Fuck Ron Paul

[Searcher08]

I think FEMA's performance post-Katrina shows what Federal aid generally is.

"Generally" is a sweeping generalization.

Busted, I stand corrected.
How about...
"shows a worrying example of an organisation that appeared to be unable to meet its purpose, during circumstances when it was critical for tens of thousands of people that it did"

[JackRiddler]

http://wonkette.com/467976/and-the-most ... ore-467976

And The Most Nepotistic Member of Congress Award Goes To…

by Kirsten Boyd Johnson
4:01 pm March 22, 2012


A chilling new report from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington shows that this member of Congress’s campaign committee and PAC paid out a total of $304,599 in salaries and $48,742 for services during the 2008 and 2010 election cycles to his daughter, daughter’s mother-in-law, brother, grandson, granddaughter [*PAUSES FOR BREATH*] another granddaughter and a grandson-in-law, making this Representative the most nepotistic member of Congress by volume of family members on the campaign dole. And that’s only from 2008 and 2010! Who is it!? Don’t forget to scribble down your guesses on the back of your unemployment check stubs!

[READ MORE]

Hooray, and the Oscar goes to Doctor Congressman Ron Paul. Now we know why Ron Paul is always running for president: So that his family members always have jobs, what a guy. But Ron Paul is far from alone — in fact, his entry takes up only four out of three hundred and forty-three pages of this campaign expenditure report. Congress seems to be much better at job creation than they are letting on! Here are some more shining examples:

Top five representatives paying the most money in salaries or fees to family members:
• Rep. Alcee Hastings, (D-FL) paid his girlfriend $622,574.
• Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) paid his wife $512,293.
• Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) paid her daughter and grandson a combined $495,650.
• Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) paid six different relatives a combined $304,599.
• Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) paid his wife $238,438.
• In total, representatives paid $5,575,090 in salaries or fees directly to family members.

In sum, everyone have sex with Alcee Hastings. Recession: solved. [CREW]

[crikkett]

I don't think Ron Paul would have let people rot at all;

He opposed aid to Katrina victims.

[Searcher08]

I don't think Ron Paul would have let people rot at all;

He opposed aid to Katrina victims.

You call what FEMA did aid??

[Elihu]

You call what FEMA did aid??

yeah but he - opposed the aiiid!!! wrongthink

[crikkett]

You call what FEMA did aid??

yeah but he - opposed the aiiid!!! wrongthink

Sigh.

How would one reasonably decide what to expect from Ron Paul in a disaster, without considering what he did and said regarding other disasters?

[Elihu]

How would one reasonably decide what to expect from Ron Paul in a disaster,

what he said. refrain from federal action. under the circumstances this is appropriate. recall what happened starting with the gwb fly-overs and subsequent speech regarding the response: "we're sending in 110 billion to re-build" 110 billion? what's the gdp of louisianna? i think they bought the rubble for nickels, cleared it off and built casinos with it didn't they? this visceral response of "is his heart in the right place?", is exacerbating the problem. we're looking at martial law, possibly, with the next big disaster. even if that were valid ground for evaluating the man, it would still make him right if for the wrong reasons. under the circumstances.

what makes one think without some foundational change that future aid will this time actually be "aidful" instead of stolen? if you can simply say that "the future would be worse!" well, that i could accept if maybe not agree to.

[elfismiles]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hJTisovvjc

[overcoming hope]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hJTisovvjc

Clips like that really make me wonder why Ron can't get more love at RI? I understand what people do not like, but with so many huge issues that Ron Paul is on the right side of isn't he worth some serious consideration?

Would the Afghan standing next to his/her freshly bombed home with a dozen dead family members inside understand why you could not support the best chance to end such practices?

To me our foreign policy looms large over everything else. Should not our main focus be to stop the mass killing of innocents? I'm not trying to get something started, but it really bothers me that this isn't something we can rally behind at RI. Because if we cannot agree that we must stop bombing civilians immediately, even if that means compromising on other issues, then what the hell can we agree on?

And just to be clear, I think Paul has many shortcomings, but from where I stand he has the best chance to stop the war mongering than any other politician I am aware of. Not saying one must agree with that statement, but if you do and you still do not support his candidacy then with all due respect why not?

[elfismiles]

Clips like that really make me wonder why Ron can't get more love at RI? I understand what people do not like, but with so many huge issues that Ron Paul is on the right side of isn't he worth some serious consideration?

Would the Afghan standing next to his/her freshly bombed home with a dozen dead family members inside understand why you could not support the best chance to end such practices?

To me our foreign policy looms large over everything else. Should not our main focus be to stop the mass killing of innocents? I'm not trying to get something started, but it really bothers me that this isn't something we can rally behind at RI. Because if we cannot agree that we must stop bombing civilians immediately, even if that means compromising on other issues, then what the hell can we agree on?

And just to be clear, I think Paul has many shortcomings, but from where I stand he has the best chance to stop the war mongering than any other politician I am aware of. Not saying one must agree with that statement, but if you do and you still do not support his candidacy then with all due respect why not?

My feelings exactly - there are plenty of things I disagree with him about but to my mind ENDING EMPIRE and its DEATH MACHINERY is THE isssue of most import.

[Elihu]

Clips like that really make me wonder why Ron can't get more love at RI?

when did the bankers feds take over education?

Would the Afghan standing next to his/her freshly bombed home with a dozen dead family members inside understand why you could not support the best chance to end such practices?

social security. we've got our own morality to think about over here. it all cancels out you see.

To me our foreign policy looms large over everything else. Should not our main focus be to stop the mass killing of innocents?

assuming, and this is a real laugher, citizens concluded that "wrong" was gonna be bad for them someday, and that short of a politician ending it in a "legal" manner, and there's actually that choice on the table, that they themselves are going to have to rise up and end it via other means, that prior to that fateful leap they would have just said "you know what?, @##% it, i'm votin for the #$&*!. we always love the lesser of two evils anyway and we compromise even that "principle". sad. but like i said, the assumption that they're that troubled about it to begin with is.... well just not there...

[Searcher08]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hJTisovvjc

Clips like that really make me wonder why Ron can't get more love at RI? I understand what people do not like, but with so many huge issues that Ron Paul is on the right side of isn't he worth some serious consideration?

Would the Afghan standing next to his/her freshly bombed home with a dozen dead family members inside understand why you could not support the best chance to end such practices?

To me our foreign policy looms large over everything else. Should not our main focus be to stop the mass killing of innocents? I'm not trying to get something started, but it really bothers me that this isn't something we can rally behind at RI. Because if we cannot agree that we must stop bombing civilians immediately, even if that means compromising on other issues, then what the hell can we agree on?

And just to be clear, I think Paul has many shortcomings, but from where I stand he has the best chance to stop the war mongering than any other politician I am aware of. Not saying one must agree with that statement, but if you do and you still do not support his candidacy then with all due respect why not?

I agree with you.

From what I have seen on RI and in the media, I think the American people are not seeking to connect with people who are different from their own philosophy. I think there was a sweet spot where progressive and libertarian types could have created something new, but I don't think that is going to happen now (I don't put that down to Paul or Kucinich - I really think they would have worked together if there was a grassroots call for it)

Personally, I'm wistfully hoping for the return of the the sun's twin later in the year to shake things up.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hJTisovvjc

Clips like that really make me wonder why Ron can't get more love at RI? I understand what people do not like, but with so many huge issues that Ron Paul is on the right side of isn't he worth some serious consideration?

Definitely. This 43 page thread is a pretty good start on that. People here are considering him seriously. Not everybody's rejecting him either.

I like what I hear and see in that clip, and I like just about everything he says on foreign policy matters. Him being an Austrian economist is a massive, massive drawback, though - especially since I believe that if he was elected President he would only be allowed to push through a certain part of his domestic economic agenda (the bit that involves removing public services in their entirety) but would be entirely blocked from doing much to alter the financial system in it's current form which is favoured by the elite.

I foresee him spending all his time (certainly his first term) pushing through all his massive cuts in welfare, transport, health, education, etc. and removing regulation from these spheres against massive but ineffective public resistance - and he might well suceed entirely, and sit back feeling satisfied with a job well done - but as soon as he then turned toward dismantling the Fed or withdrawing the military from their colonial possessions he would be driven out of the White House, and replaced with an Obama-style placeholder.

The system isn't just rigged in terms of who gets into office. It's rigged in terms of how long they can stay there and what they are allowed to do while in power. Unless Ron Paul becomes an unquestionable totalitarian dictator (and he wouldn't like that much, would he, as a libertarian?) none but the worst of his ideas will ever be enacted.

It's a shame, but that's how I see it, as an outsider looking in.

EDIT: I also admire him for being almost exactly like Cato is portrayed in Robert Harris' Lustrum. I mean, literally. Everything he says and does is like this fictional version of Cato, and he doesn't come across as as a bad guy at all in the book (but then the fictional version doesn't put his name to any agitative pamphlets raging against the "barbarians" living in Rome).

Would the Afghan standing next to his/her freshly bombed home with a dozen dead family members inside understand why you could not support the best chance to end such practices?

To me our foreign policy looms large over everything else. Should not our main focus be to stop the mass killing of innocents? I'm not trying to get something started, but it really bothers me that this isn't something we can rally behind at RI. Because if we cannot agree that we must stop bombing civilians immediately, even if that means compromising on other issues, then what the hell can we agree on?

I agree with you.

Do you agree with me on Scottish Independence then Searcher, since it is the only realistic and democratic route toward depriving the UK of it's nuclear weaponry, it's ability to immediately "project force" overseas, it's UN Security Council Seat (where it always votes with America), it's undue prominence in NATO (where it agitates regularly for aggressive action before negotiation and compromise can be reached), it's £37 billion per year (sometimes up to 58 billion) defence budget and it's (largely imaginary) naval dominance over the GIUK Gap and belief in it's own supremacy?

Or would that be a bit extreme?

[overcoming hope]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... frNz_2hvvM

[Searcher08]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hJTisovvjc

Clips like that really make me wonder why Ron can't get more love at RI? I understand what people do not like, but with so many huge issues that Ron Paul is on the right side of isn't he worth some serious consideration?

Definitely. This 43 page thread is a pretty good start on that. People here are considering him seriously. Not everybody's rejecting him either.

I like what I hear and see in that clip, and I like just about everything he says on foreign policy matters. Him being an Austrian economist is a massive, massive drawback, though - especially since I believe that if he was elected President he would only be allowed to push through a certain part of his domestic economic agenda (the bit that involves removing public services in their entirety) but would be entirely blocked from doing much to alter the financial system in it's current form which is favoured by the elite.

I foresee him spending all his time (certainly his first term) pushing through all his massive cuts in welfare, transport, health, education, etc. and removing regulation from these spheres against massive but ineffective public resistance - and he might well suceed entirely, and sit back feeling satisfied with a job well done - but as soon as he then turned toward dismantling the Fed or withdrawing the military from their colonial possessions he would be driven out of the White House, and replaced with an Obama-style placeholder.

The system isn't just rigged in terms of who gets into office. It's rigged in terms of how long they can stay there and what they are allowed to do while in power. Unless Ron Paul becomes an unquestionable totalitarian dictator (and he wouldn't like that much, would he, as a libertarian?) none but the worst of his ideas will ever be enacted.

It's a shame, but that's how I see it, as an outsider looking in.

EDIT: I also admire him for being almost exactly like Cato is portrayed in Robert Harris' Lustrum. I mean, literally. Everything he says and does is like this fictional version of Cato, and he doesn't come across as as a bad guy at all in the book (but then the fictional version doesn't put his name to any agitative pamphlets raging against the "barbarians" living in Rome).

Would the Afghan standing next to his/her freshly bombed home with a dozen dead family members inside understand why you could not support the best chance to end such practices?

To me our foreign policy looms large over everything else. Should not our main focus be to stop the mass killing of innocents? I'm not trying to get something started, but it really bothers me that this isn't something we can rally behind at RI. Because if we cannot agree that we must stop bombing civilians immediately, even if that means compromising on other issues, then what the hell can we agree on?

I agree with you.

Do you agree with me on Scottish Independence then Searcher, since it is the only realistic and democratic route toward depriving the UK of it's nuclear weaponry, it's ability to immediately "project force" overseas, it's UN Security Council Seat (where it always votes with America), it's undue prominence in NATO (where it agitates regularly for aggressive action before negotiation and compromise can be reached), it's £37 billion per year (sometimes up to 58 billion) defence budget and it's (largely imaginary) naval dominance over the GIUK Gap and belief in it's own supremacy?

Or would that be a bit extreme?

I'm in favour of a Viable Systems approach - the de-centralise + coordinate model.
Free flow of people and information and ideas and money for the greatest benefit of the most people as quickly as possible. If your vision for an independent Scotland includes checkpoints for passports at Berwick filled with officious nitpicking Calvinists (**), you might find lots of people re-building Hadrian's Wall I would prefer you found someone other than Salmond who I personally wouldn't trust further than I could throw his smug lardy pol arse - apart from that I see it as totally the Scottish people's choice, especially as to where and when it is decided.

I WOULD encourage the invasion of the Faroe Islands as part of the new Empire of The Glens
and they deserve it anyway due to their treatment of pilot whales. Saltires over Torshavn!
I hope the notion of a 'Council Of The Isles' body covering England, Wales, Scotland, Isle Of Man, Eire, Northern Ireland and The Channel Islands to coordinate might get some traction..

(**) like trains on the East Coast mainline seem to be "If you don't have a ticket, you may be taken off the train at the next station and asked to pay the full fare before re-boarding and if you are unable to comply, we will call the police to arrest you under Section 3 of the Railways Act and you may be detained indefinitely. You may be banned from our network for life. Enjoy your journey"

I would like to add the country (and people) near Aberdeen I spent time with were like six hits of sunshine