ron paul kills it at cpac

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by reggie_jax, Feb 17, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    [youtube]B5KyWxU-bkg[/youtube]

    fox news player hating as usual

    [youtube]lwo0Iyrh1Zk&feature=player_embedded#at=13[/youtube]
    test
  2. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    i agree w/ many of the things ron paul says

    but

    pragmatically, what is he going to do about job creation? does he realistically expect to retract our military from the mid east?

    how is he going to fund his presidential campaign? where is he going to get the money from?
    test
  3. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    in regard to his approach to creating jobs, ron paul's rhetoric is generally that the fed shouldn't be 'in the business of job creation' and that they actually do more harm than good, and would do better to focus on curbing their own financial irresponsibility than trying to artificially prop up markets with interest.

    as far as i know his stance on our standing in the middle east is to bring the troops home immediately. he wants to cut the military down to size as well but of course thats a more abstract goal.

    of course you realize he's a bit of an idealist. i don't think his 'revolutionary' ideas would translate literally when it comes down to legislation. just look at how watered down obama's healthcare act had to be, and after all that the damn thing was ruled unconstitutional. i think that put through the filter of the political process ron paul's idealist libertarianism would translate to a more moderate version of fiscal conservatism than the flat out removal of the federal reserve and the destruction of the government like some people see it.

    but to be honest i'm not a libertarian. i can't say i agree with all of his ideas. i'm more disenfranchised with the two party system. i just think we need to shake things up a bit. i always think about that story by bukowski about the guy in the homeless shelter thinking about how all those bums were just wasted manpower, and how there had to be some way to utilize that force. i think about those of us who wouldnt really want to give our support to either of the two major parties.. some of us do anyway out of some bullshit defeatist 'lesser of two evils' rhetoric and the rest of us don't even bother.

    but what we need to do is organize, everyone who wasn't going to vote or doesn't want to give the nod to what they perceive as a corrupt and rigged game show, give their vote to some 'third party' type candidate just to spite those who have become entrenched in the power structure. what have we got to lose? lets say the candidate turns corrupt and is bought off just like all their predecessors: we still wouldn't be any worse off than we are today, and then we could actually say that we put forth some kind of effort.

    the candidate's identity is actually secondary to me. could very well be ralph nader and i'd be just as content as if it was ron paul. i chose ron paul because i think he shows more potential in terms of political momentum. granted he's still far off the mark, but i think that for any of these non-mainstream third party type candidates to ever have a snowball's chance in hell they're going to have to become entrenched in the debate for multiple election cycles.. it's going to take a couple unsuccessful tries to build up the necessary following.

    which leads me to your last question. i believe ron paul actually had a pretty impressive grass roots fund raising campaign last time around. could he compete with the corporate sponsors of the other candidates? of course not. but in the age of the internet it seems the momentum of these grass roots movements can actually be quite potent given the right face, message and audience.
    test
  4. Your Idol

    Your Idol ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Messages:
    12,045
    You can cut over 35% of defense spending by only using the minimum amount of troops to keep a base functional. Let the other countries around the world use their own armies instead of looking for the US to come to the rescue.

    In order for the job market to flourish we need incentives for businesses to expand. Raising corporate taxes does nothing but drive business away (ask the blue states how that's worked out for them in the past few years). If we eliminated tax cuts, exceptions, and credits all together for individuals and corporations we could cut the overall percentage that we tax these entities by 10-15% each and still potentially come away with more money (essentially this is simplifying the tax code). Also, lowering minimum wage would help with the unskilled laborers who need work.
    test
  5. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    reg you make a good point. i agree with everything you say and ultimately the best thing that should come from ron paul is going to be the big noise he makes about the federal reserve, the military industrial complex, and the corrupt nature of the two party system.

    thats very important because if his movement gains steam then this type of talk should resonate in the minds of the current generation (80's/90's babies) enough so that by the time we are all elderly we will have enough power by then to gain more control over the country and restore focus onto the restoration of the middle class. the thing standing in our way now is complacency and the current status quo still being.... umm... not dead yet to be honest...

    but eventually we are going to run the country instead of them so its good that people like paul and also nader as you noted create at least some kind of touch stone for us to carry with us philosophically into the future where we actually will have some power to change things. i think thats probably their greatest function.

    with that said i really want ron paul (or anybody1!) to say something about the destruction of the manufacturing base in the economy and either 1. the restoration of it or 2. the replacement of it with some other massive job creator

    buckminster fuller predicted that in the future we wouldnt need to have an economy where everyone is employed, but instead, an economy that was structured in such a way so that only a select segment of the population would ever actually be needed to be employed.

    this discourse must be explored!
    test
  6. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    its funny you mention the generation gap since these messages typically resonate especially loud with the youth and yet its the youth that statistically does not vote. this leads me to believe that a large portion of it is complacency mixed with defeatism.. people feel that 'there's no point' and it's hard to argue with them, but this is exactly the kind of disenfranchisement that ron paul and others need to (and in many cases do) tap into. youthful idealism is a powerful political force come election day.. as obama demonstrated quite clearly. but the democrats can never seem to keep people excited long after election day.. because they're generally more interested in calming people down and maintaining the status quo than they are in 'saving the country,' which leads to dreary results.

    we need movements to rile people up not calm them down... ways to get people to express their agitation with the ways things are being run, and a genuine interest in seeing a real change for the better. most people i talk to seem to have the agitation simply not the expression nor a clear idea of exactly who the 'bad guys' are supposed to be. this is why american politics is so heavily steeped with blame game tactics, cause that's all it really is is people scrambling looking for somebody to blame once shit hits the fan and somebody to unfairly give credit to whenever times are momentarily good.

    i think that yea shit will be better once the baby boomers are dead, group of spoiled brats that they are, but i'm not keen on standing by waiting for that to happen. in the meantime we've got a country in crisis, and an extremely volatile political environment. observe the tea party movements in 2010. they saw this as an opportunity for action. and it is. these conditions simply might not hold, and if they do it will be because the country continues to visibly decline. which could be the case, but either way the prospects aren't looking great.

    [youtube]fvg9byxeYmQ&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
    [youtube]DXlwt-9Q6ps&feature=player_embedded#at=357[/youtube]

    "bipartisanship"

    as for the loss of the manufacturing jobs and globalization etc, nader does talk about it

    Ralph Nader on Free Trade

    i think we should have a government with far right wing libertarians like paul working with far left guys like nader, rather than the 'centrist' pro-imperialist crooks that work together to screw us over.
    test
  7. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    glenn beck on ron paul during his presidential campaign, in 2007:
    [youtube]Eg8M2JBIoqo[/youtube]

    glenn beck on ron paul during the 'off season' when paul was busy criticizing fiscal practices during obama's rule, in 2009: [youtube]xm9Mm6ZwbCY&feature=related[/youtube]
    test
  8. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    [youtube]EuFeWXSx3W8[/youtube]
    [youtube]y1sLk5_-lWE&feature=related[/youtube]
    test
  9. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    [youtube]Xl_puVAtqLg[/youtube]

    lets be honest... when was the last time you saw an 'official' presidential debate with this much substance? by giving blind faith to the two party system, are we not limiting the 'acceptable' positions which a politician might adopt while still being taken seriously during the election cycle? are these positions which are considered damaging actually illogical or unfeasible, or do they simply throw a monkey wrench into the gears of the universal political agenda of asserting domestic and global hegemony on behalf of the u.s. empire?
    test
  10. Your Idol

    Your Idol ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Messages:
    12,045
    The two party system will stay in place because the majority of American voters don't want change, in fact they are afraid of it. Neo-conservative republicans (mainstream republican movement) talk about cutting taxes and cheer on all the representatives who talk about it yet they'll sit on their hands when it comes to cuts to programs they generally approve. The liberal media was up in arms about the George Bush era's fiscal policy but they'll defend to the death Obama's 3.7 trillion dollar budget. Nobody on each side wants to talk about the Ponzi schemes we know as Social Security and Medicare and defense cuts. Why? Because it's political suicide. When you give people free stuff you get more votes, when you take them away the support evaporates.

    If there's one thing the mainstream left and neo-conservatives can agree on, it's that Ron Paul is a lunatic; at least that's what they want you to believe so you can back their candidates.
    test
  11. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    i just don't buy that this message has no political viability. they're clearly threatened by his campaign or else they wouldnt take the time to demonize him.

    i think we as voters need to reassess our own role in the two party system. the more of us citizens that revolt and spread the message that a new era is on the horizon, the more of an acceptable position it will become. the primary mistake we have made is accepting the defeatism that the base of the two major parties have sold to us disguised as pragmatic realism.

    whether its the republicans trying to downplay ron paul as a 9/11 truther or terrorist sympathizer, or the democrats trying to tell nader that by running an independently funded campaign based on strong liberal principles that he was 'helping the republicans win,' all we ever seem to get from the base of the two parties is that you're either 'with us or against us.'
    test
  12. MyKe SeaN

    MyKe SeaN Paula Deen is my hero.

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    23,175
    Real Spit.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)