so what fuckin tnuc is america going to elect now

[_boring]

doesnt ron paul simply support the constitution?

[Shum]

Donald Trump... or Ronald McDonald.

I'd be interested to see how Ronald McDonald would do in the polls.

[Siderealdb]

Donald Trump... or Ronald McDonald.

I'd be interested to see how Ronald McDonald would do in the polls.

4,657,384,374 served each year. More than all the presidents combined in my opinion.

GO RONALD!!!

[Shum]

Are they still talking up the chances of that lawyer (?) with all the adopted kids?

[pkay]

doesnt ron paul simply support the constitution?

every congressman makes that argument

Ron Paul doesn't stand out as a speaker, he's not charasmatic, not well looking, his district isn't anything special, he hasnt sponosred any groundbreaking legislation, he doesnt have an extensive military history, he's not a kennedy, he's not overly wealthy, he hasnt made a name for himself in business, etc etc... so how does someone like that get in the argument for president? Outlandish, contrarian, arguments and fringe politics and implying to the american people that the government they are under now is not following the constitution.

Gimmick

[pkay]

Are they still talking up the chances of that lawyer (?) with all the adopted kids?

bachmann.... shes in like 4th


its pretty much romney vs palin

[Raggles]

I think Ron Paul should run. Seems like a sharp ol fella.
Realistically though, he's probably going to be labeled a radical because of his views and not make it...unless people actually listen to his reasoning.

[bagelator]

Moe Szyslak

[pkay]

I think Ron Paul should run. Seems like a sharp ol fella.
Realistically though, he's probably going to be labeled a radical because of his views and not make it...unless people actually listen to his reasoning.

Pretty ignorant view. Ron Paul is a medical doctor, specifically gynaecologist. I at least have an associates in business meaning I likely have studied finance as much if not more than Ron Paul has over the course of our collective educations. Perhaps my education and understanding of finance and the American condition leads me to simply disagree with his assessment.


Devil is in the details. I'd support many of his ideas if I thought he understood how to execute them. The problem is Ron Paul keeps talking and the more he talks the more I realize he does not understand basic financial principals of the US economy.

I think it'd be a disaster if he became president.

Also as a Texan, I do not think anyone from Texas should ever be president. Their ideas are founded in how to govern Texas. All of the bush mistakes, all of bush sr's mistakes, all of Ron Pauls ideas are ones that would work well IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. Given our size and stature they seem to think these ideas would transfer to a national level which is false.

[borrowed]

That, and he is a radically idealistic thinker with very little basis in reality. Free market principle and such have been proved wrong time and time again.

[the acid never lies]

Come on! Is the biggest mark anyone has against Ron Paul the fact that he never went to business school? Does nobody have an opinion on his views on immigration or his teetering on the fringe of far right movements? Maybe I'm asking the wrong people...

[the acid never lies]

We must end welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants. Some illegal immigrants – certainly not all – receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of immigrants, even though the majority of them work very hard. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and support himself.

Our current welfare system also encourages illegal immigration by discouraging American citizens from taking low-wage jobs. This creates greater demand for illegal foreign labor. Welfare programs and minimum wage laws create an artificial market for labor to do the jobs Americans supposedly won’t do.

Illegal immigrants also place a tremendous strain on social entitlement programs. Under a proposed totalization agreement with Mexico, millions of illegal immigrants will qualify for Social Security and other programs – programs that already threaten financial ruin for America in the coming decades. Adding millions of foreign citizens to the Social Security, Medicare, and disability rolls will only hasten the inevitable day of reckoning.

Economic considerations aside, we must address the cultural aspects of immigration. The vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. But we rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally. All federal government business should be conducted in English. More importantly, we should expect immigrants to learn about and respect our political and legal traditions, which are rooted in liberty and constitutionally limited government.

Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual – including a potential terrorist – can enter the United States. Unfortunately, the federal government seems more intent upon guarding the borders of other nations than our own. We are still patrolling Korea’s border after some 50 years, yet ours are more porous than ever. It is ironic that we criticize Syria for failing to secure its border with Iraq while our own borders, particularly to the south, are no better secured than those of Syria.

We need to allocate far more of our resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.

If we took some of the steps I have outlined here – eliminating the welfare state and securing our borders – we could effectively address the problem of illegal immigration in a manner that would not undermine the freedom of American citizens. Sadly, it appears we are moving toward policies like a national ID that diminish our liberties. Like gun control, these approaches only punish the innocent, as criminals will always find a way around the law.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul269.html

Go Ron Paul! Not.

[pkay]

Come on! Is the biggest mark anyone has against Ron Paul the fact that he never went to business school? Does nobody have an opinion on his views on immigration or his teetering on the fringe of far right movements? Maybe I'm asking the wrong people...

I dunno i've fucked a lot of bitches.... does that qualify me to take ron pauls place as a gynaecologist? or would you prefer someone educated on the subject at hand?

[the acid never lies]

A politician isn't simply a technocrat - having an MBA doesn't make you automatically cut out for the presidency, and I would have thought there were more pressing things about him that were worth a mention. That other people don't think so is rather troubling but I'd like to think that has more with simply not being aware of some of the more toxic ideological underpinnings to Ron Paul's position/policies.

[the acid never lies]

Otherwise let's just hand over all our power to Harvard Business School and let them make all the policy decisions for us

[pkay]

We must end welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants. Some illegal immigrants – certainly not all – receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of immigrants, even though the majority of them work very hard. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and support himself.

Our current welfare system also encourages illegal immigration by discouraging American citizens from taking low-wage jobs. This creates greater demand for illegal foreign labor. Welfare programs and minimum wage laws create an artificial market for labor to do the jobs Americans supposedly won’t do.

Illegal immigrants also place a tremendous strain on social entitlement programs. Under a proposed totalization agreement with Mexico, millions of illegal immigrants will qualify for Social Security and other programs – programs that already threaten financial ruin for America in the coming decades. Adding millions of foreign citizens to the Social Security, Medicare, and disability rolls will only hasten the inevitable day of reckoning.

Economic considerations aside, we must address the cultural aspects of immigration. The vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. But we rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally. All federal government business should be conducted in English. More importantly, we should expect immigrants to learn about and respect our political and legal traditions, which are rooted in liberty and constitutionally limited government.

Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual – including a potential terrorist – can enter the United States. Unfortunately, the federal government seems more intent upon guarding the borders of other nations than our own. We are still patrolling Korea’s border after some 50 years, yet ours are more porous than ever. It is ironic that we criticize Syria for failing to secure its border with Iraq while our own borders, particularly to the south, are no better secured than those of Syria.

We need to allocate far more of our resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.

If we took some of the steps I have outlined here – eliminating the welfare state and securing our borders – we could effectively address the problem of illegal immigration in a manner that would not undermine the freedom of American citizens. Sadly, it appears we are moving toward policies like a national ID that diminish our liberties. Like gun control, these approaches only punish the innocent, as criminals will always find a way around the law.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul269.html

Go Ron Paul! Not.

This is one of the topics he is not qualified to speak about.

Texas has more food stamp recipients than any other state in the US.... yet he's qualified to speak on how to solve welfare problems?

Maybe we'd have more money for the border or social security, if our great state of texas wasn't flooded with families on food stamps?


I'd be all on team ron paul if the problems hes wanting to solve on a national level weren't abundant in the state of texas.

[wormcode]

doesnt ron paul simply support the constitution?

every congressman makes that argument

he doesnt have an extensive military history, he's not overly wealthy, he hasnt made a name for himself in business, etc etc...

These are all major plus points to me. The legislation thing can be debated too, he has gotten people talking about a lot of important issues and actually brought them from the "fringe" into people's homes. Not sure what you mean by the Kennedy comparison though. Still, like I've said before I only like some of ideas so I wouldn't say I'm a supporter, but what does it really matter if he looks good or stands out as a speaker. Obama stood out as a speaker (reader) and that hasn't gone well, Bush was a horrible speaker and that went worse.
I also don't agree that just having a degree or not means someone knows more or less about a certain subject. He's into Austrian economics anyway, so naturally I think you two would disagree on those things seeing as he doesn't like the American way to begin with.

I agree that I don't think he knows how to execute the ideas either, but does anyone? Not just his ideas, but most ideas aren't executed well in government. It also would depend on his cabinet as well, and honestly I'm not sure who would be up for accepting those positions given how much most of the politicians like to distance themselves from him. If he actually got in, this might change though. I think a lot of politicians would support him more as we have seen in the last decade+ as he went from a joke in the 90s to being taken seriously.

I'm not too thrilled with any of the choices really.

[pkay]

Otherwise let's just hand over all our power to Harvard Business School and let them make all the policy decisions for us

You mean like

Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan (not harvard but NYU/Columbia isnt bad)

Thats what normal presidents do... but Ron Paul is talking about abolishing those positions and the federal reserve. So he's taking things out of the hands of people educated on the matter and adopting his idea instead.

[pkay]

doesnt ron paul simply support the constitution?

every congressman makes that argument

he doesnt have an extensive military history, he's not overly wealthy, he hasnt made a name for himself in business, etc etc...

These are all major plus points to me. The legislation thing can be debated too, he has gotten people talking about a lot of important issues and actually brought them from the "fringe" into people's homes. Not sure what you mean by the Kennedy comparison though. Still, like I've said before I only like some of ideas so I wouldn't say I'm a supporter, but what does it really matter if he looks good or stands out as a speaker. Obama stood out as a speaker (reader) and that hasn't gone well, Bush was a horrible speaker and that went worse.
I also don't agree that just having a degree or not means someone knows more or less about a certain subject. He's into Austrian economics anyway, so naturally I think you two would disagree on those things seeing as he doesn't like the American way to begin with.

I agree that I don't think he knows how to execute the ideas either, but does anyone? Not just his ideas, but most ideas aren't executed well in government. It also would depend on his cabinet as well, and honestly I'm not sure who would be up for accepting those positions given how much most of the politicians like to distance themselves from him. If he actually got in, this might change though. I think a lot of politicians would support him more as we have seen in the last decade+ as he went from a joke in the 90s to being taken seriously.

I'm not too thrilled with any of the choices really.

My point was if you don't have the stereotypical presidential build you go contrarian in order to set yourself apart. I honestly believe that the majority of his arguments are idle ones that are simply there for shock value.

As far as education, I agree it isnt everything. But if you're going to dismantle a financial institution and reconstruct a countries financial foundation, gyanaecology is not on my list of positive selling points unless you're planning on enabling the american women to shoot gold nuggets out of their vags

[ruckus49]

how do you think America would be today if McCain and Palin had won?

Obama's first term has left me jaded to mainstream politics. After he extended the Bush tax cuts I lost all faith to things turning around. I think the only thing questionable is the amount of troops that would have been withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan.