So what do you DISAGREE about with Ron Paul?

[nickcoons]

When Wal-Mart comes to town it wipes out the middle class locksmith, hardware stores, general stores, and eventually small food stores if they get a "Supercenter". That's part of the free-market and it wipes out small towns.

Your logical progression of arguments (WalMart comes to town and small businesses close up) is sound, but your premise (that's part of the free market) is not correct. Huge conglomerates like WalMart don't come from the free market, they come from government favors.

When WalMart proposes to open in a new outlet, local governments often give them subsidies (measuring from hundreds of thousands to millions) to offset the cost of building their warehouse stores. Their small business competitors don't have access to these same favors. My argument is not that small businesses should get these favors also, but rather that no one (including WalMart) should get them. If WalMart had to build its way to the top by its own productive labor only and not on the backs of the townspeople (including those that don't shop there), then it likely wouldn't have gotten to be the monster that is has. And if it did thrive under such conditions, then its existence as a large successful company would be well-deserved.

No, in a free market you do not have corporatism. You have corporatism when government favors big business, giving them an unfair advantage.

 

[ItsTime]

I disagree that he is old. I wish he was 55 years old

 

[klamath]

You like tyrannical duopoly and lack of choice, klamath? You know that he is a lifetime member of the LP and that he ran for pres as a libertarian, right?

Yes I know RP is a life member of the libertarian party. My point is the LP would look just like the republican party if the Republican party dissapears and the LP was the main oposition to the democratic party. Why spend all the time building the libertarian Party up and building the organization when it will be like the R party when you get done. Personnally I agree with the LP platform far more than the R platform but in order to widen the base it would get watered down. I am just looking at the practical side of politics.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Yes I know RP is a life member of the libertarian party. My point is the LP would look just like the republican party if the Republican party dissapears and the LP was the main oposition to the democratic party. Why spend all the time building the libertarian Party up and building the organization when it will be like the R party when you get done. Personnally I agree with the LP platform far more than the R platform but in order to widen the base it would get watered down. I am just looking at the practical side of politics.

Sociopathic cults have a pratical side?

 

[Trance Dance Master]

Your logical progression of arguments (WalMart comes to town and small businesses close up) is sound, but your premise (that's part of the free market) is not correct. Huge conglomerates like WalMart don't come from the free market, they come from government favors.

That's right. Corporatism also lobbies the government to create countless hoops for the new business owner to jump through to discourage competition further.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes I know RP is a life member of the libertarian party. My point is the LP would look just like the republican party if the Republican party dissapears and the LP was the main oposition to the democratic party. Why spend all the time building the libertarian Party up and building the organization when it will be like the R party when you get done. Personnally I agree with the LP platform far more than the R platform but in order to widen the base it would get watered down. I am just looking at the practical side of politics.

I don't think the LP would need to water the platform down. In a truly free market of politics, other smaller parties would spring up to appease the former republicans (the ones who didn't migrate to the LP for whatever reason). This assumes, of course, a free market-which is a long, long way down the road, if it ever exists at all.

 

[SimpleName]

Non-intervention foreign policy: I have a hard time fathoming not being involved at all in the horrific things that go on around the world. Certainly getting involved in meaningless war, such as Iraq and Vietnam, is economically and morally draining, BUT are we going to just let people get tortured, maimed, raped, and murdered by immensely strong totalitarian governments? Some of these people have no access to guns and ammunition, therefore making it impossible to revolt and leading to endless genocide. If anything, we need more effort put towards strategic (non-militant) removal of their tyrannical leaders.

As for his campaign, I wish he would have stopped being Mr. Nice Guy. Tough guy Republicans will never grab hold of your message if you aren't fighting. I understand the Nice Guy thing is supposed to show calm and confidence, but I think it gives people the impression he is weak. Also, WHY DIDN'T HIS CAMPAIGN USE THE MONEY THEY HAD?!?!? From what I remember, there was a lot of money left over that wasn't used. WTF?

Support of Chuck Baldwin also shows him giving up some of his sturdy, never-bending stances. He seems to just have given in.

 

[nickcoons]

If anything, we need more effort put towards strategic (non-militant) removal of their tyrannical leaders.

Who's "we"?

If you're saying that you and all of the other Americans that "have a hard time fathoming not being involved at all in the horrific things that go on around the world" should join together to removal tyrannical leaders, and use your own resources in the process, then I fully agree to that.

But if you're saying that government should infringe on the rights of Americans (by looting their property) in order to protect the rights of others, then it should be clear that moral ground cannot be gained.

 

[Wendi]

What do I disagree with Ron Paul about? Abortion and the war on drugs, but I can't come up with a better solution & his ideas are better than anyone else so I can deal with that.

 

[driller80545]

I think he should have run as an independent.

 

[Trance Dance Master]

This assumes, of course, a free market-which is a long, long way down the road, if it ever exists at all.

Ron Paul was pretty pessimistic about the chances of his ideas becoming popular just 2 years ago. We proved him wrong.

I think he should have run as an independent.

The C4L will accomplish way more over a much longer period of time than an indy run could have.

 

[Mesogen]

I think he should have run as an independent.

I agree. If he had run as an independent he would be reaping the political capital from the "crisis" and the "bailout." It would be plain to everyone that Obama and McCain are the same and that Ron Paul was the real thing.

 

[ChickenHawk]

I agree. If he had run as an independent he would be reaping the political capital from the "crisis" and the "bailout." It would be plain to everyone that Obama and McCain are the same and that Ron Paul was the real thing.

Probably not. If he ran Independent nobody would know who he is. The reason he ran GOP was so he could get a national stage at the debates to get his message out. If it wasn't for that his campaign wouldn't have been anywhere near the success that it was.

 

[jonhowe]

There's only three genetic groups that would make up three different nations. These genetic groups can be determined by hair structure.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2000/deedric1.htm

Caucasoid (European)
Hairs of Caucasoid or Caucasian origin can be of fine to medium coarseness, are generally straight or wavy in appearance, and exhibit colors ranging from blonde to brown to black. The hair shafts of Caucasian hairs vary from round to oval in cross section and have fine to medium-sized, evenly distributed pigment granules.

Mongoloid (Asian)
Hairs of Mongoloid or Asian origin are regularly coarse, straight, and circular in cross section, with a wider diameter than the hairs of the other racial groups. The outer layer of the hair, the cuticle, is usually significantly thicker than the cuticle of Negroid and Caucasian hairs, and the medulla, or central canal, is continuous and wide. The hair shaft, or cortex, of Mongoloid hair contains pigment granules that are generally larger in size than the pigment granules of Caucasian hairs and which often appear to be grouped in patchy areas within the shaft. Mongoloid hair can have a characteristic reddish appearance as a product of its pigment.

Negroid (African)
Hairs of Negroid or African origin are regularly curly or kinky, have a flattened cross section, and can appear curly, wavy, or coiled. Negroid pigment granules are larger than those found in Mongoloid and Caucasian hair and are grouped in clumps of different sizes and shapes. The density of the pigment in the hair shaft may be so great as to make the hair opaque. A Negroid hair shaft exhibits variation or apparent variation in diameter because of its flattened nature and the manner in which it lies on the microscope slide. Twisting of the hair shaft, known as buckling, can be present, and the hair shaft frequently splits along the length.

You scare the shit out of me.

Jesus Christ, REALLY? Racial nationality? What are you drinking/smoking/shooting up, and how can I make sure I never get near the stuff?

Sometimes I feel embarassed to be a Ron Paul supporter because of the people it groups me with, and this is one of those times...


My disagreements:
1. Not running in the general election. People would know who he is, we're the loudest and most enthusiastic grassroots you could ever hope for, and I think he could have made a dent bigger than the C4L.

2. Wasting my money. I gave over $300 to Ron, campaigned in NH and NY, etc, and thats a lot for a full time college student with a job that (literally) doesn't pay me (I'm an intern in local government and a Big brother volunteer with needy kids). And then I see that ad... "He's catching on, I'm telling you!". WHAAAAT? Come on, I could make a better ad with my webcam and my 7 year old sister. Government isnt the only thing that can waste money

3. I'm still torn on abortion. I do NOT believe life begins at conception. I also don't believe it begins at birth. I believe it begins when the fetus could survive outside the womb. I dont support women getting abortions; if I got my girlfriend pregnant, I would never ever ask her to do it. However, it's not my choice to make for her, and it shouldn't be anyone elses. Not even the state's.

4. He doesn't talk enough about enforcement. I think we need less laws (a LOT less), and better enforcement of those we keep. Maybe he sees it as 'assumed', but you know what happens when you assume...

 

[RonPaulMania]

Your logical progression of arguments (WalMart comes to town and small businesses close up) is sound, but your premise (that's part of the free market) is not correct. Huge conglomerates like WalMart don't come from the free market, they come from government favors.

When WalMart proposes to open in a new outlet, local governments often give them subsidies (measuring from hundreds of thousands to millions) to offset the cost of building their warehouse stores. Their small business competitors don't have access to these same favors. My argument is not that small businesses should get these favors also, but rather that no one (including WalMart) should get them. If WalMart had to build its way to the top by its own productive labor only and not on the backs of the townspeople (including those that don't shop there), then it likely wouldn't have gotten to be the monster that is has. And if it did thrive under such conditions, then its existence as a large successful company would be well-deserved.

No, in a free market you do not have corporatism. You have corporatism when government favors big business, giving them an unfair advantage.

Sadly, history doesn't follow your logic. The Constitution had limits on monopolies for that reason. It does happen, and has happened, and will happen. I'm not dissing the free-market as completely incompatible, but I'm saying it has flaws. I would still prefer it over anything else.

I also don't know how you it is possible to think that gov'ts won't support large operations that line their pockets. That has been true since the beginning of time and will also happen. To think the gov't can be non-restrictive in it's quest for the free market, yet strong enough to suspend such activity is not only unrealistic, but it's a contradiction of purposes.

 

[Trance Dance Master]

You scare the shit out of me.

Jesus Christ, REALLY? Racial nationality? What are you drinking/smoking/shooting up, and how can I make sure I never get near the stuff?

We're not allowed to link to the very popular sites that educate others about the truth regarding those issues outside of hot topics, so your mind won't be exposed to a healthy dose of such thought crime.

 

[Uriel999]

We're not allowed to link to the very popular sites that educate others about the truth regarding those issues outside of hot topics, so your mind won't be exposed to a healthy dose of such thought crime.

Perhaps you'd be more appreciated for your ideas here: stormfront.org

 

[Trance Dance Master]

Perhaps you'd be more appreciated for your ideas here: stormfront.org

I've been there since 2002. I like this place better: vnnforum.com

 

[Calpico]

I disagree with him on abortion and also when it comes to welafre. I believe that there still needs to be government benefits for the elderly and disabled along with some sort of short-term welfare after someone loses their job.

 

[nickcoons]

Sadly, history doesn't follow your logic.

What history? Is there some place you can point to in history that has had a free market to which my logic doesn't follow?

The Constitution had limits on monopolies for that reason. It does happen, and has happened, and will happen. I'm not dissing the free-market as completely incompatible, but I'm saying it has flaws. I would still prefer it over anything else.

I also don't know how you it is possible to think that gov'ts won't support large operations that line their pockets. That has been true since the beginning of time and will also happen. To think the gov't can be non-restrictive in it's quest for the free market, yet strong enough to suspend such activity is not only unrealistic, but it's a contradiction of purposes.

What we're talking about here is, of course, the free market.. not the Constitution. Government's nature is to scratch the back of those that scratch its back. But in a free market, the government has no claws.

In case that analogy is lost on anyone, here is the crystal clear version of it. A free market means zero taxes of any kind (taxes impose on rights, and an imposition of rights is not a free market). If there are no taxes, then government has no vast sums of cash to spread around to large businesses.

So my original claim stands. In a free market, you cannot have corporatism because government has no tools with which to favor big businesses.