The greatness of Ron Paul

Oh well. Not sure what happened to the pics. 

They show the greatness of Ron Paul

Ron Paul predicted our economic collapse, was against the wars, wants to protect our civil liberties, and wants to end the crony capitalism that is rampant in our govt.

I understand that you are a blind follower of the democrats and are therefore incapable of looking at any issues other than is he a dem or a repub.

 Kenny, do you have a link?

Such is the greatness of ran paul..

@best: not sure what you want a link to but start with a google search of Ron Paul predicts credit bubble or Ron Paul predicts economic collapse.

I didn't want a link. What you tried to post didn't show up, so I was suggesting you just post a link to whatever it is you wanted to show.

Oh. Haha.

It was a bunch of pics with quotes from RP.

Not sure why pics didn't post. Could it be because I was on iPad?

I think that first post DID actually show all there is to his "greatness".

 

The great accomplishments of obama.

 

 

 

There, I fixed it for you.

again.. i don't blame the wingnuts for spouting off about paul or obama.. if i had their track record.. i'd do anything i could to deflect from it, too!

 

I should have known you wouldn't like ron Paul. You support the current war mongering, warrantless wiretapping, crony capitalist that is currently in office.

 

you are such a party following simpleton that you would support Barack if he was punting puppies off the roof of the White House.

==============

You obviously have no idea what my political position is. First, I am a Democratic Socialist. We haven't had one of those run for president since 1944. I have heard that another one is contemplating a run in 2016 , so we shall see.
Ron Paul has some ideas that I totally agree with, like decriminalizing drugs, end the wars overseas (which Obama iss doing), end imperialism (again , something Obama is trying to do), and keeop the government out of our sex lives, and personal lives. 
All good policies, but if that is what makes him "great" then I am just as "great" because those are mine as well.
On the other hand, I believe that the power of the government can and should be used to improve the quality of life of our citizens at large. After all , the Preamble to the Constitution states as much.

Governemnt should be out of our personal lives , but have the power to prevent so called "robber barons" from screwing the working man, polluting the air and water of our country, and providing a product that is safe, and works "as advertised". Paul does believe in the first statement of that paragraph, but non of the rest of it, as he wants no government at all (which is somewhat of a joke because he wants to be head of that "no government at all")

You tell me, is that Obama's overall agenda or is it the agenda of which ever Republican the Koch Brothers can buy ? Which comes closer ?

 

 

 

Have the righties considered running someone who does not scare so  many voters?

nope.. they're too concerned with women's reproduction, repealing the AHA, keeping obama from taking their guns, and looking for voter fraud.. not to mention, they can't combat the 'free stuff' obama is giving away with every vote!

Love how seeweed stretches the preamble beyond recognition.

 

James Madison’s Federalist Paper #41

 "Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction."

 

The Federalist Papers were a series of newspaper articles to persuade people to accept the new constitution over the old Articles of Confederation. 

 

SCOTUS amplified on Madison's statement

 

<cite>"Jacobson v. Massachusetts</cite>, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905) (“Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.”

 

Got that, no granting of substantive powers beyond those enumerated in the Articles.  I'll take the word of a Founder, rather than a Johnny Come Lately like Steny Hoyer. 

 

Democratic Socialism is mainly practiced in the Scandinavian nations -- a set of small (about 10 to 11 million people), mostly of the same ethnicity (although that is changing).  Norway and Denmark depend upon their North Sea oil to fund their welfare system.. When that runs out, so does their adult Disneyland.  On another blog I had a running argument with several Norwegians concerning this.  They truly had no idea of the deep dependence their nation has on that revenue.  True, they have a large sovereign fund to keep them afloat for a while.  However, only for while, plus the investments are suspect and cronyism is suspected.  Sweden with its capitalist system kept up for a while.  When, their taxation reached 110 percent of earnings for the higher brackets (income tax and wealth tax combined) those earners either stopped earning in the high brackets, or left.  Sweden did have enough sense to cut those tax rates.. However, that only forestalled the future.  As I posted on this forum, the wait time for GPs is now longer than in Albania.  Sweden is scrambling to find more revenue -- good luck.  Other cracks in their welfare state are showing, as well.

 

---------------

The scary things out there are the lefties. Have you considered running someone who doesn't want the total destruction of the country? But then again, if you did, they wouldn't be a democrat.

Ron Paul is a statist. If he could he would allow the states to do whatever they wanted. No civil rights laws, no rights for the disabled would be guaranteed in states that decided they didn't want to follow them. His insane view of what this country should be would have us living in a nation of 50 small independent "countries" where the laws could be totally different each time you cross a state line. 

 

He has some good ideas from time to time, but overall he is a nut. 

The scary things out there are the lefties. Have you considered running someone who doesn't want the total destruction of the country? But then again, if you did, they wouldn't be a democrat.

 

We won, ya'll lost.  Ya'll ran the scary guy.  Are you gonna do it again?  I've got my fingers crossed.

The country lost, in the long run no one will win. Again, why was he scary? Because you might have actually had to work for a living?

___________________________________________________________

Jank, m'dear, you truly don't know what you are talking about.  A statist is one who believes in statism.  Per Merriam-Webster, statism - concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statism

 

That's pretty much the progressive agenda.  National Review on line has a good three part interview, suggest you read it to determine what he truly believes, rather than take the party line.  Although, in your next self criticism session, you might not wish to mention you read it. 

 

 

`_________________________________________
So, jtd, which of the guys scared you -- Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan?  Really! -- a Mormon Ivy Leaguer or a skinny guy addicted to extreme exercise?  Lord help, if a really scary guy ever approached you -- like a Hell's Angel, whose hog you just scratched, or a meth head who really needs money. 

The oxymoron concept of a sovereign nation made up of sovereign states was tried by the CSA, and didn't turn out so well. That is why there is a requirement for each state to ratify the US Constitution before they could join the Union. US law ALWAYS trumps state law.

 

I said, "ya'll ran the scary guy".  I shouldn't have to put a name on the republican who ran  for president.

----------------------------------------

Maybe you should try to comprehend what you read. 

 

The scary things out there are the lefties. Have you considered running someone who doesn't want the total destruction of the country? But then again, if you did, they wouldn't be a democrat.

==============================

The country lost, in the long run no one will win. Again, why was he scary? Because you might have actually had to work for a living?

 

----------------------------

So, jtd, which of the guys scared you -- Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan?  Really! -- a Mormon Ivy Leaguer or a skinny guy addicted to extreme exercise?  Lord help, if a really scary guy ever approached you -- like a Hell's Angel, whose hog you just scratched, or a meth head who really needs money. 

 

 

Best, have you forgotten who the republican candidate was?  I said, "ya'll ran the scary guy".  You are asking me who the scary guy was???  It was Romney.  The really scary part is, even though I do not like hardly anything Obama has done, I'd still vote for Obama over Romney.

====================

Show me where I asked you anyone's name. I asked you why you thought he was scary. I said the scary things are the lefties. Do you think it surprises anyone that you'd vote for another obama? It just helps prove what I said, democrats are out to ruin the country.

________________________________________________________________

No, federal law trumps state law if the federal law meets the standard of the enumerated powers in the constitution. I

 

His campaign speeches did not seem to reflect his performance as governor.  Did he pander to the extreme right wing of the republican party?  Just asking.

_______________________________________

Not particularly, I suspect you paid too much attention to the Dems vilification of Romney during the campaign. The facts vs. what was said were truly at odds with each other. 

Tell us who he "pandered" to. Who did/does obama pander to? That's another thing about you libs. You don't think anyone else should have the right to have a political party or candidate that doesn't march to the democrats drum. No one but you should have representation or a say on how the country is governed. On this forum, and the lefty news outlets, the left wing nuts spend all their time trying to find any little thing about ANY republican they think may even consider running, and seeing how blown up out of all proportion they can get it. IF they had done this with their own party we wouldn't have the train wreck in office that we have now, and they wouldn't want to follow it up with another disaster, hillary. I posted before the election that if Romney won, and didn't live up to my expectations, I wouldn't vote for him again. You admit you "didn't hardly like anything obama has done", then say you'd still vote for him again. That's the lefty mindset, power at any cost.

____

The facts of what Romney has said during his political career have been a moving target, so when you refer to what Romney has "said" you need to cite when he said it and perhaps provide some basis for assuming that what he said was not later contradicted by the same Mitt Romney.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hardly, its jtd and you that refer to supposed great differences -- the proof's upon you'all.  Its not for me to read your minds.

Best, you sure do have opinions.  If I had the same choice as in the last election, yes, I'd vote for him again.

You are pretty full of opinions yourself, but don't like it if others have opinions that are different than yours. Unlike you, I base my opinions on facts. You don't have to keep posting you'd vote for obama again, that's a given. Like I said, it's the liberal mindset at work-power and control at any cost. 

as I said, give me a choice that I can live with

As I see it now, the Republican party has not seen fit to run anybody worth my vote since Teddy Roosevelt. I voted for Reagan, but in looking back on the policies he started  that came to full fruit under W Bush, I wish I could take both those votes back.

 

I highly doubt you get a response to this.

 

People are so utterly clueless when it come to Ron Paul and what he stands for.