Dr. Ron Paul, 2012?

[moi621]

I have had it, I warned him about personal insults and he just did not understand, as for nobodyspecial he was that nobody and he is gone Bye bye.

He and anybody else who wants to come in our house and throw eggs at everybody be warned, I will ban you too.

I am really tired of the new people who have come in lately, they think its there right and responsibility to bash members long standing on this site, I will not have any more of it.

River

It is a world without Virginia and Santa Claus.


At least we have Dr. Paul to help. Just no Federal help not specified in the Constitution.

[Slammr]

I have had it, I warned him about personal insults and he just did not understand, as for nobodyspecial he was that nobody and he is gone Bye bye.

He and anybody else who wants to come in our house and throw eggs at everybody be warned, I will ban you too.

I am really tired of the new people who have come in lately, they think its there right and responsibility to bash members long standing on this site, I will not have any more of it.

River

It wasn't what he said; it was how he said it. Bob's views are opposite of mine, but I haven't called for him to be banned. This guy jumped straight onto the political boards and started insulting anyone that didn't agree with him. I agree with River: if someone comes on here and wants to bash longtime members, we don't need him around. This isn't a free speech issue. He wouldn't have lasted as long as he did on the board I run.

[moi621]

I was working with him privately.
Pavlovian conditioning not to expect fairness.
Albert Ellis rationality not to expect fairness.
Etiquette for a conservative of how to disagree with a liberal's personal attack.
And after smelling trouble hours ago and wishing we could have given him a "bad day" credit,
I was working on a support group for him and two other conservatives who share the same feelings
of having to accept personal attacks and not strike back. Now those are feelings and I had hoped those three could support each other through those frustrating episodes.

Unfortunately, like there are no good conservative boards and what does any of them have to discuss? Expressive Conservatives have to aggregate here.
And this Board is the best!

Newbies should be broken in gently like virgins because if they trust what they read by old timers, they just may assume they may act likewise. I do hope that resonates somewhere. And a mistreated virgin is more likely to be of no sexual pleasure. We treat the newbie thus and lose some opportunities for stimulating discussion.
BTW all of my efforts are known to our BiElemental moderator. I liked some of the recently banned as bright. They just needed to learn the unwritten rules. I was slow. Remember River, Kristoff? ?

Moi
A salvageable mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[Riverwind]

NO moi, it was my job to explain the rules to him which I did in private over a week ago, I did it three times, and he continued with his insults and attacks, he is history.

Now he can go to his other site and tell them all what an asshole I am and how unfair we all are but you know something, the next person that comes in from this group of asswipes is going to get one post, then gone. I will not put up with any more of this shit.

It is not up for discussion, or committee vote, It is my decision and mine alone.


River

[A-1]

River,

Moi just paid YOU, this board and everyone here a compliment of the highest order. I would like to thank him.

Bob/3 just P.M.ed me with a message and I think that we should discuss it, it was about the nature of wealth.

Paraphrasing, wealth IS creatable and infinite, but only in the sense that it must be balanced with the creation of tangible items.

The answer to this is, then what does a bank accomplish? (or an investment) Answer: it stores what represents wealth, not the wealth itself.

Bob/3. in light of this can you define an investment? Please start another thread along these lines to discuss these things. Maybe we can move this spin-off to a place where it will become productive and break some new ground.

[Slammr]

My long time opinion of Ron Paul: http://www.salon.com/2011/11/29/ron_...ism/singleton/

Ron Paul's Phony Populism

To me, the epiphany of the most dreadful presidential campaign in history took place in Keene, New Hampshire, last week, when a Ron Paul town meeting was interrupted by some Occupy Wall Street hecklers.
“Let me address that for a minute,” the Republican presidential candidate said, “because if you listen carefully, I’m very much involved with the 99. I’ve been condemning that 1 percent because they’ve been ripping us off –” He was interrupted again, this time by cheers, almost drowning him out.
After the usual chants of “We are the 99 percent” and “There are criminals on Wall Street who walk free,” Paul quickly took back the audience, not that he had ever lost it. “Do you feel better?” he asked, to laughter.
“We need to sort that out, but the people on Wall Street got the bailouts, and you guys got stuck with the bills, and I think that’s where the problem is.”
It was a masterful performance. Ron Paul — fraudulent populist, friend of the oligarchy, sworn enemy of every social program since Theodore Roosevelt — had won the day, again.
Why shouldn’t he? Frauds win, whether they are in finance or politics. Bernie Madoff proved that, and so did Ronald Reagan. The success of the Ron Paul campaign with young voters, which David Sirota pointed out in Salon Monday, is but the latest example of how Americans can be persuaded to support the most reactionary politicians in America when they’re suitably manipulated, even if they aren’t reactionary and, sometimes, even when they identify themselves as progressive.
There’s little doubt that aspects of his message are both appealing and sincere. There is a definite “yay factor” in some of his oratory, and his denunciations of Dick Cheney are the kind of thing that gets yays on “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.”
Paul has been consistent in opposing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in opposing American military adventures in general. He has staked out a lonely position as the only presidential candidate to oppose aid to Israel (until Rick Perry more or less aped him on that), and his distinctly non-aggressive posture on Iran is indistinguishable from that of dovish Democrats like Dennis Kucinich.
So there’s no question that there’s a lot to like in Paul’s foreign policy positions, if you’re leaning to the left. The problem is that Paul is less of a 21st century dove than he is a throwback to the isolationism of the early to mid-20th century, in which fear of foreign entanglements was embraced by the hard right — with all that came with it. Paul emerges from that mold as about as far right as they come, further right than Ronald Reagan ever was, more of an enemy of the poor and middle class, and an even warmer friend of the ultra-wealthy. A Ron Paul America would make the Reagan Revolution look like the New Deal.
Paul’s own oratory tends to deemphasize his reactionary stance on social issues, or to sugarcoat it. But his program is now laid out in black-and-white. Last month, the Paul campaign set forth the details of what it grandiloquently called a “Plan to Restore America.” It has received surprisingly little attention, given Paul’s surging popularity.
This is not a plan for the 99 percent. It is about as much of a 1 percent-oriented ideological meat cleaver as you can find anywhere in the annals of politics. Paul would take an ax to the federal budget, hacking off $1 trillion in the first year alone, ripping and cutting and deenacting and deregulating so as to ostensibly return America to “its former constitutionally limited, smaller-government and less-burdensome place.”
“Return” implies that America would be taken back to a starting place, though it’s not clear where that would be. What I do know is that there is definitely an undercurrent to his slash-and-burn philosophy, a strong whiff of Ayn Rand — the Russian-born philosopher-novelist, atheist and advocate of individuality, rational self-interest and selfishness. Paul is, in fact, the closest of all the GOP candidates to carrying out the anti-government policies Rand advocated.
To be sure, there are aspects of this budget plan that hardcore Randers would not like. It leaves in far too many nonessential government functions, such as allowing the continued existence of the Department of Health and Human Services. But, from the Randian perspective, Paul is definitely moving in the right direction. His “restore” plan embraces the kind of deprivation that Rand’s Objectivist philosophy would impose on America, and would enact a fundamental change in the role of government that the radical right cherishes.
After spelling out the good stuff from the leftist perspective — a 15 percent Defense Department spending cut ending all funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — the hard charge backward commences:

• No more aid to education. Goodbye, Department of Education.

• No more government-subsidized housing. Goodbye, Department of Housing and Urban Development.

• No more energy programs. Goodbye, Department of Energy.

• No more programs to promote commerce and technology. Goodbye, Department of Commerce.

• *No more national parks. Goodbye, Department of the Interior.

His opposition to the very existence of the Federal Reserve — he wrote a book titled “End the Fed” — is straight out of Rand, as is his promotion of the gold standard.
Paul would not reform the abysmally flawed and underfunded Securities and Exchange Commission, he would eliminate it. The only agency of the federal government that stands between the public and greedy bankers and crooked corporations would be gone. He is philosophically opposed to it, as he is to Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank, the reform measures enacted after Enron and the 2008 financial crisis, respectively. His Reformed America would no longer discomfit Wall Street with the latter’s restrictions on banks or annoy corporate executives with Sarb-Ox’s ethics and fair-disclosure rules.
And this is but the beginning of the shower of blessings that would rain down upon the very richest Americans. He would end the income tax, thereby making the United States the ultimate onshore tax haven. The message to both the Street and corporate America would be a kind of hyper-Reaganesque “Go to town, guys.” With income, estate and gift taxes eliminated and the top corporate tax rate lowered to 15 percent (and not a word about cutting corporate tax loopholes), a kind of perma-plutonomy would come to exist in the land — to the extent that there isn’t one already.
The guts of Paul’s grand scheme, where its rubber hits the road, is in the all-important theme of cutting programs that benefit the poor and middle class. Despite all its window-dressing and spin, the heart of every libertarian plan for this country is a kind of mammoth subtraction: making deep cuts in programs benefiting millions of Americans, out of a belief that such programs are morally wrong. Restoring America is a moral statement, an enshrinement of the Randian belief that aid to one facet of the population (the poor) is really “looting” of resources from other facets of the population (the wealthy).
So when you see in this plan a $645 billion cut in Medicaid over four years, what you are seeing is an expression of the philosophy that Medicaid itself is wrong, that it should not exist because it is not the function of society to provide healthcare for the poor. If they get sick, tough. While Paul does not go the full Randian route by entirely eliminating this program, he goes a long way to establish the principle that as a general proposition, as a moral question, we simply should not have this program.
Ayn Rand believed that there is no such thing as a “public,” and that the public was a collection of individuals, each having no obligation to the other. So when you read through this budget, and see the deep cuts in food stamps and child nutrition, what you are seeing is an expression of a philosophy that is at odds with the Judeo-Christian system of morality embraced by most Americans.
That, fundamentally, is what the deficit debate is all about, from the perspective of Ron Paul and the radical right. It’s not about getting the red ink out of the government but using the government’s fiscal travails as a pretext to change the very purpose of government. So yes, he opposed the Wall Street bailouts, as Rand no doubt would have, and that also is “yay”-worthy to many people. But if you buy that, if you buy Ron Paul, you have to buy the rest of his belief system: his opposition to securities regulation, his opposition to consumer protection, his belief that the markets can defend Americans from the depredations of big business.
What I’ve just described is many things, but it is the very antithesis of the values of Occupy Wall Street, which is based on opposition to the prerogatives of the top 1 percent at the expense of the 99 percent. Yet rather than forthrightly oppose OWS, which would at least be intellectually honest, Paul has sought instead to co-opt it, con it, calling it a “healthy movement” at one appearance, and seeking to link it with his “end the Fed” agenda. In Keene he went one step further by declaring himself as being in league with the 99 percent and against the 1 percent.
That’s about as far from the truth as it possibly could be. The only question is, how long is Paul going to be allowed to get away with his faux-populist con job? I agree with his backers in this sense: He is less of a fringe candidate than he is sometimes portrayed in the media. His positions are increasingly infecting mainstream Republican politics, and it’s scary.
No, strike that. His positions are scary only if you know what they actually are, and not how he spins them.

[moi621]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY
The music in the back ground reminds me of Angels and Demons
The video and clip effects reminds me of Babylon 5 and Starship Troopers.
Tres Nouveau
Let the rough and tumble begin.
BTW, Dr. Paul is running second to Gingrich in an Iowa poll.
Witness the lack mention in upcoming stories at they center on Cherubic, #3 The Mitt, and the distant runner ups.
Witness Santorum and Bachmann getting more press then #2.

Something to be said for the most hated candidate of Media, Inc.

Enjoy the link for all its' artistic value, we know the message already.


Here is Dr. Paul explaining it to Wolf
http://www.youtube.com/user/ronpaul

[moi621]

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-plows...HRlc3QD;_ylv=3
"Ron Paul Plows to Lead in Iowa; Young Voters Sowing the Seed"



Apparently, Ron Paul, M.D. is the candidate who speaks to younger voters.
Major, WOW!

Moi
Populist for Dr. Paul

[Dave]

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-plows...HRlc3QD;_ylv=3
"Ron Paul Plows to Lead in Iowa; Young Voters Sowing the Seed"
[/SIZE]
Apparently, Ron Paul, M.D. is the candidate who speaks to younger voters.
Major, WOW!
Moi
Populist for Dr. Paul

Did you just discover this?
This has been reported all along.
Ron Paul appeals to younger voters...

[gareth19]

Apparently, Ron Paul, M.D. is the candidate who speaks to younger voters.
Major, WOW!

Moi
Populist for Dr. Paul

Of course, he appeals to those with a lowered sense of self-preservation and the uneducated with no sense of how historically moronic his ideas are. Those who know no history are condemned to vote for Ron Paul and his efforts to restore Herbert Hoover's administration.

[moi621]

Of course, he appeals to those with a lowered sense of self-preservation and the uneducated with no sense of how historically moronic his ideas are. Those who know no history are condemned to vote for Ron Paul and his efforts to restore Herbert Hoover's administration.

Well it says something when the younger folk are going for that bent over grandfather look.
Now go serve your corporate masters, you programmed fool.

Moi

[Dave]

BEFORE you two get off on a wild and wooly flame war, STOP and take a deep breath.

Ron Paul might actually win the Iowa Caucus.
He would win based not because on his intellect or ideas but because he had lots of organization in Iowa.
That's what it takes to win a caucus takes -- organization.

If he wins, the Republican Establishment will fall like the shit storm from hell.
A) the Republican Establishment doesn't like his stand on Marijuana.
b) the Republican Establishment doesn't like his stand on international affairs,
c) or his stand on the federal reserve.

[A-1]

Well it says something when the younger folk are going for that bent over grandfather look.
Now go serve your corporate masters, you programmed fool.

Moi

I do not know about the 'GRANDFATHER' but I always liked that "bent over" look on a young female...

...it is difficult, though, when they forget to wear their panties..

[Riverwind]

Keep it nice,


River

[A-1]

Keep it nice,

River

Well, I thought that she looked nice. However, if she was one of MY kids she would have got her ass busted, or at least a good swat...that would have straightened her out...with a command to get her fine young ass into her bedroom and put on some underwear on over it.