This sodahead blog is getting a lot of attention. Santorum Supporter - Visits Ron Paul Rally @ Ft. Worth Texas - Shares His Reaction This is what's happening all over the country. People are learning what it means to believe in liberty. People are waking up. I know I did.
While I agree with much of the Santorum supporter's statement, I disagree with who he supports. Ron Paul has the best intentions, but not the best policies that will produce the best results. If anything, I see his policies producing equal or greater negative harm for this country than President Obama or Mitt Romney. Newt Gingrich is not a viable solution, so this election is a battle royal of the mediocre.
Now you are awake please wipe the Ron Paul sleep out of your eyes it will can cause infection of the brain . That feeling you have is the unfolding 3rd American Revolution the democratic tradition belongs to the SEP[US] the only party with a solution ,political programme and perspective. Jerry White the Working class's ,SEP[US] candidate for President ,who i am proud to know personally,would cut your ron paul to shreads if he ever got the chance to debate him which Jerry would be prepared to do anywhere anytime,it would be a political bloodbath with only one candidate left standing and his first name wouldn't be Ron! http://www.socialequality.com/
Take every one of Santorums delegates Give them all to Paul plus his own ..plus newts and Paul still loses. Debate is fine and clever.. But a history of doing things is need also..positive things ..not just hot Texas air. Promising dope and hookers is not the answer. The college kids will grow up some day and look Back and shake their heads for being so easily duped..so this guy can have a free year OFF with their money paying for it. And they call Romney people Robots ?
So, in your mind balancing the budget, ending a war and rolling back the power of the Fed. Gov't over our daily lives is worse than increasing the debt, continuing our present war and likely starting new ones? What the heck do you mean by 'negative harm' anyway? That statement implies that there is such a thing as positive harm.
What war would we be ending and on what terms? Paul and his bots need to explain.. Does retreating behind our own borders and dissolving our military bases over seas make us safer ? Paul and his bots need to explain. For example ..Paul must specifically specify WHAT BASES..where and why ? He does not get a free pass from the non Paul bots on this.. Then He needs to explain what congress would go along with his ideas to limit Fed. Government. He needs to show he has like 60 % of congressional endorsements backing him..or else he is just arguing like some college Teacher on ideology alone...except the public is not easily swayed like college innocents. Who and where are we starting a new war..? Why..? Talk about extreme alarmist without merit... unless you are willing to let Israel go down by saying we wont fight anywhere for any reason.. But the war on drugs would be over and you could hire some under age daughter for sex..I wonder why conservative Republicans will never vote or support that ?
That sounds good but the problem is this. It will never happen. Ron Paul will never, ever, get the Congress to support him in his endeavors. He has only managed to pass 1 piece of legislation in 30 years. If he is elected the Federal Government will come to a complete standstill. You may think that is a good thing but our country needs legislation passed, every year, in order to function. Even if its bad legislation. The problems from a government shutdown far outweigh even bad legislation. And here is why it will come to a standstill. Ron Paul refuses to compromise on any of his issues. This is why he has an astounding and consistent record of voting no on every single bill that goes against any of his values. Even if the bill is a good one such as the Amber Alert Bill he will vote no because he doesn't believe its a Federal power. You cannot govern without the ability to compromise.
Like I said, he will get nothing done. Congress will simply wait him out and bring their case to the people that Paul refuses to compromise on anything. People will throw him out after one term after nothing gets accomplished.
I'll take your post for what it's worth....factoring in, of course, your earlier post....reposted below.
Absolutely not. However, destruction of the economy, withdrawing from the world in an inefficient manner, and the lack of legislative action that would come from a Ron Paul Presidency is worse than not balancing the budget, ending a war, or rolling back the power of the federal government. You may say this is disingenuous, yet I have my reasons. Ron Paul would destroy the economy by seeking to eliminate the Federal Reserve. Even as a proponent of a flexible hard currency standard, I can understand that ending the Fed comes with tremendous repercussions. First, by ending the Federal Reserve, you either have one of two options. The Treasury can take over the duties of the Fed, or the former Federal Reserve's member banks will take over such duties. If the Treasury takes over such duties, monetary policy automatically becomes politicized. A Zimbabwe episode would become more likely, and knowing our politicians are willing to spend to their heart's desire, such a scenario could actually become a reality. If former primary dealers took over such duties, monetary policy would harken back to the days of the free banking system. The only problem is in the modern economy, such banks would not be subject to a gold standard. Remember, free banking does not impose any restrictions upon what can be circulated as tender. Instead, most banking institutions would choose to circulate fiat currency. Now the United States gets the same prospect that many libertarians fear of in regards to Federal Reserve monetary policy, except in overdrive. Banking institutions would either cut out the middleman posed by open market operations, simply print money out of thin air, or would engage in rampant open market operations. Neither option is desirable, and printing press inflation would ensue. Liquidity and moral hazard would become commonplace, bubbles would form much more quickly, and changes in the business cycle would occur much faster. The unstable economy Ron Paul wants to avoid would come to fruition. In regards to foreign policy, I am as much a non-interventionist as the next guy. I favor Constitutional methods of engaging in military conflict, and prefer diplomatic efforts over military efforts. Still, I am a pragmatist. We cannot simply rely on Thomas Jefferson's simple foreign policy maxim of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." The modern world requires a large global national defense structure, and foreign aid. I suspect Ron Paul would eliminate most foreign aid, and significantly scale back our military deployments. Many United States allies would turn the other cheek if we ended foreign aid or decrease military installments. I am certain Israel would seek alternative friendships. Our relationships with China, Russia, and other economic powerhouses would go down the toilet. Currency wars between the Chinese central bank and the Federal Reserve would increase. Middle East relations would further deteriorate as Russia would no longer serve as a viable hand that helps keep the region in line. Specifically, Saudi Arabian relations would suffer, and oil imports would decrease, further driving up the price of gasoline so long as we do not develop a significant domestic oil and natural gas industry. Lastly, as other members have stated, Ron Paul has not been efficient in passing legislation while in Congress. Only 1 bill of his was approved, and it was for a frivolous pork barrel project. You may consider inaction better than improper action, but in my opinion, inaction for selfish ideological reasons is worse than improper action for political expedient reasons. Improper action can be easily remedied, selfish inaction requires convincing a politician to rethink his entire ideological standing in the name of expediency. In the case of Ron Paul, that is not easy to do. I believe the one issue that Paul has changed his stance on was the death penalty. In summation, as I stated, Ron Paul has good intentions. He stands up for liberty and freedom, and I admire him for that, yet his pure heart is incompatible with the game of hardball.
I get a Kick out of Paul bots. Romney evil...starts wars..is pro business. Paul Good...ends wars is pro drugs and sex.. and you wonder why 90 % of America rejects that notion ? Because it is a fairy tale and Kids like sex and drugs.. That is The whole Paul deal is a simple line. All the other Fed stuff is fluff..Bogus and just a theory that is rejected by the mainstream. You know the ones that actually built America.
Why wouldn't you? You constantly troll and have little to nothing coherent to type in the first place... This is purely for your amusement. So... we consider him evil because of your vague term of "pro business"? What exactly does "Pro-Business" mean? Does it equate to financial freedom or Corporatism? With his record it points to Corporatism which is Soft Fascism. I wonder what you think "Pro Business" is. Also concerning the War remark he indeed supports Wars that have nothing to do with our National Security nor do the Wars he supports push to fight the groups that attacked on 9/11. He is neither good or evil... He supports Individualism, Responsibility and Living within your means. It's a purely neutral state at how people run their own lives and he isn't pushing for people to adopt other people's way he is purely asking for people to be tolerant. You know... Like "Good" Christians. Because we have people such as yourself who confuse Individualism with Radical Beliefs and continue to slander him with the "He is crazy!" or "He can't win!" on a daily basis. Once you have people such as yourself in the Media Outlets saying the exact same thing we have people such as... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkjcZhSyFwc ...on the Republican side who purely listen to one point of view/voice and then eat it up like morons. As of right now you're deciding upon having an Authoritarian Moderate versus an Authoritarian Moderate if it ends up being Obama vs Romney. Because the older gents and ladies don't enjoy getting some and drinking/smoking? What next you're going to make another assumption upon the younger generation? Oh yes... all of it is absolute fluff when he has been pushing for the ideology of a Stable Currency for 30-40yrs? You have nothing against Paul beyond your typical crap. Also to claim that America was built upon by Keynesian thought is pretty ridiculous considering that exact same theory in practice currently is destroying America. America became the greatest because of it's Freedoms... Not because of Government manipulation of the Marketplace and bureaucracy.
The problem is not Pot and Hookers. The problem is folks spouting out their own personal moral platitudes (Pot is bad, Hookers are bad) and thinking that this justifies making laws that force others to adopt these moral beliefs. Individual freedom and liberty is degraded on the basis of "moral platitudes/ religious beliefs" which is an affront to the constitution. Whats more is that the state now has to send massive amounts of money enforcing these laws and the criminal gangs are made rich and powerful due to prohibition. This prohibition then increases violence and costs even more due to funding the criminal gangs. Save your moral platitudes for the ignorant extremist hillbilly church groups. When you come up with some valid rational for your opinions let me know.
