Ron Paul Revolution!
- Thread starter Litmus
- Start date
You must have the worst hosts in history. Talk radio is far from "always" sucking.
uscitizen
Villified User
Just a matter of personal taste or lack thereof. ie you like snails and I don't.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Right here sir.
I applaud Paul and the Ronbots on this most marvelous political stunt.
Still waiting on any faint signs of a "revolution" though.
Litmus
Verified User
Yes his freedom oriented messges ARE resonating with vast swaths of the electorate, no doubt. I like how you phrased that.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
"vast swaths of the electorate"
Got any numbers on that?
Can you quantify that in numbers .. given that elections are about numbers?
Or should we assume from "measurables" like "lots of sign holders" ?
Litmus
Verified User
Greenbacks. Money talks. BS walks.
Thread count. We'll use thread count.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
More correctly stated, Ron Paul has given some people hope and motivation. Some other people get that from religion, music, education, love, spirituality, and most impotantly, good planning.
It's good that Paul's some people are getting that hope.
Everybody needs 'sumptin.
Litmus
Verified User
Hope through good planning. LOL. You couldn't inspire a dog to shit.
theMAJORITY
MAJORITYrules-sorry
I like Ron Paul. I don't like a lot of his supporters, but Ron Paul has the right direction (Like Perot did). I don't think he has a good shot of winning (unless he gets people to vote that normally don't vote-he would only need a additional 15% of the population--I estimate), but like perot, he will help educate our population from the conditioned thinking of people today. Your intuition is right. Consiteritive talk raido just confirms it and fills in the blanks. You still have to have some wisdom to read between some lines--but this country need consertavite talk radio--a lot.
I try to listen to NPR once in a while--I just think you libs are all insane. Some stuff is good--like Tom Hartman speaking up agains the attack on the middle class (and if you don't believe it--try working in a private sector for a living--maby get some friends in theMAJORITY class and have a beer with them.), but as a whole---I don't know a lib who has opinions on how things should be---whos opinions, if emplimented, would not effect me in a negative way. Can't I take care of myself (and help direct neighbors if in need, when I am in a good mood), instead of taking care of you welfare recipients? Yes--socialized health care is welfare. The only people who want it are people on welfare, and people who want power. All others who want it, got sucked in with the sympathy card, and are on the edge of welfare right now. Health care is not a right. You have to be insane to believe it is. Bigger government leads to a poorer people, and theMAJORITY suffers.
The pribvate health sector does need to be stream lined though. We can afford it with smaller government, where we can keep more of the money we earn. Then, the industry would not be abused (remember about 25 years back--not a bad preimum), and costs would reflect the actual operating costs of a trim business with competition in a free market.
The socialists way--will break theMAJORITY of the peoples backs, ij this country--with the fat as heck government we have (fattest in the world) and make us dependent on government more--which will be bigger, and more expensive to run.
Michigan now has more state empoployees than they do manufacturing employees (remember GM/Ford/Chrysler--they won't be here 15 years from now). Those lines crosed last year. Socialized medicine will severly add to the downward spiral for theMAJORITY of the peoples economy, and we can't even see the bottom right now. I will bet money on that. Any of you rich libs want to bet on that? I will glady take your tax free money from your disability of something stupid like adult ADD. You think the home forclosures are high now---just wait. Now who is going to take care of all those people that could not retire well enough to take care of themselfs---smokers? You bvelieve that? Insane.
Should I start a "Smoke two packs a day---for the children" campaign? Would that help the insane agenda?
I try to listen to NPR once in a while--I just think you libs are all insane. Some stuff is good--like Tom Hartman speaking up agains the attack on the middle class (and if you don't believe it--try working in a private sector for a living--maby get some friends in theMAJORITY class and have a beer with them.), but as a whole---I don't know a lib who has opinions on how things should be---whos opinions, if emplimented, would not effect me in a negative way. Can't I take care of myself (and help direct neighbors if in need, when I am in a good mood), instead of taking care of you welfare recipients? Yes--socialized health care is welfare. The only people who want it are people on welfare, and people who want power. All others who want it, got sucked in with the sympathy card, and are on the edge of welfare right now. Health care is not a right. You have to be insane to believe it is. Bigger government leads to a poorer people, and theMAJORITY suffers.
The pribvate health sector does need to be stream lined though. We can afford it with smaller government, where we can keep more of the money we earn. Then, the industry would not be abused (remember about 25 years back--not a bad preimum), and costs would reflect the actual operating costs of a trim business with competition in a free market.
The socialists way--will break theMAJORITY of the peoples backs, ij this country--with the fat as heck government we have (fattest in the world) and make us dependent on government more--which will be bigger, and more expensive to run.
Michigan now has more state empoployees than they do manufacturing employees (remember GM/Ford/Chrysler--they won't be here 15 years from now). Those lines crosed last year. Socialized medicine will severly add to the downward spiral for theMAJORITY of the peoples economy, and we can't even see the bottom right now. I will bet money on that. Any of you rich libs want to bet on that? I will glady take your tax free money from your disability of something stupid like adult ADD. You think the home forclosures are high now---just wait. Now who is going to take care of all those people that could not retire well enough to take care of themselfs---smokers? You bvelieve that? Insane.
Should I start a "Smoke two packs a day---for the children" campaign? Would that help the insane agenda?
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Not me. Ron Paul makes me despair for the Republican party. Ron Paul would only be half as bad a W, but let's be clear....he WOULD be half as bad and that's saying a lot.
Ron Paul is essentially a member of the libertarian faction of the Republican pary and the libertarian philosophy of government is not valid, workable or effective. It is essentially based on an antigovernment philosophy, is pretty much "anarchism" in drag and how could any such philosophy do anything but provide bad government? Have we not learned the lessons of the Bush administration? Good governance counts! It's important and we must have it as a society. I just can't possibly see how a libertarian minded politician could possibly provide that.
Voting for Ron Paul right now is a waste of a vote.....but it would be even worse if it wasn't. If Paul were elected we'd get 4 more years of inefective government. Granted it wouldn't be as ideological or as devisive. Just inept.
At best Paul would be a weak and ineffective President. At worst he's simply not electable.
Until the Republican party, wether it's the fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, religious right or libertarian factions, decide to advocate the importance of a well run, affective and competant government they just do not deserve the support of the American people and are just simply not qualified to run our government.
And that's what depresses me about Ron Paul. He's an intelligent and articulate but he only sees half the problem with the Republican party. They just don't get it that they advocate bad government.
theMAJORITY
MAJORITYrules-sorry
Tell me that again. Tell me that liberitarian philosophies, the real philosophies that were the grouds for our constitution for a govermnment for the people by the people is not effective. When we followed those philosphies in our early years, we became the most prosperous country in the world in a very short time. Other governments, that are now more simular to ours now, that have existed for thousands of years--are just catching up (but still poor)--because we are becoming more like them--not them changing to what we used to be. Tell me again how those libertarian phiolosiphies, that proved to the world to be the best for the people who live there does not work again. I would love for you to show me a better example of anything that worked better anywhere in the world for people to persue happyness and freedom. Please--entertain me.
you talk about the republican party, as if they have not evolved into Democrats. If JFK were alive today, he would be considered a Consertative.
There are no major parties--just rich people who don't care about us. Ron Paul is not that man. He wopuld do more for the American people than you can imagine. But you might have to quit your government, nonproductive job, and become productive to survive. Only libertarians care about theMAJORITY people and liberity of each. With freedom and liberity comes responsibility and a will to fight for your freedom is imparitive. if you don't own up to that responsibility--you will become owned by a system. Right now--we are owned by our system--and it is not working out to well for theMAJORITY buddy.
Last edited:
Charles Pierce on Ron Paul, and he includes a link to some real in-depth stuff on Paul, which is: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-paul-and-his-followers.html
Pierce: "OK, I know we're all frustrated with the invertebrate congressional majority and its barely protoplasmic leadership, to say nothing of the fact that it seems to be hard for the putative front-runner among the presidential aspirants to take a firm position on, well, America. Personally, I think we should stand Harry Reid out in the garden to scare away the crows. But enough, please, with the Ron Paul bulls**t? The man is a kook. He is not guilty by association of being a kook because an entire exaltation of kooks follows him around. He is a kook because he's one of them, and he came to his kookhood through the same Martian theories of constitutionalism common to the guys who run around Michigan in camo, waving their AKs and waiting for the final battle with Kofi Annan's robot zombie army. I assure you there is nobody in this field who is more of a kook than Ron Paul -- not even on the GOP side, where the standards for such things are stretched almost to the breaking point this time around. I don't care if he's opposed to the war. I don't care if he raises $100 million online. He's not paradigmatic of anything except the traditional retrograde libertarian American crackpottery that should have died with Robert Welch. The redoubtable Dave Neiwert, who's forgotten more about the flow patterns of these foul backwaters than I'll ever know, has all the details here. Send your money to Dennis Kucinich, for pity's sake, if you're that honked off. The shiny-keys fascination in the blogosphere with a 21st Century Bircher bespeaks a certain immaturity, and we've had quite enough of that, thanks."
http://mediamatters.org/altercation/
Pierce: "OK, I know we're all frustrated with the invertebrate congressional majority and its barely protoplasmic leadership, to say nothing of the fact that it seems to be hard for the putative front-runner among the presidential aspirants to take a firm position on, well, America. Personally, I think we should stand Harry Reid out in the garden to scare away the crows. But enough, please, with the Ron Paul bulls**t? The man is a kook. He is not guilty by association of being a kook because an entire exaltation of kooks follows him around. He is a kook because he's one of them, and he came to his kookhood through the same Martian theories of constitutionalism common to the guys who run around Michigan in camo, waving their AKs and waiting for the final battle with Kofi Annan's robot zombie army. I assure you there is nobody in this field who is more of a kook than Ron Paul -- not even on the GOP side, where the standards for such things are stretched almost to the breaking point this time around. I don't care if he's opposed to the war. I don't care if he raises $100 million online. He's not paradigmatic of anything except the traditional retrograde libertarian American crackpottery that should have died with Robert Welch. The redoubtable Dave Neiwert, who's forgotten more about the flow patterns of these foul backwaters than I'll ever know, has all the details here. Send your money to Dennis Kucinich, for pity's sake, if you're that honked off. The shiny-keys fascination in the blogosphere with a 21st Century Bircher bespeaks a certain immaturity, and we've had quite enough of that, thanks."
http://mediamatters.org/altercation/
Wow. This is good stuff. I must admit, I mostly ignore Ron Paul, because I have a gut level feel that he's basically another far right libertarian kook, and I don't like to swim in those waters. But, your link was an eye opener, Darla:
LOL. We've all seen it.
Ouch!
I don't know if you've been on that other site, but some of the ron paul supporters over there have screen names like "White Power", and avatars of military assualt rifles. "Michigan Militia" stuff. Wierd. I haven't been paying attention to Paul, like I said, but there must be something to all that crap BAC has been posting about him