[Merged] Ron Paul SLASHES Newt!

[Peckerwood]

The world has changed so much in the last 40 years. Why would his views not evolving at all over that time be a good thing?

What specifically has changed in the last 40 years that makes his message of limited government obsolete?

Elimination of the Federal Reserve (which is giving trillions to foreign banks)
The BATFE (which is presently out of control and arming mexican drug gangs)
The DHS (which is a recent and unnecessary invention)
The Department of Education (which is unconstitutional)
The Department of Housing (also unconstitutional)
Ending undeclared wars (wars which are illegal under international law and constitutional law)
Closing all foreign military bases (ending the empire...an empire which is also unconstitutional)

Why are these things so bad?

That has been his message (excluding the DHS) for the last 40 years...and then some

Be specific in your reply please.

ETA He has also made a promise that if elected he will balance the budget and then cut a minimum of 1 trillion in spending each year while in office. And he will take a salary that is equal to the annual salary of the common American...around $40,000 per year.

A trillion per year is a serious budgetary decrease...way more than what any other politician is offering on the table. All that and the elimination of the Income Tax.

[koalorka]

Oh look, a Ron Paul thread. The loudest non-candidate ever.

Mitt Romney was groomed to lose against Obama months ago. This whole build-up is a carefully choreographed theatre.

Mark my words.

[BornRuff]

What specifically has changed in the last 40 years that makes his message of limited government obsolete?

Elimination of the Federal Reserve (which is giving trillions to foreign banks)
The BATFE (which is presently out of control and arming mexican drug gangs)
The DHS (which is a recent and unnecessary invention)
The Department of Education (which is unconstitutional)
The Department of Housing (also unconstitutional)
Ending undeclared wars (wars which are illegal under international law and constitutional law)
Closing all foreign military bases (ending the empire...an empire which is also unconstitutional)

Why are these things so bad?

That has been his message (excluding the DHS) for the last 40 years...and then some

Well, many of those things have not even existed for 40 years, so clearly his views have changed somewhat over 40 years.

If you are looking for suggestions of what have changed in the US, read from here on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...2.80.931980.29

If your policy ideas don't change at all though all of this, you are not paying attention.

I'm pretty sure the merits of these exact proposals have been discussed to death on these forums, so I won't go there right now. None of them are particularly helpful suggestions though, ranging from conspiracy theories to just nonsensical.

Be specific in your reply please.

ETA He has also made a promise that if elected he will balance the budget and then cut a minimum of 1 trillion in spending each year while in office. And he will take a salary that is equal to the annual salary of the common American...around $40,000 per year.

A trillion per year is a serious budgetary decrease...way more than what any other politician is offering on the table. All that and the elimination of the Income Tax.

If I promise to cut 2 trillion dollars would you vote for me? If I promised to create world peace, would you vote for me? It is easy to promise anything in the world, you just need to say the words.

This sounds exactly like what Rob Ford promised, and we have all seen how that has worked out.

His salary is pretty meaningless.

[gizmo8]

Ron Paul even attacked the Federal Reserve!!...scary part hes %100 correct.Just google Federal Reserve and you will see how this operation really works.This is not a tin foil BS.Problem is he attacking too many targets all at once,Kennedy tried it and we know how that ended.

[flashy_mcflash]

Oh look, a Ron Paul thread. The loudest non-candidate ever.

Mitt Romney was groomed to lose against Obama months ago. This whole build-up is a carefully choreographed theatre.

Mark my words.

I have no doubt that Romney is going to lose, but you think the Republicans are grooming him for a loss? Because...the Republicans don't like having power? Because they love losing elections? Because they love squandering whatever little credibility they have left? What's the endgame here?

[Syne]

Oh look, a Ron Paul thread. The loudest non-candidate ever.

Mitt Romney was groomed to lose against Obama months ago. This whole build-up is a carefully choreographed theatre.

Mark my words.

Gotta agree with this.

[BornRuff]

Ron Paul even attacked the Federal Reserve!!...scary part hes %100 correct.Just google Federal Reserve and you will see how this operation really works.This is not a tin foil BS.Problem is he attacking too many targets all at once,Kennedy tried it and we know how that ended.

Anytime you suggest the fact that because there are website out there(or youtube videos) that support your point, then surely the point is true, it is a huge face palm. People need to understand how the internet works. The ability to post something on the internet doesn't imply that what you are saying is correct.

[BornRuff]

I have no doubt that Romney is going to lose, but you think the Republicans are grooming him for a loss? Because...the Republicans don't like having power? Because they love losing elections? Because they love squandering whatever little credibility they have left? What's the endgame here?

Clearly the republicans would prefer to win. I feel as if a less conspiracy way to look at it would be that many potential candidates don't see this as the best year to run. It seems that recently, the incumbent has an advantage, and I think that overall many things point to Obama having a good chance of being reelected in the end. So there are some real blue chip presidential candidates that are happy to let Mitt run an lose this year so they can come in and go for it in 2016.

It also would explain the generally low quality of candidates this time around.

[Syne]

Yes, but what they lack in quality they make up for in numbers.. and hilarity.

[flashy_mcflash]

Clearly the republicans would prefer to win. I feel as if a less conspiracy way to look at it would be that many potential candidates don't see this as the best year to run. It seems that recently, the incumbent has an advantage, and I think that overall many things point to Obama having a good chance of being reelected in the end. So there are some real blue chip presidential candidates that are happy to let Mitt run an lose this year so they can come in and go for it in 2016.

It also would explain the generally low quality of candidates this time around.

I suppose that's true. No one would want to inherit this mess, and it's a testament to Obama that he wanted the reins after Bush drove them into the ground.

[flashy_mcflash]

Yes, but what they lack in quality they make up for in numbers.. and hilarity.

Yeah, Stewart and Colbert are having a field day with these guys.

[neutral]

Clearly the republicans would prefer to win. I feel as if a less conspiracy way to look at it would be that many potential candidates don't see this as the best year to run. It seems that recently, the incumbent has an advantage, and I think that overall many things point to Obama having a good chance of being reelected in the end. So there are some real blue chip presidential candidates that are happy to let Mitt run an lose this year so they can come in and go for it in 2016.

It also would explain the generally low quality of candidates this time around.

Really? Given the level of unemployment, his broken promises, you think it would be difficult for him to be beaten? I believe no president has ever been re elected with unemployment as high as it is in the U.S.

As for Kaolorka's post, I agree with him, for once. Not necessarily about Obama being re elected, but the premise that who is in power really isn't that important. Both parties serve corporate interests, and the only difference I see between the parties is how brazen and open the serving of corporate interests are.

[Syne]

Obama is going to win without a doubt, although the race will likely be closer this time around. For the 99%, Obama is their only shot right right now at a populist President. He certainly speaks the part and the Nobel Peace Prize was a nice touch. Those Liberal talking points are what got Obama elected. The people spoke. Yes, they want single-provider health care. Yes, they want Gitmo closed. Yes, they want the troops on home soil. Yes, they want harder regulations on Wall Street. Yes, they want tax loopholes closed for corporations, education, environmental regulation, and the list goes on. The question is whether Obama can actually deliver these things in his 2nd term.

I think the puppetmasters may have overdone it a bit with Obama. Look at OWS. People are frothing at the mouth for Obama to actually deliver on his promises. It's way too volatile right now to even be thinking Conservative. They haven't even got the Liberal policies they voted for yet. I think another Bush in the oval office might send people over the edge into riot territory. It's still far too soon to be looking at the right wing for answers.

What I would like to see is a 3rd independent party gain some traction in the US - A party completely divorced from corporate America.

[neutral]

LOL and they won't, that much should be obvious by now. Instead what they got were bank bailouts, health insurer bailouts, expanded militarism, and all this with him being called a 'socialist'.

OWS needs to do everything possible not to be co-opted by the Dems. The issues OWS brings forth will not be satisfied by the Dems.

[Maxman]

Its shameful that the usual group of left-wingers on here are bashing Libertarianism without even understanding its origin and intent.

I have been a Libertarian as long as I've been alive! Even as a child, I figured out quite quickly that government's role was to CONTROL the masses - not serve them - and that the "redistribution of wealth" through government policy would be the downfall of our society.

Libertarianism is about less government intervention in our lives - in other words - MORE FREEDOM. Its about caring for your neighbour - not making them wards of the state. The current occupy movement (led by left wingers) has positioned itself as the champion of the 99% and claims that we are born into slavery to the corporate world. They are absolutely correct! And the answer is not more government, mortgaging the future for instant gratification (hello RFD!). The answer is to STOP the government from creating policy that handcuffs future generations. You CANNOT do this by never-ending increases to government spending.

Businesses should sink or swim without government support or intervention. There should be less reliance on governments and courts to intervene in personal disputes. Health care should be accessible to all IMMEDIATELY (NO wait times due to government policy).

People should really take the time to look at the Libertarian movement. Sadly, in the US and Canada, the media has tied Libertarianism to the Republican party and the Teap Party movement - and have somehow villified it as the extreme right wing - which couldn't be further from the truth (think about the simple premise that individuals should have more freedom - and how is that extreme right wing).

The media is part of the machine that controls society - and they fear any significant freedom movement! That is why it has been so difficult to get the Libertarian platform out to the public. That is why people like Ron Paul are being ignored by the media and villified by people like the loonies on here (Flashy) who want more government jobs with higher wages, but can never explain where the money comes from.