LOL

NerblyBear wrote:Ron Paul is a lunatic. He wants to get rid of the income tax and rely instead on a greatly-increased sales tax. Who do you think will end up harmed by this? Poor and middle-class consumers.

Youre mixing up your candidates NerblyBear. Thats Mike Gravel who wants to get rid of the income tax and replace it with a greatly-increased sales tax. You have a point there about Gravel; it would tax the lower/middle class more than the upper class with a sales tax.

Ron Paul wants to get rid of the federal income tax and replace it with nothing.

I'm very comfortable with slashing unconstitutional, overly powerful, one-law-fits-all federal programs and bringing things back to the states. The department of education is horrible (we have embarrassing low test scores/literacy rates in this country), so lets get rid of it and let each state decide. Thats one example, you can keep going.

Hes not a racist. What makes you think this (besides that one newsletter publication that has been explained time and time again)?

What was this about more government in our lives? You guys are nuts. Where else do we need MORE government/spending? Do you want more of the Bush administration? "Yes...please take away my rights..."

We need less government - no war on drugs, no HMO act of 1973, no department of homeland security, no Patriot Act, no large military operations unless were actually threatened, no FCC, no national ID card, strong restrictions on eminent domain, no North American Union...you guys are saying that we need MORE government...what more do we actually need? We need less.

health care would be nice.

I mean if its not too much trouble or anything. I would like some socialized health care.

Ron Paul doesn't like the socialized medicine. Ron Paul doesn't support a lot of things that I do.

Things I agree with Ron Paul on:
1. U.S. out of Iraq
2. End the War on Drugs
3. Gun laws.

Things I don't agree with him on:
1. Abortion
2. Religion's role in the state.
3. Tax Laws
4. Health Care
5. Business Regulation
6. I could go for a while, but I'll spare you.

I've always had a statement I think applies here
Keep government out of our bedrooms and put it in our boardrooms.

Ron Paul I don't think wants much government interference in the boardroom. This is where we part ways and why I cannot support him.
I like Kucinich, he's not good with the gun laws, but I think I agree with him more than Paul. And hey, really they both have about the same shot at getting elected in the end.

Thank you for pointing this out, Rick!

Big government is the biggest and most powerful monopoly around.

NerblyBear wrote:And how does he expect to deal with the huge deficit we have going right now? By cutting programs. LOTS of programs. That means environmental regulations, public schools, public health care, the CIA, and the military. Hilariously, he thinks that cutting all of these programs will make our society safer, cleaner and healthier. If you believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell ya.

Doesn't eliminating the joke that is the department of Homeland Security free up an assload of money and resources that could be better used for keeping us safe (if you think that's what they're doing right now, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you)? Not to mention the money saved if he actually managed to abolish the IRS and take down the Federal Reserve. I don't know about anyone else's education but the first thing I was told in my economics class was this, "The president is not the most powerful man in the nation, the chairman of the federal reserve is".

Rick Reuben wrote:

big_dave wrote:Ron Paul is anti-bankers? Get up-a.

Hilarious. Ron Paul has a thirty year long public record of opposition to the central bank. For you to allege that you have some secret information that it is all a pose makes you a conspiracy theorist, big_dummy.

He's against centralised, state controlled banking. Which is not the same as "the central bank". Which is not the same as "the bankers".

The way that you can substitute one concept for another so easily makes me think that you have no idea what they are actually refering to. Aside from their ideological positioning in your own, personal, mythology.

big_dave wrote:He's against centralised, state controlled banking. Which is not the same as "the central bank". Which is not the same as "the bankers".

The way that you can substitute one concept for another so easily makes me think that you have no idea what they are actually refering to.

Ron Pauls' against both forms those forms of banking, state controlled, and centralized as in "the Federal Reserve". Your constant baiting of Reuben is annoying.

Skronk wrote:

big_dave wrote:He's against centralised, state controlled banking. Which is not the same as "the central bank". Which is not the same as "the bankers".

The way that you can substitute one concept for another so easily makes me think that you have no idea what they are actually refering to.

Ron Pauls' against both forms those forms of banking, state controlled, and centralized as in "the Federal Reserve". Your constant baiting of Reuben is annoying.

I'm not baiting Reuben, he responded to me in this thread and claimed that I said something positive about "the Bankers". I posted Paul's "war on Christmas" bullshit when the thread bumped.

Stated controlled banking, centralized banking, The Federal Reserved and "the Bankers" might be related but they are certainly not all the same institution. I mean, a lot of the UK economy are state controlled, but non-centralized. Shit isn't as ABC as you'd like it to be.

Part of Rick's decayed logic implies that similiar or correlating ideas are the same idea, another part implies that the idea is the same as the institution related to that idea. Shit doesn't work like that in reality, because you can't make the jumps that he does.

But then again, you responded to a reasonable post in this thread with the notion that because George Dubya is lousy, all government is therefore worthless. So why do I bother?

big_dave wrote:Stated controlled banking, centralized banking, The Federal Reserved and "the Bankers" might be related but they are certainly not all the same institution. I mean, a lot of the UK economy are state controlled, but non-centralized. Shit isn't as ABC as you'd like it to be.

I don't think it's ABC, either, but, in my eyes, it's the lesser of two evils I would have to contend with.

big_dave wrote:Part of Rick's decayed logic implies that similiar or correlating ideas are the same idea, another part implies that the idea is the same as the institution related to that idea. Shit doesn't work like that in reality, because you can't make the jumps that he does.

In the real world, nothing works as it is written on paper, no matter how idealistic the people are. Rick has the balls and the brains to continually go against the grain, and that's commendable. Writing off Reuben's points and style as "decayed logic", because you're dissatisfied with his outlook, is silly.

big_dave wrote:But then again, you responded to a reasonable post in this thread with the notion that because George Dubya is lousy, all government is therefore worthless. So why do I bother?

Yes, every reason why I'm fed up and extremely distrustful of government rests on Dubya. Jesus, if I wasn't laughing, I'd take that personally. You bother because it amuses you, and brightens up another dreary Welsh day.

Skronk wrote:I don't think it's ABC, either, but, in my eyes, it's the lesser of two evils I would have to contend with.

Simple enough you to cut up it up into a neat little dichotomy, eh.

big_dave wrote:In the real world, nothing works as it is written on paper

Aside from maths, physics, engineering, linguistics, behavioural psychology, economics, biology, demographics, etc. etc.

If we can have all those things "on paper", why not politics as well?

Rick has the balls and the brains to continually go against the grain, and that's commendable. Writing off Reuben's points and style as "decayed logic", because your dissatisfied with his outlook, is silly.

But the logic is the point of it, not the conclusions reached. Completely arse-backwards.

I'm not disatisfied with his outlook, I think he's an unstable and aggressive gent looking for validation on the internet.

Yes, every reason why I'm fed up and extremely distrustful of government rests on Dubya. Jesus, if I wasn't laughing, I'd take that personally. You bother because it amuses you, and brightens up another dreary Welsh day.

It was a beautiful day. Go on, be asinine rather than address the point I just made.