Subjects concerning Ron Paul

[axj]

Interesting statistic...

Mitt Romney’s top 3 contributors:

Goldman Sachs $367,200
Credit Suisse Group $203,750
Morgan Stanley $199,800

Ron Paul’s top 3 contributo­rs:

US Army $24,503
US Air Force $23,335
US Navy $17,432

Source:
_http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00000286
_http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00005906

 

[knowledge_of_self]

It's all a scam. If elected, the first thing he'd do is eliminate the EPA, which is exactly what his corporate masters want. Currently there are NO candidates who aren't owned, lock, stock and barrel by corporate interests. The only choice we are given is whose slave we want to be.

He also wants to close the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and all military bases abroad.

Regarding the EPA - from what I understand he is not for unrestricted pollution, but would rather abolish the federal agency EPA and replace it with a system based on the protection of property rights.

Fwiw, I completely agree with you Guardian and your above statement.

I was also someone who really hoped Obama would win. But it wasn't really because I thought he would really do something great or believe all the things he was spewing out about "change". It was more like OH MY GOD PLEASE DON'T ELECT CAIN AND PALIN!!

And I see that playing out again in this election. Obama's republican competition is between Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul. And I just don't think Ron Paul is going to pull it off... (my own instinct) and so it's Mitt and Newt vs. Obama? Well hell.. obviously Obama is going to win - even the hardcore Republicans think those two (Mitt & Newt) are nuts.

Also, I for one don't believe a thing any politician says anymore. Obama said something about shutting down Guantanamo Bay if he took office - and we all saw how that turned out. So Ron Paul's claims of eliminating the Federal Reserves or the IRS, etc... is just well... talk. When it comes down to it, even if he gets elected - I'm sure his masters will tell him just what they want done and he'll be happy to oblige.

 

[thevenusian]

There is an interesting analysis of Ron Paul's budget plan by Webster Tarpley, as interviewed by Bonnie Faulkner on the radio show 'Guns & Butter'. It is the first one I've seen that picks apart Paul's own proposals in some detail. Available here:
_http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/76422

In short, Paul's plan as made public, at least according to this analysis, would impact the poor in an extremely negative way, with massive cuts to social spending and only a %15 cut to Pentagon programs. Tax cuts for the wealthy, further cuts for corporations, more de-regulation and privatization, destruction of trade unions and greater austerity for the common people. Tarpley's answer to Faulkner's question of who benefits from Paul's economic plan is 'the one-percent benefits.' He also uses Paul's own statements on record to conclude that he actually does not support 9/11 truth, something some of his supporters claim he supports.

It is amazing to see how many of the 'alternative' news sites and commentators have thrown their support toward Ron Paul without any detailed analysis of what he stands for. It seems that since RP is being treated like an underdog, or at least is being portrayed that way, they just assume he must be doing good and jump on the bandwagon.

 

[Piotrek]

[quote author=voyageur]
Kind of agree with what axi said here:

I agree that vote fraud is a big issue, but even if he doesn't win - the fact that his ideas are becoming more popular is what is important here. Even if he doesn't win, his supporters won't just shut up and go away. I think that most Ron Paul supporters are completely "changed" in that they will not support the old corrupt system anymore.

Shifting understandings of the issues is a good first step for voters (non voters, too) and RP seems to be helping that; who knows how these little seeds of understanding will grow.
[/quote]
I also think the quote from axi is appropriate.
The last email I received from the Ron Paul campaign was titled "We did it!" and it dealt with the fact that he came in third in the Iowa caucus.
He will not be selected as the republican candidate for the presidency, let alone become president.
The only reason he's running as a republican is to get his message out (when was the last time there was a televised third-party or more-than-two-party debate?) -- otherwise he would have had to get- and spend more to get the MSM to at least give him as much coverage as he's getting at present.
The system is too far gone for any one man to 'fix' it, no matter how many ABC agencies he wants to shut down (i.e. people being afraid of the government-run social "safety" net being taken away, etc...).
The only thing one can hope for is to get one's message out and hope that people will open their eyes to the psychopaths running the show.

My opinion of him, based on his voting record, as well as the fact that he is a doctor and not a politician/lawyer by trade, is that of a man doing a service (evidenced by a dream where he, wearing shirt and tie, hunched over a bit more than usual, with an incredibly tired, but content, look on his face, was serving tea to a small group of people).
He seems similar to Laura in that both him and Laura have been sticking to their guns and saying the same thing for a very long time -- having some of the things actually come to pass, like the housing crisis, in Ron Paul's case.
People that stick to their guns either believe (i.e. faith) or know (i.e. knowledge).
Both have devoted a significant portion of their lives to studying and searching for the Truth (Laura's focus being closer to the basic elements of Reality, as opposed to Ron Paul's focus on personal liberties and responsibilities, a level of abstraction, or two, higher).

Having said that, I don't know if at some point in the future Ron Paul won't be corrupted to simply be a 'monkey in a suit.'
I am happy, however, to see that Ron Paul's message is helping people to stop and question what is happening in front of them, as opposed to just 'eating it all up.'

P

 

[Voyageur]

[quote author=Piotrek]
Having said that, I don't know if at some point in the future Ron Paul won't be corrupted to simply be a 'monkey in a suit.'
I am happy, however, to see that Ron Paul's message is helping people to stop and question what is happening in front of them, as opposed to just 'eating it all up.'

P
[/quote]

If anything, some people are asking questions, but in the end, the very system is corrupted in almost every bill, foreign and domestic policy; the system is ripe with ponerology at every level. The brothers Kennedy embarked it seems to stem this cancer with the results history. Ron Paul likely knows this all too well, as do any others at that level who have greater human intent than the statuesque politic. The very pressure to become corruptible would be excruciating for one with a conscious human platform in this system that is already well poisoned, osit.

 

[realitybugll]

In short, Paul's plan as made public, at least according to this analysis, would impact the poor in an extremely negative way, with massive cuts to social spending and only a %15 cut to Pentagon programs. Tax cuts for the wealthy, further cuts for corporations, more de-regulation and privatization, destruction of trade unions and greater austerity for the common people. Tarpley's answer to Faulkner's question of who benefits from Paul's economic plan is 'the one-percent benefits.' He also uses Paul's own statements on record to conclude that he actually does not support 9/11 truth, something some of his supporters claim he supports.

It is amazing to see how many of the 'alternative' news sites and commentators have thrown their support toward Ron Paul without any detailed analysis of what he stands for. It seems that since RP is being treated like an underdog, or at least is being portrayed that way, they just assume he must be doing good and jump on the bandwagon.

I think most people are aware of the fact that he has major plans to cut social spending. He does not believe government medical insurance, social security, food stamps, etc. This is a position that is pretty normal to the republican party, to decrease government well-fare spending. Ron Paul is a little more extreme, but I think this position serves him well with republican voters. I don't think he himself could really enact major cuts to social spending, because there would be uproar.

Also I think Ron Paul might be ideologically correct. From what I heard from him, social spending didn't really exist until a hundred years or so ago in empire-societies, and not on the scale it exists now. So It does not have to exist, and society can get along just fine, or as "good" as it is now. But I think economy has become much worse so that people are now depend on government spending. There is like 22 million people (I think) in the united states which get budget money from the government to spend on food, and they could not live without this. This makes it so that they are slaves to the government, and the government can give them just what is necessary to get by. And this food money can be taken away for many different reasons, criminal charge, etc.

So, I think RP's position on social spending is pretty interesting. I don't think he could/would do any more damage than any other rep. candidate. but his emphasis on cutting 1 trillion gets people thinking about the economy and corruption. And he is more focused I think on cutting military spending.

 

[Josh]

I read a lot of his policies and and I was thinking it might be too good to be true. For example will the 'elite' class allow him to shut down the federal reverse??. But I also happen to fall upon a YouTube video that featured Alex Jones expressing his 'opinion' that the media is scared of Ron Paul among other things. But now I think, is there more to Ron Paul as Alex Jones ( who is believed to be a dis-info agent from what i can gather) is now 'supporting' him in some aspect. I would love to hear others people analysis on that matter.