Display posts from previous
Sort by

Ron Paul?

No way he will get the nomination
Total votes: 67 (64%)
He has a chance of the nomination, but he could never beat the Democrats
Total votes: 4 (4%)
Paul in '08!
Total votes: 33 (32%)
Total votes: 104

Presidential Contender: Ron Paul

601 by steve_Archive
Rick Reuben wrote:There are no other types of currency, other than fiat and commodity-backed. Quit lying about what you read, because you look pathetic.

There are labor-hour and barter certificates, investment shares, and transferable contracts, all of which which are a form of currency, though they are tied to nothing other than what the people trading them believe they are worth.

You could use stones of different sizes. It doesn't matter, so long as everyone spending and accepting them agrees to honor them or is bound by law to do so.
steve albini
Electrical Audio
sa at electrical dot com
Quicumque quattuor feles possidet insanus est.

Presidential Contender: Ron Paul

602 by Antero_Archive
Rick Reuben wrote:
Antero wrote: the same catastrophic economic positions
Ron Paul is *opposed* to the economic policies that have given us a devalued dollar and a mountain of debt.

Oh wait, you're one of those who can't look at central banking, even though it has a role in every problem we face.
He's also *for* economic policies that involve big business taking a shit on the poor and then environment.

He's not supportive of the aforementioned defecation. He doesn't like it at all! He likes the poor and the environment and wants things to be better for everybody, but he supports such catastrophic policies regardless because he's another delusion libertarian who doesn't have the balls to look at the real-world consequences of his precious market.

There's more to this world than your goddamn Federal Reserve.
http://www.myspace.com/leopoldandloebchicago

Linus Van Pelt wrote:I subscribe to neither prong of your false dichotomy.

Presidential Contender: Ron Paul

605 by chet_Archive
Johnny C wrote:A bizarro world where a rich white dude with conservative economic policies raises a lot of money to run for president?

Yeah, I guess that is unusual.


When has a mostly-libertarian guy ever done this well? In any other election, Paul would be cast to the back of the pack. He got like .5% of the popular vote in 1988. Not a single person expected this, especially not Paul himself.

Can you think of anyone with such extreme views who faced a mainstream media blackout for quite some time that has raised this much money before?

Presidential Contender: Ron Paul

607 by larsxe_Archive
Antero wrote:He likes the poor and the environment and wants things to be better for everybody, but he supports such catastrophic policies regardless because he's another delusion libertarian who doesn't have the balls to look at the real-world consequences of his precious market.


This is very true, and I think the main problem with any libertarian, "capitalist anarchist" or neo-liberal position.

It's great that they want to take away the "tyranny of the government", but they won't realize that the power void left by the government will only be filled by a tyranny of big business.

Presidential Contender: Ron Paul

608 by simmo_Archive
Bob - are you actively involved in fundraising for Ron Paul? Are you going to get out there canvassing if he gets the nomination? It sounds like you should be, given how much faith you're investing in him.

This is an entireyl serious question, btw. Will you be campaigning for him if the opportunity arises?
Rick Reuben wrote:
daniel robert chapman wrote:I think he's gone to bed, Rick.
He went to bed about a decade ago, or whenever he sold his soul to the bankers and the elites.


Image

Presidential Contender: Ron Paul

610 by larsxe_Archive
Rick Reuben wrote:Corporate money has controlled US politics for so long, I think it's safe to assume that Big Government has long since evolved into exactly what Big Business wants it to be. I think it's naive to still see it as a separate animal, or to see it as the 'People's Warrior'. That's a concept from dusty books. Big Government still promotes the facade of being the People's Protector, but that's necessary to perpetuate the false pro business/pro people paradigm. Big Government redistributes just enough wealth to prevent revolution, but it's toothless against Big Business in 2007. Its main role is to provide a scapegoat for blame when corporate avarice runs out of control.


I've read this several times, but I still don't understand what you're trying to get across.

Are you not agreeing that the corporate world would wield enormous power (even compared to today), and use this power irresponsibly at the expense of the general populace, if the government was reduced to a bare mininum?

If not, why? Please explain using other words.
Post Reply

Return to “Crap / Not Crap”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 434 guests