|
FAO: Ron Paul Supporters (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| jester |
Someone should try and put together a computer simulation to see how good or bad his ideas would turn out, if he was ever elected.
He does want change, but for some people it is to much change in the wrong direction.
I know some people who will vote for him, seeing he wants to audit / end the FED, kill off the TSA and plus stop the US being the police of the planet. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
I disagree but won't go into that here.
Wow! Two candidates! See? That wasn't hard. :)
Again, I disagree with you on some things here but I'm not getting into it in this thread.
Thanks for finally addressing the question. It took you a little while but that is ok. I think you may have thought I was trapping you into something. |
Trapping me into something? Don't be daft.
It was a stupid question and you've still ducked my observations about how you carefully avoid using arguments that aren't intellectually bankrupt. It's very simple. Your arguments have no legitimacy. Even if you took out the patently obvious hyperbole and false-choices of the ones I've taken issue with, they're still incredibly feeble.
You, like a lot of people, have this notion that Ron Paul will get elected and everything will be fine. What you fail to grasp is that, in essence, Ron Paul's theories on deregulation have already been tested and that's precisely why the country is in the condition that it's in. It is not due to over-regulation. More to the point, before deregulation occurred, things were financially stabilized.
His line of bull has been tested and, if the test is measured in terms of efficacy, the result has been the feckless opposite of efficacious. Industry proponents of deregulation promised a market that would regulate itself out of necessity. What happened is that companies engaged in predation on a mass scale.
If what has been promised was ever going to happen, it should have happened, by now. More than enough time has passed to have a pretty good window onto what happens when industry becomes deregulated. If anything good was ever going to come of it being wholly deregulated, the current "partial" deregulation should have proved that. Very simply put, partial deregulation has proven the opposite. |
|
|
| jupiterone |
i'm waiting for a candidate to start taxing sex. each time it's done will cost someone 1$. microchip implants to create a digital tally. , we'd be thriving.
the exotic latex/bondage at 2.5-3$ a pop. helps overpopulating too |
|
|
| DOOMBOT |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Trapping me into something? Don't be daft.
It was a stupid question and you've still ducked my observations about how you carefully avoid using arguments that aren't intellectually bankrupt. It's very simple. Your arguments have no legitimacy. Even if you took out the patently obvious hyperbole and false-choices of the ones I've taken issue with, they're still incredibly feeble. |
Like I said, I never made an argument. It was an observation.
| quote: | | You, like a lot of people, have this notion that Ron Paul will get elected and everything will be fine. |
No I don't. To be honest, I won't even be voting.
| quote: | What you fail to grasp is that, in essence, Ron Paul's theories on deregulation have already been tested and that's precisely why the country is in the condition that it's in. It is not due to over-regulation. More to the point, before deregulation occurred, things were financially stabilized.
His line of bull has been tested and, if the test is measured in terms of efficacy, the result has been the feckless opposite of efficacious. Industry proponents of deregulation promised a market that would regulate itself out of necessity. What happened is that companies engaged in predation on a mass scale.
If what has been promised was ever going to happen, it should have happened, by now. More than enough time has passed to have a pretty good window onto what happens when industry becomes deregulated. If anything good was ever going to come of it being wholly deregulated, the current "partial" deregulation should have proved that. Very simply put, partial deregulation has proven the opposite. |
We disagree here but I won't be arguing about it in this thread. |
|
|
| TranceArmstrong |
Oh no! Going back to the horse-and-buggy days of 2006 levels of federal spending would be a disaster. Old people would all die and robber barons would eat our babies.
I for one an looking forward to continuing America's long traditions of corporate subsidies and unconstitutional wars. The department of education is doing a fabulous job and should continue operations, and we can't have crazy Ron Paul going around hemming and hawing on the constitutionality of things like the Patriot Act, the Drug War, and the TSA when we're so close to winning the War on Terror. And I certainly don't feel comfortable with someone who believes the US is unjustified in having nearly a thousand military bases in nearly 150 countries; having twice the combined military budget of the rest of the world is a small price to pay for freedom, security, and the American Way Of Life.
Things like energy, housing, and commerce are far too important and complex to be left to private individuals and organizations acting in their own self interest; if the federal government had never invented language, no one would know how to communicate with anybody else.
And everyone knows that if the government isn't spending that 1 trillion dollars it cuts, then it will go straight to the coffers of rich people who will sit on it and the economy will never recover. If anything, we should be building more tanks, hiring more public workers, sending more money overseas to foreign aid as to increase GDP. A return of 1 trillion dollars over 3 years into the hands of private individuals won't lead to any increased consumption, personal savings, personal debts paid off, or increased hiring by small and mid-level businesses.
America is much better off in the hands of a politician who isn't afraid to keep kicking the can down the road on entitlements; we're only a few generations away from medicare consuming 1/3 of GDP, that's plenty of time. Inflation will always be there to cover any shortfalls. |
|
|
| Vector A |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceArmstrong
Oh no! Going back to the horse-and-buggy days of 2006 levels of federal spending would be a disaster. Old people would all die and robber barons would eat our babies.
I for one an looking forward to continuing America's long traditions of corporate subsidies and unconstitutional wars. The department of education is doing a fabulous job and should continue operations, and we can't have crazy Ron Paul going around hemming and hawing on the constitutionality of things like the Patriot Act, the Drug War, and the TSA when we're so close to winning the War on Terror. And I certainly don't feel comfortable with someone who believes the US is unjustified in having nearly a thousand military bases in nearly 150 countries; having twice the combined military budget of the rest of the world is a small price to pay for freedom, security, and the American Way Of Life.
Things like energy, housing, and commerce are far too important and complex to be left to private individuals and organizations acting in their own self interest; if the federal government had never invented language, no one would know how to communicate with anybody else.
And everyone knows that if the government isn't spending that 1 trillion dollars it cuts, then it will go straight to the coffers of rich people who will sit on it and the economy will never recover. If anything, we should be building more tanks, hiring more public workers, sending more money overseas to foreign aid as to increase GDP. A return of 1 trillion dollars over 3 years into the hands of private individuals won't lead to any increased consumption, personal savings, personal debts paid off, or increased hiring by small and mid-level businesses.
America is much better off in the hands of a politician who isn't afraid to keep kicking the can down the road on entitlements; we're only a few generations away from medicare consuming 1/3 of GDP, that's plenty of time. Inflation will always be there to cover any shortfalls. |
 |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceArmstrong
Oh no! Going back to the horse-and-buggy days of 2006 levels of federal spending would be a disaster. |
How about those rolling black-outs in California from '00-'01? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| is TranceArmstrong insinuating that there's been a massive increase in spending since 2006? on what exactly? :conf: |
|
|
| FuzzQi |
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
is TranceArmstrong insinuating that there's been a massive increase in spending since 2006? on what exactly? :conf: |
2006 is as far back as the narrative mythology goes. On January 1, 2012, that will change to 2007. Something about five years being the maximum historical retention the average Ron Paul voter is capable of holding.
Still, better than Herman Cain's 3 year window. |
|
|
|
|
