Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards

Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards (http://www.patriotsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Politics and Religion Forum (http://www.patriotsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Why not Ron Paul? (http://www.patriotsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=60815)

Brady's Bunch 06-14-2011 12:09 PM

Why not Ron Paul?
 
I'm convinced Ron Paul is the only guy who can beat Obama. He gives it to you straight and he definately knows his shit. Hell, he predicted a lot of the problems we are going through right now. Yet, I feel like some people aren't sold on him for whatever reason...too libertarian I guess?

Steve-o 06-14-2011 12:11 PM

I will say that Ron Paul is the best thing the Republicans have.

He is not, however, the one with the best chance to beat Obama. Not by a long shot, because Ron Paul has very little chance of beating Obama.

Romney has the best, only chance of this crop, and he is the certain nominee.

Brady's Bunch 06-14-2011 12:12 PM

See here's how I see it:

Cain: That Muslim hating question is gonna kill him
Bachmann: Just seems like she's insane
Romney: Flip floppy and a closet liberal
Gingrich: No chance

The other guys, no one knows who they are, they're boring and have no shot.

Baron Samedi 06-14-2011 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brady's Bunch (Post 1696187)
I'm convinced Ron Paul is the only guy who can beat Obama. He gives it to you straight and he definately knows his shit. Hell, he predicted a lot of the problems we are going through right now. Yet, I feel like some people aren't sold on him for whatever reason...too libertarian I guess?

You nailed it.

Although...his popularity now is far, far higher than it was in '08.

I think that extreme recession are making people look at candidates different from the same old, same old.

We will see.

P.S. Stop playing that vastly overrated game, FF VII.

Play Rift.

Steve-o 06-14-2011 12:16 PM

Ron Paul was wildly popular in straw polls in 2008. He won pretty much all of them. Then, when actual voting started, nobody was voting for him.

Romney had this thing wrapped up the minute Huckabee decided not to run.

All he has to do now is to not look crazy, and that's what he did last night.

Brady's Bunch 06-14-2011 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1696192)
You nailed it.

Although...his popularity now is far, far higher than it was in '08.

I think that extreme recession are making people look at candidates different from the same old, same old.

We will see.

P.S. Stop playing that vastly overrated game, FF VII.

lol it was my first rpg love

Baron Samedi 06-14-2011 12:18 PM

Don't under-estimate Bachman.

Steve-o 06-14-2011 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1696195)
Don't under-estimate Bachman.

That might be the funniest thing ever posted on this board.

Baron Samedi 06-14-2011 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696196)
That might be the funniest thing ever posted on this board.

This isn't 2008.

Republicans and independants don;t want another RHINO. Such a candidate won't make it.

Romney won't make it in 2012.

You can quote me on that.

Baron Samedi 06-14-2011 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brady's Bunch (Post 1696194)
lol it was my first rpg love

What are you in now?

I am currently in Rift, waiting for GW2.

Steve-o 06-14-2011 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1696198)
This isn't 2008.

Republicans and independants don;t want another RHINO. Such a candidate won't make it.

Romney won't make it in 2012.

You can quote me on that.

Yeah, okay. *bookmark*

The tea sets have all been put away.

Brady's Bunch 06-14-2011 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1696199)
What are you in now?

I am currently in Rift, waiting for GW2.

Some of my work buddies were playing Rift. I've heard only good things about it. My next MMO is going to be SW: The Old Republic. I wanna get my hands on Witcher 2, Skyrim and Mass Effect 3...seems to be a good year for RPGs.

Baron Samedi 06-14-2011 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696200)
The tea sets have all been put away.

...and I will gladly quote you on that.

The only way to kill the tea party is a turnaround in the economy.

Ain't happenin'.

Baron Samedi 06-14-2011 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brady's Bunch (Post 1696204)
Some of my work buddies were playing Rift. I've heard only good things about it. My next MMO is going to be SW: The Old Republic. I wanna get my hands on Witcher 2, Skyrim and Mass Effect 3...seems to be a good year for RPGs.

Next 2 years are good.

GW2 interests me because there is no subscription fee, and it looks to be very PVP driven....which is pretty much the only reason I play these games.

And yes, Rift is very good...graphics are outstanding, class system is the best I have ever seen.

It is also well supported, the Devs work their butts off.

Brady's Bunch 06-14-2011 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1696206)
Next 2 years are good.

GW2 interests me because there is no subscription fee, and it looks to be very PVP driven....which is pretty much the only reason I play these games.

And yes, Rift is very good...graphics are outstanding, class system is the best I have ever seen.

It is also well supported, the Devs work their butts off.

I actually played the first GW and really enjoyed it. Maybe I'll give it a try when it comes out.

Steve-o 06-14-2011 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1696205)
...and I will gladly quote you on that.

The only way to kill the tea party is a turnaround in the economy.

Ain't happenin'.

<img src="http://media.thestate.com/smedia/2011/05/19/20/teaparty_tg0131.standalone.prod_affiliate.74.jpg">

Steve-o 06-14-2011 12:53 PM

To be fair, the crowd was at least three times as big as you see in that photo.

<img src="http://media.thestate.com/smedia/2011/05/19/20/teaparty_tg0025.standalone.prod_affiliate.74.jpg">

tehmackdaddy 06-14-2011 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brady's Bunch (Post 1696187)
Why not Ron Paul?

  1. He doesn't look the part.
  2. He isn't a good speaker.
  3. He does a poor job of explaining complicated concepts to the average American.

Baron Samedi 06-14-2011 02:07 PM

No idea what those photos are from Steve-O...but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that they were snapped prior to the start of whatever event it was.

Brady's Bunch 06-14-2011 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tehmackdaddy (Post 1696220)
  1. He doesn't look the part.
  2. He isn't a good speaker.
  3. He does a poor job of explaining complicated concepts to the average American.

1. Ok because old white guys are never elected president?
2. Doesn't seem much worse than any other president.
3. Example?

Those things hardly make him unelectable

tehmackdaddy 06-14-2011 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brady's Bunch (Post 1696227)
1. Ok because old white guys are never elected president?
2. Doesn't seem much worse than any other president.
3. Example?

Those things hardly make him unelectable

He looks and talks too goofy to be POTUS, imo. I didn't watch the last debate (last night?), but I saw a previous one. I'm a finance guy. I get economics. Paul doesn't explain his Austrian Economic theory very well for the average American to understand. Words like "monetize" and phrases such as "money supply" and its effect on the value of the dollar go right over most people's heads. They won't pay attention.

Dennis Kucinich is another example of a guy who just doesn't look the part and could never be elected POTUS, imo.

Disclaimer: I'm a Ron Paul kind of guy.

Oswlek 06-14-2011 06:40 PM

Am I the only person who couldn't give a shit if a POTUS candidate is charismatic enough to get a lot of pussy or the type of guy you'd have a beer with?

I just want someone I can trust who is a good listener and has some insightful ideas.

At this point, how much different would a POTUS Idol TV show be from the real thing?

Steve-o 06-14-2011 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1696222)
No idea what those photos are from Steve-O...but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that they were snapped prior to the start of whatever event it was.

NAWP.

http://www.thestate.com/2011/05/20/1...arty-ends.html

That is tea party darling governor Nikki Haley speaking. That was the entire event, which was expected to draw 2,000 people. It drew 30.

Jaric 06-14-2011 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oswlek (Post 1696292)
Am I the only person who couldn't give a shit if a POTUS candidate is charismatic enough to get a lot of pussy or the type of guy you'd have a beer with?

I just want someone I can trust who is a good listener and has some insightful ideas.

At this point, how much different would a POTUS Idol TV show be from the real thing?

Yeah, well sadly America is filled with morons all whom are allowed to vote.

And quite frankly, you're outnumbered.

Baron Samedi 06-14-2011 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696295)
NAWP.

http://www.thestate.com/2011/05/20/1...arty-ends.html

That is tea party darling governor Nikki Haley speaking. That was the entire event, which was expected to draw 2,000 people. It drew 30.

Looked it up..the one where Trump was supposed to speak and didn't...thank God.

Anyway, though it was a small gathering, 30 is a bit of an exaggeration, eh?

http://obamadiary.files.wordpress.co...pg?w=625&h=370
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5230/...e96372258f.jpg

At any rate, I could post many pictures of much larger Tea Party rallies this year, but it is irrelevant. It is an off year for elections, and most Tea Partiers have jobs.

I am quite confident you'll see them plenty next year. :)

You should be rooting for them Steve-O. There is a good chance they will run a candidate for POTUS against the Republican pick if it is another RHINO.

That's makes Obama a shoo-in for re-election.

And if the Republicans give me another RHINO, I just may vote for Obama myself. If I am given two socialists to pick from, I'll at least pick the one that doesn't lie about it.

Steve-o 06-14-2011 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1696320)
Looked it up..the one where Trump was supposed to speak and didn't...thank God.

Anyway, though it was a small gathering, 30 is a bit of an exaggeration, eh?

http://obamadiary.files.wordpress.co...pg?w=625&h=370
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5230/...e96372258f.jpg

At any rate, I could post many pictures of much larger Tea Party rallies this year, but it is irrelevant. It is an off year for elections, and most Tea Partiers have jobs.

I am quite confident you'll see them plenty next year. :)

You should be rooting for them Steve-O. There is a good chance they will run a candidate for POTUS against the Republican pick if it is another RHINO.

That's makes Obama a shoo-in for re-election.

And if the Republicans give me another RHINO, I just may vote for Obama myself. If I am given two socialists to pick from, I'll at least pick the one that doesn't lie about it.

Baron, please tell me how the pictures you linked to were magically posted in April

http://obamadiary.files.wordpress.co...pg?w=625&h=370

when the Haley rally that I posted pictures from was on May 19.

http://www.thestate.com/2011/05/20/1...arty-ends.html

ROFL

The picture you posted was from an appearance with Haley and Bachmann, and it drew a whopping 300 people:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...a-party-rally/

Don't underestimate Bachmann, indeed. ROFL ROFL

Baron Samedi 06-15-2011 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696322)
Baron, please tell me how the pictures you linked to were magically posted in April

http://obamadiary.files.wordpress.co...pg?w=625&h=370

when the Haley rally that I posted pictures from was on May 19.

http://www.thestate.com/2011/05/20/1...arty-ends.html

ROFL

The picture you posted was from an appearance with Haley and Bachmann, and it drew a whopping 300 people:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...a-party-rally/

Don't underestimate Bachmann, indeed. ROFL ROFL

I dunno...there was a rally by CTP on 4/18 and one on 5/19.

CTP is probably a tiny group of people, I would geuss.

They are probably amongst the smallest of South Carolina's 60-something Tea Party groups.

What difference does it make?

This is an off election year.

Where are all your liberal and socialist political rallies this year?

Would I be dumb enough to conclude that they are gone?

No.

It's an off cycle year.

I know the difference. You should, too.

WisColtFan7 06-15-2011 09:44 AM

Steve-O, on June 15, 2011 I am predicting that Michelle Bachmann will win the Iowa caucuses. Where she goes from there is left to how her campaign is run. But to say she has no shot whatsoever is incorrect. At this time 4 years ago no one gave the President much of a chance against the Clinton machine either
Posted via Mobile Device

Steve-o 06-15-2011 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WisColtFan7 (Post 1696378)
Steve-O, on June 15, 2011 I am predicting that Michelle Bachmann will win the Iowa caucuses. Where she goes from there is left to how her campaign is run. But to say she has no shot whatsoever is incorrect. At this time 4 years ago no one gave the President much of a chance against the Clinton machine either
Posted via Mobile Device

Bachmann winning the nomination would really be the best case scenario for Democrats. Possibly even better than Palin.

Republicans usually don't nominate a crazy, though.

Baron Samedi 06-15-2011 10:31 AM

This poll seems very relevant for 2012...

Three Way Race: Democrat 40% Republican 21% Tea Party 18%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...1_tea_party_18

Regardless of how you feel about Ras, I think the poll is inarguably in the ballpark of what is going on in the Republican party.

I find this scenario to be highly, highly likely.

There is just no way in Hell the Republicans will allow a non-establishment candidate to win the nomination....and I highly doubt that Tea Partiers will be very pleased with whomever they put in there.

Though it would be a short term disaster, it wouldn't break my heart because this Republican Party has to be completely dismantled, destroyed, and replaced. It is really just the right wing of the Democrat Party in a very real sense.

I would take almost as much pleasure seeing the Establishment Republicans crushed out of existence as I would the Social Democrats.

They BOTH have to go if we are ever to solve our fiscal problems, re-establish freedom, liberty, and natural rights, and become the America that the founders intended again.

Otherwise, you have to have a revolution and tear it all down...and this would be an excellent starting point.

Steve-o 06-15-2011 11:01 AM

Tea Party candidates got slaughtered in 2010.

Establishment GOP candidates won in a tidal wave.

So much for not voting for establishment GOPers.

I hope you're right, and tea party candidates get nominated, across the board.

Baron Samedi 06-15-2011 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696409)
Tea Party candidates got slaughtered in 2010.

Establishment GOP candidates won in a tidal wave.

So much for not voting for establishment GOPers.

I hope you're right, and tea party candidates get nominated, across the board.

I definitely hope for more "slaughters" like 2010.

Then we will, finally, permanently refuse to raise the US debt limit and cut spending to match revenue.

Here's to another "slaughter".:toast:

Steve-o 06-15-2011 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1696413)
I definitely hope for more "slaughters" like 2010.

Then we will, finally, permanently refuse to raise the US debt limit and cut spending to match revenue.

Here's to another "slaughter".:toast:

The only power you have is establishment Republicans, as always, as ever.

AnOldTroll 06-15-2011 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1696413)

Then we will, finally, permanently refuse to raise the US debt limit and cut spending to match revenue.

Don't you get it, Baron? We do it backass backwards in the good ole US of A ... we have to increase revenue to match spending.:rolleyes::sulk:
Its SO simple. GET.WITH.THE.PROGRAM.

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JTzMqm2TwgE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Steve-o 06-15-2011 01:38 PM

We had it figured out a decade ago, and were on a path to debt elimination. Unfortunately, Republicans took over the White House as well as holding both houses of Congress, and introduced the fool-proof plan of lowering taxes AND raising spending.

BRILLIANT!

And these are the folks that you keep pulling the lever for.

AnOldTroll 06-15-2011 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696458)
We had it figured out a decade ago, and were on a path to debt elimination. Unfortunately, Republicans took over the White House as well as holding both houses of Congress, and introduced the fool-proof plan of lowering taxes AND raising spending.

BRILLIANT!

And these are the folks that you keep pulling the lever for.

Shut up. A decade ago Clinton dealt with a conservative house and congress and was the beneficiary to a dot.com bubble. Its all about timing.
Its insane that both parties continue to pander to the lobbyists and push thru so much fvcking crap. Nothing is solved. Its insanity.

Steve-o 06-15-2011 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnOldTroll (Post 1696463)
Shut up. A decade ago Clinton dealt with a conservative house and congress and was the beneficiary to a dot.com bubble. Its all about timing.
Its insane that both parties continue to pander to the lobbyists and push thru so much fvcking crap. Nothing is solved. Its insanity.

Yeah, okay. That same "conservative" house and senate was in control under Bush. What happened?

It's total bullshit to pretend that tax cuts don't contribute to the deficit. They were a complete disaster. Where are the jobs? The debt exploded.

Yet, you think we should just double down on them.

It's insanity. It's what got us here.

Baron Samedi 06-15-2011 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696458)
We had it figured out a decade ago, and were on a path to debt elimination. Unfortunately, Republicans took over the White House as well as holding both houses of Congress, and introduced the fool-proof plan of lowering taxes AND raising spending.

BRILLIANT!

And these are the folks that you keep pulling the lever for.

Never knew you were a Newt Gingrich fan.

AnOldTroll 06-15-2011 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696466)
Yeah, okay. That same "conservative" house and senate was in control under Bush. What happened?

It's total bullshit to pretend that tax cuts don't contribute to the deficit. They were a complete disaster. Where are the jobs? The debt exploded.

Yet, you think we should just double down on them.

It's insanity. It's what got us here.

I dont do economics but I have common sense. Look at this logically...Increasing taxes are going to increase jobs? HOW?
It's just going to give the government more money to squander. Let me have my money so I can spend it where I want to. Bottom Up vs Top Down makes for a stronger middle class.

tehmackdaddy 06-15-2011 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696466)
Yeah, okay. That same "conservative" house and senate was in control under Bush. What happened?

It's total bullshit to pretend that tax cuts don't contribute to the deficit. They were a complete disaster. Where are the jobs? The debt exploded.

Yet, you think we should just double down on them.

It's insanity. It's what got us here.

Insanity is a video workout series starring none other than Shaun T.

It's also the revisionist history you keep repeating even after it's been pointed out to be incorrect numerous times.

The budget surpluses of the late 90s were fake, Steve-o, fake. They were mostly a result of a false economic boom - a bubble that later popped.

A recession ensued.

Wars began.

Deficits soared.

Deficits began to get reigned in.

All the while unemployment (as kept by the fedgov) averaged around 5%.

Federal economic policy finally causes the raging river to bust through the dam.

The dollar's value falls. Commodity prices soar. Home prices tank. Stock markets crash.

Bush = record deficit

Obama = record deficit into perpetuity without improving jobs or the economy.

AnOldTroll 06-15-2011 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tehmackdaddy (Post 1696472)

It's also the revisionist history you keep repeating even after it's been pointed out to be incorrect numerous times.

The budget surpluses of the late 90s were fake, Steve-o, fake. They were mostly a result of a false economic boom - a bubble that later popped.

A recession ensued.

Wars began.

Deficits soared.

Deficits began to get reigned in.

All the while unemployment (as kept by the fedgov) averaged around 5%.

Federal economic policy finally causes the raging river to bust through the dam.

The dollar's value falls. Commodity prices soar. Home prices tank. Stock markets crash.

Bush = record deficit

Obama = record deficit into perpetuity without improving jobs or the economy.


Awesome, so I amn't a moron.

Steve-o 06-15-2011 03:07 PM

Yep. Doubling down on a proven failure of an ideology.

News flash, folks. Taxes are lower under Obama. They are lower than they were under Bush, and they are lower than they were under Reagan.

Where are the jobs?

Reaganomics are a complete and total failure. The debt exploded under Reagan, while the only income gains went to the top.

Tax cuts for the wealthy do nothing but put us further into debt.

Three decades worth of proof are more than enough.

tehmackdaddy 06-15-2011 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696481)
Yep. Doubling down on a proven failure of an ideology....

...Reaganomics are a complete and total failure.

I don't subscribe to Reaganomics as I've already informed you several times (begin reading here for a refresher).

In addition, I'll take your lack of dispute to my coarse historical timeline to mean you don't disagree with it. Glad we can agree on that. Anything else?

I'll look into my crystal ball and predict that Obamanomics is a "complete and total failure." Deficits into perpetuity with no stimulation of jobs and the economy.

Baron Samedi 06-15-2011 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696481)
Yep. Doubling down on a proven failure of an ideology.

News flash, folks. Taxes are lower under Obama. They are lower than they were under Bush, and they are lower than they were under Reagan.

Where are the jobs?

Reaganomics are a complete and total failure. The debt exploded under Reagan, while the only income gains went to the top.

Tax cuts for the wealthy do nothing but put us further into debt.

Three decades worth of proof are more than enough.

We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.

We have Obamacare on the horizon that will drastically increase the costs of employment.

We have uncertainty about what tax rates will be next year.

We have companies, consumers, and a government that is maxed out on credit already, and unable or unwilling to borrow more to expand business.

We have a whole new truckload of regulatory red tape that makes it extraordianrily difficult for small businesses and startup businesses to absorb the cost of and make profits.

Growing businesses require more labor.

We have salted the earth in this country so seedling companies cannot sprout and grow.

That is why there are no jobs. Every dollar in taxation and regulatory expense is a dollar less in salary companies can pay.

Steve-o 06-15-2011 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1696483)
We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.

We have Obamacare on the horizon that will drastically increase the costs of employment.

We have uncertainty about what tax rates will be next year.

We have companies, consumers, and a government that is maxed out on credit already, and unable or unwilling to borrow more to expand business.

We have a whole new truckload of regulatory red tape that makes it extraordianrily difficult for small businesses and startup businesses to absorb the cost of and make profits.

Growing businesses require more labor.

We have salted the earth in this country so seedling companies cannot sprout and grow.

That is why there are no jobs. Every dollar in taxation and regulatory expense is a dollar less in salary companies can pay.

Bullshit. Complete and total bullshit.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...s-high-or-low/

We have the lowest corporate tax burden relative to GDP of all OECD countries.

<img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/05/31/business/31economist-bartlett2/31economist-bartlett2-blog480.jpg">

Baron Samedi 06-15-2011 03:56 PM

I did not say "Relative to GDP"

I stated specifically "Corporate Tax Rates"

If you include state coporate taxes, we are #1 in the world.

Why did I not say "relative to GDP"?

Simple...GDP can be fixed. If we did not deficit spend 1.5 trillion last year, GDP would be 1.5 Trillion lower than it was.

Here's a question...whom do high corporate taxes hurt more? Small businesses, or big businesses?

High coporate taxes are a burden very large coporations can manage, but start ups and small businesses just go bankrupt under them.

That is why there are no jobs being created. No businesses are growing.

Steve-o 06-15-2011 03:56 PM

We also have one of the lowest rates of taxation of all developed nations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...centage_of_GDP

Steve-o 06-15-2011 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1696488)
I did not say "Relative to GDP"

I stated specifically "Corporate Tax Rates"

If you include state coporate taxes, we are #1 in the world.

Why did I not say "relative to GDP"?

Simple...GDP can be fixed. If we did not deficit spend 1.5 trillion last year, GDP would be 1.5 Trillion lower than it was.

Here's a question...whom do high corporate taxes hurt more? Small businesses, or big businesses?

High coporate taxes are a burden very large coporations can manage, but start ups and small businesses just go bankrupt under them.

That is why there are no jobs being created. No businesses are growing.

We do not have high corporate taxes, as I have just proven.

Steve-o 06-15-2011 04:05 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/bu...ates.html?_r=1

Quote:

The United States may soon wind up with a distinction that makes business leaders cringe — the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Topping out at 35 percent, America’s official corporate income tax rate trails that of only Japan, at 39.5 percent, which has said it plans to lower its rate. It is nearly triple Ireland’s and 10 percentage points higher than in Denmark, Austria or China. To help companies here stay competitive, many executives say, Congress should lower it.

But by taking advantage of myriad breaks and loopholes that other countries generally do not offer, United States corporations pay only slightly more on average than their counterparts in other industrial countries. And some American corporations use aggressive strategies to pay less — often far less — than their competitors abroad and at home. A Government Accountability Office study released in 2008 found that 55 percent of United States companies paid no federal income taxes during at least one year in a seven-year period it studied.

The paradox of the United States tax code — high rates with a bounty of subsidies, shelters and special breaks — has made American multinationals “world leaders in tax avoidance,” according to Edward D. Kleinbard, a professor at the University of Southern California who was head of the Congressional joint committee on taxes. This has profound implications for businesses, the economy and the federal budget.
So, sure. By all means. Lower the corporate tax rates, if that is what it will take for you to ACTUALLY COLLECT TAXES FROM CORPORATIONS. :banghead:

johnlocke 06-15-2011 05:25 PM

Never mind.

Baron Samedi 06-15-2011 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696490)
We do not have high corporate taxes, as I have just proven.

Really?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publica...how/22917.html

http://www.aei.org/outlook/101024

http://www.examiner.com/finance-exam...oving-overseas

http://alhambrainvestments.com/blog/...-country-oecd/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...onique-de-rugy

http://www.rikvin.com/blog/corporate...ome-tax-rates/

Measuring corporate taxes as a ratio of GDP is just economic legerdemain.

Let's say we want to lower the US's corporate tax to GDP next year.

All we have to do is spend another, say, 5 trillion dollars we don't have and "VOILA!!".....lower corporate tax to GDP.

OR...we could...say...NOT raise the debt ceiling this year, cut goverment spending to match revenue, and BOOM! An EXPLOSION in corporate tax to GDP.

All of which has nothing to do with corporations making the decision to expand in the US or elsewhere based on the tax rate.

Government loves to compare things to GDP...because then they can "improve" those numbers by spending more and more money.

That is sort of Keynesian 101. Measure everything as a ration to GDP, because you have unlimited printing money power, and you can spend like a drunken sailor to make everything look better on paper.

ASIDE FROM THAT>>

Corporations don't give a flying f**k what their tax to GDP ratio is.

They care what their US to foreign coporate tax ratio is.

Steve-o 06-15-2011 11:09 PM

No, they don't care what the **** their tax rates are, because they are not being forced to pay them, anyway.
Posted via Mobile Device

tehmackdaddy 06-16-2011 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696643)
No, they don't care what the **** their tax rates are, because they are not being forced to pay them, anyway.
Posted via Mobile Device

Sure they do, which is why those that can afford to shelter earnings in other countries that have lower rates. Of course, you didn't address the point Baron raised stating that small businesses don't enjoy this type of tax avoidance advantage.

Baron Samedi 06-16-2011 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tehmackdaddy (Post 1696712)
Sure they do, which is why those that can afford to shelter earnings in other countries that have lower rates. Of course, you didn't address the point Baron raised stating that small businesses don't enjoy this type of tax avoidance advantage.

Well, see...Steve-O is a classic socialist..

EVERY business in their mind is a mega-giant-conglomerate-too-big-to-fail-multi-billion-dollar-business.

That is why they support everything anti-business. The other 99% of businesses simply do not exist in their mind, and the effects of taxation and regulation on small business is never considered.

Baron Samedi 06-16-2011 01:13 PM

By the way, Bachman surged into second place in the primaries.

19% to Romney's 33%.

Cain is 3rd at 10%.

Steve-o 06-16-2011 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1696833)
By the way, Bachman surged into second place in the primaries.

19% to Romney's 33%.

Cain is 3rd at 10%.

Rasmussen. Again. ROFL

http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...tion-1452.html

Romney's numbers are only going up.

By the way, the previous Rasmussen poll had Romney at 17%, so even in your universe, he has nearly doubled his support this week.

Baron Samedi 06-16-2011 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696840)
Rasmussen. Again. ROFL

http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...tion-1452.html

Romney's numbers are only going up.

By the way, the previous Rasmussen poll had Romney at 17%, so even in your universe, he has nearly doubled his support this week.

That was because of Donal Trump in the race during the last poll.

Still..at this point in the race, polls don't mean squat. They are just points of interest.

EDIT: And the next wave of polling will tell more , incorporating the latest debate.

Baron Samedi 06-16-2011 02:26 PM

So, I was fully expecting to see something from Steve-O by Gallup.

When it didn;t come to pass I thought "Hmmm...must be something there he doesn't like."

Sure enough...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148043/Ba...Intensity.aspx

Bascially the same numbers as Ras. ROFLROFL

Steve-o 06-16-2011 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1696855)
That was because of Donal Trump in the race during the last poll.

Still..at this point in the race, polls don't mean squat. They are just points of interest.

EDIT: And the next wave of polling will tell more , incorporating the latest debate.

And Romney got all the Trump people.

Dude, Romney has this thing wrapped up. Period.

Bachmann doesn't have a chance at the nomination, though it would be pretty awesome if she did.

The only thing that might be better would be if Rick Perry got it, because Obama would be running against Bush again, almost literally.

Baron Samedi 06-16-2011 03:09 PM

Not so sure about that.

Obama is basically Mega-Bush. All the things Bush did that people hate, Obama has continued or done even bigger...deficit spending, new people to bomb, Patriot Act, unemployment, you name it.
<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/khXgPOLefGc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Obama is Mega-Bush.

The ONLY thing that makes Obama different is he wants to raise taxes instead of lower them.

Romney is living off of name recognition right now. Once people get to know other candidates, and Romney starts getting pressed on Romneycare, and being a waffler, he will take some massive cannonfire to his poll numbers.

If I had to lay money, which I wouldn't this early, but if I HAD to....my money would go on Bachman.

Steve-o 06-16-2011 03:10 PM

Yeah, good luck with that ridiculous Obama = Bush schtick.

Baron Samedi 06-16-2011 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696866)
Yeah, good luck with that ridiculous Obama = Bush schtick.

I'm sorry...did I say something inaccurate?

Steve-o 06-16-2011 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1696868)
I'm sorry...did I say something inaccurate?

Not in BaronLand™, which differs from reality in every way imaginable.

Baron Samedi 06-16-2011 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696869)
Not in BaronLand™, which differs from reality in every way imaginable.

Is Obama deficit spending higher than Bush?

Yes..in fact, quadrupled annually.

Did Obama renew the Patriot Act, which he opposed when Bush did it?

Yes, in fact expanding the powers in it by FBI regulation rather than legislation.

Did Obama engage us in conflicts in new countries?

Yes, so far Libya and Yemen just in the last 2 months.

Has unemployment gone up or down since Obama took office?

Up..about 2% I think.

Aside from the "rooting for my team, the Republicans or Democrats"....there is no policy difference between the two...except for Obama wanting higher taxes.

Steve-o 06-16-2011 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1696876)
Is Obama deficit spending higher than Bush?

Yes..in fact, quadrupled annually.

Did Obama renew the Patriot Act, which he opposed when Bush did it?

Yes, in fact expanding the powers in it by FBI regulation rather than legislation.

Did Obama engage us in conflicts in new countries?

Yes, so far Libya and Yemen just in the last 2 months.

Has unemployment gone up or down since Obama took office?

Up..about 2% I think.

Aside from the "rooting for my team, the Republicans or Democrats"....there is no policy difference between the two...except for Obama wanting higher taxes.

Nope. Bush left the budget with a $1.7 trillion deficit, dude. The FY 2009 budget was proposed by Bush, and Bush was in office for half of that budget. The deficit has been lowered under Obama.

If you want to debate, you're going to have to, at a bare minimum, accept very basic facts.

Oswlek 06-16-2011 03:57 PM

The deficit has been lowered under Obama? :huh:

Steve-o 06-16-2011 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oswlek (Post 1696886)
The deficit has been lowered under Obama? :huh:

Yes, the annual deficit is lower than it was in FY 2009, Bush's last budget.

This is not rocket science.

Steve-o 06-16-2011 04:26 PM

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JTzMqm2TwgE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Oswlek 06-17-2011 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696890)
Yes, the annual deficit is lower than it was in FY 2009, Bush's last budget.

This is not rocket science.

This is some sweet sleight of hand. Your initial post was intended to insinuate that Obama is actually lowering the deficit, when all you are really saying is "he is increasing the deficit at a slightly lower rate than it was under Bush's final year". Radically different concepts, especially considering the historic economic spending of 2009 that I recall Barack being a proponent of.

On top of that, considering the fact that we've entered two new wars, continued the stimulus, continued with extended unemployment and intiated a gigantic new cost in the health care bill, I'm not sure how much I buy those numbers.

Baron Samedi 06-17-2011 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696890)
Yes, the annual deficit is lower than it was in FY 2009, Bush's last budget.

This is not rocket science.

The 2009 budget included the 700 billion dollar TARP program, which Obama voted in favor of, and is theoretically a one time expense.

Then in February 2009, Obama added 787 billion to the budget with his American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

So, of that 1.7 Trillion....

Obama is solely responsible for 787 billion....46% of the deficit.

Obama and Bush collaborated on TARP..700 billion...41% of the deficit.

Even if we give Obama a pass on TARP, he inherited a budget deficit of about 900 billion. He personally pushed it to 1.7 Trillion. He alone.

That was some pretty weak spin, Steve-O. You had to know you were going to get called on it before you even posted it.

Baron Samedi 07-19-2011 07:33 AM

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hqZbbqK2KzA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Steve-o 07-19-2011 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1697026)
The 2009 budget included the 700 billion dollar TARP program, which Obama voted in favor of, and is theoretically a one time expense.

Then in February 2009, Obama added 787 billion to the budget with his American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

So, of that 1.7 Trillion....

Obama is solely responsible for 787 billion....46% of the deficit.

Obama and Bush collaborated on TARP..700 billion...41% of the deficit.

Even if we give Obama a pass on TARP, he inherited a budget deficit of about 900 billion. He personally pushed it to 1.7 Trillion. He alone.

That was some pretty weak spin, Steve-O. You had to know you were going to get called on it before you even posted it.

Baron, you have a real habit of just making shit up.

In FY 2009, 19% of the stimulus had been spent, according to wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nt_Act_of_2009

Quote:

As of the end of August 2009, 19% of the stimulus had been outlaid or gone to American taxpayers or businesses in the form of tax incentives.[5]
So, in FY 2009, less that $200 billion of the stimulus was spent. The majority of that 2009 money was in the form of tax breaks, which you guys always claim isn't spending. Unless, of course, a Democrat does it.

Now THAT was some pretty weak spin, Baron. Now, by all means, make up more shit in response to this post.

Baron Samedi 07-19-2011 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1705619)
Baron, you have a real habit of just making shit up.

In FY 2009, 19% of the stimulus had been spent, according to wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nt_Act_of_2009



So, in FY 2009, less that $200 billion of the stimulus was spent. The majority of that 2009 money was in the form of tax breaks, which you guys always claim isn't spending. Unless, of course, a Democrat does it.

Now THAT was some pretty weak spin, Baron. Now, by all means, make up more shit in response to this post.

You understand the difference between "spent", and "allocated"?

If it was allocated in 2009, the full amount goes to the 2009 budget, regardless of whether it gets spent or not, or how much.

Steve-o 07-19-2011 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1705659)
You understand the difference between "spent", and "allocated"?

If it was allocated in 2009, the full amount goes to the 2009 budget, regardless of whether it gets spent or not, or how much.

Yep. Make up more shit, it is!

No, money that is "allocated" doesn't count against that year's budget.

Most of the stimulus was in the 2010 budget.

I will wait as you figure out how to count the stimulus money in the 2009 budget AND the 2010 budget AND the 2011 budget...

TommyD420 07-19-2011 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1696866)
Yeah, good luck with that ridiculous Obama = Bush schtick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1696868)
I'm sorry...did I say something inaccurate?

Not really. Yet people want to paint Obama as a pinko commie and Bush as some sort of job-creating conservative.

They're both NeoCons. This shouldn't be new information.

Baron Samedi 07-19-2011 03:30 PM

Actually, I see that the money has to be appropriated and thus does get spread out over the years.

My bad.

I was thinking that since it was a spending bill that was authorized by congress already, it counted to the budget when it was authorized by the house..otherwise you would have to run a bill through congress every time you wanted to spend some of it.

I am not sure the way the government does this is Constitutional. I'll have to look into that....because in effect, this congress could authorize 100 trillion dollars in spending, and future congresses would have nothing to say in the matter, without repealing it, and they would get saddled with expenses that they did not authorize.


That doesn't make sense.

BradyLady12 07-19-2011 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyD420 (Post 1705743)
Not really. Yet people want to paint Obama as a pinko commie and Bush as some sort of job-creating conservative.

They're both NeoCons. This shouldn't be new information.

You're talking my kind of language.

BradyLady12 07-19-2011 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyD420 (Post 1705743)
Not really. Yet people want to paint Obama as a pinko commie and Bush as some sort of job-creating conservative.

They're both NeoCons. This shouldn't be new information.

Did you see this?

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IMNLpRUblP0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

foobahl 07-23-2011 07:32 AM

latest rasmussen has Ron Paul only 4 points behind Obama. Maybe this will calm some of that unelectable garbage going around. I hear that all the time and when I reply that is only because you think that, people talk of reconsidering(talk is cheap). Earlier I was a fan of Bachmann, but I am now solidly back on the Paul bandwagon. Putting my 2008 sign back up, just change the year.

Brady's Bunch 07-26-2011 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foobahl (Post 1707033)
latest rasmussen has ron paul only 4 points behind obama. Maybe this will calm some of that unelectable garbage going around. I hear that all the time and when i reply that is only because you think that, people talk of reconsidering(talk is cheap). Earlier i was a fan of bachmann, but i am now solidly back on the paul bandwagon. Putting my 2008 sign back up, just change the year.

hell yeah

BradyLady12 07-26-2011 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foobahl (Post 1707033)
latest rasmussen has Ron Paul only 4 points behind Obama. Maybe this will calm some of that unelectable garbage going around. I hear that all the time and when I reply that is only because you think that, people talk of reconsidering(talk is cheap). Earlier I was a fan of Bachmann, but I am now solidly back on the Paul bandwagon. Putting my 2008 sign back up, just change the year.

Meanwhile, Perry has been adopting Paul's rhetoric but really is just being a poser. Then Iowa changes the rules and allows a write in for Perry. Someone is scared for a man so unelectable.

tehmackdaddy 07-27-2011 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradyLady12 (Post 1708222)
Meanwhile, Perry has been adopting Paul's rhetoric but really is just being a poser. Then Iowa changes the rules and allows a write in for Perry. Someone is scared for a man so unelectable.

I think that's the point. The GOP is scared an unelectable man will possibly win the nomination.

BradyLady12 07-27-2011 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tehmackdaddy (Post 1708506)
I think that's the point. The GOP is scared an unelectable man will possibly win the nomination.

Look at this latest Harris poll: Paul running 50-50 against Obama.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/New...t/Default.aspx

Meanwhile Drudge: SHOCK POLL: 46% Think Most in Congress Corrupt!

Top Left: http://drudgereport.com/
links to: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ss_are_corrupt

Interesting because Real Clear Politics shows congress has 73.4% job disapproval rating on their job performance which is worse than Obama who has 49.3 %.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/?state=nwa

Baron Samedi 08-04-2011 08:34 AM

"And if elected President, I will:
*** Stop the spread of socialist, Big Government health care and instead work to repeal the "ObamaCare" monstrosity;
*** Stop the growth of government spending, restrictive regulations, and interference in our lives;
*** Cut taxes and eliminate the IRS, because I believe the money you earn is yours and does NOT belong to government;
*** Audit the Federal Reserve, which I believe will serve as an important first step toward finally ending the Fed once and for all;
*** Ensure the federal government returns to its constitutional limits by eliminating departments and agencies that are not authorized by the Constitution;
*** Repeal Big Government schemes like the so-called "PATRIOT Act";
*** Return to the Founders' more humble foreign policy. American troops and taxpayers deserve better than to be used for "nation-building" or policing the world. We cannot afford trillion dollar international boondoggles that cost us our lives, our fortunes, and our freedom."


Looks like a pretty good platform to me!

Go, go Iowa straw poll!

Brady's Bunch 08-05-2011 10:45 PM

Help us obi-wan Ron Paul, you're our only hope.....seriously. we are ****ed without him
Posted via Mobile Device

Baron Samedi 08-12-2011 02:44 PM

Ron Paul Wins 49 of 50 States: Iowa 2012 Presidential Debate Poll – Foxnews
August 12, 2011 by Jack Blood


As Usual FOX News removes its TV Debate polls when Ron Paul wins them. Disingenuous to say the least. Election Fraud / tampering at worst. With the Iowa Straw poll coming tomorrow, the media is already proclaiming that if (when) Ron Paul wins… the #2 and 3 will be the candidate to watch. This type of behavior by the alleged 4th estate, is why we get nothing but crooks and traitors in Govt!

BTW: Rush Limpbaugh opened his show today (8.12.11) saying Ron Paul is destroying the GOP, and no calls would be allowed by RP Supporters on “Open Line Friday” – That is corp censorship my friends!

Congressman Paul won every debate poll last night and in the opinion of most, was the most authentic and substantive in his answers. We are listing the evidence here for posterity.

What America’s grassroots really looks like:
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/6...bateiowav3.jpg

Original source, Foxnews 8/12/11 7:24 AM EST
http://www.topix.com/issue/fox/gop-debate-aug11#

More screen grabs here:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread739394/pg1


http://deadlinelive.info/2011/08/12/...-poll-foxnews/

LANDSLIDE!!!

I happened to check Fox also...

At the time I checked, they still listed the other candidates, but removed Ron Paul's name.

Commentors were up in arms over it....

So I guess they decided to remove the entire poll.

We have the Republican establishment on the run!!!! BOOOYAH!

BradyLady12 08-12-2011 02:58 PM

Fox has been doing that type of thing for awhile. They've even removed his name on their screens on other polls. I think it clearly shows they are not limited govt conservatives but are largely Neo Conservative. Especially O'Reilly who is ignorant on economics.

Baron Samedi 08-18-2011 12:15 PM

A truly fantastic bit on Ron Paul from a guy that is pretty kooky msot of the time.

The tipping point is now. He has his read exactly correct on this one.

It is Ron Paul and his supporters vs the International Bankers (which runs both parties).

They are going to do everything possible to destroy Ron Paul, and get one of their own in there...Rick Perry or Mitt Romney....Al Gore's campaign manager or the inventor of Obamacare.

<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wNxGoacJ8ac" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Steve-o 08-18-2011 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1721230)
A truly fantastic bit on Ron Paul from a guy that is pretty kooky msot of the time.

The tipping point is now. He has his read exactly correct on this one.

It is Ron Paul and his supporters vs the International Bankers (which runs both parties).

They are going to do everything possible to destroy Ron Paul, and get one of their own in there...Rick Perry or Mitt Romney....Al Gore's campaign manager or the inventor of Obamacare.

<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wNxGoacJ8ac" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I will agree that the GOP will go after Ron Paul, but you need to be realistic about Ron Paul's chances, and you need to base it on nothing more than the reality of 2008.

Ron Paul wins straw polls, because straw polls mean absolutely nothing.

Ron Paul wins online polls, because Ron Paul has rabid supporters who flood Craigslist, online forums, etc.

When it comes to actual voting, nobody votes for Ron Paul.

That is the reality.

I mean, seriously, Ron Paul finished third in Texas, with 5%.

Baron Samedi 08-18-2011 12:45 PM

As I stated before...

There is a world of difference between 2008 and 2012.

The geo-political world is completely different.

Even Alan Combs (spelling?) sees what is going on...although Alan has always been one of my favorite lefties.

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-ebPO_5x09k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This ain't '08.

We are now years into the recession/depression, which had barely begun in '08. People are broke. They are suffering. They are worried that whatever they haven't lost, they will. They are tired of endless wars. To this day, noone knows why we went into Libya. They are frustrated and angry, because it is beginning to dawn on them, that they are irrelevant to the power elites.

In these times, people will listen and pay attention to a true new and different message.

Steve-o 08-18-2011 12:49 PM

Nope. Repeat. Ron Paul has zero chance of winning the nomination. Ever.

Baron Samedi 08-18-2011 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1721256)
Nope. Repeat. Ron Paul has zero chance of winning the nomination. Ever.

Well, that is certainly the establishment message.

That's why we are trying to fight the establishment.

I have no doubt that Ron Paul would be killed if he actually got elected. They will never allow the Fed to be abolished, or the Fed's control of the money supply to be removed.

Steve-o 08-18-2011 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1721266)
Well, that is certainly the establishment message.

That's why we are trying to fight the establishment.

I have no doubt that Ron Paul would be killed if he actually got elected. They will never allow the Fed to be abolished, or the Fed's control of the money supply to be removed.

Dude, you can call it whatever you want. Ron Paul voters make lots of noise online, don't show up and vote.

Right here is the reality:

http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/5138/

Quote:

As the Daily Texan and others have reported, somewhere up to 4,000 students and supporters stood in front of the UT Tower Saturday to hear him speak. Look at the picture below to get a sense of this. (credit: Karl McDonald)

<img src="http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper410/stills/kcq3vs92.jpg">

Wow. Impressive. Well...not so much apparently.

A mere 150 feet away, within eyesight of the gathered masses, was UT's on-campus Early Vote location at the Flawn Academic Center.

Here's what that 4,000 person rally was worth in terms of possible votes for Ron Paul.

<img src="http://www.burntorangereport.com/upload/images/ut-campus_gop_primary_voters.png">

54 votes on Saturday.

That makes these words quote by Ron Paul in that same Texan article so much truer.

"The enthusiasm is out of proportion to the number of people actually voting," Paul said at the press conference.

johnlocke 08-18-2011 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1721268)
Dude, you can call it whatever you want. Ron Paul voters make lots of noise online, don't show up and vote.

Right here is the reality:

http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/5138/

I wrote him in in 2008.

Steve-o 08-18-2011 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnlocke (Post 1721289)
I wrote him in in 2008.

Don't get me wrong, I have mostly positive opinions of Ron Paul.

I think his stances on most issues is the exact direction that the GOP needs to go in.

He has no chance of ever winning the nomination, though.

Baron Samedi 08-18-2011 01:35 PM

See..this is where I think you go wrong.

I believe you think that, amongst the people, things are no different than '08...that all the usual rules apply.

I believe that this extended economic disaster and endless warfare has changed the rules.

In fact, I know the rules have changed.

I am just not sure if they have changed enough to defeat the establishment yet.

I am pretty sure that, as the economy implodes at an accelerating pace over the next year, that Ron Paul will grow larger and larger to America....

True hope and change....not more of the same.

Steve-o 08-18-2011 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1721305)
See..this is where I think you go wrong.

I believe you think that, amongst the people, things are no different than '08...that all the usual rules apply.

I believe that this extended economic disaster and endless warfare has changed the rules.

In fact, I know the rules have changed.

I am just not sure if they have changed enough to defeat the establishment yet.

I am pretty sure that, as the economy implodes at an accelerating pace over the next year, that Ron Paul will grow larger and larger to America....

True hope and change....not more of the same.

I can tell you this. Things have changed from 2010, and not in the direction that you would like.

TommyD420 08-18-2011 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1721292)
Don't get me wrong, I have mostly positive opinions of Ron Paul.

I think his stances on most issues is the exact direction that the GOP needs to go in.

He has no chance of ever winning the nomination, though.

This. I wish there were even a scintilla of a chance that Paul could win the nomination. The general election campaign would be about issues and not vitriol.

I don't even know that he can win a primary a la Pat Buchanan.

But to think that Ron Paul actually has a chance to win the nomination; is just pie-in-the-sky delusion.

Your Koch Brothers, your Club for Growths, your FoxNews hosts (proxy of Rupert Murdoch) - will never, ever allow it to happen.

There's not nearly enough "tea party" people to counteract that.

BradyLady12 08-18-2011 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyD420 (Post 1721475)
your FoxNews hosts (proxy of Rupert Murdoch)

I read a good article on Murdoch's socialist roots and it was not just a youthful passing.
I would think you'd like him after reading it.;)


Quote:

our Koch Brothers
Well believe it or not, these guys have invited them to their conference this year— a major change.
They know he's at least shaping the debate, like on monetary policy. Even Perry sounds like him on some things. Copying is the sincerest flattery.
I suspect the Kochs just want to get their tentacles in him as a just in case. Meanwhile Perry is the Bankster's boy now.


Quote:

...Club for Growths... will never, ever allow it to happen.
Definitely.

I have to tell you though, Ron Paul was informed by some people close connections to the Fed, that they are VERY concerned about this Tea Party movement and they are watching it closely. They are definitely skeer'd of his message because if they were truly not concerned they would not be blacking him out of the media. Giving new credence to the idea that the media tries to shape public opinion and they are the handmaiden of the state.

BradyLady12 08-18-2011 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1721320)
I can tell you this. Things have changed from 2010, and not in the direction that you would like.

Um, no they have changed in that general direction much to you chagrin. It just doesn't mean the candidates are really going to move in that direction.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Patriots Planet is not affiliated with the NFL or with the New England Patriots. The views and opinions on this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the owners and/or operators of this forum and website.