Ron Paul Revolution

[loophole]

and then taking my point further with yours in consideration- if i did want to make a change i'd vote for the one of four with already the highest support- voting for another may lessen the chances of any of them winning, however minute of a change one vote makes... so i'd still go for paul

[fuckingvegan]

Chomsky's a tool. "Who cares?" if 9/11 was an inside job, he says. He also defends the Warren Commission. Classic disinfo agent. He gets dough from Rockefeller. "Controlled opposition" it's called. Total schmuck who produces hackwork disguised as "radical critique."

Ron Paul's a trillion times more dangerous to the "power class" than Chomsky ever was or will be.

Dude I have to 100% disagree with you on this. Here is a good short interview with Chomsky on 9-11

http://www.counterpunch.org/chomskyintv.html

[ahlee]

is it bad that i dont give a fuck nor have a clue as to what goes on in politics?

[NickDagger]

is it bad that i dont give a fuck nor have a clue as to what goes on in politics?

Depends on your prospective. If you don't mind how shitty everything is, and have no empathy for others, and are in general a selfish shitty person in a Paris Hilton variety, then I assume that you might be able to look at yourself in the mirror still while you "don't give a fuck."

Otherwise, no it's kinda lame.

Of course I can't blame you for not caring.

It's hard to get people to understand that throughout history people HAVE changed everything. Monarchies, slavery, brutal leaders, and on and on all ended the same way. Through the will of the people.

[Commercial D]

...[T]hroughout history people HAVE changed everything. Monarchies, slavery, brutal leaders, and on and on all ended the same way. Through the will of the people.

Now you're sounding like a Ron Paul man! Here's your new sig pic:

[Jesse]

Depends on your prospective. If you don't mind how shitty everything is, and have no empathy for others, and are in general a selfish shitty person in a Paris Hilton variety, then I assume that you might be able to look at yourself in the mirror still while you "don't give a fuck."

This is such bullshit. Also, the word you were looking for was "perspective," not "prospective", but whatever.

Saying that someone who doesn't care about politics has no empathy for others and is a selfish Paris Hilton-like person is ridiculous. You can care plenty about the well being of humanity without having any attachment to politics, because they are just a means to an end. If you can care for others, and help them out as best you can, why do you have to be involved in politics at all? Sure, in a perfect world everyone would care about having a form of government that made sure the quality of life for all of its people was high and was free of corruption. This isn't a reality however, and you can't blame people for becoming disinterested in politics. To say that a person "has no empathy for others," or that they are somehow a "selfish shitty person in a Paris Hilton variety" simply because they have no desire to partake in a system that has ignored them and for the most part does not function with their bests interest in mind, is incredibly juvenile and antagonistic for the sake of being antagonistic.There is no right answer, or hope for some radical change for the good of all people, represented in any of the people currently running for president. Just because you believe that everything would be better with a guy like Ron Paul in office, does not mean that he is the best answer for everyone else. He represents the fringe of our current political system, and that's why people are drawn to him, because he is radically different from the norm of our two party way of thinking. But that is not necessarily a good thing. I, for one, would rather have a multitude of parties and candidates to choose from. At the moment, one can really only choose from two parties that are almost identical, and the fringe third party candidates. I don't want any of them running the country, so why should I vote for them, or take part in what I consider to be a failing system of government? And don't respond with some High-school Gov. response like "because everyone's vote counts" or how change only comes after we vote in the right people or any of that.

I vote in every local election. In my opinion, the changes one can bring about on this level through voting are much more visible. I do so because I care about my community and because every year the school levy fails and I just want to see it pass once. Other than that, I couldn't give too much of a fuck about the federal government at this point. And it is not, as you would describe it to be, because of some lack of empathy of deep seeded selfishness. Its because each and every year its the same people running, and every once in a while a new person like Ron Paul comes along who is just as frightening to me, and I no longer feel like voting for the "lesser" of any evils.

[the j]

Expand Quote

Depends on your prospective. If you don't mind how shitty everything is, and have no empathy for others, and are in general a selfish shitty person in a Paris Hilton variety, then I assume that you might be able to look at yourself in the mirror still while you "don't give a fuck."

[close]

This is such bullshit. Also, the word you were looking for was "perspective," not "prospective", but whatever.

Saying that someone who doesn't care about politics has no empathy for others and is a selfish Paris Hilton-like person is ridiculous. You can care plenty about the well being of humanity without having any attachment to politics, because they are just a means to an end. If you can care for others, and help them out as best you can, why do you have to be involved in politics at all? Sure, in a perfect world everyone would care about having a form of government that made sure the quality of life for all of its people was high and was free of corruption. This isn't a reality however, and you can't blame people for becoming disinterested in politics. To say that a person "has no empathy for others," or that they are somehow a "selfish shitty person in a Paris Hilton variety" simply because they have no desire to partake in a system that has ignored them and for the most part does not function with their bests interest in mind, is incredibly juvenile and antagonistic for the sake of being antagonistic.There is no right answer, or hope for some radical change for the good of all people, represented in any of the people currently running for president. Just because you believe that everything would be better with a guy like Ron Paul in office, does not mean that he is the best answer for everyone else. He represents the fringe of our current political system, and that's why people are drawn to him, because he is radically different from the norm of our two party way of thinking. But that is not necessarily a good thing. I, for one, would rather have a multitude of parties and candidates to choose from. At the moment, one can really only choose from two parties that are almost identical, and the fringe third party candidates. I don't want any of them running the country, so why should I vote for them, or take part in what I consider to be a failing system of government? And don't respond with some High-school Gov. response like "because everyone's vote counts" or how change only comes after we vote in the right people or any of that.

I vote in every local election. In my opinion, the changes one can bring about on this level through voting are much more visible. I do so because I care about my community and because every year the school levy fails and I just want to see it pass once. Other than that, I couldn't give too much of a fuck about the federal government at this point. And it is not, as you would describe it to be, because of some lack of empathy of deep seeded selfishness. Its because each and every year its the same people running, and every once in a while a new person like Ron Paul comes along who is just as frightening to me, and I no longer feel like voting for the "lesser" of any evils.

you really should have read the entire post you quoted

[Jesse]

you really should have read the entire post you quoted

You mean the "will of the people" shit? Yeah, that shit didn't really have anything to do with Nick calling people who don't give a fuck about politics selfish and uncaring assholes.

I also don't see how it applies too much to this conversation, when most of those changes came through revolutions or wars. The will of the people isn't best represented in the voting booths, that's why the greatest changes happen when people group together and physically force the system they dislike to change. Its not so simple to just "vote out" plutocracy.

[theironmonkey]

voting in an election is just kissing the boot that's been kicking you for the last 4 years.

regardless of who you vote for.

[theironmonkey]

and of course..

democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting for what's for dinner.

[GattMood]

Paul has my vote. We need a change, even if it is a "radical" one.

[the j]

just for fun

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5474924297300734616&q=loose+change+final+cut+duration%3Along&total=28&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7

[soon]

violent revolutions are the only ones that work... and everyone is too goddamn fat and lazy to do shit about that.

voting doesn't matter, and you're a dumb ass to think so. a little self empowering moment of personal righteousness that doesn't mean shit... woo! i waste my votes. I did a write in in 2004 for Hulk Hogan.

[NickDagger]

This is such bullshit. Also, the word you were looking for was "perspective," not "prospective", but whatever.

Saying that someone who doesn't care about politics has no empathy for others and is a selfish Paris Hilton-like person is ridiculous. You can care plenty about the well being of humanity without having any attachment to politics, because they are just a means to an end.

Jesus Christ dude, you really should have read everything I wrote you repeated about half of it.

But okay.

You are correct about local politics though.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Whoever thinks that Ron Paul wouldn't be a whore for large corporate interests needs to look up "libertarian" in the dictionary. Thats why he is on the republican side. They basically think big business should be able to do whatever they want without government intervention. So don't quote where they get money from to prove Paul isn't corporate, look at his stances.

If a nutcase gets into the whitehouse, I would go Kucinich. Wants to defend the constitution, end the war, create a not for profit healthcare system, and control corporate power. Much better than Ron Paul, just as electable.

violent revolutions are the only ones that work... and everyone is too goddamn fat and lazy to do shit about that.

People have to be starving or getting harshly put down by the government to have a revolution, basically, they have to think that death is just as good as the life they have to do it, and you gotta have enough who support this. It won't happen here because it will take a lot to get us out of our comfort zone

[damian]

ron paul has the stoner vote.

[NickDagger]

Whoever thinks that Ron Paul wouldn't be a whore for large corporate interests needs to look up "libertarian" in the dictionary. Thats why he is on the republican side. They basically think big business should be able to do whatever they want without government intervention. So don't quote where they get money from to prove Paul isn't corporate, look at his stances.

There are so many half-truths in this I don't know where to begin.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Expand Quote

Whoever thinks that Ron Paul wouldn't be a whore for large corporate interests needs to look up "libertarian" in the dictionary. Thats why he is on the republican side. They basically think big business should be able to do whatever they want without government intervention. So don't quote where they get money from to prove Paul isn't corporate, look at his stances.

[close]

There are so many half-truths in this I don't know where to begin.

Please, find your bearings and begin. Show me how a political party who's platform is basically to eliminate government regulation of business is going to be anything but pro-big business. Tell me how being anti-regulation helps the common person. Tell me how I am lying- or telling a "half-truth."

You don't know where to begin because everything I say is true, and it turns out Ron Paul is not the revolutionary who will be there for the common man like you think.

He's no good. To end regulation would put us back in a place we have been multiple times in history, all of which led to the conclusion that regulation is good and necessary in many instances. The only down side to regulation in most cases is that big businesses lose money- if you consider that a downside. Please though, tell me where I lie, tell me where the half truths are.  Start at the beginning, each time you see a half-truth, point it out, its not that long of a passage, you can do it!

Oh, wait, no you can't. I speak the truth and talk about the dirty and ugly side of libertarian ideology, and either you haven't thought of that part, or you don't want others to realize what it means.

[Prison Wallet]

Expand Quote

Whoever thinks that Ron Paul wouldn't be a whore for large corporate interests needs to look up "libertarian" in the dictionary. Thats why he is on the republican side. They basically think big business should be able to do whatever they want without government intervention. So don't quote where they get money from to prove Paul isn't corporate, look at his stances.

[close]

There are so many half-truths in this I don't know where to begin.

What's RP's stance on Danny Way?

[NickDagger]

Whoever thinks that Ron Paul wouldn't be a whore for large corporate interests needs to look up "libertarian" in the dictionary. Thats why he is on the republican side. They basically think big business should be able to do whatever they want without government intervention. So don't quote where they get money from to prove Paul isn't corporate, look at his stances.

1.)I guess ending all the huge subsidies for gigantic corporations and ending corporatism as we knowing equates being a "whore" for corporations in your mind?
2.)There is accidentally perhaps, some legitimacy in your concern for being scared of corporations running amock in a truly free market, however if you've listened to basically ANYTHING Ron Paul has said, you would know that how you described is not what he would allow.
3.)You think libertarianism is the same as republicanism? They might have been similar a century ago, but they are VASTLY different today. And again, for the record, if you had listened to Paul you would know he identifies as neither, but rather a "constitutionalist."

No Corporate Welfare
by Congressman Ron Paul, MD

[Editors' note: the following is Rep. Paul's statement before the House Banking Committee on reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank.]

Mr. Chairman, we are here today to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, but it has nothing to do with a bank, do not mislead anybody. This has to do with an agency of the government that allocates credit to special interests and to the benefit of foreign entities. So it is not a bank in that sense. To me it is immoral in the fact that it takes from some who cannot defend themselves to give to the rich who get the benefits. And I just do not see that as being a very good function and a very good program for the U.S. Congress. Besides, I would like to see where somebody gives me the constitutional authority for doing what we do here and we have been doing, of course, for a long time.

But I do not want to talk about the immorality of this so-called bank or the unconstitutionality of it. I want to talk just a second or two about the economics of it. It is really bad economics. It is pointed out that it helps a company here or there, but what is never talked about what you do not see. This is credit allocation.

In order to take billions of dollars and give it to one single company, it is taken out of the pool of funds available. And nobody talks about that. There is an expense. Why would not a bank loan when it is guaranteed by the government? Because it is guaranteed. So if you are a smaller investor or a marginal investor, there is no way that you are going to get the loan. For that investor to get the loan, the interest rates have to be higher. So it is a form of credit allocation, and it is also a form of protectionism. We do a lot of talk around here about free trade. Of course, there is a lot of tariff activity going on as well, but this is a form of protectionism. Because some argue, well, this company has to compete and another government subsidizes their company so, therefore, we have to compete. So it is competitive subsidization of special interest corporations in order to do this.

Now, it seems strange that we here in the Congress are willing to give the beneficiary China the most number of dollars. They qualify for nearly $6 billion worth of credits. And that just does not seem like the reasonable thing for us to do. So I strongly urge a no vote on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, Congress should reject H.R. 2871, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act, for economic, constitutional, and moral reasons. The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) takes money from American taxpayers to subsidize exports by American companies. Of course, it is not just any company that receives Eximbank support; the majority of Eximbank funding benefit large, politically powerful corporations.

Enron provides a perfect example of how Eximbank provides politically-powerful corporations competitive advantages they could not obtain in the free market. According to journalist Robert Novak, Enron has received over $640 million in taxpayer-funded ``assistance'' from Eximbank. This taxpayer-provided largesse no doubt helped postpone Enron's inevitable day of reckoning.

Eximbank's use of taxpayer funds to support Enron is outrageous, but hardly surprising. The the vast majority of Eximbank funds benefit Enron-like outfits that must rely on political connections and government subsidies to survive and/or multinational corporations who can afford to support their own exports without relying on the American taxpayer.

It is not only bad economics to force working Americans, small business, and entrepreneurs to subsidize the export of the large corporations: it is also immoral. In fact, this redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy is the most indefensible aspect of the welfare state, yet it is the most accepted form of welfare. Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how members who criticize welfare for the poor on moral and constitutional grounds see no problem with the even more objectionable programs that provide welfare for the rich.

The moral case against Eximbank is strengthened when one considers that the government which benefits most from Eximbank funds is communist China. In fact, Eximbank actually underwrites joint ventures with firms owned by the Chinese government! Whatever one's position on trading with China, I would hope all of us would agree that it is wrong to force taxpayers to subsidize in any way this brutal regime. Unfortunately, China is not an isolated case: Colombia and Sudan benefit from taxpayer-subsidized trade, courtesy of the Eximbank!

At a time when the Federal budget is going back into deficit and Congress is once again preparing to raid the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, does it really make sense to use taxpayer funds to benefit future Enrons, Fortune 500 companies, and communist China?

Proponents of continued American support for the Eximbank claim that the bank creates jobs and promotes economic growth. However, this claim rests on a version of what the great economist Henry Hazlitt called, the ``broken window'' fallacy. When a hoodlum throws a rock through a store window, it can be said he has contributed to the economy, as the store owner will have to spend money having the window fixed. The benefits to those who repaired the window are visible for all to see, therefore it is easy to see the broken window as economically beneficial. However, the ``benefits'' of the broken window are revealed as an illusion when one takes into account what is not seen: the businesses and workers who would have benefited had the store owner not spent money repairing a window, but rather had been free to spend his money as he chose. Similarly, the beneficiaries of Eximbank are visible to all. What is not seen is the products that would have been built, the businesses that would have been started, and the jobs that would have been created had the funds used for the Eximbank been left in the hands of consumers.

Some supporters of this bill equate supporting Eximbank with supporting ``free trade,'' and claim that opponents are ``protectionists'' and ``isolationists.'' Mr. Chairman, this is nonsense, Eximbank has nothing to do with free trade. True free trade involves the peaceful, voluntary exchange of goods across borders, not forcing taxpayers to subsidize the exports of politically powerful companies. Eximbank is not free trade, but rather managed trade, where winners and losers are determined by how well they please government bureacrats instead of how well they please consumers.

Expenditures on the Eximbank distort the market by diverting resources from the private sector, where they could be put to the use most highly valued by individual consumers, into the public sector, where their use will be determined by bureaucrats and politically powerful special interests. By distorting the market and preventing resources from achieving their highest valued use, Eximbank actually costs Americans jobs and reduces America's standard of living!

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my colleagues that there is simply no constitutional justification for the expenditure of funds on programs such as Eximbank. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution would be horrified to think the Federal Government was taking hard-earned money from the American people in order to benefit the politically powerful.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Eximbank distorts the market by allowing government bureaucrats to make economic decisions in place of individual consumers. Eximbank also violates basic principles of morality, by forcing working Americans to subsidize the trade of wealthy companies that could easily afford to subsidize their own trade, as well as subsidizing brutal governments like China and the Sudan. Eximbank also violates the limitations on congressional power to take the property of individual citizens and use it to benefit powerful special interests. It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 2871, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act.

Please, find your bearings and begin. Show me how a political party who's platform is basically to eliminate government regulation of business is going to be anything but pro-big business. Tell me how being anti-regulation helps the common person. Tell me how I am lying- or telling a "half-truth."

Again, there are legitimate concerns you have here. Ironically no one has expressed what you fear here better than Chomsky. I personally think someone like Ron Paul would be about the perfect balance to congress that we have today for the fears you're expressing.

You don't know where to begin because everything I say is true, and it turns out Ron Paul is not the revolutionary who will be there for the common man like you think.

I said no such thing. I do however think he is the best candidate, an honest and consistent man. Even if I disagree with him on a couple of issues. He is also more well versed in economics than anyone in Congress.

Oh, wait, no you can't. I speak the truth and talk about the dirty and ugly side of libertarian ideology, and either you haven't thought of that part, or you don't want others to realize what it means.

I have some libertarian tendancies, but i'm not who you're describing here. I'd prefer something inbetween Libertarianism and Libertarian socialism.

[damian]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Whoever thinks that Ron Paul wouldn't be a whore for large corporate interests needs to look up "libertarian" in the dictionary. Thats why he is on the republican side. They basically think big business should be able to do whatever they want without government intervention. So don't quote where they get money from to prove Paul isn't corporate, look at his stances.

[close]

There are so many half-truths in this I don't know where to begin.

[close]

Please, find your bearings and begin. Show me how a political party who's platform is basically to eliminate government regulation of business is going to be anything but pro-big business. Tell me how being anti-regulation helps the common person. Tell me how I am lying- or telling a "half-truth."

You don't know where to begin because everything I say is true, and it turns out Ron Paul is not the revolutionary who will be there for the common man like you think.

He's no good. To end regulation would put us back in a place we have been multiple times in history, all of which led to the conclusion that regulation is good and necessary in many instances. The only down side to regulation in most cases is that big businesses lose money- if you consider that a downside. Please though, tell me where I lie, tell me where the half truths are.  Start at the beginning, each time you see a half-truth, point it out, its not that long of a passage, you can do it!

Oh, wait, no you can't. I speak the truth and talk about the dirty and ugly side of libertarian ideology, and either you haven't thought of that part, or you don't want others to realize what it means.

but brodog, he's gonna legalize WEEEEED!

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

I certainly agree that Ron Paul is honest and genuine in his beliefs, I just disagree with him about some of what he appears to honestly and genuinely believe.
As for Paul not being republican- he's running as one. He ran third party as libertarian last time, this time he is running as, and officially identified as, a republican.
He may want to end corporate welfare, but that is just him maintaining consistency. In the end big business will be able to be far more exploitative towards small businesses, workers, and consumers if he was elected. It wouldn't be very fun.

[NickDagger]

I certainly agree that Ron Paul is honest and genuine in his beliefs, I just disagree with him about some of what he appears to honestly and genuinely believe.
As for Paul not being republican- he's running as one. He ran third party as libertarian last time, this time he is running as, and officially identified as, a republican.
He may want to end corporate welfare, but that is just him maintaining consistency. In the end big business will be able to be far more exploitative towards small businesses, workers, and consumers if he was elected. It wouldn't be very fun.

Just for reference who are you voting for?

If Paul wasn't in it I would easily vote for Kucinich even though he's on the other end of the spectrum on many issues for me. I definitely wouldn't lose any sleep if he were elected, or Nader, or Gravel.


I really, really, really hope Guilianni is not elected.

And only slightly less hope Hillary isn't.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Who I am voting for is still a mystery to me, but I have narrowed it down:
Kucinich- he'll never win and is too idealistic, so even if he does it won't be great, but I do like where he stands morally, and think a vote for him would remind the democratic party of where it should stand
Richardson- has the most relevant experience of the candidates on both sides of the aisle, people I know from New Mexico said he was great.
Edwards- a true populist, his ideals are great, and he has a great healthcare plan. I think class stratification under Bush has been a real problem, as displayed in Katrina, and Edwards seems to be the guy to fix it.
Obama- this is the lowest likely guy I'll vote for, though the rest were in no particular order. Seems like a good guy, anti-war, pro-healthcare, he just seems like he might be too much of a pussy to do it right.

I would never vote for Hillary in the primary. War hawk bitch acted like her Iraq war vote ended badly and she learned her lesson, then she goes and votes to fuck with Iran- fuck her.
And yes, the Iran vote was fucked up because in my opinion, an Army protecting a nation is never really a terrorist organization. Maybe they are an enemy nation, but not terrorist. The only reason they were classified the way they were was because if they are considered terrorists Bush can attack them under the war on terror without congressional approval. If we call them an enemy state or rogue nation, we still gotta vote on what to do. Hillary should know that, if she doesn't she's too dumb to be president, if she does she's too sneaky.

I'd never vote for a republican.

[tango $$ tha pussy viol8r]

JOHN JAQUARIUS EDWARDS for president. 'tentacles of destruction' endorsed.

[Commercial D]

just for fun

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5474924297300734616&q=loose+change+final+cut+duration%3Along&total=28&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7

Zapped already.

[Jesse]

Kucinich- he'll never win and is too idealistic, so even if he does it won't be great, but I do like where he stands morally,

He would be the ideal candidate, but he'll never win the democratic nomination. Kucinich is pretty much the Jimmy carter of our generation, and as we learned from Carter it doesn't matter how many good ideas you have and how good your intentions are you still are just heading one branch of government and without the support of the other two your presidency is a recipe for disaster.

[biggums mcgee]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Whoever thinks that Ron Paul wouldn't be a whore for large corporate interests needs to look up "libertarian" in the dictionary. Thats why he is on the republican side. They basically think big business should be able to do whatever they want without government intervention. So don't quote where they get money from to prove Paul isn't corporate, look at his stances.

[close]

There are so many half-truths in this I don't know where to begin.

[close]

Please, find your bearings and begin. Show me how a political party who's platform is basically to eliminate government regulation of business is going to be anything but pro-big business. Tell me how being anti-regulation helps the common person. Tell me how I am lying- or telling a "half-truth."

You don't know where to begin because everything I say is true, and it turns out Ron Paul is not the revolutionary who will be there for the common man like you think.

He's no good. To end regulation would put us back in a place we have been multiple times in history, all of which led to the conclusion that regulation is good and necessary in many instances. The only down side to regulation in most cases is that big businesses lose money- if you consider that a downside. Please though, tell me where I lie, tell me where the half truths are.  Start at the beginning, each time you see a half-truth, point it out, its not that long of a passage, you can do it!

Oh, wait, no you can't. I speak the truth and talk about the dirty and ugly side of libertarian ideology, and either you haven't thought of that part, or you don't want others to realize what it means.

[close]

but brodog, he's gonna legalize WEEEEED!

yeah the stoner vote, everyone who smokes has hopped on the paul bandwaggon. I went to this harvest fest/ "freedome rally" which was really just a whole bunch of Ron Paul campaign bullshit. I registered today as a Greeen Party member...

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Whoever thinks that Ron Paul wouldn't be a whore for large corporate interests needs to look up "libertarian" in the dictionary. Thats why he is on the republican side. They basically think big business should be able to do whatever they want without government intervention. So don't quote where they get money from to prove Paul isn't corporate, look at his stances.

[close]

There are so many half-truths in this I don't know where to begin.

[close]

Please, find your bearings and begin. Show me how a political party who's platform is basically to eliminate government regulation of business is going to be anything but pro-big business. Tell me how being anti-regulation helps the common person. Tell me how I am lying- or telling a "half-truth."

You don't know where to begin because everything I say is true, and it turns out Ron Paul is not the revolutionary who will be there for the common man like you think.

He's no good. To end regulation would put us back in a place we have been multiple times in history, all of which led to the conclusion that regulation is good and necessary in many instances. The only down side to regulation in most cases is that big businesses lose money- if you consider that a downside. Please though, tell me where I lie, tell me where the half truths are.  Start at the beginning, each time you see a half-truth, point it out, its not that long of a passage, you can do it!

Oh, wait, no you can't. I speak the truth and talk about the dirty and ugly side of libertarian ideology, and either you haven't thought of that part, or you don't want others to realize what it means.

[close]

but brodog, he's gonna legalize WEEEEED!

[close]

yeah the stoner vote, everyone who smokes has hopped on the paul bandwaggon. I went to this harvest fest/ "freedome rally" which was really just a whole bunch of Ron Paul campaign bullshit. I registered today as a Greeen Party member...

Too bad that anybody who is that into weed probably is too lazy to vote.

[biggums mcgee]

I'm into weed, still planning on voting. then again, I've always been into politics. how would elections turn out of it was required to vote?