It’s true some people don’t understand what he’s talking about. They’re called ‘his followers’. 

I’ll take Ron Paul.  I “get” him. He’s a clear choice over all the others. And that includes that dickwad Obama.

Who do u follow?

You mean to tell me that a self-proclaimed socialist thinks he knows better about Ron Paul from some hit pieces he read on Alternet or ThinkProgress than Paul’s own supporters who have read his literature, examined his economic theory, and fact-checked his record do?

I’m shocked!

Half the time, Paul doesn’t know what he is saying.  He’s getting the attention he deserves.  If he has to bitch
about it, then he should talk to Murdock.  After all, Fox is the network that selects the Grand Old Pissquick’s
candidate.

“I don’t take it personally, and I know how it works, but I’m always wanting to make an excuse because I think people just flat-out don’t understand me,” Paul added. “They don’t understand what I’m talking about. But the people who do get super excited about it.”

Paul also said it was “partially [his] fault” for not communicating his message well enough. And I would like to say to all the centrists and progressives who are open-minded and sitting on the fence about Ron Paul, that this applies to most of us libertarians as well.

That is why, if you legitimately have a question about Paul that isn’t loaded (that is, it doesn’t contain smears or half-truths), let’s start a dialogue. What don’t you understand yet? What would you like more clarification on? It could be anything at all.

I’ve been an avid Paul supporter for 5 years, but that doesn’t mean I think the man is perfect. So if you genuinely want to have a discussion, let’s do it. What do you get out of it? Clarity and knowing whether or not you would ultimately support him, from someone who can break down Paul’s positions into more nuanced points. And we get help refining our message and articulating it. It’s a win-win.

So, who’s interested?

I’ll take Mr. Paul a lot more seriously when he outlines a plan for a social net that doesn’t include just letting people die.

The fact of the matter is that a majority of our government beaurocracy was created out of necessity due to egregious abuse of corporate power. We must learn from our history, not pretend that we’ve outgrown it.

Upton Sinclair’s ‘The Jungle’ was not an expose on the meat packing industry, but unfettered capitol greed en masse.

Is there abuse in government? Certainly, but you’ve got to pick your poison. Most government entities have been proven to be more efficient and cost-effective than their private counterparts.

Nope.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/27/ron-paul-explains-his-anti-abo

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/

Only sheep follow.

Gee, can you actually show me this unique Ron Paul zombie who has “read his literature, examined his economic theory, and fact-checked his record.” Or is he in a zoo somewhere?

RON PAUL is a far-right fanatic. Check out the
issues & links below. DON’T believe his followers when they tell you these
have been debunked or were taken out of context. They lie…

Ron Paul wants uninsured people to die…

http://youtu.be/irx_QXsJiao

Ron Paul wants to end Medicare, Medicaid and
Social Security…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qojv1bR-S0&feature=player_embedded

Ron Paul is against women’s rights…

http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul.htm

Ron Paul is against gay marriage…

http://digg.com/news/politics/Ron_Paul_s_Opposition_to_Gay_Marriage_Clarified

Ron Paul believes that property is more important
than people…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26sprb4Vi44&feature=player_embedded

Ron Paul is against Civil Rights…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26sprb4Vi44&feature=player_embedded

Ron Paul has a history of racism…

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-10/politics/paul.newsletters_1_newsletters-blacks-whites?_s=PM:POLITICS

REPOST FREELY!

This is the problem with people like you. You are not interested in actually reading primary sources to get your information, the two sources you linked to explicitly state that they do not support Paul in any sense. 

But I suppose you’re more than happy to support someone who campaigned on peace and started 5 new bombing campaigns, invasive new airport screening policies, an extrajudicial campaign to kill Americans overseas, as well as bailing out corporate banks and healthcare conglomerates. That’s a nice shiny reality distortion field you got.

And only statists propagandize. 

Paul added “[People] don’t understand what I’m talking about. But the people who do get super excited about it.”

On the contrary Ron, the people who don’t understand what you are talking about are the one’s who get super excited, those of us who have read more than a few books by the Austrian School monsters that you tout and know exactly what you are talking about want nothing whatsoever to do with your ignorant Hobbesian war of all against all.

First off, I love the Dead Milkmen avatar. Secondly, I would love to see your data backing up claims of government efficiency and cost-effectiveness. I work in the public sector and it is a giant morass. Where is this proof you speak of? And accountability? Let me tell you how it goes in public education: you suck as a classroom teacher, but you belong to the union and are tenured so you get promoted out of the classroom and get to share your incompetence with teachers who actually know how to handle a classroom. Happens all the time and these people make 3 to 4 times what a teacher makes. Of course my sample size is small, but having worked in both public and private I have no doubt in my mind that private is more efficient and accountable. Your recall analogy only works for elected officials which make up the tiniest fraction of public sector employees. 

One could say the exact same thing about the Obama Zombies 3 years ago. “He say nice things. Me like him cuz he say things I want to hear.”

“Only sheep follow”

You’ve just described 90% of the electorate…or more.

“…private is more efficient and accountable”

How in the world is 100% unaccountable and profit-bloated “more efficient and accountable?”

Ron Paul has ZERO chance of winning the GOBP nomination… period.
Run as an independent Dr. Paul and force Perry/Mittens and President Obama to defend their stances on foreign policy.  Hopefully he can force a both sides to get out of ‘world policeman’ and ‘perpetual war’ course we are on now.
Personally, I find the guy is a nut, but he is not totally without value.

This is BS created by the Private Charter & Religious Schools which are frosting at the mouth to take our tax money for their profits , religious teaching and to make schools private as they have done and destroyed the health insurance and other public programs they had been giving. 

Persons sending their children to private religious schools of their choosing Want their money back and for others to pay for their religious teachings. 

The Catholic Church ,  Pat Robertson and other religious have their workers working 24/7 to spread this BS…

FL vouchers send 30,000 students to over 1,000 private Florida schools..80 percent are religious.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×9292154

Florida’s faith-based education, provided by corporations who get tax breaks. Defunds public schools

http://www.google.com/firefox?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Memphis lays off nearly 100 vocational tech teachers but will hire 100 TFA recruits.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/7784

Nashville mayor to use 10 million of public funds to renovate KIPP charter school.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/6808

Local charter schools and magnet schools  get rid of anyone who doesn’t
score well. Then they attack the public schools in an ugly way.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/6766

 10 Things Charter Schools Won’t Tell You
http://www.smartmoney.com/spending/rip-offs/10-things-charter-schools-wont-tell-you/?page=all

12 charter schools to get 50 million in grants from federal government.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/6780

Matt Damon speaks at Save our Schools rally… condemned ‘punitive policies’ that harm teachers.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/7911

States get millions in federal money for charter schools as school libraries defunded.
http://www.google.com/firefox?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:officia

Teachers Cheated of Their Pensions While Banksters Enjoy Tax Payer Funded Bonuses
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/500

Laid off teachers in Chicago surprised by secret rating method. New Teacher Project involved.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/6742

 Teachers have to sit and take it as the propaganda against public schools is catapulted.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/6586

The faces of teachers fired in Chicago to be replaced with TFA, other novices
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/6639

Paul’s message isn’t very complicated. He believes that government is corrupt and should be eliminated so those that have corrupted it can have more control over society. Only he calls this “liberty.” Problem is that “liberty” for the elite few, wealthy and powerful to exert their influence over the many weak and powerless isn’t liberty at all; it’s called tyranny. He is a social Darwinist because his social policies do not differentiate between those that can more than take care of themselves and those that cannot.

Once you exit high school — intellectually as well as educationally — then such clownish simpletons as Ron Paul will no longer appeal to you.

I’m not being harsh… just calling it for what it is. Government is exceedingly complex business… of necessity. Ron Paul is just not equipped for it… nor is anyone who thinks that he is.

Ron Paul is a republican and we have seen the destruction they have caused and done to the middle class , seniors and poor.

The republicans have done more harm to American than ALL terrorist combined. 

We would not have this destruction to our schools , health programs , educational system , infrastructure , jobs , national debt and our democracy if not for the Bush / Cheney / Republican administration.

They are so full of it , it flows  from their mouth every time they open it.

Thanks :)

Here is specific data on public vs charter school testing results per your anecdotal example: http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/National_Release.pdf

Granted, charter is classified as public (per funding) but the school’s charters are generally similar to private institutions (not the amount of funding). The dollar goes further in the public system regardless of it’s shortcomings.

Again, there is always an inherent amount of abuse in any beaurocracy. You could substitute your tenured teacher example for a senior management position in corporate America with and the effect is the same. You’re statement is more about human nature than employee behavior.

Another fine example of government efficiency is Medicare.
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/about/Crossroads/06_13_03.html

Re: Accountability here is an old study
http://www.appliedmgt.com/Publications/

I, too, have worked in both the public and private sector – and I’ve come to the conclusion that they’re both better at different things. Profit should not be the motive for public services.

You contradict yourself. First you say that “beaurocracy (sic)” was created out of necessity, then you say it’s more cost-effective and efficient? These things cannot be true at the same time. The whole idea of a bureaucracy is inimical to efficiency. 

There were 3 things that killed the free market in medicine: Price controls in WWI, LBJ’s Great Society Programs (Medicaid and Medicare, most notably) and finally, the infamous HMO Act of 1973. Together, these factors culminated to create one of the worst-reputed industries in the country. The idea of insurance as a measurement of risk and for “rainy days” was completely eradicated. 

Now, insurance is supposed to pay for everything: routine check-ups, vision, dental, cosmetics, alternative medicine? And what makes the problem of healthcare acutely dangerous is the fact that nearly anyone can now claim, thanks to a lack of tort reform, that they have a disability that should be covered by their insurance providers. 

Before the HMOs existed, most insurance providers were regional, fraternal organizations, like the church Ron Paul worked for in San Antonio. Paul also did his residency at Henry Ford Hospital in Michigan in the 60′s before entering the Air Force. That should be a big hint to you.

Why was this hospital named after Ford? Was it because he generously donated a bunch of money to a public hospital so that they would name it in honor of him? Not at all; in fact, most hospitals back then were privately-owned and served people for free. Henry Ford Hospital was the first of its kind to offer care for employers, because of his pioneering embrace of employer-provided health insurance during the first World War.

Government is a latrogenic, meaning its cure is worse than the disease. It creates the problems and the perverse incentives in the first place, so when will we start recognizing this?

You’re right though. Upton Sinclair did not write “The Jungle” about one particular industry. And corporations, to be sure, are not perfect. But you want to know something? Roosevelt and the early progressives adamantly supported corporations.

Why? It was his belief that it was better to have a few players of industry fighting each other rather than the “ruthless competition” of the free market. Don’t believe me? Here’s a direct quote:

“The effort to restore competition as it was sixty years ago, and to trust for justice solely to this proposed restoration of competition, is just as foolish as if we should go back to the flintlocks of Washington’s continentals as a substitute for modern weapons of precision….Our purpose should be, not to strangle business as an incident of strangling combinations, but to regulate big corporations in a thoroughgoing and effective fashion, so as to help legitimate business as an incident to thoroughly and completely safeguarding the interests of the people as a whole.”

Straight from Teddy’s mouth, google it.

Walter Lippman, who hailed from the same generation of progressive muckrackers and yellow journalism as Upton Sinclair, had this to say in one of his columns about the populist anti-trust groups that had sprouted up in a fashion similar to today’s Tea Party:

If the anti-trust people really grasped the full meaning of what they said, and if they really had the power or the courage to do what they propose, they would be engaged in one of the most destructive agitations that America has known. They would be breaking up the beginning of collective organization, thwarting the possibility of cooperation, and insisting upon submitting industry to the wasteful, the planless scramble of little profiteers

The early progressives fought for and even supported corporate personhood; today’s progressives want to repeal it. I think this should tell you how much cognitive dissonance there is out there, and how much the whole political spectrum of conservative vs. liberal desperately needs recalibrating.

But to spout off these falsehoods that Ron Paul’s plan is to let people die and worse, that government bureaucracy is better than corporate medicine… that’s simply a false choice.

Ron Paul and his supporters don’t want to “go back” to any particular system from any time between 1900-1960. We don’t agree with corporate personhood, we don’t support corporate welfare, we don’t support the HMOs at all (which would still exist under single-payer healthcare systems, mind you). We want a return in “spirit” to self-reliance, but that doesn’t mean duplicating failed policies of the past.

You’re right, no system is perfect. But bureaucracy versus corporate medical care? I choose neither. I choose the free market.

How about you do some research on your own and stop spouting off the latest bullshit you’ve heard on the boob tube.

apparently the conditioning has worked perfectly on you….

“I think people just flat-out don’t understand me,” Paul added. “They don’t understand what I’m talking about.”

No, I think people understand you very well. It is you who doesn’t understand what you’re talking about. 

Once you exit high school — intellectually as well as educationally — then such clownish simpletons as Ron Paul will no longer appeal to you.

I’m not being harsh

Lol? Yes you are, and as far as I can see, you’re the only simpleton here. Dismissing my offer of friendly debate and discussion with some backhanded ageist ad hominem is not constructive. The whole idea that you have to be a fool or young to support Paul is the same thing that neocons said about Obama, but that sure didn’t stop you from supporting him, did it?

So what this petty bullshit of yours tells me is that you honestly don’t want to have a discussion. You don’t want to keep an open mind. You don’t actually want to consult primary sources or re-examine any biases. You have basically conceded your own intellectual bankruptcy here, by avoiding debate. And if you have other reasons like “you don’t want to exert yourself re-explaining basic shit” or some elitist garbage like that, why are you here? 

I don’t know if you noticed, but RAW Story isn’t exactly an echo chamber of the right-wing. I’m here to try to reach out to people. The kind of recalcitrance you exude (however gently) is exactly the kind of crap that you deride the “anti-science” neoconservative teabaggers for. It’s hypocrisy plain and simple, and you need to wake up to the fact and confront it. 

Dropping childish insults that accuses your intellectual opposites of being children themselves is a mighty good place to start.

You mean like this lady? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

Lol, it’s people like you that make me embarrassed to admit I was once a socialist. But while I’m here, fire away, Guevaran tool.

Ronnie,time to come down from that ivory tower you’ve been living in for God knows how long. The real world isn’t anything at all like what you’ve been fantasizing about.

 Are you saying that government is accountable and doesn’t profit?

Wow Amanda, are we related? I’m Aaron Blankenship and you sound exactly like some of my relatives.You any chance from Kentucky or Bucyrus?

Here’s the problem, Ron Paul wants to kill government, everything and let people sort themselves out. You know anywhere on earth that’s working out well?

Global community, everyone is dealing with its effects. I agree we need to stop shooting ourselves in the foot on foriegn policy and we need to legalize drugs because prohibition has failed and the government is not our mothers. BUT, we don’t need a weak central government, that is bad. It brings back cronyism and corruption and old boys clubs.

You contradict yourself. First you say that “beaurocracy (sic)” was created out of necessity, then you say it’s more cost-effective and efficient?

How is that a contradiction, especially when one factor’s in the over-arching cost of abuse en masse. I have provided statistical evidence that it is more cost-effective an efficient than private options, you?

Talk about congnitive dissonance.

“You’re right, no system is perfect. But bureaucracy versus corporate medical care? I choose neither. I choose the free market.”

That is utter psychobabble.

“….because I think people just flat-out don’t understand me,” Paul added. “They don’t understand what I’m talking about. But the people who do get super excited about it.”
The problem is that those who do get it are living in the same fantasy world as the good doctor.   Primitive Economic’s like he advocates for are not a solution to what ails this country of globe.

The GOOD news is that the majority of voters can see this truth and have relegated him to the fringe where he and his followers belong!

Now if we cold just get them to see the “real” Rick Perry everything would be right err correct in the world!

 I have done all the research I need…..
Why don’t YOU.

Ron Paul is for corporations and the elite , and against  public programs even when they are paid for..  

That is enough to say it all.

He must enjoys being a republican , I do not see him on an Independent or other political group.

There is No Social Securtiy Crisis
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/sabrina%201/96

Social Security was never the cause of our debt.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/kpete/15643

Top 5 Social Security Myths Debunked! Tell them to keep their hands off SS!
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/sabrina%201/101

This is the BS hou hear from republicans wishing to  Privatize SS and other programs.
MSNBC w-Cenk.. Fiery Debate On Social Security
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBcQCLmC1fg

Ron Paul  would eliminate many federal government agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency , the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service, calling them “unnecessary bureaucracies.” Paul would severely reduce the role of the Central Intelligence Agency; reducing its functions to intelligence-gathering.

 Paul believes young Americans should be able to opt out of the system if they would not like to pay Social Security taxes, in order to protect the system.
Like any insurance or other type of program when you start cutting persons from the program , you are destroying that program and Ron Paul knows that fact.

When exactly has government been held accountable lately? Last I checked the vast majority of Americans are against all our foreign interventions, yet they keep coming regardless of who is elected. They don’t  like the drug war and support lessening marijuana penalties, yet the federal government does not respond. They say they disapprove of congress by an overwhelming majority, yet incumbents keep winning. I could go on and on, but it would be pointless. As long as the public is given only the choice between Coke and Pepsi we will be stuck in this mess. And if government is not profitable, why the hell do elected officials almost always come out a shitload wealthier than when they went in? Google Dubya’s worth before and after office. Google Obama’s wealth since he took office. And on and on.

Is the private sector perfect? Of course not. There are untold examples of corruption, nepotism, etc. I think the largest problem here is that business and government have gotten into bed together regardless of which party is in control. It’s corporatism and it stinks, but business and government both get personally rich because of it so it doesn’t matter what we lil voters have to say. So you know what to do? Vote all these stains out of office and start fresh. I mean every single one of them. Make em go work for a living and bring in newbies who aren’t already bought and sold. Vote your convictions, not for some arbitrary “party” that lost all meaning a couple decades ago.

I would take you more seriously if your pic wasn’t from the Dead Milkmen.  Bitchin Camaro!

United States is really breaking up, but not territorial-vise (not yet), but fanatic-vise. There are “cults” now. Either a fanatic Obama supporter with absolutely no clear or sane reason, or a Paul-tards, and of course we got the Tea baggers, Bachmann and Perry supporters, Sarah Palin-morons, who are probably the most insane of all.
I still YET to see anyone who would draw the remaining SANE and logical people, but of course since there are none of those who are running, the sane people just watch in awe the “battle of the insane retards” and their equally insane candidates.

I understand. I don’t take myself seriously, so how can I possibly expect more from others?

As long as my kids do, I suppose. :P

He believes that government is corrupt and should be eliminated so those
that have corrupted it can have more control over society.

LOLWUT? You don’t even make any sense.

 You can tell Ron Paul is a threat because look at all the crazy loons like you who spout gibberish to distract and obfuscate the issue.

government doesn’t get rich because government spends its money on the public, not stuffing it into off shore bank accounts. The melding of private enterprise and our government, as you noted, is the core problem… not “government”. The privateers are running our government, and taking our tax dollars and siphoning them off to themselves, but the “government” clearly isn’t getting “rich”.. have you noticed our debt and deficit?

Trying to suggest tossing out government is the thing to do is to state you have no comprehension of what “government” is or does. The ONLY thing that we need to do is get private interests 100% OUT of government, and yet.. the right-wing ideology is to get our government 100% into private hands. Do the math.

Since charter schools are not technically private I will throw this out there. Published by the public sector no less:

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2006461.pdf

Also, Federal employees make more money on average than private sector employees.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

Look, I get your point and I’m not trying to be a dick (especially to someone of the Bucky Fellini persuasion). You are absolutely right about corruption in the private sector. I would just argue that one feeds off the other. If they weren’t working hand in hand to further the other’s interest I think we are a lot better off. Unfortunately we are in a cycle of corporatism or maybe even fascism. Business buys politicians and politicians pay them back. That’s not a true private or public sector. My personal take is that incentive drives efficiency and there isn’t a ton of incentive in the public sector save power for the elite. This is what brought down the Soviet Union (Sorry Reagan fans, it wasn’t Ronnie’s missiles). So let’s bring it back to the classroom; give teachers incentives in the form of bonuses, pay for performance, etc. and my belief is that you will see a lot more effective teaching happening. Like I said, this is just my belief. I could very well be wrong.

And I have no problem with public health programs and social security…if it is funded. I would be more than happy to continue these programs if we would stop these idiotic foreign wars to pay for them. Until we lose our delusions of empire, we simply cannot continue to put ourselves further in debt. So vote out the warmongers…all of them regardless of party affiliation…and then let’s get down to business.

No, the government is not getting rich, but the politicians who make up the government sure do. And, at a lower level as I noted above, federal pay is higher than private sector pay.

All government eventually turns to shit. The Soviets, Cubans, and countless others have tried to bar private enterprise from government and they all turned just as corrupt as any other. It’s the nature of power and greed which, like it or not, is inherent in the human condition. I could get down with some anarchy though.

Please give me some time to peruse the information provided, it is a bit of a read. Thank you for the link.

“Also, Federal employees make more money on average than private sector employees.”

I would argue that you’re saying more about the pitiful state of the private sector (re: corporate income distribution) than the bloated state of the public sector (with some serious exceptions).

I would also argue that the incentive for the public sector should be to keep power from an elite. I can’t disagree with anything else that you’ve written.

If a tool like yourself were once a socialist I’m the one who should be embarrassed. 

Trouble with that is we’ll never know the “real” Rick Perry. He’s a figment of Karl Rove’s imagination.

The fact that he doesn’t make sense to you helps show why people like Paul do.

He made perfect sense to me.. but then again, my brain works.

Speaking of the Evil One. I think the “flap” between them is FAKE. Think about it. W was truning into a politcal disaster and Rove was considered his brain. How could Perry possibly expect to get elected by following the same foot steps unless he showed that he was some how “different”?

You just watch and see how many tens of millions Karl raises and spends out side the official campaign to get pretty boy elected.

Go to bed, it’s late and you are obviously tired.

Dolt.

“The whole idea that you have to be a fool or young to support Paul”

I specified “intellectually” as well as “educationally.”  Neither have anything to do with age. Both have to do with sophisticated understanding… which only correlate, somewhat roughly, with age, but are not determined by it. The reference to high school is a way of locating both educational as well as intellectual development… which, for many, is where their sophistication level freezes. For life.

I’m sorry, but Ron Paul only appeals to those who remain frozen at that degree of sophistication.

That’s your reaction to fact?

You’re so convincing Karl.

“When exactly has government been held accountable lately?”

Egypt. Tunisia. Libya… for instance.  Madison, Wisconsin (partially).

Wasn’t putting Jack Abramoff and several of his “Slime Fellows” an exercise in accountability?

There are some functions which are better off in private hands, and others which simply are not.

the free market is a fairy tale.

Grow up.

“There were 3 things that killed the free market in medicine…”

Whoa up a second… and ask yourself whether medical care, as a moral proposition, ought be allocated according to wealth, or instead according to medical need (sickness/injury).

Then compare your answer to whether fire-fighting ought be allocated according to wealth, or instead according to need (house is on fire).

Both are scarce resources; neither is properly allocated — morally — strictly as a commercial-market good.

No, that would be YOU.

Ron Paul also wants to eliminate the separation of church and state, because he believes the christian church should play a prominent role in govt–in fact, I believe he thinks it should be THE govt. 

Ron Paul also is a creationist; he’s anti-choice and the list goes on and on. 

In short, Ron Paul is a theocratic libertarian and his presidential campaign is supported by the John Birch Society (I suspect many RP supporting commenters here are birchers/baggers)  aka the “tea party.”  He’s had a very close relationship with the JBS since at least the beginning of his political career (that’s his connection to the koch brothers).

In his own words:

“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers…”

“The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage…”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

 http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/08/26/305485/ron-paul-abortion-is-the-most-important-issue-of-our-age/

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/08/26/305849/ron-paul-hurricane-irene-1900/

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/3/15/142615/800

To paraphrase Barney Frank, on what planet are you spending most of your time? 

The word fact, according to the dictionary, means “a thing that is indisputably the case.”

What you have posted (and the reasons you have cited for it) means no one need take you seriously. So dolt is really all he needs to say to you.

Elyhim, Paul’s whole point is that consolidation of power not only increases the odds of cronyism but actively breeds it. 

Anytime you delegate artificial rights ex nihilo to a governing body, you formalize the process for lobbyists who are looking to gain the system. 

I know it seems counterintuitive, but how else do you pinpoint a source of corruption? How do you prosecute it, jail it, and kill it dead? 

Corruption is an abstract concept, or a state of being that results from abuse or misuse of authority. 

Think of it like cancer. Cancer is not a specific cell or even a group of cells, it’s a state of uncontrolled growth of many different kinds of cells. There’s many different kinds of cancer and so far as we know, the only ways to remove it completely are either preventative care (the best) or a “scorched earth” treatment like chemo, which is brutal but effective.

In some cases where the cancer isn’t that serious, we may be able to remove targeted portions of it. But recent research has actually found that doing this without other changes may in fact make the cancer worse, since many tumors inhibit the growth from spreading. 

As farfetched as that metaphor may be, that’s what we’re dealing with. America is the patient. Ron Paul’s a surgeon (both literally and figuratively).

The idea that a weak central government is automatically bad doesn’t add up with examples where states have actually taken the initiative to set policies the federal government has been too lax in. 

In the early 1900′s, before the progressive revolution kicked off many of these reforms, the mentality at the state level was either that it wasn’t serious or that the regulations they wanted to put into place weren’t allowed.

That barrier is no longer there today. The tenth amendment was included for a reason. Not merely to oppose Obamacare or RealID, but also to legalize and tax drugs, prostitution, gambling, gay marriage, or regulate air pollution, overfishing, deforesting, construction, etc. 

If the idea of that kind of government still makes you nervous, with 50 states each with wildly varying laws, think of it like this: the good ideas are quickly emulated and spread, and the bad ideas wither and die. And in the instances that we DO want a policy to apply consistently, that’s what the amendments are for. That was how slavery was ended and how women got the right to vote after all.

If it’s more of the idea of America turning into some balkanized nation with distinct regional sects, just look at the Eurozone right now. You don’t see many Germans or Irish or British or French people clamoring to call themselves European, do you? And you wouldn’t say it’s wrong that the Eurozone hasn’t created one, unified European identity and culture, would you?

A lot of libertarians are right there with you when it comes to opposing corruption, pollution, extortion, and general exploitation of our shared resources. And only the die-hard anarchist segment (which I do not bother to take seriously, and neither should you) wants there to be no central government at all. 

We are a lot more cosmopolitan than it may initially seem. But give us time to address your concerns. Libertarianism as a philosophy is largely young and yes, still has some flaws to sort through. But for a ideology that was nowhere to be found in the mainstream to then be thrust into the national spotlight largely because of one man in less than 4 years? That’s pretty incredible, you have to admit.

Thanks for being reasonable and not an ideologue.

Indeed… my only feelings on paul are that he seems the only honest politician (though probably isnt honest) and i dont agree with 75% of what he stands for :P

as for everyone else? fuck em… give me something new already.

No, the people that don’t understand what Ron Paul is talking about support him. Once they do understand the mock him for being CRAZY!

the free market only works when monopolies are crushed completely. As shown with the many heads of Bell systems, AT&T, and what not.. as they slowly merged back together like some T1000, our anti-monopoly system is broken in the extreme.

Huh? Stop smoking your textbook.

Hobbes (I assume you mean Thomas Hobbes) advocated an unlimited government, completely unitary, that solely possessed the ability to mete out justice however it wanted, to whoever it wanted. This government, which he called Leviathan, is exactly the kind of concept Paul condemns.

There are three prominent theories of the social contract: Rousseau’s, Hobbes’s, and Locke’s. Our founding fathers rightly eschewed Hobbes’s vision of government, the Leviathan, as too similar to the British Crown they were rebelling against. 

Limited government and Leviathan are antithetical concepts. Taking a class on poli sci would probably be better for you than reading Wikipedia and Sparknotes.

I thought that comeback was funnier the first time I said it, but that’s just me lol.

Seriously though, am I interrupting “imaginary time” for you? I do apologize, I’ll just turn off your computer then on my way out.

I see why you might think so, Dani. But come on, as long as we’re being honest, wouldn’t those mergers have to happen in a true free market in the first place?

They didn’t. That’s the whole point. The FCC, SEC, FTC, and a dozen other alphabet agencies wield veto power over every major corporate merger in this country.

There couldn’t be a better example of regulatory capture here than when FCC Commissioner Meredith Atwell Baker resigned her seat to join Comcast after approving the Comcast-NBC merger. This is the “revolving door” that libertarians are talking about.

This same FCC was the one that passed those so-called net neutrality laws this past year, too. With loopholes that don’t even attempt to disguise themselves. Even if you consider yourself more progressive, weren’t you at least a teeny bit disgusted by the way that was handled? No “dumb pipe” rules for mobile internet, which could have a disproportionate affect for minorities and other mobile internet consumers?

In the past 12 months since the net neutrality rules were announced, Comcast and AT&T have started capping WIRED data lines, AT&T and Verizon have killed their unlimited plans, and now AT&T is trying to create a duopoly between them and Verizon in the network space.

No coincidence that this case is meeting stern resistance from Sprint and a number of other concerned carriers…(I, myself, am a Sprint subscriber, and I hardly want to see this merger go through myself…)

And I’m just talking about what the FCC has done in the past year! One agency, just one!

Don’t even get me started about the FDA and its regulation of agro-giants like Monsanto.

The point isn’t that in a free market system, these companies wouldn’t be able to merge at all. Rather, market forces would determine whether the mergers would happen.

We’ve removed ourselves from that and instead entrusted a set of fallible individuals, all prone to bribery and extortion, with the sole power to approve such takeovers, mergers, and consolidations.

And when that happens, you can’t say it’s the market’s fault. You just can’t, no matter how you’d like to.

Yes, I know there are principled liberals out there like Elizabeth Warren, Russ Feingold, Ralph Nader, the late Paul Wellstone or Teddy Roosevelt, etc… who wouldn’t be caught dead taking a bribe or being pressured into voting for a merger even if their lives depended on it.

But that doesn’t change the fact that no one individual possesses more knowledge than the rest of the market does. I would like to believe that sometimes, I really would.

Despite the fraudulent accusation that we libertarians are utopian for believing corporations can be responsible citizens, we can actually be pretty cynical. We see greed out there and know that it cannot ever be completely contained.

It may seem like we’re quitting or caving to concede this, but there will always be unequal distribution of wealth as well as pockets of corruption to root out. All the more reason that we leave it to the market to dispose of instead of using crude, man-made instruments to try to deal with it.

Some libertarians talk of the market like it’s some holy thing that never makes mistakes. Sort of like Mother Nature. Well, no it’s not, and I’ll give you that.

But both are processes that rely on specific rules to function. That is why we reject almost all forms of inductive reasoning, on the grounds that drawing conclusions of a micro-economic situation from a macro-economic one is highly implausible.

Sorry for the wordy reply. But I think it’s better to get it all up front rather than let the trolls around here pick it apart piece by piece.

I’m not reading all that, first thing you said was enough… “I see why you might think so, Dani. But come on, as long as we’re being honest, wouldn’t those mergers have to happen in a true free market in the first place?”
Yes, in a free market those would be allowed, and that would then create a monopoly that would ruin the free market and make it simply a tyranny. Welcome to the real world kid, the economy is rapidly climbing towards a single monopolistic entity and the government is being used toward that end. Some fight back, but every day it grows a little more.

There needs to be a balance between social interests that are not done well by the free market, and the economic interests of businesses. Without a balance you get one side crushing the other, and a very unhappy place to live. 

Over the generations weve swayed back and forth between these two sides. In the 70s and 80s the social interests were far too strong, the unions had to be broken. But before that, the unions were created to combat far too strong corporate interests treating their workers like crap. And now were sliding back towards that again in some sectors, others with decent unions are still holding on to their rights. But everyone hates the union now, remembering how they were 20 years ago. I’m sure in another 20 years the union will be a thing of the past and we will have lost most of our worker rights.

Ron paul is just another one of these corporate interests. Then in a few decades after we might have citizens fight back again.

but again I just want a balance between these sides.

Journal Of Public Health……..45,000 people in U.S. die every year due to lack of health
insurance. Piss on your history lessons and Ron Paul’s fuck you philosophy.

For Stewart to point out an issue with flawed media coverage is not the same as “making” Ron Paul’s case for him. Paul is really sloppy with ideas and words.

Sane people vote for the best choice out of the candidates who can possibly win and work to get better candidates in the future. Name-calling is not actually insane, but it’s not rational either.

Doesn’t Rove despise Perry? Sounds like he knows the “real” Rick Perry.

This is a false dichotomy. The free market proposition for the allocation of any kind of insurance is not based on any sort of distribution of wealth at all; that’s an ancillary issue.

There’s a reason it’s called the free market, after all. The moral component is all about personal responsibility, and with that comes making your own risks.

Does that sometimes mean people with scarce resources might be compelled to make more risky choices? Obviously yes. But if you recall, the question directed to Paul during the debate on 9/12 was not asking what happens to the poor people in a society who can’t pay their medical costs.

Paul was asked about a hypothetical 30-year old man who was confronted with the choice to get medical care and he refused. What else should he have said there?

The man in the hypothetical example, who was presumably Wolf Blitzer’s sole creation, chose not to get insurance when he very easily could have. And that’s his problem.

That’s all it means to be in a free market.

Now, people have been smearing Paul saying he would just let this person die. That was where the second part of his response came in, which a great deal of people seem to either be misunderstanding or misrepresenting, either because they or someone else has taken it out of context.

Paul said his advice to that man would be that he get insurance or save up some funds, and certainly that is the logical thing to do.

But since Blitzer pressed on and insisted this man did not have that, Paul rightly brought up the point (after audience members broke in and insisted the man should die) that fraternal organizations like churches or private charities could take care of him.

So even in a system without a government-mandated safety net, that doesn’t mean poor people are completely left to fend for themselves. Again, that’s the whole idea behind a “free” market.

It’s free in the sense that you can do whatever you want, for whatever you want, to whoever you want — as long as it’s completely consensual. This may seem simplistic to simpletons, but on the contrary, it is almost mathematically precise in the infinite number of variables it accounts for.

Obviously, health insurance or any form of disaster assistance you brought up will never be perfectly and uniformly doled out to everyone. But that doesn’t prevent other individuals or market actors from taking it upon themselves to help one another.

I take it you already know that America is the most giving country on earth, despite the fact that we are the hardest-worked people in the first world and pay a little more than one-third of our income in taxes? So even with these impediments, people still care enough to give to charities…

Now imagine you gave people their FULL paycheck. Then we can have an honest evaluation and see if charity-provided care still fails.

The point is our social safety net is a net, not a hammock. What kind of moral proposition do we tell people when we tell them they can live in diaster-prone areas and the government will take care of them?

What kind of moral proposition is it when we tell poor people that the government has always got their back?

That’s no moral proposition at all, that’s moral hazard.

As libertarians, we don’t want to take away that safety net overnight. There’s far too many people caught in its trap. And Paul, to his credit, has already said that he would rather cut from our excess overseas than slash child healthcare.

He has envisioned perhaps a period of 15-20 years of slowly phasing out these programs and winding them down. After all, we did not shift into this mentality overnight.

It has taken over 100 years for us to get to the point where we consider healthcare and housing insurance basic human rights, even though a human has no more right to these things than he does basic shelter or food.

Freedom means you have the right (or ability) to acquire these things.. if you want to. And most of us, I think, have enough common sense that we would still go to work if the government stopped collecting social security payments, so that we could make our own retirement plans instead.

Why? We’d be forced to — not by any legal mandate, but from sheer reason.

I’m not full of naive confidence that this system is perfect, but if you insist it is, then I have just as much of a right to claim those who support government entitlements are naive.

This name calling and tunnel vision gets us nowhere. I don’t use it against people who don’t use it against me.
I’m glad that your reply was devoid of it, for the most part, and I’ll take it any day of the week over what passes for rational discourse around here.

But still, the point to be made is this: don’t assume that we who support a free market are in the pocket of the super-rich.

My dad never made more than $40,000 a year in his life. But there was a time when $40,000 was enough to go to college, get a job, and buy a house, with little to no debt. Why have those days gone away? And why does it mirror the exponential rise in government?

We do not hate the poor. We do not hate minorities. We merely want the freedom to choose.

Let’s play devil’s advocate here. In other words, let’s say your premise is true.

What is so wrong with that? Do you mean to say, in other words, that public policy should only be confined to the realms of the Ivy-League educated, cultured elite?

For the record, I know that’s not what you’re saying. But that’s why it’s all the more important.

Our Founders, the romanticized tale notwithstanding, were far from ordinary men. Many of them were contemporary elites themselves like Hamilton or self-made prodigies like Franklin.

Yet they made the conscious choice to conduct their proceedings in anything but the most sophisticated fashion. The whole point behind the Constitution was that it be written in plain English, in a manner of agreement with common law.

This was done intentionally, so that the widest possible audience could understand the laws their politicians were supposed to submit to.

The same kind of thinking is what ultimately led to Martin Luther’s protestant revolution. Thanks to the Gutenberg printing press, a layer of sophistication was lifted and religion was democratized for the first time… all for the common man.

Simpler doesn’t necessarily mean dumber. Nor does the converse mean anything either. It’s like using big words just for the sake of big words.

Hell, you want to talk about educational advancement, then I just told you something that’s actually rather elementary.

Sophistication, when employed for its own sake, looks rightfully suspicious. Especially if done in the same manner you have just done.

So where you see lack of sophistication or development as a bad thing, I see, ironically enough, a rather unsophisticated and unmoving argument. But I also see it as a boone.

Let’s play devil’s advocate here. In other words, let’s say your premise is true.

What is so wrong with that? Do you mean to say, in other words, that public policy should only be confined to the realms of the Ivy-League educated, cultured elite?

For the record, I know that’s not what you’re saying. But that’s why it’s all the more important.

Our Founders, the romanticized tale notwithstanding, were far from ordinary men. Many of them were contemporary elites themselves like Hamilton or self-made prodigies like Franklin.

Yet they made the conscious choice to conduct their proceedings in anything but the most sophisticated fashion. The whole point behind the Constitution was that it be written in plain English, in a manner of agreement with common law.

This was done intentionally, so that the widest possible audience could understand the laws their politicians were supposed to submit to.

The same kind of thinking is what ultimately led to Martin Luther’s protestant revolution. Thanks to the Gutenberg printing press, a layer of sophistication was lifted and religion was democratized for the first time… all for the common man.

Simpler doesn’t necessarily mean dumber. Nor does the converse mean anything either. It’s like using big words just for the sake of big words.

Hell, you want to talk about educational advancement, then I just told you something that’s actually rather elementary.

Sophistication, when employed for its own sake, looks rightfully suspicious. Especially if done in the same manner you have just done.

So where you see lack of sophistication or development as a bad thing, I see, ironically enough, a rather unsophisticated and unmoving argument. But I also see it as a boone.

Let’s play devil’s advocate here. In other words, let’s say your premise is true.

What is so wrong with that? Do you mean to say, in other words, that public policy should only be confined to the realms of the Ivy-League educated, cultured elite?

For the record, I know that’s not what you’re saying. But that’s why it’s all the more important.

Our Founders, the romanticized tale notwithstanding, were far from ordinary men. Many of them were contemporary elites themselves like Hamilton or self-made prodigies like Franklin.

Yet they made the conscious choice to conduct their proceedings in anything but the most sophisticated fashion. The whole point behind the Constitution was that it be written in plain English, in a manner of agreement with common law.

This was done intentionally, so that the widest possible audience could understand the laws their politicians were supposed to submit to.

The same kind of thinking is what ultimately led to Martin Luther’s protestant revolution. Thanks to the Gutenberg printing press, a layer of sophistication was lifted and religion was democratized for the first time… all for the common man.

Simpler doesn’t necessarily mean dumber. Nor does the converse mean anything either. It’s like using big words just for the sake of big words.

Hell, you want to talk about educational advancement, then I just told you something that’s actually rather elementary.

Sophistication, when employed for its own sake, looks rightfully suspicious. Especially if done in the same manner you have just done.

So where you see lack of sophistication or development as a bad thing, I see, ironically enough, a rather unsophisticated and unmoving argument. But I also see it as a boone.

Paul is really sloppy with ideas and words.

Or you are just sloppy in your comprehension. 

Paul didn’t say that Jon Stewart was endorsing him or clarifying his views. What he said was Jon Stewart was one of the only people in the media credible enough to call the media on its blackout against him without suffering any backlash. 

That’s why Paul’s been getting the attention he has in the last few months, and that’s the whole reason you’re reading about it here. If you’re really tired of reading about it, then you should take it up with Jon. I’m sure his writers will have a field day with you.

My story doesn’t really agree with your conclusions. In May 2007, I was a socialist happy to deride Paul as crazy like you have done. I had seen him take on Giuliani about 9/11 in that debate but I dismissed him for his other views.

My idea of research then (and this is probably yours right now) was to google him and skim his wikipedia entry. All I saw was “he wants to abolish this and that”  

Then the recession hit, and one of my friends linked me to a video of Paul predicting the crash in 2002. So you know what I did that socialists never do? I started reading more into the views of someone who I disagreed with.

Liberals, on the whole, claim to be more open-minded, but now I see that that just isn’t true. They are as recalcitrant on economic issues as neocons are on personal issues and war. That libertarians were getting shit flung at them from both sides gave me a clue that maybe they were onto something. So I started reading Henry Hazlitt and Ludwig Von Mises, Walter Williams (who I didn’t know until recently was black because I assumed there were no libertarians of color), in addition to Ron Paul.

According to socialists, this kind of story is just impossible for them to accept, which further underscores the idea that they will dismiss any idea that does not conform to their belief that once you’re a socialist, you never waver from your beliefs.

But, as far as I can see, only the libertarians can truly claim the lowest recidivism rates to any other political ideology. And I attribute it directly to this “overly simplistic” philosophy that everyone else abhors. 

What you’re really saying when you spout these lies is that, deep down, you hate consistency. Either because you hate seeing someone more consistent than you, because it makes that idea of self-perfection that much more difficult to reach, or because you have simply been brought up to believe that there is only one kind of freedom — and that economic freedom doesn’t matter.

The thing I have learned from my time in libertarian meet-ups is this: they welcomed me in. I would likely not find that reception, even as a guest, if I were a libertarian coming to progressive meet-ups. What does that tell you?

Despite the fact that I have many of the same aims as progressives, such as ending corporate welfare, drug prohibtion, marriage inequality, foreign occupation, etc… you hate me more because I believe anyone can do what they want with their money… even if it means forming labor unions or starting communes.

In other words, socialists preach tolerance, but their tolerance is skin deep. And that’s the most striking difference between a libertarian and a socialist for me.

Libertarians will tolerate socialists, but socialists will not tolerate libertarians. Or anyone else for that matter.

Sorry if this reply was more than your attention span would have last, but I’m not really concerned with changing your mind, but anyone else who might be reading this who may not be delusional as you are.

He has said the same thing day in and day out for almost 40 years, without changing his stance on anything except for the death penalty (he’s now against it, because, unlike most people, he’s consistently pro-life). He has said things that have gotten him booed by large crowds, and made him a very lonely man in Congress.

He has never taken lobbyist-paid junkets, government pensions, or any other perks that come with his job. And he returns this extra money to his constituents each and every year. 

So I ask you, very calmly and politely, if he has done anything dishonest (not just things you don’t agree with), wouldn’t it stand to reason someone would have pointed it out by now?

With virtually the entire media against him, the best that they’ve managed to drag up are some racist newsletters written by his ex-chief of staff and more recently, the death of his campaign manager, who died due to complications related to AIDS. 

That the media has to stoop this low to attack him… and yet you still think he “probably isn’t honest”? Then by your standards, probably no one is.

I’m so sorry. Was that sposed to amount to a fucking argument? Emotional appeals don’t replace truth. Now go back to your Leninist agitprop, comrade.

I must admit that it slipped my mind that liberals like yourself, despite extolling the benefits of keeping an open mind, don’t actually have one themselves. So I will instead assume you prefer a more conventional response, replete with namecalling and ad hominems.

Very well, I will be happy to oblige you, starting now. But first let me say that all that shit you called a reply was already answered in a post that you couldn’t spend 5 minutes away from Farmville to read. 

Yes, in a free market those would be allowed, and that would then create a monopoly that would ruin the free market and make it simply a tyranny. Welcome to the real world kid

How long has it been since you’ve been out of high school then…ma’am? Tyrannies have nothing do with markets; a tyranny is a blanket term for any form of authoritarian government. As a graduate of a poli-sci program, I know this. As a graduate of ITT Tech, you probably do not. That’s okay though, I just spelled out the difference for you.

But while we’re at it, the issue wasn’t whether these mergers would still happen (which I talked about in my first reply), but whether or not you could blame the free market for them happening. Since they did NOT happen in a free market, but, once again, as I said in my initial reply (which you blissfully ignored), happened with government approval, this is not something you can blame the market for. 

By your logic, I can sue you if I get fat eating at McDonalds if you’ve ever eaten at McDonald’s before. That’s just not how it works, but I suppose your addiction to Keith Olbermann prevents you from giving up that line of reasoning. Have fun.

 Rad post.

So far, you’re the third person to tell me I’m a kid for believing in the free market. Boy, I can scarcely imagine what it must have been like to be a liberal before libertarianism came along… oh wait, I know.

Neocons were telling liberals that the welfare state is a fairy tale and to grow up. That kinda sounds familiar…

so why don’t you tell me some truth about all those who die because of
lack of healthcare. Stop with that old lLenin rhetoric, so boring. Aren’t you on
Social Security or Medicare yet? Or maybe when your 65 you can tell Obama to keep
his crappy Medicare so you can take your Voucher and show up at Anthem Blue Cross.
I,m sure they will invite you right in with your pre existing prostate problems or high blood
pressure levels and give you the best policy 12,000  can buy. 
The Industry will regulate itself. Fuck That!  

I am talking about the problem Hobbes identified not his solution to it. Obviously, you haven’t read enough Hobbes to even know that.  Although in the original it was in Latin as bellum omnium contra omnes which is the state of man before civil society on in the state of nature described in De Cive (1641), which is where Ron Paul’s country without government ultimately leads to or encourages.    

Christ, if you don’t mentioned Citizen’s United, then go back to sleep. Voting the politicians
out of office doesn’t do anything until you eliminated the money which supports their
ambitions. You mention business and govt. in bed together,duh Fascism. 
I smell a libertarian again and they really stink up the place with their clear concise concepts
of no govt. interference  or regulation in any aspect of commerce. Dumb shits think
Ron Paul is cool because he thinks its o.k. t o smoke weed and fuck prostitutes. If it
was only that simple.

After reading the responses of the Paulies here, one can only conclude that Paulies are the funniest, most illiterate and deluded people in America! Even when Paul is quoted directly, they deny that the words say what they say and pretend the person quoting Paul is wrong. A person cannot be more deluded than that! It’s one thing to say I don’t care if he doesn’t believe in evolution, it’s another thing to insist he believes in evolution when the opposite is the case!

Yea nice try. People who become rich and powerful ruin themselves with paranoia and greed.
Balanced govt is the answer. Just take a look at the standard of living in Sweden, Norway,
Finland Gernany. These are social democracies. Stop trying to pretend their Communist,
Marxists govts. Just check the fucking stats!

what a massive load of horse shit and ditto headed lunacy.

What a jangled mess of circle jerking and spitter-spatter retardation. Seriously, your wordplay is cute, but not really.

 Efficiency of scale comes to mind, and to manage scale you need rules (bureaucracy) .. even private industry has rules that need to be followed, paper trails that need to exist.

As an administrative state, no. As a coordinating system, yes, some large corporations may need bureaucracy to function. This hardly a rule  of industry or indeed the only one. 

Obviously, depending on economies of scale, a greater bureaucracy is needed. But the whole point about government bureaucracy is that it lacks the proper feedback to adjust this scale. That is where your precious defense of pencil-pushers blows up right in front of your eyes. That is the whole point to a market system.

Market actors (chiefly, though not always by price signals) exert pressure on corporations to respond in kind. Government doesn’t feel any such pressure. Agencies of government are totally numb to this effect because the government, through its power to throw order more resources than it actually has to any particular problem, can outlast short-term market effects.

This, to put it in layman’s terms, fucks shit up. Government bureaucracies are always administrative states, which means they are purposely cumbersome because the people working in them have their own interests. This is why you have to go to 4-5 different windows in a California DMV just to pay a simple registration fee. 

If you want to justify that shit, be clear about it. Don’t pussyfoot around it.

The “free market” is about those with power picking and choosing who they help and when and how badly they get to extort people. Sorry, but that’s no way for intelligent, enlightened, compassionate human beings to live. 

I thought an enlightened, compassionate person’s first responsibility to others was to accept their own choices. Oh well, fuck me, right? After all, you’re exactly the kind of guy telling neocons and teabagger types that if they don’t like gay marriage, they don’t have to get one, right? Or whatever “fuckyeahliberals” meme you stole from Tumblr it happens to be.

But the moment someone extends that concept of personal responsibility to economic choice? Well, that’s crazy talk. Obviously, they work for the “power elites”, right?

Sorry. Though it may not please you when people call attention to this arbitrary division of liberty, that’s exactly what it is. To accept anything else is just hypocritical.

You seem content to use some of the most juvenile and baseless accusations against libertarianism possible, while you stress how “enlightened” and “compassionate” you are. You’re the one speaking in absolutes here, not me.

You’re the one saying that if we don’t support government initiatives to help the poor, then we hate them. You’re the one saying that if we respect other people’s right to choose (in all aspects of their lives) that we secretly revere the ultra-rich. 

Your straw man tactics have been around for over 150 years, since the time of Frederic Bastiat. This is what he had to say about your ridiculous assertions, and keep in mind this was when his ideas enjoyed a great deal more support:

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” 

So no. Simply because we don’t think you can replicate the organic adjustments of a fully free market system in an artificial, rigid government body doesn’t make us all anarcho-capitalists or hardcore Objectivists who hate the poor. 

Want to get rid of “government”? get rid of private ownership of the planet and fully leverage all technology and provide true freedom to the masses. ( www.thezeitgeistmovement.com andwww.thevenusproject.com ). As long as you have some people owning more than others and exerting power over others, you’ll NEED government to keep the bad people from rampaging over everyone else. Period.

Look, I’ve said this about 2 or 3 times now, but I was not always a libertarian. I was a socialist with very similar views to your own. I haven’t given up my socialist views, because I think you can still have communes and worker syndicates in a libertarian system. But I also recognize that we’ll never reach the kind of anarcho-communism the Zeitgeist film clamors for until we reach a state of post-scarcity, and not a moment sooner.

Therefore, you might say that I believe in socialism, libertarianism, and communism… but not simultaneously. Socialism, communism, and most left-anarchism truly is an enlightened and ideal society. But that’s just the point: it’s “ideal” — just a fantasy and nothing more. 

Isn’t one of the principles of dialectical materialism using capitalism against itself? I can’t tell if that’s what is happening here or not, because we don’t have a free market today, but that’s what people are blaming all their problems on nevertheless. I believed then what Marx meant was that capitalism would eventually reach a saturation point where it was no longer necessary to compete over resources…at which point, there would be a revolution (philosophical in nature, not violent) and we would transcend traditional economic limitations to a communist state.

I still believe that today. But until that time comes, as a pragmatist, and as someone who has constructed his own neutral definitions of government, the market, and rights, I can never again blame capitalism for today’s ills. It’s not logical, and the people who believe it is just haven’t gone through the process that I have — either for fear of what they’d find or intellectual laziness.

How is that a contradiction, especially when one factor’s in the over-arching cost of abuse en masse? Ever heard of a cost/benefit analysis? I have provided statistical evidence re: more cost-effective an efficient than private options, you?

The very fact of the matter is bureaucracy, as an administrative state, not merely as a system of coordination, is formed with the express purpose of slowing down a process so that the “administrators” (AKA bureaucrats) have time to review it and document it.

In governments, bureaucracy grows like a cancer because the administrators can write whatever regulations they like. In the private sector, if they try that, or if they slow the process down more than necessary, they are fired. Simple as that.

As for statistical evidence, you provided me nothing of the sort, but merely your reassurance that what you were saying was fact. No links, no quotes, no context, so you don’t get to claim that what you are writing is statistical evidence. 

For the record, I haven’t used (in this thread) very many links, quotes, or any of that myself, so I was not going to come right out and call you a liar. But when you say that what you are saying is “statistical evidence”, well…then I have to.

Henry Ford also payed his employees 3X the average workers wage so they could all afford to buy a Ford. How many of today’s corporations share that kind of vision? And in what alternate reality is Teddy Roosevelt considered progressive?

Yes, he did. That was the whole point to why I brought up Ford. Ford operated in a climate where the entrepreneur could reward his employees voluntarily and not by mandate. He also understood some things about marketing. So I can assure you that as altruistic as it sounds for him to give his employees a minimum wage like that (which was $5 to be exact), he did not do it out of the kindness of his heart.

The only reason you don’t have more people Ford today? Well, wait… you actually do, but the problem is you don’t notice them as often because they don’t stand out as much. Now, nearly any company that wishes to hold onto its employees offers them a full package of perks. It’s just common sense. This is how the market works. The good ideas spread and the bad ideas wither and die.

As for your remarks about Teddy Roosevelt… you do know that this guy was the premiere conservationist of the progressive movement, nicknamed the Trust-Buster, and also ran on the Progressive “Bull Moose” ticket in 1912, right? So when you say in what alternate reality Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, well, we must be living in an alternate reality then or you just never cracked a history book.

Talk about congnitive dissonance.

Progressives don’t want to get rid of corporations, just ensure that the rising tide lifts all boats. Socioeconomic stratification is necessary in a free-market economy, but the amount of disparity we are currently experiencing is unsustainable and dangerous to a Democratic Republic.

Then the cognitive dissonance is still your own. Or at least, shared by your movement. Obviously, you’ve never heard of http://movetoamend.org before?

But pretty much everything else you said is exactly my point. There was no legitimate reason to consolidate the number of competitors in each industry if bolstering competition was the aim. If you honestly believe that, while simultaneously believing “a rising tide lifts all boats”, what you are essentially saying is indistinguishable from most of today’s establishment Republicans when they talk about trickle down economics.

That is utter psychobabble.

Fine, whatever you want to call it, I really don’t care. Common sense goes by a lot of other names to different people. Sometimes it’s called satanism by the anti-intellectual crowd. Sometimes it’s called psycobabble by the pseudo-intellectual crowd…

The fact is the false choice you presented is not one I will make. It’s a loaded question and plain dishonest. Unlike big government liberals and big business Objectivists of the Randian variety, libertarians of Hayek and Nozick’s school abhor both. And I won’t change my answer simply because you don’t think it’s legitimate. That’s your problem, not mine.

I can appreciate that statement. Please outline to me the social net Mr. Paul is envisioning where people won’t be left to die. I am also waiting on a response re: fractional reserve banking reform.

First, let me just say you gave me no indication whatsoever that you previously wanted such an explanation on Paul’s monetary policy theories. But seeing as he’s the only one really talking about it, and the fact that there’s a wealth of material out there, I will be more than happy to recommend you some links or discuss it with you separately. 

But one way I can relate it to the current topic re: the safety net is to speak of the inflationary policies of our central bank. We no longer have absolute reassurance that we will maintain the reserve currency of the world forever into the future. 

Many of our entitlements, including Social Security, are paid for by trust funds, which hold short-term bonds. If the dollar ever crashes, that is when you will see Social Security turn insolvent. For real. None of these other reasons will matter. If there is hyperinflation, Social Security payments will become worthless.

That is what Dr. Paul is trying to head off. I recommend, if you’re actually interested, to read Tom Woods or Peter Schiff for a contemporary Austrian economist’s take on the Federal Reserve, and if you weather that, then maybe Von Mises and Hayek’s critiques of Keynesian deficit spending.
Probably one half of Paul’s solution in restoring a privately-funded safety net is the idea of restoring power to fraternal organizations like churches and charities to care for the poor. In the 60′s, doctors were so plentiful they made house calls, most hospitals were privately-run, and people paid for their care out of pocket with insurance being only for “rainy days”.

Obviously, we can’t get back to that state overnight without repealing a great many laws, but our inflationary monetary policy has only decreased the value of retirees’ health savings accounts and 401K plans. So really, inflation is an added tax on the middle class, and continues this vicious cycle of consumerism that create the booms and busts.

Monetary policy affects every financial decision we make, whether we’re aware of it or not. But obviously, in regards to caring for people, it is not the most important consideration.

Regarding healthcare, Paul would like to slash military spending and shore up disaster relief funding, Social Security, and the rest of our entitlements, even including things such as child healthcare. He would allow young people to opt out of the system if they want to and keep their on personal retirement and health savings accounts. 

He would support comprehensive tort reform to bring down the amount of frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits filed each year, which force physicians to pass their legal fees onto other consumers. He would push for a repeal of the HMO Act, Medicare Part D, and the importation of drugs from Canada and the EU, and of course, Obamacare. 

He would probably also try to shepherd a plan that allowed healthcare to be sold across state lines, as long as it complied with local state regulations. He’d also work to privatize the 50 state Medicaid programs into private insurers and grant full dollar-for-dollar tax credits for all medical expenses. 

For welfare, Paul has said he would phase out food stamps and unemployment benefits last. Regarding disaster relief funds, Paul doesn’t oppose giving money to natural disaster relief as long as the support comes from elsewhere. But he doesn’t support FEMA’s existence merely due to the fact that it’s a bureaucratic mess for reasons I early laid out. Paul would also work to end mandatory insurance for those moving into disaster-prone areas, while gradually phasing it out for the people already living there.

There is probably a lot more to this I could add at this moment, but this should already be a fairly comprehensive overview of his policies, which, you should at least agree is more than any of the other GOP contenders have proposed. 

There isn’t a whole lot else I can add to this that wouldn’t simply be an even wordier breakdown of what I’ve already wrote. If you are not interested in pursuing your research on our own time, you can’t say I didn’t try.

I already said he seems to be the only honest politician… but just by human nature, i’m sure he lies about some things XD

I am not a fan of Ron Paul, but the fact is, he scores high in these polls and the media, especially the right wing media ignore it.

The fact that Rick Perry, establishment Republican since 1990, and Sarah Palin, chosen as a VP candidate by the Republican establishment, are considered ‘Tea Partiers’ by the media shows just how much the media is creating it’s own narrative about Ron Paul.

 You’re paying way too much attention to what Ron Paul says you have to listen to what he means.

So what you are saying is that eliminate ALL government and let those who have the means will survive and those without means will eventually disappear.  THAT, indeed, is what would happen.  The HAVES  would have dominion over the HAVE NOTS.  The HAVE NOTS would be at the mercy of the HAVES.  Does that about sum it up?

The last hope for peace revolution.

Liberal for Ron Paul 2012.

Paul wants corporations to regulate themselves, perhaps the stupidest idea of the twenty-first century. I’m sure a deep thinker like yourself can fabricate a lot of verbal nonsense to tell me why it will work in Ron Paul’s fantasy land but in the real world that I live in it would be a complete failure.  This is just one of his many ridiculous ideas.
“you hate me more because I believe anyone can do what they want with their money.”
Yes freedom is all about money, that’s it, that’s all there is.  You have figured it out. . Let us pray to you and your superior god of money.

“He believes that government is corrupt and should be eliminated so those
that have corrupted it can have more control over society.”
Funny and sadly true.

I agree with Ron Paul: he needs a full-on media proctoscope shoved up that wrinkled ass of his, and like Maddow did with his demon spawn Rand, force the sonofabitch to answer policy questions like do you favor destroying Federal regulations and enforcement agencies, would you destroy Social Security and Medicare, would you overturn Roe V Wade, and so on.  

We already know he’d kill FEMA like all the other right wing Koch suckers in the House who last night voted against disaster relief, and we already know he believes the rights of a restaurant owner to deny service based on race trump those of a family to buy a meal.   And that’s with the superficial, fawning coverage he receives now.

Somehow I don’t think it will make much difference to the Paultard — they already know the answers but they can get away with denying them because no one gets the sonofabitch on record.    But make no mistake, he’s not a Republican for nothing.    He’s a right wing asshole on steroids.

Please, please, Ronny, you prototypical right wing Texas shit kicker, please, if you want media coverage, I’m sure Maddow will interview you!   Go for it!

“So you know what I did that socialists never do? I started reading more into the views of someone
who I disagreed with.”

Oh, fuck you, you self-aggrandizing asshole.   You have no idea whawt socialists do, in fact, your use of the term indetifies you as a right wing libertarian asswipe.    So fucking what?    You proclaim yourself superior because you’ve been brainwashed, and we’re all supposed to what, get in line?  

Fuck you and the Paultard train you rode in on.      Of course the libertarians welcomed you in, just like the fuckers who thought there was a spaceship behind the Hale-Bopp comet.    Did they give you a pair of Nikes and a purple scarf to put over your face?

For your edification, there, Roger Ramjet, I’ve read a whole fucking bundle about not only the man but the libertarian philosophy to which he adheres, a necessary step because a) he doesn’t talk about his less popular positions (like gutting all regulations and destroying all social safety nets) and b) he’s a lying, spinning sack of shit when he does open his mouth.

He’s not an economist, he’s a doctor, and he knows as much about the economy as the typical Paultard.    That’d be zip.   Zilch.   Nada.  

But I’m not posting this to convince you either, because the only delusional one around here be you, my good man.   Oh, and I don’t find the bullshit you posted to be very “tolerant” either, you Karl Rove playbook borrowing right wing piece of shit.    I don’t hate you, I pity you.   You’re completely lost.

Dear Mr. Paul: In order to save Social Security and Medicare..Please be advised that your benefits have been suspended until 2020. On January 1, 2020 you may reapply and your case will be reviewed.

Oh, I see.   In the mind of a Paultard, he’s not a Republican.   I get it.   That’s the latest bullshit from the boob tube I guess.   Well, in that case, I’ll just have to believe you and ignore my own two lying eyes.

That might be how the world works in Paultardville, but out here we deal with the world as it is.

You haven’t posted a blessed fucking fact yet, there, Zippy.   All “feelings.”

You make a good high school level argument.

Of course!   You have distilled the river of doublespeak libertarian fantasy into one cogent paragraph.    What the Blimp took a tome to bamboozle, you’ve unraveled in a few words.   Congratulations!!   Well done!!

Indeed, if he can siphon off right wing votes, I’m all for him running as an independent.

That should be immortalized as the battle cry of the Paultard.   

“Pay no attention to what he says, rather, make up some shit you like and assume it’s what he means.”

Brilliant!   That’s exactly what they do!   You nailed it!    Good job!

Of course not!    To the Paultard, we’re all the stupid ones who just don’t seem to get it.

RAW Story isn’t exactly an echo chamber of the right-wing. I’m here to try to reach out to people.

You’re so far ‘reaching out’ as an echo chamber for the right wing with posts only supporting republican Ron Paul on a supposed progressive/liberal news site..

“He has said the same thing day in and day out for almost 40 years,
without changing his stance on anything except for the death penalty…”

Then you agree he’s still a racist?     We’re making progress.    His racist writings are all over the internet for any reading-inclined libertarian to avail themselves.

And you thought socialists didn’t read.   Oh, for your information, we’re ALL socialists.   If you aren’t, please stay off our roads for starters.

I would love to see your data backing up claims of government efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

Research on the over-65 Medicare system has shown that private sector
health care is a significantly less efficient use of public funds – meaning it costs the taxpayer more for privatized health care. Which should be only logical when comparing a non profit entity administering health care compared to a ‘for profit’ private corporation, but obviously logic isn’t something all republicans understand from seeking to privatize medicare and medicaid. A 2009 report
delivered by the Bart Stupak-chaired Energy and Commerce Committee
found that Medicare spends less than 1 percent on administrative costs
and 98 percent on health care, while HMOs or health care managed by for profit’ private corporations spend 15 percent of their revenue on profits, marketing and other corporate expenses. And just like Medicare, the privatization of Medicaid through private ‘for profit’ managed care has also resulting in a significant increase in cost to the taxpayers over government administered medicaid.

Lesson for Congress: Medicare Advantage
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/december/lesson-for-congress-medicare-advantage

I beginning to really have a deep hatred for socialists like you.  You’re all a bunch of stupid, lazy, arrogant fucks without exception. Stay off “our” roads?  Stay off “my” freedoms dickhead!

bureaucracy versus corporate medical care? I choose neither. I choose the free market. 

What you choose for health care by wanting to subject it to solely the ‘free market’  is to make it a privilege for only those that can afford it instead of the right it already is in every developed nation on earth except of course in the US where predatory capitalism reigns supreme for all of us but corporations and the wealthy reaping the rewards of privatized profit and socialized loss. The problem is that we are only half way to socialized, universal health care that all the other developed nations of the world enjoy because only half of all health care is paid for by the government, hence the taxpayers.

I don’t care how efficient private health care is, it is still ‘for profit’ and the cost will ALWAYS be higher than non profit health care administered by a non profit entity like the government. It should seem obvious to any republican no matter which one, including Ron Paul, that when you put health care, or any necessary public service [police, prisons, water and other necessary utilities, fire protection, etc], that should be considered a ‘right’ rather than a privilege, into the hands of private ‘for profit’ corporations, the cost will go up because the primary corporate goal is to earn a profit at the expense of the people. The costs will always go up. This is proven out over and over again in the right’s never ending push to privatize every social service out there.

Another example of this is in the continued privatization of prisons in America. Privately operated prisons cost more to operate than state-run prisons, even though they often steer clear of the sickest, costliest inmates.

“It’s cherry-picking,” said State Representative Chad Campbell, leader of the House Democrats. “They leave the most expensive prisoners with taxpayers and take the easy prisoners.”

Private Prisons Found to Offer Little in Savings
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/us/19prisons.html?pagewanted=all

Ron Paul is the worst enemy we have in this country. He wants to abolish the IRS, Homeland Security, and destroy our economy by eliminating tax subsidies for businesses.  How are we going to make it without the freakin IRS?!  They collect the damn taxes!!  I mean, really!!  People in this country can not be trusted with their own money.  Any idiot knows that.

Well, Homeland Security’s got to go, for sure.  Unless they’re reduced to a communications hub for FBI/CIA/Criminal Databases, that kind of thing — pure intel gathering — but otherwise they’re another agency that George W. Bush instituted in his faith in smaller, limited government. [/sarcasm]

Ron Paul would be correct about so much if he weren’t wrong about so much more. 

The problem with today’s Libertarian is they cannot see the forest for the debt-laden trees.

Dr. Paul may be the intellectual godfather of the tea party, but the movement was hijacked by the Koch Brothers and the Republican establishment.  Most of their funding comes from Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity…which ARE the lifeblood of the Republican establishment.  

The only ‘narrative’ the media is creating is the one that says Ron Paul can’t win so vote for Perry/Bachman/Cain/Palin.

Liberal for Ron Paul 2012

Only someone with Texas Christian republican values supports and votes for a Texas Christian republican aligned with causes and the agenda of the John Birch society and Christian Nationalists.

Libertarians will tolerate socialists, but socialists will not tolerate libertarians. Or anyone else for that matter.

I guess you don’t know much about socialists opposed to authoritarian communism  that are inherently libertarian socialists like Noam Chomsky identifies himself as, or you think that Noam doesn’t tolerate himself..

Ron Paul is firmly entrenched in theocratic Christian right movement just like every other Christian Texan Republican with the same agenda as the religious right from his stance to abolish abortions to his rejection of secularism to his call for states rights to his alliance with big corporations through his deregulation platform that reeks havoc on the environment. His “states’ rights” rhetoric is a mask concealing a desire to use the government to promote “traditional marriage” and criminalize abortion. He’s as authoritarian as and further to the right than a social conservative as a religious right Texan republican who was using libertarians to raise funds while promoting an agenda very similar to Christian Nationalists.

Pandering for just another evangelical republican Texan candidate like the other younger ‘RP’ one from Texas just means you hold authoritarian Christian Right political values, not libertarian and surely not liberal and/or progressive – Genuine progressives with more democrat socialist leanings will never join the republican “Ron Paul Devolution” with his corporate and religious recidivism taking us back into the 19th century.

How did the U.S federal government ever survive before 1913?

I first learned who Ron Paul was when hew as a guest on the Daily Show. I dont agree with Dr. Paul on his economic platform, but he deserves to be in the conversation. 

I would love to see your data backing up claims of government efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

Fully privatizing health care like Ron Paul and other republicans strive for will only make it far more expensive and unavailable to even greater numbers. And there’ proof for this. Logic alone should tell you ‘for profit’ corporate managed care programs and health providers are far more expensive than health care provided on a ‘non profit’ basis. Logic alone should tell you that government administered ‘non profit’ health care is far less expensive than corporate ‘for profit’ administered health care.

The fact is that “For Profit Health Care corporations” fail to deliver any of the promised benefits, such as controlling health care expenditures, reducing the costs of care, and lowering the price of care. How will for-profits help control health care expenditures and the overuse of health services when, by definition, they are in the business of increasing total sales? For-profits are also unlikely to reduce the costs of care. Studies show that the rise of investor-owned hospitals has increased rather than lowered costs. Moreover, studies show that the prices charged by for-profit hospitals to paying patients, as well as the per-day expense of providing care, are higher than those of non-profits. The economic benefits promised by for-profits have not been demonstrated.

You asked for it – you got it. If it’s isn’t obvious or ‘logical’ to you or anyone that ‘for profit’ private health care is and will always be more expensive than public ‘non profit’ health care simply due to the profit motive alone at the expense of the consumer, research on the over-65 Medicare system has shown that private sector health care is a significantly less efficient use of public funds. A 2009 report delivered by the Bart Stupak-chaired Energy and Commerce Committee found that Medicare spends less than 1 percent on administrative costs and 98 percent on health care, while HMOs eat up 15 percent of their revenue on profits, marketing and other corporate expenses. As with Medicare, the privatization of Medicaid through managed care is also costing the taxpayer far more for health care than when administered by a non profit entity like the government.

In a system of for-profit health care, the opportunities for patient manipulation and exploitation are endless. Society must not allow the motive of economic gain to enter so directly into the practice of medicine, placing the well-being of patients in serious jeopardy, and undermining the trust so essential to the physician-patient relationship.

The reality is we need to stop this ‘half socialized and half privatized system of health care’ by not further privatizing it towards ‘for profit’ health care that Ron Paul and other republicans advocate, but by doing what every other developed nation in the world has already done and Bernie Sanders tried to do by expanding Medicare for all Americans regardless of age in providing universal health care for all their citizens.

You have no freedoms shit for brains.  You have been carried all of your life.  Try living for a week in the wilderness with no support.  You will die.  You take and take every day of your life then throw a childish tantrum when it is time to give back.  I am beginning to have a deep hatred for libertariCONs like you, spouting the same republiCON bullshit proven time and again to fail then claiming to be independent all the while spouting the smae knee jerk nonsense rush limpblob fed you for breakfast.

The exact quote from Paul was “‘I think that another person that kind of made my case was Jon Stewart,’ he told reporters.” My post said “For Stewart to point out an issue with flawed media coverage is not the same as “making” Ron Paul’s case.” I did not say that Stewart was endorsing Paul or clarifying his views: “endorsing” and “clarifying” are only in your post, not in mine. You are really sloppy with ideas and words. Maybe you should remember the Hindenburg and avoid trying to be incendiary.

Because the Central Bank is a fraud.  watch this on google freedom to fascism   http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173#  dude educate your self!!

jeeze sounds like he hit a nerve!!….how ironic that you say that ron paul supporters are brainwashed when you accept your info from the GOV run media ha!!

People like you think you could not make it on your own because you’ve never had the guts to do without sucking on the nanny state’s tit.   It’s sad morons like you actually believe a person would die in the wilderness without “support”. I honestly believe someone like you might actually die after one day because you would just lay down and cut your own wrists out of fear.  You are a cowardly, useless piece of shit.  Why don’t you get off your ass and do something with your life instead of bitching because the government won’t wipe your ass with tax dollars.  You’re a crybaby.

No he just dumped a great pile of nonsense trying to make up in volume for what he lacks in common sense.  Typical ron paul true believer.

“This is a false dichotomy.”

There is no dichotomy offered. It was a mutually-reinforcing paralleling corollary… two examples exhibiting the same principle, via differing particulars.

“The free market proposition for the allocation of any kind of insurance…”

Don’t change the subject… which is medical care, and its just allocation.

“There’s a reason it’s called the free market, after all.”

Non sequitur… and there is no such thing. It’s both mythical as well as oxymoronic. Markets are established by rules.

“The moral component is all about personal responsibility…”

To a moral midget, perhaps… but morality concerns itself, in large part with Justice. And the question was whether it is just to allocate medical care according to wealth, or whether it is actually more just (if not also more rational) to allocate medical care according to medical need.

“Paul was asked about a hypothetical 30-year old man who was confronted with the choice to get medical care and he refused.”

You misreport — and so likely you also misunderstand — the incident. The man did not refuse medical CARE, he refused to buy insurance.

“The man in the hypothetical example, who was presumably Wolf Blitzer’s sole creation, chose not to get insurance when he very easily could have. And that’s his problem.”

I don’t know where you’ve been hiding, but most informed observers believe that Blitzer asked Paul this particular question because Paul’s own campaign director died for lack of health insurance… just two years ago. And he did not have coverage because he’d been denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition… and his employer, Ron Paul did not offer group coverage to his employees. So, Ron Paul could have prevented the premature, unnecessary death of his own campaign director, but he refused to do so.

Charity-provided care was non-existent. It has always and everywhere been both woefully inadequate and unreliable. Charities themselves estimate that they could cover no more than 7 or 8% of the total need in medical care alone. So to mention charities as a possible solution is just more ‘magical thinking.’

A good history about the fed to watch is a Doc called the money masters..google it.. a bit dry but very good infomation  http://youtu.be/JXt1cayx0hs

Standingforfreedom, though I agree central banking is almost always a cardinal sin of monetary policy, if we are to have a healthy debate and prove our point, we don’t need to use conspiracy literature to do it. Otherwise we’re no better than the leftists to spam Zeitgeist links to everyone.

You talking about yourself?

My post said “For Stewart to point out an issue with flawed media coverage is not the same as “making” Ron Paul’s case.” I did not say that Stewart was endorsing Paul or clarifying his views

Then you’re an idiot who doesn’t know what you wrote. Because the only reality in which the two are contextually different is probably your own. 

Again, the only “case” Paul was talking about here WAS the “flawed media coverage” that Stewart ultimately pointed out. Nothing about Paul’s political views, merely the lack of media attention!

In conclusion, stop projecting your own lingual deficiencies on to other people, and then ac all surprised when someone finally calls you on it. If confronting your own hypocrisy is incendiary to you, that’s not my problem.

I used to be really deep into Chomsky’s stuff, both owing to the fact that I took a linguistics course in college, and also studied in him for poli sci. And the sensibilities that he has in approaching socioeconomic problems are ones that I will not turn a blind eye towards. 

To be fair, I was more of a libertarian socialist than a vanilla socialist, if that’s even a distinction that matters to you. But the fact of the matter is you are misunderstanding communism just as much as you are misunderstanding libertarianism.

I have actually studied each and evaluated each on their own merits…because that’s all any rational person can do. We can’t say how any of these ideologies would work because they’ve never been tried before?

And for the record, authoritarian communism is an oxymoron. Do YOU like it when people lump socialism and communism in together as the same thing? Do YOU like it when people call Hugo Chavez “socialists”?  Do YOU like it when they point to these third world countries as socialist?

You don’t, do you? So why do you turn around and lump all communists in with fascists? Why do you point to authoritarians like or Stalin or Mao as great communist leaders (which is an oxymoron anyway, since communism in an ideal state, would have no leader)? Why do you lump libertarians in with neocons, or say that the most libertarian place on earth is Somalia?

Probably simply for the fact that you can and it’s easier than having a complex, multifaceted view of things. I’m not someone that believes libertarianism is the ultimate solution forever. I don’t believe socialism is fatally flawed, or that communism is impossible without bloody revolution.

Why? Because I treat the actual ideologies on their own merits and follow the golden rule. However, when people like yourself, the “adherents” of these ideologies use straw man and ad hominem attacks, I will respond to you in kind. 

And apparently, you all got your panties wound in a bunch so tightly, you refuse to actually respond as “intellectual” liberal types supposedly do. You have instead elected to shit on my thoughtful response like toddlers who missed their nap. You’re right, perhaps I shouldn’t have taken the batteries out of your gameboy.

Ron Paul is just another republican … PERIOD>>
Not even bringing up his ideas on Letting Corporations do as they D… well please which is one of the main reasons the republicans put us in  this mess and now wish to blame the democrats for it..
***
again…..

There is No Social Securtiy Crisis
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/sabrina%201/96

Social Security was never the cause of our debt.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/kpete/15643

Top 5 Social Security Myths Debunked! Tell them to keep their hands off SS!
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/sabrina%201/101

This is the BS hou hear from republicans wishing to  Privatize SS and other programs.
MSNBC w-Cenk.. Fiery Debate On Social Security
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBcQCLmC1fg

Ron Paul  would eliminate many federal government agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency , the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service, calling them “unnecessary bureaucracies.” Paul would severely reduce the role of the Central Intelligence Agency; reducing its functions to intelligence-gathering.
*********

Bernie Sanders statement about “”"REPUBLICANS”"”" and Social Security. 

Republicans hate Social Security because it has been an extraordinary
success and has done exactly what it was designed to do.  It is the most
successful government program in our nation’s history and is enormously
popular.

When Social Security was developed, 50 percent
of seniors lived in poverty.  Today, that number is 10 percent — still
too high, but a testament to the success of Social Security.

Republicans have spent years demonizing Social
Security and spreading lies about its sustainability.  They want to
scare Americans and build support for making drastic cuts to the program
or privatizing it entirely.  Their long-term goal is to end Social
Security as we know it, and convert it into a private account system
which will enable Wall Street to make hundreds of billions in profits.  

The truth is that today, according to the Social
Security Administration, Social Security has a $2.7 trillion surplus
and can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American for the
next 25 years.

Further, because it is funded by the payroll tax
and not the U.S. Treasury, Social Security has not contributed one
nickel to our deficit.

Oh, fuck you, you self-aggrandizing asshole.

Ooh, a compound verb and two curse words. You’re a big boy now. Thanks for letting me know how worked up you got. If I wanted to troll you, I think that might have been overkill, but damn, would I be satisfied.

  You have no idea whawt socialists do, in fact, your use of the term indetifies you as a right wing libertarian asswipe.    So fucking what?    You proclaim yourself superior because you’ve been brainwashed, and we’re all supposed to what, get in line? 

So in other words, what you are saying is that no one calls themselves a socialist anymore? You better tell these guys: http://sp-usa.org/ and http://www.dsausa.org/.

Also SocialistcafeDOTcom might not like what you’re implying.

If you’re suggesting that I’m merely using the words as an epithet, then that must be because you’ve done  that yourself — at least enough to make you paranoid. You chose to be delusional, that’s not my problem.

When I say I was a socialist, I mean I was an actual socialist, in the mold of someone like Chomsky. I have never said Obama was a socialist or anything, so the idea that I’m misusing the word was something you invented entirely out of thin air by yourself. If anyone’s taken a page from Rove’s playbook, it’s you. (And what’s ironic, is Rove actually borrowed his political tactics from many 60′s civil rights activists, so um… try better, scrub.)

All you have done to mock my position just illustrates what I have been talking about. You are not open-minded, you are not tolerant, you are not the least bit receptive, you have shown no points of agreement with me (even though I am sure we could find some on drug policy, prostitution, gay rights, etc.). None of this is my problem. It’s just symptomatic of another crack-addled limousine liberal like yourself throwing heavy jargon out there to conceal his lack of intellectual substance and keep his reality distortion field going (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_field).

Fuck you and the Paultard train you rode in on.      Of course the libertarians welcomed you in, just like the fuckers who thought there was a spaceship behind the Hale-Bopp comet.    Did they give you a pair of Nikes and a purple scarf to put over your face?

I knew some juvenile shit would inevitably make that straw man, but I put those words there because it doesn’t bother me at all. In fact, I knew precisely not just THAT someone would make that smear but in the same manner you’ve done it. But carry on, you’re entertaining when you’re mad.

For your edification, there, Roger Ramjet, I’ve read a whole fucking bundle about not only the man but the libertarian philosophy to which he adheres, a necessary step because a) he doesn’t talk about his less popular positions (like gutting all regulations and destroying all social safety nets) and b) he’s a lying, spinning sack of shit when he does open his mouth.

The very fact of the matter that someone like Paul is lying because he never talks about questions he isn’t asked (just like the Federal Reserve snub on 9/12′s debate) is something that could only be produced from the mind of a child, freed from the constraints of logic and basic knowledge about how the world works. 

You ever guess why in formal debates no one ever accuses their opponent of lying? Because it’s considered a fallacy and one of the unspoken rules of debate is to accept that no matter what you think of your opponent, be he misguided or uninformed, he at least sincerely believes what he is saying. That you won’t even extend this most basic courtesy to Paul, do a man far and away more consistent than that corporate shill you fap to, is further evidence of either belligerent self-delusion or cognitive impairments.

This, coupled with the fact that even allegedly liberal pundits like that even people like Maddow, Maher and Olbermann have given Paul this respect, indicates to me that you either didn’t get the memo or you were too petulant to read it until you understood it. 

Oh well. Your ravings are emblematic of a larger problem, and that’s what I’m here to address. I’m not here to serve as your cathartic release. If you need a therapist to resolve your deep-seated and irrational hatred of intellectual dissent, then I hope you get that help. Just as long as it’s not paid with my tax dollars.

Verbose is one thing, verbal nonsense is another. For a group who’s sposed to fight anti-intellectualism, it seems you liberal types wouldn’t even get through an essay explaining why you should be fighting it in the first place.

Yes freedom is all about money, that’s it, that’s all there is.  You have figured it out. . Let us pray to you and your superior god of money. 

Sarcasm cannot mask poor reading comprehension, for what it’s worth.

Is this why Libertarians are voting for republicans. like the tea party republican group.

There is nothing remotely intellectual about anything you said.  You hide behind a scrim of words that are meaningless.

a) protectionist trade policies
b) less big wars

though lets not fall into the trap of thinking 2011 should be just like 1911

We know who you are Mr. Paul, we just don’t like you!

I know exactly what I was saying. Stewart pointed out that the media was not covering Ron Paul much despite his coming in a close second to Bachmann in the straw poll. Stewart said nothing about Paul’s political views and did not endorse Paul’s views or clarify Paul’s views. If you re-read the article you will see that Paul was not just talking about media coverage; he was talking about his political views, as follows: “ I think people just flat-out don’t understand me,” Paul added. “They don’t understand what I’m talking about. But the people who do get super excited about it.” That was not referring to media coverage. And Paul said that Stewart helped him make his case. In conclusion, stop projecting your own personality deficiencies onto other people and then acting all indignant when someone calls you on it. 

Sorry Paul, the feudal system no longer exists for good reason, calling it libertarian doesn’t change the fact that it is extinct and for a good reason

 There are no Libertarians, they’re Faux Libertarians on some issues like drugs or wars. The fascists on issues like abortion or personal choices.

Libertarianism has and always will be the philosophy of people who want the least amount of Government in their life and more Government in your life.

Ron Paul is an electoral failure outside of his safe gerrymandered district in Texas. He never placed better than 4th place in any of the 2008 Primaries. He lost by large margins to even Mike Huckabee. It has nothing to do with his Libertarian beliefs as the fact he’s a failure. He has no chance of winning so why should the media worry about him? You don’t see the Reform Party candidate getting any air time do you? 

[...] W. DolanRaw Story Sept 22, [...]

If Ron Paul is the last hope, we are fucked.

You struggle under the assumption that I live for your love.    

You ARE my cathartic release, Paultard, my intellectual bitch, helplessly lost, a gasbag as an avatar.  

You bandy about insults like a schoolyard bully, and then when you get your ass handed to you hot and steaming on a platter, you whine, whine, whine like a little schoolgirl.    Your trail of posts is self-descriptive, and you wouldn’t have earned a second look from me were you not on record as a fucking asshole.

Don’t tell me that Ron Paul’s Dickensian proclivities are good for America.     I don’t give a shit if you sincerely believe it or not.      And don’t think for one second that because you’re too ashamed of your boy’s racism that we’re going to forget it.   And don’t try to sell us the wagon of bullshit that because your man avoids answering questions that would reveal his true intent that somehow it’s my fault for expecting otherwise.   He’s a liar when he speaks, and a liar by omission when he doesn’t.   

You suffer from the arrogance that I’m here to debate the ineducable.   I’m not.   I’m here to tell you you’re full of shit.   End of story.     Anyone who believes the river of bullshit coming from the mouth of Ron Paul obviously lacks intellectual discipline and honesty.

You whine about being open minded.   But I need not be open minded to the abject economic Darwinism you advocate, for sometimes there simply is no other side to an argument.    I advocate ending welfare for the wealthy, and your boy advocates apportioning power in proportion to wealth.    I am not interested in compromise with an economic assassin.

Therefore,  I will not supplicate myself before your godhead, and you, with your underbritches wrapped tightly around your balls, just can’t fucking stand it, can you?   It gets under your skin that you can’t bullshit everyone blind, doesn’t it?  

Write this down.   I will tell the truth about your boy and his racist past, present, and, unless hit by lightning, future.    I will tell the truth and not cower from loudmouth asshole wannabes who proclaim themselves superior because they suffer under a hallucination that their godhead is good for America.

Your boy is an amateur barroom economist, and you are the rat to his fife.   That’s all.    That’s your choice — don’t bitch at me for pointing out the obvious.

And you have the fucking BALLS to whine about insults, you fucking loser.

I have your “liberal types” nestled right here in my palm, awaiting your tender caress.    Please treat them as gently as Ron Paul treats the testicles of the wealthy.

Please, please, tell us more.

You are a simpleton who failed high school civics.   You coundn’t last a week without government services.   If you think you can, you’re even more ignorant than your posts indicate.

Anything to keep the GOP stew pot stirred so it doesn’t burn!

Yes! Ignore the words! Hear the passion in the delivery! It worked for the Gypper!

Results uber Truth, Herr Goebbels?

Which results, which truth, and who qualifies for the Goebbels reference?

Which results, which truth, and who qualifies for the Goebbels reference?

Well now, show your work. Don’t stomp your feet and throw a fit when someone disagrees with you. Is that how “intellectuals” act?

Lol, whine? Who’s whining? I find it hilarious that you continue throwing all the slurs you want at me. I really do. You can’t go one second without your sailor mouth cutting up, can you? You must be really, truly, profoundly mad. 

You struggle under the assumption that I live for your love.

Lol, you’ve butted in and replied to comments that weren’t even addressed to you and now you’re trying to tell me that you’re not desperate for attention? How can I help it if your infantile responses suggest this? You have some problem. I don’t know whether it’s separation anxiety disorder or just textbook narcissism, but it’s quite clear that you need someone to validate your ego after it’s been blown to fucking shreds.

You bandy about insults like a schoolyard bully, and then when you get your ass handed to you hot and steaming on a platter, you whine, whine, whine like a little schoolgirl.    Your trail of posts is self-descriptive, and you wouldn’t have earned a second look from me were you not on record as a fucking asshole.

So the dude calling me a school yard bully hurling insults around apparently doesn’t realize that he’s called me “a fucking loser”, a “self-aggrandizing asshole” “a little schoolgirl” (more playground references, I’m beginning to see where your child trauma came from), a “Paultard” (lol), a “gasbag”, an “asswipe”… well, I could go on but that would consume half of this post. 

But yes, fuck me for pointing that out, because if I did, then I’m whining. LOL! Man, you have about as much intellectual pomp as a 4-yo kid with Down’s, running around with a bucket on his head and you don’t even realize it. How cute.

 And don’t try to sell us the wagon of bullshit that because your man avoids answering questions that would reveal his true intent that somehow it’s my fault for expecting otherwise.   He’s a liar by commission when he speaks, and a liar by omission when he doesn’t.

If he figured out a way to avoid questions about eliminating FEMA, illegal entitlements, the Federal Reserve, our military empire, and more, why hasn’t he done so with Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, Christ Matthews, Sean Hannity, and all the rest?

What do you expect him to say, honestly? You wouldn’t be pleased even if he wrote everything he wanted to do out on paper and nailed it to the Capitol Building, so just cut out all the bullshit and confess to being the anti-intellectual cretin you are? Is that so hard?

You whine about being open minded.   But I need not be open minded to the abject economic Darwinism you advocate, for sometimes there simply is no other side to an argument.    I advocate ending welfare for the wealthy, and your boy advocates apportioning power in proportion to wealth.    I am not interested in compromise with an economic assassin.

Once again, observing doesn’t mean whining. Are you one of those pathetic retards who thinks that pointing some less-than-glamorous truth about Obama or any of your corporate whores is an attack? Whoops, my bad: *”racist attack”? 

Despite the breadth of your verbal arsenal, none of it overcomes your lack of an argument. And that’s really all that matters here. Hell, if I’m guilty of whining about anything, it’s seeing poor deluded retards like you accidentally getting on the internet all the time. Awwww there there, did the little retard miss the Two Minutes Hate? What if I put out a picture of Obama? Would you like to fap to that? Drool once for yes, twice for no.

Therefore,  I will not supplicate myself before your godhead, and you just can’t fucking stand it, can you?   It gets under your skin that you can’t bullshit everyone blind, doesn’t it?   

I really don’t care what you believe. I really don’t. I already said as much, lol. You seem to harbor this notion that simply because you’re a miserable wasted seed that everyone else has their own ulterior motives or whatever. Whereas, anyone can plainly see that you have followed me around on virtually every thread here. I’m not a psychologist, so I don’t know what the fuck is wrong with you. Like I said before, get a real therapist. Preferably one not subsidized by the state. Because if at the very least you don’t respect other people’s right to their own money, then maybe at the very least you can understand the concept of “conflict of interest”.

Write this down. I will tell the truth about your boy and his racist past, present, and, unless hit by lightning, future.    I will tell the truth and not cower from loudmouth asshole wannabes who proclaim themselves superior because they suffer under a hallucination that their godhead is good for America.

Your boy is an amateur barroom economist, and you are the rat to his fife.   That’s all. That’s your choice — don’t bitch at me for pointing out the obvious.

Wow, just as I was finished laughing my ass off, here you are confessing that you don’t have a life. Why might that be exactly? Is it because you can’t go 5 seconds without screaming “fuck” like a kid with Tourette’s (once again, I cannot stress enough how much good psychiatry will do you)? Or is it because you’re on the dole and living in your mom’s basement? Thou doth protest too much. 

Well, whatever. You’re not entertaining to me anymore. But maybe you’ll sleep tight knowing you convinced me of at least one thing: why I should pay to have you evaluated.