Hell Yeah, Ron Paul

At 4/26/2011 1:45:03 PM, innomen wrote:
I'll support him, and I agree with Kenyon on one point that it's pointless. However, I have supported people before in a vain effort.

I disagree with Kenyon on his other point about the foreseeable future. If things do not change, then there will be a large movement, radical, grasping for change within the next 10-15 years. It takes a certain person that will have the talent to bring people together with a common cause of unprecedented reform. That time period might seem like an eternity, but it's really not.

I think Kenyon meant it's unlikely to see any significant changes for the better in the near future. There's going to be some sort of change when the economy collapses, something like the large, radical group of people coming together for a common cause--but there's no reason to think that common cause won't be just more fascism and socialism.

At 4/26/2011 1:56:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

At 4/26/2011 2:27:02 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:

At 4/26/2011 2:13:05 AM, Puck wrote:

At 4/26/2011 2:11:53 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:

At 4/26/2011 2:10:43 AM, Puck wrote:
Huh. Didn't think he would.

You must not follow American politics very closely.

It's near the end of the gawd boring but should know list.

It's pretty pointless, really. Nothing ever changes and it's unlikely that things will change within the foreseeable future. 70% of the supposedly "radical" Tea Partiers are against privatizing Social Security.

Ron Paul isn't a tea partier and doesn't even agree with many tea partiers. It just so happens that a lot of tea partiers support him. One example that makes this clear is that Ron Paul rejects the birther issue whereas the tea party made a big issue about it.

The media just tries to package everything as a a soap opera so it looks stuff is happening when it really isn't.

Remember, were talking about Ron Paul here, the guy who has pictures of Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek hanging on his office wall.

The inefficiency of sitting around doing nothing is not something Ron Paul supports.

He's not doubting Ron Paul's sincerity, it's whether or not he'll be able to bring change that's the question, because so many Americans don't understand or agree with what he's talking about.

At 4/26/2011 1:56:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

At 4/26/2011 2:27:02 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:

At 4/26/2011 2:13:05 AM, Puck wrote:

At 4/26/2011 2:11:53 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:

At 4/26/2011 2:10:43 AM, Puck wrote:
Huh. Didn't think he would.

You must not follow American politics very closely.

It's near the end of the gawd boring but should know list.

It's pretty pointless, really. Nothing ever changes and it's unlikely that things will change within the foreseeable future. 70% of the supposedly "radical" Tea Partiers are against privatizing Social Security.

Ron Paul isn't a tea partier and doesn't even agree with many tea partiers. It just so happens that a lot of tea partiers support him. One example that makes this clear is that Ron Paul rejects the birther issue whereas the tea party made a big issue about it.

I realize Paul isn't a Teabagger. This isn't about him. My point is that even the so-called radically free market fringe in America isn't all that free market. Yeah, we might elect guys like Ron and Rand Paul from time to time, but it's still nearly impossible to enact any kind of radical change.

The media just tries to package everything as a a soap opera so it looks stuff is happening when it really isn't.

Remember, were talking about Ron Paul here, the guy who has pictures of Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek hanging on his office wall.

The inefficiency of sitting around doing nothing is not something Ron Paul supports.

Oh, I know Ron Paul would do everything he possibly could to scale back government, but if he pushes too hard in one direction (like Obama has in the opposite direction), it would just make him massively unpopular. He wants to pardon all non-violent drug criminals. That kind of thinking would just end up getting him impeached. People are, by and large, ignorant and scared. The idea of a total re-organization of society shares the $hit out of them. That's why we'll never have any real change; it's always just little incremental shifts toward more and more government.

Ron Paul my #1

This guy my number 2

http://video.foxbusiness.com...

At 4/26/2011 2:11:07 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:

At 4/26/2011 1:56:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

At 4/26/2011 2:27:02 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:

At 4/26/2011 2:13:05 AM, Puck wrote:

At 4/26/2011 2:11:53 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:

At 4/26/2011 2:10:43 AM, Puck wrote:
Huh. Didn't think he would.

You must not follow American politics very closely.

It's near the end of the gawd boring but should know list.

It's pretty pointless, really. Nothing ever changes and it's unlikely that things will change within the foreseeable future. 70% of the supposedly "radical" Tea Partiers are against privatizing Social Security.

Ron Paul isn't a tea partier and doesn't even agree with many tea partiers. It just so happens that a lot of tea partiers support him. One example that makes this clear is that Ron Paul rejects the birther issue whereas the tea party made a big issue about it.

I realize Paul isn't a Teabagger. This isn't about him. My point is that even the so-called radically free market fringe in America isn't all that free market. Yeah, we might elect guys like Ron and Rand Paul from time to time, but it's still nearly impossible to enact any kind of radical change.

The media just tries to package everything as a a soap opera so it looks stuff is happening when it really isn't.

Remember, were talking about Ron Paul here, the guy who has pictures of Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek hanging on his office wall.

The inefficiency of sitting around doing nothing is not something Ron Paul supports.

Oh, I know Ron Paul would do everything he possibly could to scale back government, but if he pushes too hard in one direction (like Obama has in the opposite direction), it would just make him massively unpopular. He wants to pardon all non-violent drug criminals. That kind of thinking would just end up getting him impeached. People are, by and large, ignorant and scared. The idea of a total re-organization of society shares the $hit out of them. That's why we'll never have any real change; it's always just little incremental shifts toward more and more government.

Good point. Thanks for reminding me how stupid Americans are.

Maybe they'll be just stupid enough to go along with Ron Pauls radical policies because of his charisma.

Just look at how many atrocities that Presidents and politicians have done without any opposition from the people.

It's a sad day when the violent slaughter of human beings is considered normal, but pardoning a group of non-violent drug users is scary and radical.

At 4/26/2011 2:04:12 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:

At 4/26/2011 1:45:03 PM, innomen wrote:
I'll support him, and I agree with Kenyon on one point that it's pointless. However, I have supported people before in a vain effort.

I disagree with Kenyon on his other point about the foreseeable future. If things do not change, then there will be a large movement, radical, grasping for change within the next 10-15 years. It takes a certain person that will have the talent to bring people together with a common cause of unprecedented reform. That time period might seem like an eternity, but it's really not.

I think Kenyon meant it's unlikely to see any significant changes for the better in the near future. There's going to be some sort of change when the economy collapses, something like the large, radical group of people coming together for a common cause--but there's no reason to think that common cause won't be just more fascism and socialism.

Depends. If the libertarians are there at just the right time, organized and offer a coherent and cogent solution to massive problem, then socialism and fascism will be pointed out as old bad solutions that created the problem. A good leader is needed, but obvious point is obvious point.

At 4/26/2011 1:45:03 PM, innomen wrote:
I'll support him, and I agree with Kenyon on one point that it's pointless. However, I have supported people before in a vain effort.

I disagree with Kenyon on his other point about the foreseeable future. If things do not change, then there will be a large movement, radical, grasping for change within the next 10-15 years. It takes a certain person that will have the talent to bring people together with a common cause of unprecedented reform. That time period might seem like an eternity, but it's really not.:

The only way to change the future is through slow, methodical efforts. Washington cannot be changed overnight, but every time he runs he gains that much more traction. The goal is to get everyone to realize that the broken two-party system is simply flipsides of the same coin.

Maybe one day, Americans will want real "change."

At 4/26/2011 4:45:55 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

At 4/26/2011 1:45:03 PM, innomen wrote:
I'll support him, and I agree with Kenyon on one point that it's pointless. However, I have supported people before in a vain effort.

I disagree with Kenyon on his other point about the foreseeable future. If things do not change, then there will be a large movement, radical, grasping for change within the next 10-15 years. It takes a certain person that will have the talent to bring people together with a common cause of unprecedented reform. That time period might seem like an eternity, but it's really not.:

The only way to change the future is through slow, methodical efforts. Washington cannot be changed overnight, but every time he runs he gains that much more traction. The goal is to get everyone to realize that the broken two-party system is simply flipsides of the same coin.

Maybe one day, Americans will want real "change."

I don't want "change," I want destruction. I want all the drug laws destroyed, all the things that restrict civil liberties destroyed, the IRS destroyed, the Federal Reserve destroyed, the Empire destroyed, and all the pointless wars destroyed. That's why Ron Paul is different. Most politicians just keep adding on more policies to the tyranny (Patriot Act anyone?)

America's debt is unsustainable. Eventually the bills will come in sooner or later. There will be government cuts. BIG CUTS! The longer America delays, the bigger the cuts will be in the future:

http://www.americanthinker.com...

We used to be fiscally responsible, but that all changed. Also this:

At 4/26/2011 4:45:55 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

At 4/26/2011 1:45:03 PM, innomen wrote:
I'll support him, and I agree with Kenyon on one point that it's pointless. However, I have supported people before in a vain effort.

I disagree with Kenyon on his other point about the foreseeable future. If things do not change, then there will be a large movement, radical, grasping for change within the next 10-15 years. It takes a certain person that will have the talent to bring people together with a common cause of unprecedented reform. That time period might seem like an eternity, but it's really not.:

The only way to change the future is through slow, methodical efforts.

THat was the intention of the Founders.

Washington cannot be changed overnight, but every time he runs he gains that much more traction.

I agree.

The goal is to get everyone to realize that the broken two-party system is simply flipsides of the same coin.

Maybe one day, Americans will want real "change."