Speaking as an outside observer, I agree with you; I saw just as much alarmism about dictatorship under Bush as I do now about Obama, just from a different section of the population.Mtn Dew wrote:
The Answer My Friend wrote:This whole notion of dictatorship is groundless. There was more reason to believe it would come true under Bush than under Obama but I didn't hear this alarmism then. Gee, I wonder why that is?
Because you weren't paying attention?
Look. I don't know how to make this clearer to weirdo Ron Paul deciples.
What he says certainly has merit. Yes, the fed should probably be audited, re-introducing the gold standard would bring greater equilibrium to the financial sector yadda yadda yadda...
The problem is that he is simply not a viable third party candidate. He comes across and acts a bit too much like a senile and slightly crazy pedophile.
Also, none of the things Ron Paul posits are his ideas! He is a mouth-piece for a post-structuralist libertarian ideology that has been around for 40 years!
He basically takes the same talking points and applies them over and over and over again ad infinium to varying issues.
Show me road maps and show me someone who can offer answers and I'll vote for him. Right now he looks a little too much like a 'man on horseback' without a horse.
To be clear, Paul's warning about the possibility of martial law isn't an attack on Obama specifically. He's been saying this since long before Obama took office. If a dictatorship takes hold in the future, it will probably happen after Obama leaves office. In my mind Republicans, with their obsession with security, are probably more apt than Dems to establish dictatorial rule. For those of you who are trying to make this into a partisan issue, realize that, even if you disagree with his views, Dr. Paul has consistently leveled criticism at both sides, including the Bush administration. He is not just throwing a fit because a Democrat is in office.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH wrote:
Look. I don't know how to make this clearer to weirdo Ron Paul deciples.
What he says certainly has merit. Yes, the fed should probably be audited, re-introducing the gold standard would bring greater equilibrium to the financial sector yadda yadda yadda...
The problem is that he is simply not a viable third party candidate. He comes across and acts a bit too much like a senile and slightly crazy pedophile.
Also, none of the things Ron Paul posits are his ideas! He is a mouth-piece for a post-structuralist libertarian ideology that has been around for 40 years!
He basically takes the same talking points and applies them over and over and over again ad infinium to varying issues.
Show me road maps and show me someone who can offer answers and I'll vote for him. Right now he looks a little too much like a 'man on horseback' without a horse.
I'm no one's disciple, but I can't see how Paul comes across as senile, let alone a pedophile. (Also, I can spell "disciple.") There hasn't been a viable third party candidate in recent history, except maybe Perot, so I don't consider being "unelectable" (meaning people won't vote for him because they've been convinced people won't vote for him) a mark against him. Why do you think he keeps the (R) next to his name?
Very few people, much less politicians, actually have original ideas. At least Paul's unoriginal ideas are derived from the basic law of the United States.
only me wrote:
I saw just as much alarmism about dictatorship under Bush
as I do now about Obama, just from a different section of the population.
Since Obama is essentially governing as the third term of the Bush administration, he should be criticized for the same things. It's funny, though, that for the most part it's coming from different people.
When is the Ronernator going to come and take down his stupid "Ron Paul Revolution" signs off of the freeway overpasses in my state? He's a one-man environmental disaster.
Be afraid of people who so vehemently vilify Mr. Paul. This guy is a true patriot, and he understands the BS that goes on among the elite who rule over us.
Our ways have led us to this terrible point in history. We need to understand what we are up against (a war over who provides correct information) and think outside the box if we are to sustain our high standard of living.
freedom wrote:
To be clear, Paul's warning about the possibility of martial law isn't an attack on Obama specifically. He's been saying this since long before Obama took office. If a dictatorship takes hold in the future, it will probably happen after Obama leaves office. In my mind Republicans, with their obsession with security, are probably more apt than Dems to establish dictatorial rule. For those of you who are trying to make this into a partisan issue, realize that, even if you disagree with his views, Dr. Paul has consistently leveled criticism at both sides, including the Bush administration. He is not just throwing a fit because a Democrat is in office.
Exactly. He's been ranting non-stop for 20 years. Some things he's predicted have come true, but if you predict financial collapse long enough then you'll be right eventually (remember that economists have successfully predicted eight of the last five recessions). I have little patience with his libertarian economics preference, don't understand the obsession with the gold standard, and firmly believe that his desire to audit the Fed stems from his desire to make the Fed worse rather than better.
the rains wrote:
Be afraid of people who so vehemently vilify Mr. Paul. This guy is a true patriot, and he understands the BS that goes on among the elite who rule over us.
Our ways have led us to this terrible point in history. We need to understand what we are up against (a war over who provides correct information) and think outside the box if we are to sustain our high standard of living.
Thanks, Mr. Beck. See you tonight. Bring your tears.
Tim G wrote:
the rains wrote:Be afraid of people who so vehemently vilify Mr. Paul. This guy is a true patriot, and he understands the BS that goes on among the elite who rule over us.
Our ways have led us to this terrible point in history. We need to understand what we are up against (a war over who provides correct information) and think outside the box if we are to sustain our high standard of living.
Thanks, Mr. Beck. See you tonight. Bring your tears.
=how to strike a chord
freedom wrote:To be clear, Paul's warning about the possibility of martial law isn't an attack on Obama specifically. He's been saying this since long before Obama took office. If a dictatorship takes hold in the future, it will probably happen after Obama leaves office. In my mind Republicans, with their obsession with security, are probably more apt than Dems to establish dictatorial rule. For those of you who are trying to make this into a partisan issue, realize that, even if you disagree with his views, Dr. Paul has consistently leveled criticism at both sides, including the Bush administration. He is not just throwing a fit because a Democrat is in office.
I'm no Libertarian, but this analysis is very level headed. It's a bad time for any real American patriot. Liberal or Conservative.
At some point you have to concede to keep moving forward. Even if it's not in the direction you would prefer.
Bush signed the most executives order and pushed through the patriot act. Either way its the same old crap in washington. The jobs are very cushy there.
Its Official wrote:
Ron Paul is right.
If I had a nickel...
Towson exile wrote:
Bush signed the most executives order and pushed through the patriot act. .
What's the problem with the Patriot Act? It's still in force and passed 98-1 in the Senate and 357-66 in the house. It was openly debated and a bi-partisan legislation.
Not one piece of legislation in the Obama Regime has been bipartisan. Scary.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH wrote:
Look. I don't know how to make this clearer to weirdo Ron Paul deciples.
What he says certainly has merit. Yes, the fed should probably be audited, re-introducing the gold standard would bring greater equilibrium to the financial sector yadda yadda yadda...
The problem is that he is simply not a viable third party candidate. He comes across and acts a bit too much like a senile and slightly crazy pedophile.
Also, none of the things Ron Paul posits are his ideas! He is a mouth-piece for a post-structuralist libertarian ideology that has been around for 40 years!
He basically takes the same talking points and applies them over and over and over again ad infinium to varying issues.
Show me road maps and show me someone who can offer answers and I'll vote for him. Right now he looks a little too much like a 'man on horseback' without a horse.
"The problem is that he is simply not a viable third party candidate."
Who said anything about him running for president?
"Also, none of the things RP posits are his ideas! He is a mouth-piece for a post-structuralist libertarian ideology that has been around for 40 years!"
So? If it works, why does originality matter? This isn't some sort of contest to see who can come up with the most original idea, it's to see what works. Oh, and they are his ideas. They're his ideas about post-structuralist libertarian idelogies. Ron Paul repeats his principles because they are GOOD principles. It should not matter one bit if he applies them elsewhere if it works.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH wrote:
Look. I don't know how to make this clearer to weirdo Ron Paul deciples.
What he says certainly has merit. Yes, the fed should probably be audited, re-introducing the gold standard would bring greater equilibrium to the financial sector yadda yadda yadda...
The problem is that he is simply not a viable third party candidate. He comes across and acts a bit too much like a senile and slightly crazy pedophile.
Also, none of the things Ron Paul posits are his ideas! He is a mouth-piece for a post-structuralist libertarian ideology that has been around for 40 years!
He basically takes the same talking points and applies them over and over and over again ad infinium to varying issues.
Show me road maps and show me someone who can offer answers and I'll vote for him. Right now he looks a little too much like a 'man on horseback' without a horse.
Also, 40 years? He's probably been a politician for even longer than that, so I don't even see how this can be applied to him.
DontFeedTheTroll wrote:
freedom wrote:To be clear, Paul's warning about the possibility of martial law isn't an attack on Obama specifically. He's been saying this since long before Obama took office. If a dictatorship takes hold in the future, it will probably happen after Obama leaves office. In my mind Republicans, with their obsession with security, are probably more apt than Dems to establish dictatorial rule. For those of you who are trying to make this into a partisan issue, realize that, even if you disagree with his views, Dr. Paul has consistently leveled criticism at both sides, including the Bush administration. He is not just throwing a fit because a Democrat is in office.
Exactly. He's been ranting non-stop for 20 years. Some things he's predicted have come true, but if you predict financial collapse long enough then you'll be right eventually (remember that economists have successfully predicted eight of the last five recessions). I have little patience with his libertarian economics preference, don't understand the obsession with the gold standard, and firmly believe that his desire to audit the Fed stems from his desire to make the Fed worse rather than better.
You obviously don't know much about his ideas if you say he's trying to make the fed "worse" rather than better. That's the whole point... we should not have a Fed.
...and here's my reply to this End the Fed crap
If we don't have a Fed, then who manages the money supply?
Keep the Fed wrote:
...and here's my reply to this End the Fed crap
If we don't have a Fed, then who manages the money supply?
If we were on a gold standard, the money supply wouldn't need to be managed.
Dazed and ... wrote:
Towson exile wrote:Bush signed the most executives order and pushed through the patriot act. .
What's the problem with the Patriot Act? It's still in force and passed 98-1 in the Senate and 357-66 in the house. It was openly debated and a bi-partisan legislation.
Not one piece of legislation in the Obama Regime has been bipartisan. Scary.
The PATRIOT Act is the single most malevolent piece of legislation passed in the last decade. It gives the government authority to spy on private citizens by executing warantless searches, monitoring phone conversations, reading emails, etc. No real Republican- that is, someone who believes in the principles of a constitutional Republic- would ever tolerate such insanity.