? Industry is overseas because of tax loopholes and cheap labor)

See this is the nutty shit I was referring to. Again, I LIKE Paul for a lot of reasons, but this makes me so nervous.

First of all, THEORETICALLY I didn't hear an answer in there - just like in the debate. We are talking about people's LIVES, not a concept like economic principles.

Second - "Americans are smart enough to decide what kind of car they can buy and whether it's safe or not."

UMMMM NO.

I sure as fuck don't want to be the one to decide if a car I'm looking to buy is "safe or not." I mean, the car thing is a metaphor, but look at the whole seatbelt issue in the first half of the century People were flying out of cars left and right until Ralph Nader stepped in.

Pharmaceuticals - sure, lots of problems. You have restless leg syndrome? Take this, but it will make you shit your kidneys out of your mouth. All kinds of class action suits for bad pills.

But I don't want to leave regulation up to a private company that would likely be more of a fraud than what the FDA is now. FDA is corrupt, but at least there's SOME sense of ethics there. If Pfizer gets to decide if a drug is safe we are gonna have Google-Monsanto-GE-Halliburton-One World making us take all kinds of wild shit, or get thrown in Guantanamo (joking...sort of).

I also don't see how tax breaks are gonna prevent people from squandering all their money on dumb shit and then being 70 and homeless. Should people save their money? Yes. Will they? No. This is the fundamental issue - humans are noble, but they are also greedy and stupid. If everyone used their brain, we wouldn't even be at this point.

It's interesting to hear how you, as an Australian, see clearly that Obama is a snake. I agree. But there's this blindness to it because he's cool, smart, and the first black president which is a huge milestone. I mean people were really flipping out when he got elected, and you didn't see that.

I think all that hype is blinding people to, for example his Goldman Sachs and big Pharma ties. For a foreigner, it's clear as day. I'll admit, I personally think Obama's a cool guy lol...just like W. Everyone here was saying "Well I'm voting for Bush because he's the kind a guy I could sit down and have a beer with." That's about the average level of American political thought - too busy lining up at Walmart for Black Friday.

(01-13-2012 03:03 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  This is an example of how the media misrepresents him though

On cutting social security:

Paul Wrote:Yes, but not overnight. As a matter of fact, my program’s the only one that is going to be able to take care of the elderly. I’d like to get the young people out of it, just the younger generation, because there’s no money there, and they’re going to have to pay 50 years and they’re not going to get anything. I’d take care of all the elderly, all those who are dependent, but I would save the money from this wild spending overseas.

He wants to cut back on the war chest to pay for social security. The anti social security guy will spend more on it because he knows it cant be cut yet. But younger generations can be weaned off it.

And more, from Wiki

Quote:Paul has given 12 updates on his Texas Straight Talk archive on the issue of Social Security.[70] Paul says that Social Security is in "bad shape ... The numbers aren't there"; funds are depleting because Congress borrows from the Social Security fund every year to fund its budget.[71] He considers himself the rare member of Congress who has voted for such little spending that it has never required borrowing from existing Social Security funds. To stem the Social Security crisis and meet the commitment to elderly citizens who depend on it, he requires that Congress cut down on spending, reassess monetary and spending policies, and stop borrowing heavily from foreign investors, such as those in China, who hold U.S. Treasury bonds. Paul believes young Americans should be able to opt out of the system if they would not like to pay Social Security taxes, in order to protect the system

It makes me sick that the media has the influence it does. Paul is regarded as being fringe when his views are perfectly reasonable. He does not believe in social security, but knows he cant cut it straight away. So wants to pass policy that will do it gradually.

Have you seen the basics of the healthcare policy?

Note how he wants to drop taxes and offer rebates. You think the local pharma companies are happy about him wanting to allow the importation of cheaper drugs? Lol, they want the regulation to protect their monopolies. Its the same as this bullshit where I believe you guys cant buy healthcare policies from different states? Lol, this is regulation to protect business.

I would trust a doctors healthcare policies before I did a politicians who donations are coming from phara lobbyists. Here is a another more recent report. See why his healthcare plan is so dangerous?

Nothing more than media spin because they are scared of him. Its like this crap where they say Paul could not beat Obama. The vast majority of his votes are independents and democrat swing votes, along with younger people. This is Obamas demographic. Imagine when he gets up and starts talking about auditing the fed, ending the war and legalising drugs? Lol, half of Obamas liberal base is gone! He makes Obama look like a neo-con.

Romney? He is Obama, who has just as much support from the media as he does the big banks and lobbyists.

Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate who is not corrupt.
01-13-2012 03:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Deluge Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,995
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation: 76
Post: #93
RE: Romney or Santorum?
(01-13-2012 02:27 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  Is it any wonder that a Jewish run media and Jewish run banks are backing Romney like they are? Paul is bad news for them and they are going to act in their interests. The biggest contributors to the Romney campaign have been the very banks the fed bailed out. JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Citi Bank and the Republican media darling is none other than a moderate American who is nothing more than a white Obama.

The "Jewish run media" throw their weight behind democratic candidates 9 times out of 10. The banks are more "swing voters" in their fundraising, they always donate to both sides, but will spend relatively more towards whichever candidate will serve their interests better. In 2000 and 2004 that was Bush, in 2008 it was Obama. Like you said, they would never do the same for Ron Paul.

I don't agree with his Austrian economics, but Ron Paul is without a doubt the only candidate that can save the American economy. His social conservatism however is distasteful to say the least.And dismantling the welfare state and income taxation in the long run will destroy living standards for America's poor. The United States is already the most unequal country in the Western world. And no I am not a Occupy Wall Streeter or a "socialist".

@Iceinthewater Paul's small government views are pretty mind boggling, if everything he believed in were to be carried through the 50 states would basically be 50 separate sovereign states sharing only a currency, military and a national anthem. Paul takes States Rights to the extreme, and he means REAL states rights not the slavery euphemism.
(This post was last modified: 01-13-2012 05:46 AM by Deluge.)
01-13-2012 05:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
ElJefe Offline
Pelican
****

Posts: 1,682
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 25
Post: #94
RE: Romney or Santorum?
To answer the OP, I was in favor of Romney for a number of excellent reasons.

Now I'm in favor of Ron Paul. His foreign policy is HOPELESSLY naive in some cases, less so in others.

The worst thing he can do is let you waste your own money, instead of him wasting it for you as the establishment candidates would have.

PS. In my opinion, the ideal candidate would be one who was in favor of:
1. eliminating all Federal spending except that spent on foreign policy and defence, incl. and all entitlement programs.
2. Tax chinese trade dumping
3. Pay down the debt.
4. Deport illegal immigrants and renounce citizenship for children of illegals born here.
5. He would stop the Iranian nuclear program by WHATEVER means (incl. nukes).
6. He would split the Chinese and Russians, hopefully ally with Russia. Offer them Eastern Europe and Central Asia or something.
7. Bring down Assad, pull out of Afghanistan, dump Pakistan, ally with India. Punitive expeditions against Somali pirates and their havens. Start protecting Christians from Islamic massacres.
8. Expand the missile shield, increase the size of the navy to keep the balance of power in favor of the US ALWAYS. Wherever the US is, you know there'll be Pax Americana... if the Americans pull out, you'll have regional Empires vying for power and that usually means wars. The US navy is the best guarantor of peace. If used wisely.
9. Get Brazil and Argentina on our side, too.

A year from now you'll wish you started today
(This post was last modified: 01-13-2012 07:59 AM by ElJefe.)
01-13-2012 07:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
vinman Online
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,371
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 68
Post: #95
RE: Romney or Santorum?
[quote='Iceinthewater' pid='143103' dateline='1326436408']
@Vinman - I can see disagreeing with him. Economics is a hard subject to have a basic grasp over, let alone be an expert. I'm wary of anyone who outright dismisses a whole school of thought.

@Hoooliganharry - that first video was surprising I wasn't aware of that. I knew of Ron Paul's stance on foreign policy from the second video. You already know I respect your economic insight, but equating Keynesian school of thought to unicorns...why do you think so?

I dismissed them because of their philosophical inconsistency. The free market can't be centrally controlled or planned, yet this is exactly what they tried to do in Britain. They railed against the state trying to control the free market, and when the state comes to them for their expertise they use the coercive power of the state to try to control the free market.

"Feminism is a trade union for ugly women"- Peregrine
01-13-2012 08:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
bengalltigerr Away
Banned

Posts: 407
Joined: Jul 2011
Post: #96
RE: Romney or Santorum?
From the looks of how things are going, Ron Paul might do an independent run. Apparently people who support Paul won't vote for Romney, and this is what the damn Democrats want.
01-13-2012 09:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
All or Nothing Offline
Pelican
****

Posts: 1,088
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation: 10
Post: #97
RE: Romney or Santorum?
(01-13-2012 02:27 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate who is not corrupt.

I agree with this statement. Only problem is, the media controls the opinions of the American populace. Media wants Mitt Romney going against Obama. Guess what, that's what's going to happen. Then it will be a crap shoot.

My guess, Obama gets a slight lead against Romney and gets to enjoy a second term in the White House.

I know you're calling for a change Hooligan, but that ain't gonna happen. People get the vast majority of their political information through media programs that they are predisposed to believe is the truth.

I would like to see Ron Paul become the Republican candidate, so I could vote for him. Sadly, I don't see that happening in a million years.

(01-13-2012 05:42 AM)P Dog Wrote:  @Iceinthewater Paul's small government views are pretty mind boggling, if everything he believed in were to be carried through the 50 states would basically be 50 separate sovereign states sharing only a currency, military and a national anthem. Paul takes States Rights to the extreme, and he means REAL states rights not the slavery euphemism.

This is hyperbole at best. Haven't you noticed that the power of the States has been deeply rescinded over the course of this country's history? It would be good to see the power dynamic between the states and government shift towards the states for once. Especially since the United States is so large.
(This post was last modified: 01-13-2012 05:31 PM by All or Nothing.)
01-13-2012 05:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
bengalltigerr Away
Banned

Posts: 407
Joined: Jul 2011
Post: #98
RE: Romney or Santorum?
(01-13-2012 05:22 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  
(01-13-2012 02:27 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate who is not corrupt.

I agree with this statement. Only problem is, the media controls the opinions of the American populace. Media wants Mitt Romney going against Obama. Guess what, that's what's going to happen. Then it will be a crap shoot.

My guess, Obama gets a slight lead against Romney and gets to enjoy a second term in the White House.

I know you're calling for a change Hooligan, but that ain't gonna happen. People get the vast majority of their political information through media programs that they are predisposed to believe is the truth.

I would like to see Ron Paul become the Republican candidate, so I could vote for him. Sadly, I don't see that happening in a million years.

Would you rather vote Obama or Romney?
01-13-2012 05:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Iceinthewater Offline
Woodpecker
**

Posts: 314
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation: 8
Post: #99
RE: Romney or Santorum?
(01-13-2012 05:42 AM)P Dog Wrote:  
(01-13-2012 02:27 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  Is it any wonder that a Jewish run media and Jewish run banks are backing Romney like they are? Paul is bad news for them and they are going to act in their interests. The biggest contributors to the Romney campaign have been the very banks the fed bailed out. JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Citi Bank and the Republican media darling is none other than a moderate American who is nothing more than a white Obama.

The "Jewish run media" throw their weight behind democratic candidates 9 times out of 10. The banks are more "swing voters" in their fundraising, they always donate to both sides, but will spend relatively more towards whichever candidate will serve their interests better. In 2000 and 2004 that was Bush, in 2008 it was Obama. Like you said, they would never do the same for Ron Paul.

I don't agree with his Austrian economics, but Ron Paul is without a doubt the only candidate that can save the American economy. His social conservatism however is distasteful to say the least.And dismantling the welfare state and income taxation in the long run will destroy living standards for America's poor. The United States is already the most unequal country in the Western world. And no I am not a Occupy Wall Streeter or a "socialist".

@Iceinthewater Paul's small government views are pretty mind boggling, if everything he believed in were to be carried through the 50 states would basically be 50 separate sovereign states sharing only a currency, military and a national anthem. Paul takes States Rights to the extreme, and he means REAL states rights not the slavery euphemism.

It's a very Texan attitude. There's a culture in Texas where people see themselves as a separate country almost.

And yea, fuck Israel.
01-13-2012 06:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
All or Nothing Offline
Pelican
****

Posts: 1,088
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation: 10
Post: #100
RE: Romney or Santorum?
(01-13-2012 05:42 AM)P Dog Wrote:  Would you rather vote Obama or Romney?

I wouldn't even vote.
01-13-2012 06:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication