Thread: That Ron Paul guy is insane!!!!

He is so nutty.

We need to hide out heads in the sand and wait until the world around us becomes even more crazy -- only then will be the time to confront them. As AKRover would say we should nuke our enemys now. Then we'll have less enemys. Makes a lot of sense to me. War is only a game of feelings for the USA. A nuke to Iran, a nuke to North Korea, and I think our point will be taken seriously. If well placed, Russia and China won't do anything.

Edit: Or we could just wait for the Iranians to give their friends suitcase nukes. That would work good for us.

Wow, I was pretty sure the RP haters would just rip this all to shreds. You guys are slacking.

Originally Posted by hitek79

Wow, I was pretty sure the RP haters would just rip this all to shreds. You guys are slacking.

he's not wrong, just not financially suitable for office.

I'm suprised by the lack of interest in this video.

You guys should watch this one.

I wish Paul was a better messenger as a candidate.

As I said before. Right message, wrong messenger.

What does that mean, not financially suitable?

I think he means his understanding of finance is similar to a six year old's understanding of nuclear physics. Unfortunately that also goes for his understanding of the courts, the constitution, and a bunch of other things. Doesn't mean he's not right about some things, just wrong about a whole bunch of others.

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

I think he means his understanding of finance is similar to a six year old's understanding of nuclear physics. Unfortunately that also goes for his understanding of the courts, the constitution, and a bunch of other things. Doesn't mean he's not right about some things, just wrong about a whole bunch of others.

Based on the video, he's either a psychic or he understands everything a hell of a lot better than you, you arrogant richard. The DoE did you no justice.

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

I think he means his understanding of finance is similar to a six year old's understanding of nuclear physics.

Really?

Really.
And really ignorant.





Plenty more of that incoherence from the Doctor, if you can stomach it. Let's run on a platform of a return to a 19th century economy! Run, Ron, run.

Incredible that anyone buys into that crap.

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

Really.
And really ignorant.





Plenty more of that incoherence from the Doctor, if you can stomach it. Let's run on a platform of a return to a 19th century economy! Run, Ron, run.

Incredible that anyone buys into that crap.

You chose those as examples that Paul is wrong or dumb? Holy Shit dude. You are the one who is out of your mind. I don't agree with him on the bin Laden raid but I see his point. The rest of it os PURE GOLD! He is 100% right on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Schiff

Originally Posted by hitek79

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Schiff

"I have talked with many who claim they have invested with Schiff and are down anywhere from 40% to 70% in 2008."[53] Other criticisms followed, including the aforementioned Eric Tyson post[41] as well as an article for the investment news site Seeking Alpha, published on the site two days after Shedlock's blog post.[54] Later that week an article appeared in the Wall Street Journal reporting that Schiff's broker-dealer firm, Euro Pacific Capital Inc., "advised its clients to bet that the dollar would weaken significantly and that foreign stocks would outpace their U.S. peers" and that instead, the dollar advanced against most currencies, "magnifying the losses from foreign stocks Mr. Schiff steered his investors into."[55]

RP's advisers are morons--this is news for some reason?

If hitek is supporting RP (is he?) then why would he point out that this guy is a RP person?

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

RP's advisers are morons--this is news for some reason?

I've heard many times that "Insanity" is repeating the same thing over and over again, yet expecting a different result. You know, kinda like continuing to elect status quo leaders beholden only to their big business cronies. Yet here come Ron Paul, espousing not the same old drivel and he gets accused of being the insane one? Sheesh.

"In an insane society, a sane man will appear to be insane." - Mr Spock
I think he's talking to you Dex.

Originally Posted by powpig

"In an insane society, a sane man will appear to be insane." - Mr Spock

Me and RP share a lot incommon.

Originally Posted by powpig

"In an insane society, a sane man will appear to be insane." - Mr Spock
I think he's talking to you Dex.

This is great, a push to move our country's politics to something like that found in Star Trek. No currency, no income, socialized everything... Are you saying RP supporst these things? I'm on board if so. Let's Boldly Go powpig

smart dude, just wish he didn't look or act like the old timer at the end of the bar with a shot and a beer.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

This is great, a push to move our country's politics to something like that found in Star Trek. No currency, no income, socialized everything... Are you saying RP supporst these things? I'm on board if so. Let's Boldly Go powpig

Like many things, this sounds great. In theory.
I really don't have a problem with the concept, provided the utopia we're talking about is based on and will provide for EVERYONE, unlimited freedoms so long as they don't infringe upon others. That's my ideal society.
Your stated goal of "no currency, no income, socialized everything" can be achieved as I stated, with unlimited freedoms for EVERYONE so long as they don't infringe upon others.
Or, we could live in a totalitarian police state where we we have virtually no freedoms yet still have the societal structure you suggest.
If Ron Paul is to be believed, he certainly does not support the latter. Can you say that about your candidate?

Why They're Fascists by Larken Rose

Once upon a time (back in 1994), Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum pretended to believe in freedom. I'd even hold out the remote possibility that to some extent, they really did almost believe in freedom. So, assuming they weren't completely lying from the beginning (a big assumption), why are they being war-mongering, control-freak fascists now?

Those who seek positions of power almost always do so because they're already narcissistic control freaks, who just can't wait to dominate and control their fellow man. Who else would want the job of bossing everyone around? But let's pretend that a good person,
with good intentions, ran for Congress, and won. What would happen?

Politicians get a lot of attention, a lot of money, a lot of fame, a lot respect, and so on. They get called the "honorable" so-and-so, and are treated like royalty. All of that can obviously make someone conceited and self-centered, just as rock stars and movie stars get that way. But why should it turn people into fascists? Well, consider what the job of a politician entails. He and his fellow politicians enact "laws," which are then forcibly imposed upon the rest of us by armed mercenaries known as "law enforcement." For all of their posturing, pontificating and propagandizing, ultimately that's all that politicians do: threaten and control people. That's their "job"--insane, evil, and horribly destructive as it is. All of the attention they get, the money they get, the power they get, comes from exercising their (imagined)
"authority" to control their fellow man, via the "political" system. So how should we expect them to act when someone advocates real freedom?

The reason fascists like Santorum and Gingrich (and Obama, for that matter) have such tantrums against people who actually want freedom---calling them indecent, extreme, dangerous, traitorous, fringe, absurd, and so on--is because the underlying message to
politicians, from those who want freedom, is: "We don't need you and we don't want you; go away and leave us alone." It's no more
complicated than that. Most of the time it has nothing to do with principles, or actual philosophy. Fascists like Santorum and Gingrich want perpetual war-mongering, the "war on drugs," and the rest of their megalomaniacal agendas, because, in their minds, it makes them important. They have to exert violent control over their fellow man (via "government") or they become irrelevant, impotent nothings. What would be the point of acquiring power, and then doing nothing with it? What great historical "leader" ever said, "Hey everybody, do whatever you want, and I won't interfere"?

Even Ronald Reagan, who so often bashed "government," ended up pushing fascism forward through the "war on drugs." Why? Because
damn near no one can have the "Ring of Power" in his clutches and not use it. And to use it means forcibly dominating one's fellow man, even if the intentions for doing so are allegedly good. What every politician wants to convey is, "I'm important, and great and noble, because look how I use my power for good!" How well would that work for them if they didn't use the power at all? "Look at me, I'm not doing anything!" Great, but who cares? What prestige, glory and adoration (not to mention wealth) would that bring them?

Since the two-hundred-faced Mitt Romney changes his "beliefs" every five minutes, let me use him as an example. What do you suppose
would happen if tomorrow he decided to have another philosophical reinventing, and it went something like this?:

"If elected President, I will leave you alone. I won't tell you what to do or take your money. I will be irrelevant to your life. You will have no reason to pay any attention to me, or care what I'm doing. You'll have every reason to forget my name, and forget that I ever existed. So will everyone else. I will end up as an unknown, ignored and irrelevant nothing."

Is it any wonder that politicians so zealous despise the idea of freedom, and those who espouse it? "Political" agendas are the antithesis of leaving people alone. The interests of the politicians are always diametrically opposed to the interests of those they dominate, or their will wouldn't have to be inflicted via violence. When it comes to politics we remember those who dramatically exercised their violent control over others (FDR, Lincoln, Stalin, Hitler, etc.). We don't remember those who did little or nothing with their alleged "authority," whether it was because they didn't want to or because their subjects didn't let them. Politicians hate the idea of freedom, because it renders them completely powerless and unimportant.

Okay, now let me say what I know a lot of you are screaming by now: "What about Ron Paul!?" If you ask me, Dr. Paul is a mutant freak--and I mean that in a good way. How anyone could have walked the halls of power for that long, and still have any integrity and
honesty, is a mystery to me. (Maybe Ron Paul is the reincarnation of Frodo.) Ironically and bizarrely, he really has achieved fame and adoration by NOT trying to control his fellow man, which is almost unheard of in politics. In truth, as he points out, it is the idea of freedom that people are getting excited about, and he just happens to be a symbol of it right now. In many ways, it really does seem as if he wants to acquire power in order to NOT use it. How strange.

And you can see how much the establishment control freaks hate him for it. When the politicians are out there screaming that it would be the end of the world if we give up war-mongering, drug prohibition, mass extortion, and all manner of other centralized, authoritarian domination, I don't think it's even because they have some deep philosophical belief in anything. I suspect this was true of Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler and the rest of them, too. Whatever philosophical beliefs they had, or pretended to have, were secondary to their own desire to feel noticed, important and adored (or at least feared). They wanted attention, and they wanted to feel powerful. That's why Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, and the rest of them want to be elected, too. And it's why they shouldn't be. Those who seek attention, fame, power and wealth by way of dominating and subjugating their fellow man--and that includes street thugs and politicians alike--are the last people in the world who should ever be given a scrap of power over anyone else.

The next time you see a politician (left or right) babbling on about his supposedly noble plans and agendas, keep in mind that his agenda is all about forcibly controlling you, and that he knows that if he stopped trying to control you--if he stopped playing the game of "politics" and just left you alone--he would become an unknown, powerless, irrelevant nothing.

Well, unless he decided to turn around and do something useful and productive instead, but how often has a politician done that?

Originally Posted by powpig

Like many things, this sounds great. In theory.
I really don't have a problem with the concept, provided the utopia we're talking about is based on and will provide for EVERYONE, unlimited freedoms so long as they don't infringe upon others. That's my ideal society.
Your stated goal of "no currency, no income, socialized everything" can be achieved as I stated, with unlimited freedoms for EVERYONE so long as they don't infringe upon others.
Or, we could live in a totalitarian police state where we we have virtually no freedoms yet still have the societal structure you suggest.
If Ron Paul is to be believed, he certainly does not support the latter. Can you say that about your candidate?

I was sort of joking, but agree man, it would be killer.