For non RP Bots, why is Ron Paul a Loon?

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Ron Paul is perfectly electable, but the big-bad media is putting him down because he wants to change the US government.

Couldn't agree more :thumbsup:

Face it, his ideas aren't popular. His campaign isn't popular. HE isn't popular. The guy has 5% of the country. That's it. He's generating lots of online buzz that he cannot translate into real votes and you expect the media to dedicate hours of time to this guy? Maybe they'd consider dedicating time to him if he started polling a little higher... like say in such a way that he wasn't dead last in the race.

Clinton was also an underdog during his campaign. He received almost no media attention, particularly after NH, yet came back to win the whole thing. Why? Because Clinton's ideas weren't stupid. Clinton was electable. Clinton had a personality. There are hundreds of reasons, but sure PCSurgeon, if you sleep better at night believing that the media has teamed up with our government (who exactly?) to put a stop to Ron Paul's campaign, then I've got a perpetual motion machine to sell you.

Ron Paulers are so blinded by his image that they cannot see the all-too obvious flaws in his policy that prevent him from even being remotely considered for the office of president.

Ron Paulism FTL.

Let me know when you get your head out of the sand. MSM is biased, pure and simple.

Everytime you hear about Paul you always have some stigma attached to it. Like "fringe" or "loon". If I was an undecided voter and was looking at candidates and all I heard was "this guys a loon" "he has no chance to win", I wouldn't want to be a "fringe supporter" and I would want to be a winner. MSM knows this and plays on the stupidity of people to take what they say as gospel. "It must be true the TV said it" mentality.

If everytime you saw Paul on TV and they talked about how wonderful he was, how he has been married for 53yrs, a ten term congressman who hasn't changed his principles for over 20+ yrs , showed the direction he wants to go to help America economically and the protection of liberties. I think we would see a substantial difference in votes toward Paul.

but no , those issues aren't as important to MSM, they support the statis quo, corporatist's and big government. If thats not what they are shoving down your throat you sure as hell will know what Brittany had for breakfast.

MSM has a vast amount of influence and that is impossible to deny.

No, they don't call him a loon. They call him a long-shot because, guess what, he IS a long-shot to win the presidency. They've called other candidates equally bad, if not worse, descriptors and they've gone on to do well in the election.

Stop burying your head in the sand. Ron Paul is a long-shot candidate, particularly before his first big fund raiser and before he tanked in NH. I already demonstrated that the media started to shift their opinion before he got blown out of the water and PROVED he's a long-shot candidate.

You shout conspiracy over and over again because you are so blindly loyal to this man that the idea of him failing, without any body's assistance, is beyond your grasp. I don't mean to come out harsh, but I'm getting really sick of everybody shouting conspiracy at every fucking turn of the road.

 

[Mavtek3100]

I caught CNN today, there's a TV in the lobby at work. They were talking with Dick Armey about the GOP candidates and their stimulus plans. They said McCain's got no clue, Romney's was decent, Huckabee just said whatever Bush does is fine with him, Rudy's seemed well thought out, and the other guys you're producer told me not to talk about.....

Ha Ha! Hilarious!

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber


No, they don't call him a loon. They call him a long-shot because, guess what, he IS a long-shot to win the presidency. They've called other candidates equally bad, if not worse, descriptors and they've gone on to do well in the election.

Stop burying your head in the sand. Ron Paul is a long-shot candidate, particularly before his first big fund raiser and before he tanked in NH. I already demonstrated that the media started to shift their opinion before he got blown out of the water and PROVED he's a long-shot candidate.

You shout conspiracy over and over again because you are so blindly loyal to this man that the idea of him failing, without any body's assistance, is beyond your grasp. I don't mean to come out harsh, but I'm getting really sick of everybody shouting conspiracy at every fucking turn of the road.

If you can't see media bias, then you are blind my friend. Its ok, there are millions like you that believe that the media is being truthful when in fact there is a higher agenda at play. Anyone can turn on any of Rupert Murdoch's channels or publications and see the spin that he portrays. He is only one of them, there are many. You don't have to believe there is a conspiracy, thats fine. I know there is one from former reporters and the obvious attempt at blocking Ron Paul on the political forum. Many times have I heard "hes a loon" from goons such as Bill Kristol who is on Murdochs payroll. Bill Kristol is one of the founders of PNAC (and the editor of "The Weekly Standard" which Murdoch also owns), along with cheney and many other prominent men. It stands to reason they would want to discredit him and keep him out of the public spotlight. Again, you will have to do your own research. Deny it, its ok, its America. You are free to decide for yourself, as well as I am.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Well PC Surgeon I can give you the perspective from outside USA where your corporate biases and political pressures on the media don't affect us. Guess what - he gets almost no press coverage here either. It's not because our press is trying to suppress his run for the white house. Our news corporations have no vested interest in who gets into the white house. He gets almost no press coverage because he, like the other long-shot, fringe candidates is irrelevant. We get little coverage of Edwards, Kucinich, Hunter or Gravel as well. The press doesn't spend precious air time on candidates who don't matter.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Well PC Surgeon I can give you the perspective from outside USA where your corporate biases and political pressures on the media don't affect us. Guess what - he gets almost no press coverage here either. It's not because our press is trying to suppress his run for the white house. Our news corporations have no vested interest in who gets into the white house. He gets almost no press coverage because he, like the other long-shot, fringe candidates is irrelevant. We get little coverage of Edwards, Kucinich, Hunter or Gravel as well. The press doesn't spend precious air time on candidates who don't matter.

As you pointed out, you are in another country. Your politics and/or media aren't going to shape who is president. So your coverage or lack thereof means nothing to me or the voting majority in the U.S.

Too many get "sticker shock" when Ron Paul explains what he would like to do. But the fact is a Constitutional Republic which he is basing his opinions on. People must understand it will not be an instantaneous change, our system isn't set up that way. But it will be a gradual change in the direction to help this country.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Well PC Surgeon I can give you the perspective from outside USA where your corporate biases and political pressures on the media don't affect us. Guess what - he gets almost no press coverage here either. It's not because our press is trying to suppress his run for the white house. Our news corporations have no vested interest in who gets into the white house. He gets almost no press coverage because he, like the other long-shot, fringe candidates is irrelevant. We get little coverage of Edwards, Kucinich, Hunter or Gravel as well. The press doesn't spend precious air time on candidates who don't matter.

As you pointed out, you are in another country. Your politics and/or media aren't going to shape who is president. So your coverage or lack thereof means nothing to me or the voting majority in the U.S.

I'm trying to show that there is a legitimate case to claiming that it's not media bias that is keeping Paul from the TV screens and newspapers, it's the fact that he is an irrelevant candidate who is not worth wasting precious air time on. The media (mostly) hasn't made a concerted effort to keep Paul down, they just don't care because the people don't care.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I caught CNN today, there's a TV in the lobby at work. They were talking with Dick Armey about the GOP candidates and their stimulus plans. They said McCain's got no clue, Romney's was decent, Huckabee just said whatever Bush does is fine with him, Rudy's seemed well thought out, and the other guys you're producer told me not to talk about.....

Ha Ha! Hilarious!

LOL, are you serious?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Well PC Surgeon I can give you the perspective from outside USA where your corporate biases and political pressures on the media don't affect us. Guess what - he gets almost no press coverage here either. It's not because our press is trying to suppress his run for the white house. Our news corporations have no vested interest in who gets into the white house. He gets almost no press coverage because he, like the other long-shot, fringe candidates is irrelevant. We get little coverage of Edwards, Kucinich, Hunter or Gravel as well. The press doesn't spend precious air time on candidates who don't matter.

As you pointed out, you are in another country. Your politics and/or media aren't going to shape who is president. So your coverage or lack thereof means nothing to me or the voting majority in the U.S.

I'm trying to show that there is a legitimate case to claiming that it's not media bias that is keeping Paul from the TV screens and newspapers, it's the fact that he is an irrelevant candidate who is not worth wasting precious air time on. The media (mostly) hasn't made a concerted effort to keep Paul down, they just don't care because the people don't care.

And you base this opinion on foreign media? Thats not how it works. The U.S. media is biased by the words they use when they do speak of him and the rest of the time he is ignored or shut out. Maybe you missed the fox fiasco excluding him. As stated before there are many reporters who have worked in media that have spoke out against media bias.

I really don't see how you can base your opinion of U.S. MSM from foreign media. Are you an American citizen? Just curious. And wtf is with the "iamaelephant" crap under your name?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I caught CNN today, there's a TV in the lobby at work. They were talking with Dick Armey about the GOP candidates and their stimulus plans. They said McCain's got no clue, Romney's was decent, Huckabee just said whatever Bush does is fine with him, Rudy's seemed well thought out, and the other guys you're producer told me not to talk about.....

Ha Ha! Hilarious!

LOL, are you serious?

NO way! Media bias? NOT IN AMERICA! :roll:

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Well PC Surgeon I can give you the perspective from outside USA where your corporate biases and political pressures on the media don't affect us. Guess what - he gets almost no press coverage here either. It's not because our press is trying to suppress his run for the white house. Our news corporations have no vested interest in who gets into the white house. He gets almost no press coverage because he, like the other long-shot, fringe candidates is irrelevant. We get little coverage of Edwards, Kucinich, Hunter or Gravel as well. The press doesn't spend precious air time on candidates who don't matter.

As you pointed out, you are in another country. Your politics and/or media aren't going to shape who is president. So your coverage or lack thereof means nothing to me or the voting majority in the U.S.

I'm trying to show that there is a legitimate case to claiming that it's not media bias that is keeping Paul from the TV screens and newspapers, it's the fact that he is an irrelevant candidate who is not worth wasting precious air time on. The media (mostly) hasn't made a concerted effort to keep Paul down, they just don't care because the people don't care.

And you base this opinion on foreign media? Thats not how it works. The U.S. media is biased by the words they use when they do speak of him and the rest of the time he is ignored or shut out. Maybe you missed the fox fiasco excluding him. As stated before there are many reporters who have worked in media that have spoke out against media bias.

I really don't see how you can base your opinion of U.S. MSM from foreign media. Are you an American citizen? Just curious. And wtf is with the "iamaelephant" crap under your name?

You are misunderstanding me. Firstly I do pay attention to the American media. All I'm saying here is that when the RP fanatics jump up and down and claim that the lack of media coverage of Ron Paul is due to some giant MSM conspiracy they tend to ignore the fact that his lack of coverage can quite simply be explained by the fact that he is not considered a viable or relevant candidate. I'm relating this to foreign media because if your theory of a vast conspiracy against Ron Paul were to hold water then you would have to agree that either the New Zealand media is in on the conspiracy, which seems very unlikely, or you're claiming that even though his lack of coverage can be explained by a simple disinterest in the man by mainstream American TV viewers BUT you're going to hold onto your conspiracy theories anyway.

I hope I didn't confuse you, I know how simple minded many of you Ron Paulites can be.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

You are misunderstanding me. Firstly I do pay attention to the American media. All I'm saying here is that when the RP fanatics jump up and down and claim that the lack of media coverage of Ron Paul is due to some giant MSM conspiracy they tend to ignore the fact that his lack of coverage can quite simply be explained by the fact that he is not considered a viable or relevant candidate. I'm relating this to foreign media because if your theory of a vast conspiracy against Ron Paul were to hold water then you would have to agree that either the New Zealand media is in on the conspiracy, which seems very unlikely, or you're claiming that even though his lack of coverage can be explained by a simple disinterest in the man by mainstream American TV viewers BUT you're going to hold onto your conspiracy theories anyway.

I hope I didn't confuse you, I know how simple minded many of you Ron Paulites can be.

Simple minded? If you say so.

Is it possible the other "frontrunners" have their support because MSM pounds it in the populations collective heads? Has that crossed your mind? From your response you either didn't think about it or wrote it off as impossible.

Like I said, there are many reporters who have come out and stated the bias of Murdoch and the like. Stick your head in the sand, thats fine. Way to go Mr. "iamaelephant"

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

I'm not doubting that Mr Murdoch is biased, far from it. I just don't think there is a conspiracy against your candidate in particular. FNC is biased against Ron Paul in the same way that they're biased against Obama and Hillary. You just think he's a special case because he has the R next to his name. As for the other networks, I don't think it's bias that's keeping him off the airwaves, but a public disinterest. And yes, I did consider the idea that the reason the public don't care about Ron Paul is because he isn't covered widely on the news but there's probably an almost infinite number of people who would garner more votes than the current crop if they were given all the air time they wanted. Ron Paul has the advantage of having raised a butt load of money so if he can't get his name out there enough to get people interested then it's his own fault, no excuses.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber


No, they don't call him a loon. They call him a long-shot because, guess what, he IS a long-shot to win the presidency. They've called other candidates equally bad, if not worse, descriptors and they've gone on to do well in the election.

Stop burying your head in the sand. Ron Paul is a long-shot candidate, particularly before his first big fund raiser and before he tanked in NH. I already demonstrated that the media started to shift their opinion before he got blown out of the water and PROVED he's a long-shot candidate.

You shout conspiracy over and over again because you are so blindly loyal to this man that the idea of him failing, without any body's assistance, is beyond your grasp. I don't mean to come out harsh, but I'm getting really sick of everybody shouting conspiracy at every fucking turn of the road.

If you can't see media bias, then you are blind my friend. Its ok, there are millions like you that believe that the media is being truthful when in fact there is a higher agenda at play. Anyone can turn on any of Rupert Murdoch's channels or publications and see the spin that he portrays. He is only one of them, there are many. You don't have to believe there is a conspiracy, thats fine. I know there is one from former reporters and the obvious attempt at blocking Ron Paul on the political forum. Many times have I heard "hes a loon" from goons such as Bill Kristol who is on Murdochs payroll. Bill Kristol is one of the founders of PNAC (and the editor of "The Weekly Standard" which Murdoch also owns), along with cheney and many other prominent men. It stands to reason they would want to discredit him and keep him out of the public spotlight. Again, you will have to do your own research. Deny it, its ok, its America. You are free to decide for yourself, as well as I am.

Deny the fact that Ron Paul is a shitty candidate all you want. I'll just continue to be thankful that only 5% of our country is blinded by Ron Paulism.

Look at how Ron's campaign has proceeded: First - "Ron Paul needs money to change the world." Then "Ron Paul will change the world." Then "Ron Paul might not change the world." Then "Ron Paul will help get a brokered convention." Lofty goals.

If Ron dropped this crap about dismantling the Federal Reserve, he'd be a lot more popular. Most people in this country can see that since its inception the Federal Reserve has overseen the longest period of growth in American history. Has it made mistakes? Yeah. Could it be better? Yeah. Is it worth abandoning because our dollar is weak? Fuck no. Maybe we should try to address the issues at the heart of our weak dollar rather than pandering some shit that is widely popular among conspiracy theorists about the federal reserve.

For the last time, Ron's policies are too short-sighted. They try to achieve minimal short-term gains while potentially sacrificing our country's future.

So, conspiracy away! I'm sure that when he gets demolished in every fucking primary we're going to see 100 million threads in here about how Ron got screwed. He didn't. He just sucks at getting elected.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I'm not doubting that Mr Murdoch is biased, far from it. I just don't think there is a conspiracy against your candidate in particular. FNC is biased against Ron Paul in the same way that they're biased against Obama and Hillary. You just think he's a special case because he has the R next to his name. As for the other networks, I don't think it's bias that's keeping him off the airwaves, but a public disinterest. And yes, I did consider the idea that the reason the public don't care about Ron Paul is because he isn't covered widely on the news but there's probably an almost infinite number of people who would garner more votes than the current crop if they were given all the air time they wanted. Ron Paul has the advantage of having raised a butt load of money so if he can't get his name out there enough to get people interested then it's his own fault, no excuses.

you don't understand, Dr. Paul was discriminated against because he wants to change the system. His radical and wonderful ideas would usher in a utopia in America, our problems would melt away, our citizens would be free, and our corporations would no longer control our lives. We would live in eternal bliss for a thousand years, worshiping at the feet of Ron.

Basically, these people are desperate. They cling to the belief that Ron is some sort of god among men and, because they are so blinded by his words, they cannot see why anybody would disagree. They twist reality, they twist the facts, and they will deny any evidence to the contrary. They scream bloody murder when Ron is 'discriminated' against and use it as a crutch to support their belief system.

They aren't worth arguing with and, unfortunately, they infest the internet like termites from hell. Again, reasoning with these people, I've learned, is useless.

Let them continue on their way, conspiracies and all.

 

[virginiakid]

You know, for a guy who is "a fringe" candidate" sure doesn't look like. He places second in Nevada and there are rumors that he is doing really well in the Delegate count there. Then just last night, the LA caucus, he also places second, and could come in first after they confirm the provisional votes. All of the candidates are strapped for money except for Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. He has been getting some major endorsements and it appears he is starting to be taken serious. People are really looking at him as a viable candidate. The Establishment is scared of this man because he wants to bring change to a system that is broken. The MSM hates him because they will lose money and control from the war in Iraq, etc.... Hardly a loon. More like an up and coming super star.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber


No, they don't call him a loon. They call him a long-shot because, guess what, he IS a long-shot to win the presidency. They've called other candidates equally bad, if not worse, descriptors and they've gone on to do well in the election.

Stop burying your head in the sand. Ron Paul is a long-shot candidate, particularly before his first big fund raiser and before he tanked in NH. I already demonstrated that the media started to shift their opinion before he got blown out of the water and PROVED he's a long-shot candidate.

You shout conspiracy over and over again because you are so blindly loyal to this man that the idea of him failing, without any body's assistance, is beyond your grasp. I don't mean to come out harsh, but I'm getting really sick of everybody shouting conspiracy at every fucking turn of the road.

If you can't see media bias, then you are blind my friend. Its ok, there are millions like you that believe that the media is being truthful when in fact there is a higher agenda at play. Anyone can turn on any of Rupert Murdoch's channels or publications and see the spin that he portrays. He is only one of them, there are many. You don't have to believe there is a conspiracy, thats fine. I know there is one from former reporters and the obvious attempt at blocking Ron Paul on the political forum. Many times have I heard "hes a loon" from goons such as Bill Kristol who is on Murdochs payroll. Bill Kristol is one of the founders of PNAC (and the editor of "The Weekly Standard" which Murdoch also owns), along with cheney and many other prominent men. It stands to reason they would want to discredit him and keep him out of the public spotlight. Again, you will have to do your own research. Deny it, its ok, its America. You are free to decide for yourself, as well as I am.

Deny the fact that Ron Paul is a shitty candidate all you want. I'll just continue to be thankful that only 5% of our country is blinded by Ron Paulism.

Look at how Ron's campaign has proceeded: First - "Ron Paul needs money to change the world." Then "Ron Paul will change the world." Then "Ron Paul might not change the world." Then "Ron Paul will help get a brokered convention." Lofty goals.

If Ron dropped this crap about dismantling the Federal Reserve, he'd be a lot more popular. Most people in this country can see that since its inception the Federal Reserve has overseen the longest period of growth in American history. Has it made mistakes? Yeah. Could it be better? Yeah. Is it worth abandoning because our dollar is weak? Fuck no. Maybe we should try to address the issues at the heart of our weak dollar rather than pandering some shit that is widely popular among conspiracy theorists about the federal reserve.

For the last time, Ron's policies are too short-sighted. They try to achieve minimal short-term gains while potentially sacrificing our country's future.

So, conspiracy away! I'm sure that when he gets demolished in every fucking primary we're going to see 100 million threads in here about how Ron got screwed. He didn't. He just sucks at getting elected.

You don't have to like Ron Paul. I personally won't care. Now which way should this country be heading? More government or less? Its funny you have dodged that question.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I'm not doubting that Mr Murdoch is biased, far from it. I just don't think there is a conspiracy against your candidate in particular. FNC is biased against Ron Paul in the same way that they're biased against Obama and Hillary. You just think he's a special case because he has the R next to his name. As for the other networks, I don't think it's bias that's keeping him off the airwaves, but a public disinterest. And yes, I did consider the idea that the reason the public don't care about Ron Paul is because he isn't covered widely on the news but there's probably an almost infinite number of people who would garner more votes than the current crop if they were given all the air time they wanted. Ron Paul has the advantage of having raised a butt load of money so if he can't get his name out there enough to get people interested then it's his own fault, no excuses.

Replace the air time that hitlery or Obama gets with Ron Paul and you would see a substantial shift in support.

This is the type of coverage they give Ron Paul:

Bill Kristol tells lie after lie

Give Paul the airtime and a more in depth look in MSM and then call the game fair. I bet the majority of Americans don't know who Paul is, and thats a shame. MSM has the obligation to present the facts for people to judge for themselves, not opinions from supposed experts on the payroll (Bill Kristol).

You agree that there is bias, yet in the same breath, deny bias against Ron Paul. Oh well you are entitled to your opinion. Cheers!

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

I agreed that there is bias on FNC against Paul in the same way there is bias against Obama and Hillary on FNC. That's an intrinsic property of Fox News itself and nothing to do with a vast MSM conspiracy. Stop twisting my words.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Question of the day, why is Ron Paul a loon? I'd love a "non-bots" take on this. Oh and one other question for you to ponder. When you come up with an idea to take care of a solution that is not conventional thinking do you consider yourself a loon?

Thanks!

I do not think Paul is a loon. I do not see him as the messiah that will lead the US to the promised land like his supporters do.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: virginiakid
Hardly a loon. More like an up and coming super star.

The Kool-aid is strong in this one...

your statement reminds me of another paulbot here who called RP a "prophet" the other day... I'm pretty much convinced that you're all mostly nuts!

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber


No, they don't call him a loon. They call him a long-shot because, guess what, he IS a long-shot to win the presidency. They've called other candidates equally bad, if not worse, descriptors and they've gone on to do well in the election.

Stop burying your head in the sand. Ron Paul is a long-shot candidate, particularly before his first big fund raiser and before he tanked in NH. I already demonstrated that the media started to shift their opinion before he got blown out of the water and PROVED he's a long-shot candidate.

You shout conspiracy over and over again because you are so blindly loyal to this man that the idea of him failing, without any body's assistance, is beyond your grasp. I don't mean to come out harsh, but I'm getting really sick of everybody shouting conspiracy at every fucking turn of the road.

If you can't see media bias, then you are blind my friend. Its ok, there are millions like you that believe that the media is being truthful when in fact there is a higher agenda at play. Anyone can turn on any of Rupert Murdoch's channels or publications and see the spin that he portrays. He is only one of them, there are many. You don't have to believe there is a conspiracy, thats fine. I know there is one from former reporters and the obvious attempt at blocking Ron Paul on the political forum. Many times have I heard "hes a loon" from goons such as Bill Kristol who is on Murdochs payroll. Bill Kristol is one of the founders of PNAC (and the editor of "The Weekly Standard" which Murdoch also owns), along with cheney and many other prominent men. It stands to reason they would want to discredit him and keep him out of the public spotlight. Again, you will have to do your own research. Deny it, its ok, its America. You are free to decide for yourself, as well as I am.

Deny the fact that Ron Paul is a shitty candidate all you want. I'll just continue to be thankful that only 5% of our country is blinded by Ron Paulism.

Look at how Ron's campaign has proceeded: First - "Ron Paul needs money to change the world." Then "Ron Paul will change the world." Then "Ron Paul might not change the world." Then "Ron Paul will help get a brokered convention." Lofty goals.

If Ron dropped this crap about dismantling the Federal Reserve, he'd be a lot more popular. Most people in this country can see that since its inception the Federal Reserve has overseen the longest period of growth in American history. Has it made mistakes? Yeah. Could it be better? Yeah. Is it worth abandoning because our dollar is weak? Fuck no. Maybe we should try to address the issues at the heart of our weak dollar rather than pandering some shit that is widely popular among conspiracy theorists about the federal reserve.

For the last time, Ron's policies are too short-sighted. They try to achieve minimal short-term gains while potentially sacrificing our country's future.

So, conspiracy away! I'm sure that when he gets demolished in every fucking primary we're going to see 100 million threads in here about how Ron got screwed. He didn't. He just sucks at getting elected.

You don't have to like Ron Paul. I personally won't care. Now which way should this country be heading? More government or less? Its funny you have dodged that question.

I havent' dodged the question. All I ever seem to get from you and Mavtek are attacks.

Of course government can always be better, faster, stronger, but the very idea of throwing out everything we've built because there's nothing worth saving in an effort to bring short-term satisfaction is not the way to approach the issue. We are not on the brink of some crisis, the world is not ending, and our government, while sometimes inept, generally does a good job of running the country.

I want a candidate that will reform government to some degree, that will abandon a lot of Bush's policies, but again, I'm not going to elect some reactionary, radical, guy to blow everything up because Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., etc all made some mistakes.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
CitizenKain's post is so incredibly (oh I'll just not say to be nice) I'm not even sure where to start other than if that's what people really think then we are in a hell of a lot more trouble than I ever thought we were.

I'll start with no boom-busts since the big busts called a depression. Ugh..... Well 1st there was a boom then there was the depression and as I already pointed out and as even Ben Bernanke has admitted the depression was indeed the fault of the Federal Reserve. Milton Friedman and the worlds leading economists all agree, the Fed was the leading cause of the Depression. I digress, so what you are saying the great "Boom" of the 1950's didn't happen. You know the "Baby boom"? I guess you don't realize that was a financial "boom" as well? Then of course you had the oil crisis in the mid 70's I guess you're saying that wasn't a "bust". Then directly after that you had a boom then in the mid 80's you had another bust with the savings and loan shake up. Then we boomed again and yet one more time during G H Bush we had another bust. After that small bust Clinton balanced the budget and technology got cool for everyone and we had a boom and of course in 01 we had a big bust. Now we have a boom for a very long time with the wonderful Fed providing such unbelievably candified rates for every bank who is FDIC insured gets damn near free money, all in the name of stimulating the boom.

Now of course we're going to have a nice big bust on our hands, oh boy. Yep I see what you're saying, no boom-busts since the depression.... UGH

That's just what I can think of off the top of my head too..... Wow..... Maybe you're just in denial.

Moving on how pants on head crazy North Korea is. Well to be honest we have crazy all over the place and it looks to most I think even here that if N Korea did go bat shit crazy S Korea could probably handle them. If not it's not like we can't provide aid to them.

Ugh and you bring World War 2 up as if we actually were interventionist. We were attacked in World War 2, maybe you just forgot. It was our non-intervention policy that made us the super nation we are now after ww2. Unfortunately it was our intervention throughout Germany and Europe that literally created Hitler's demonic Reich. Time to read some history I think.

Yes, it is time to read some history. We were providing substantial aid to England throughout the first years of the conflict. We were only non-interventionist in name. Hell that was even in Ken Burns' documentary. You won't even have to read.

I'm confused about your demonic reich statement - it was the european policy of appeasement towards Hitler that allowed him to launch his war, which is a completely opposite concept of intervention. Unless now you're talking about the EU, and if that is the case I would urge you to be very careful in your comparisons of any body or person to Hitler and Nazi germany.

Look at the origins of Nazi germany - economic devastation at the hands of the allies in WWI is the root cause. If you want more detail I suggest you read some of that history you've been talking about. Post-WW2 you had the Marshall plan, which spent enormous sums of US money to rebuild Germany. Where did that lead? To Germany becoming an economic power and model country in the world. In other words; Exhibit A: isolationism=world war. Exhibit B: reconstruction=oktoberfest.

Much better said than when I tried.

And just look where interventionism has gotten us. A fabulous war, angry Muslims with dynamite strapped to them, going broke policing the world. You're right, interventionism is wonderful! :roll:

I fail to see how pointing out Germany's success at our expense is a ringing endorsement of interventionism. Sounds to me like we'd be better off letting the terrorists win and enact the have Muhammed Plan to rebuild our country like we did for Germany. :thumbsup:

Iraq wasn't interventionism - that was imperialism. There is a huge difference.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1

Originally posted by: BoberFett

And just look where interventionism has gotten us. A fabulous war, angry Muslims with dynamite strapped to them, going broke policing the world. You're right, interventionism is wonderful! :roll:

I fail to see how pointing out Germany's success at our expense is a ringing endorsement of interventionism. Sounds to me like we'd be better off letting the terrorists win and enact the have Muhammed Plan to rebuild our country like we did for Germany. :thumbsup:

Iraq wasn't interventionism - that was imperialism. There is a huge difference.

The Iraq war isn't an isolated incident. Our interventionism since WWI is what now has our military and economy stretched all over the world, causing millions to hate the US and tanking our economy. Everything is related.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
And just look where interventionism has gotten us. A fabulous war, angry Muslims with dynamite strapped to them, going broke policing the world. You're right, interventionism is wonderful! :roll:

You: see we stopped the Germans and now things aren't rosy all over the world like they should be


So...you think the world would look better now had the Nazi's won WWII? Let's see, worldwide fascist dominance and extermination of all opposition, or the occasional terrorist blowing something up. hm..coin toss....

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: virginiakid
All of the candidates are strapped for money except for Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. He has been getting some major endorsements and it appears he is starting to be taken serious. People are really looking at him as a viable candidate.

Look, if we make stuff up we don't feel as bad about losing!