[aldante]

Arraya,
I not know how to box your quotes then refute them.
I welcome any real debate on Ron Paul but really it is a waste of time for me to respond to people who simply want to relive their High School debate team days and simply try and score points.Not that you are doing that. I honestly think that this country is in more danger of losing its identity then at any other time since the civil war.
I find your that the biggest difference we have is that I believe that given more liberty people will do much better and our system will be improved. I see this as a crisis of education. I see that our media is perpetuating this whole charade. From reading your post it sounds like you think the whole thing should be chucked.
1. You did not address my point. While it is debatable how many people saw the collapse coming there is no debate on the fact that Ron Paul is the only candidate running for President who not only saw it coming took the risk of stating this in public.

This is an example of leadership unlike any other candidate or our current President in my opinion.

He may have got it right because he was an “old kooky man with old ideas” and got lucky. On the other hand he may have a method (Austrian Economics) that is predictive and deserves (based on its successful predictive analysis) to be utilized when making public policy decisions.

2. François Quesnay, Bernard Mandeville, wrote 200 years before Bastiat. Bastiat actually undermines the bee hive analogy. I guess that you did not that or you chose not to add that to your post. Go to http://www.campaignforliberty.org if you want reference material. Ron Paul’s book “END THE FED” is a very quick read as well which brings into the 21st century what liberty means. It explains how war plays a central part in keeping this regime (both dems and republicans)in power.

3. You resort to saying that the whole system is completely broken and needs to be tossed out. Ok….I am not that far gone. I do believe in liberty and defending that liberty.

4. I find it depressing that your analysis of Romer, Goolsby,Krugman, Paulson, Geithner, et al., is “Well they were really trying to do good but it is a flawed system”. I think that they did one hell of a lot to perpetuate this flawed system . I prefer to believe that if we get the right people with the right thought processes they will start to make the system more correct.

So just to reiterate. Ron Paul is the only person (running) that I can see who has wanted to pull the cover off our corrupt crony system. I believe in the Republic.

[aldante]

Arraya,
I not know how to box your quotes then refute them.
I welcome any real debate on Ron Paul but really it is a waste of time for me to respond to people who simply want to relive their High School debate team days and simply try and score points.Not that you are doing that. I honestly think that this country is in more danger of losing its identity then at any other time since the civil war.
I find your that the biggest difference we have is that I believe that given more liberty people will do much better and our system will be improved. I see this as a crisis of education. I see that our media is perpetuating this whole charade. From reading your post it sounds like you think the whole thing should be chucked.
1. You did not address my point. While it is debatable how many people saw the collapse coming there is no debate on the fact that Ron Paul is the only candidate running for President who not only saw it coming took the risk of stating this in public.

This is an example of leadership unlike any other candidate or our current President in my opinion.

He may have got it right because he was an “old kooky man with old ideas” and got lucky. On the other hand he may have a method (Austrian Economics) that is predictive and deserves (based on its successful predictive analysis) to be utilized when making public policy decisions.

2. François Quesnay, Bernard Mandeville, wrote 200 years before Bastiat. Bastiat actually undermines the bee hive analogy. I guess that you did not that or you chose not to add that to your post. Go to http://www.campaignforliberty.org if you want reference material. Ron Paul’s book “END THE FED” is a very quick read as well which brings into the 21st century what liberty means. It explains how war plays a central part in keeping this regime (both dems and republicans)in power.

3. You resort to saying that the whole system is completely broken and needs to be tossed out. Ok….I am not that far gone. I do believe in liberty and defending that liberty.

4. I find it depressing that your analysis of Romer, Goolsby,Krugman, Paulson, Geithner, et al., is “Well they were really trying to do good but it is a flawed system”. I think that they did one hell of a lot to perpetuate this flawed system . I prefer to believe that if we get the right people with the right thought processes they will start to make the system more correct.

So just to reiterate. Ron Paul is the only person (running) that I can see who has wanted to pull the cover off our corrupt crony system. I believe in the Republic.

[aldante]

Arraya,
I not know how to box your quotes then refute them.
I welcome any real debate on Ron Paul but really it is a waste of time for me to respond to people who simply want to relive their High School debate team days and simply try and score points.Not that you are doing that. I honestly think that this country is in more danger of losing its identity then at any other time since the civil war.
I find your that the biggest difference we have is that I believe that given more liberty people will do much better and our system will be improved. I see this as a crisis of education. I see that our media is perpetuating this whole charade. From reading your post it sounds like you think the whole thing should be chucked.
1. You did not address my point. While it is debatable how many people saw the collapse coming there is no debate on the fact that Ron Paul is the only candidate running for President who not only saw it coming took the risk of stating this in public.

This is an example of leadership unlike any other candidate or our current President in my opinion.

He may have got it right because he was an “old kooky man with old ideas” and got lucky. On the other hand he may have a method (Austrian Economics) that is predictive and deserves (based on its successful predictive analysis) to be utilized when making public policy decisions.

2. François Quesnay, Bernard Mandeville, wrote 200 years before Bastiat. Bastiat actually undermines the bee hive analogy. I guess that you did not that or you chose not to add that to your post. Go to http://www.campaignforliberty.org if you want reference material. Ron Paul’s book “END THE FED” is a very quick read as well which brings into the 21st century what liberty means. It explains how war plays a central part in keeping this regime (both dems and republicans)in power.

3. You resort to saying that the whole system is completely broken and needs to be tossed out. Ok….I am not that far gone. I do believe in liberty and defending that liberty.

4. I find it depressing that your analysis of Romer, Goolsby,Krugman, Paulson, Geithner, et al., is “Well they were really trying to do good but it is a flawed system”. I think that they did one hell of a lot to perpetuate this flawed system . I prefer to believe that if we get the right people with the right thought processes they will start to make the system more correct.

So just to reiterate. Ron Paul is the only person (running) that I can see who has wanted to pull the cover off our corrupt crony system. I believe in the Republic.

[aldante]

[quote=pencilneck]Yes, this is step in the right direction.

I also have a problem with socialist programs such as traffic lights (the free market should decide who goes first), but that’s a different conversation altogether.[/quote]

Funny,
Although when I think about it I spent a whole lifetime having the “smarts” to be able to take a left hand turn that is not protected. Now it seems now even the least busy intersections have “protected” left hand turns.

[aldante]

[quote=pencilneck]Yes, this is step in the right direction.

I also have a problem with socialist programs such as traffic lights (the free market should decide who goes first), but that’s a different conversation altogether.[/quote]

Funny,
Although when I think about it I spent a whole lifetime having the “smarts” to be able to take a left hand turn that is not protected. Now it seems now even the least busy intersections have “protected” left hand turns.

[aldante]

[quote=pencilneck]Yes, this is step in the right direction.

I also have a problem with socialist programs such as traffic lights (the free market should decide who goes first), but that’s a different conversation altogether.[/quote]

Funny,
Although when I think about it I spent a whole lifetime having the “smarts” to be able to take a left hand turn that is not protected. Now it seems now even the least busy intersections have “protected” left hand turns.

[aldante]

[quote=pencilneck]Yes, this is step in the right direction.

I also have a problem with socialist programs such as traffic lights (the free market should decide who goes first), but that’s a different conversation altogether.[/quote]

Funny,
Although when I think about it I spent a whole lifetime having the “smarts” to be able to take a left hand turn that is not protected. Now it seems now even the least busy intersections have “protected” left hand turns.

[aldante]

[quote=pencilneck]Yes, this is step in the right direction.

I also have a problem with socialist programs such as traffic lights (the free market should decide who goes first), but that’s a different conversation altogether.[/quote]

Funny,
Although when I think about it I spent a whole lifetime having the “smarts” to be able to take a left hand turn that is not protected. Now it seems now even the least busy intersections have “protected” left hand turns.

[aldante]

[quote=Arraya][quote=curiousmind] I do think this is because he is not a “company” man. But as far as his ideas go – they are faith based.

Examples? Be careful. Don’t make me drink a coffee and destroy the rubbish you will have to produce! ;)[/quote]

Without going into is fairy tail beliefs

From RP

However, many in Washington fail to realize it was government intervention that brought on the current economic malaise in the first place. The Federal Reserve’s artificially low interest rates created the loose, easy credit that ignited a voracious appetite in the banks for borrowers. People made these lending and buying decisions based on market conditions that were wildly manipulated by government.

Simplistic and shallow analysis of the dynamics in play. And the simplicity is either dishonesty or ideological driven blindness.

His ideas on where the influences come are backwards. He paints a picture of the misguided “state” decisions forcing conditions that caused the banks and borrowers to go crazy, without every any thought on where the influences came from. He paints it as misguided government action rather than what it is, industry control over the government.

What we had was a massive market failure. The government did not cause banks to get rid of standards – competition did.

The government did not force people to buy homes fraudulently with help from RE agents and Mortgage brokers.

The government sure set up the conditions for this – but he ignores why the government set up the conditions for this. That “why” contradicts directly with his belief system, so he ignores it.

Don’t get me wrong it does not mean I like any of the corporate mafia choices that we are given. In fact, I’d like to see the whole system implode if RP was elected. But he would get a world that goes to the exact opposite ideology that he espouses. Capitalism can’t stand without massive state intervention. It’s time for adults to stop believing in fairy tails.[/quote]

Adults look at results objectively. RP was correct
(in 2002)on the uncontrolled wars, the housing bust, gold’s value, lack of confidence in the government, and the dollar losing value, he was correct about the US losing its manufacturing base and the erosion of our civil liberties. Bernanke said that FMNA FHLB (as late as 2008 by the way) would be fine!! Greenspan said that real estate in the US would never go down in value substantially. He actually stimulated housing to “get us out of” the recession brought on by the dotcom bust of 2000. What fairy tail would you have me listen to? The one that has predictive power or the one that is always wrong but is in power? I do not get your stance at all.
Ron Paul simply says that capital will flow where it can make the fastest and easiest ROI. If one can make a ton of dough “flipping houses” just by lying on an application – one won’t go to the trouble of building a plant or opening a restaurant. I agree it is a simple idea but is that contrary to your experience? I had a 75 year old client with 25 houses. He outright told me that he would never lose money because it was real estate!! So if an idea is simple and it tells the reality – it is not a fairy tale.
Furthermore, I would like to address your point about unmitigated Capitalism. Read Bastiat (the Law). Our government exists to ensure our liberties. From outside enemies as well as internal enemies. I submit to you that anyone who is willing to lie outright to their shareholders and are coddled by the those in power are not participating in capitalism. They are participating in croney capitalism. Oligarchy. The wealthy hiring the government class to build the rules in their favor. I ask you this question: was it the small regional bank which caused the housing crisis or was it the giant banks securitizing those loans which caused this mess? Who got bailed out? The giant banks. The bonuses at the big banks the year after the bust were RECORD bonuses. The way to view this is :FOLLOW THE MONEY. Goldman and MSDW being able to convert overnight to a commercial bank? Wives of these banksters getting millions of taxpayer $$ as part of the bailout while small banks get put into receivership by the FDIC.What about the small bankers wifes and kids? Hell what about the dry cleaner that can’t qualify for a TBTF bank loan? You and I have been robbed! Our regulators have been captured (think Madoff, think Moody’s and S&P, think Duke Cunningham) and our assets are being used to line their pockets.
I think if you want to stop believing in fairy tales you should start by figuring out who has had the correct answers. Paul Krugman? Austin Goolsby? Chrisina Romer? Uncle Ben? Big Al? Any of the other Candidates? or Ron Paul?

[aldante]

[quote=Arraya][quote=curiousmind] I do think this is because he is not a “company” man. But as far as his ideas go – they are faith based.

Examples? Be careful. Don’t make me drink a coffee and destroy the rubbish you will have to produce! ;)[/quote]

Without going into is fairy tail beliefs

From RP

However, many in Washington fail to realize it was government intervention that brought on the current economic malaise in the first place. The Federal Reserve’s artificially low interest rates created the loose, easy credit that ignited a voracious appetite in the banks for borrowers. People made these lending and buying decisions based on market conditions that were wildly manipulated by government.

Simplistic and shallow analysis of the dynamics in play. And the simplicity is either dishonesty or ideological driven blindness.

His ideas on where the influences come are backwards. He paints a picture of the misguided “state” decisions forcing conditions that caused the banks and borrowers to go crazy, without every any thought on where the influences came from. He paints it as misguided government action rather than what it is, industry control over the government.

What we had was a massive market failure. The government did not cause banks to get rid of standards – competition did.

The government did not force people to buy homes fraudulently with help from RE agents and Mortgage brokers.

The government sure set up the conditions for this – but he ignores why the government set up the conditions for this. That “why” contradicts directly with his belief system, so he ignores it.

Don’t get me wrong it does not mean I like any of the corporate mafia choices that we are given. In fact, I’d like to see the whole system implode if RP was elected. But he would get a world that goes to the exact opposite ideology that he espouses. Capitalism can’t stand without massive state intervention. It’s time for adults to stop believing in fairy tails.[/quote]

Adults look at results objectively. RP was correct
(in 2002)on the uncontrolled wars, the housing bust, gold’s value, lack of confidence in the government, and the dollar losing value, he was correct about the US losing its manufacturing base and the erosion of our civil liberties. Bernanke said that FMNA FHLB (as late as 2008 by the way) would be fine!! Greenspan said that real estate in the US would never go down in value substantially. He actually stimulated housing to “get us out of” the recession brought on by the dotcom bust of 2000. What fairy tail would you have me listen to? The one that has predictive power or the one that is always wrong but is in power? I do not get your stance at all.
Ron Paul simply says that capital will flow where it can make the fastest and easiest ROI. If one can make a ton of dough “flipping houses” just by lying on an application – one won’t go to the trouble of building a plant or opening a restaurant. I agree it is a simple idea but is that contrary to your experience? I had a 75 year old client with 25 houses. He outright told me that he would never lose money because it was real estate!! So if an idea is simple and it tells the reality – it is not a fairy tale.
Furthermore, I would like to address your point about unmitigated Capitalism. Read Bastiat (the Law). Our government exists to ensure our liberties. From outside enemies as well as internal enemies. I submit to you that anyone who is willing to lie outright to their shareholders and are coddled by the those in power are not participating in capitalism. They are participating in croney capitalism. Oligarchy. The wealthy hiring the government class to build the rules in their favor. I ask you this question: was it the small regional bank which caused the housing crisis or was it the giant banks securitizing those loans which caused this mess? Who got bailed out? The giant banks. The bonuses at the big banks the year after the bust were RECORD bonuses. The way to view this is :FOLLOW THE MONEY. Goldman and MSDW being able to convert overnight to a commercial bank? Wives of these banksters getting millions of taxpayer $$ as part of the bailout while small banks get put into receivership by the FDIC.What about the small bankers wifes and kids? Hell what about the dry cleaner that can’t qualify for a TBTF bank loan? You and I have been robbed! Our regulators have been captured (think Madoff, think Moody’s and S&P, think Duke Cunningham) and our assets are being used to line their pockets.
I think if you want to stop believing in fairy tales you should start by figuring out who has had the correct answers. Paul Krugman? Austin Goolsby? Chrisina Romer? Uncle Ben? Big Al? Any of the other Candidates? or Ron Paul?

[aldante]

[quote=Arraya][quote=curiousmind] I do think this is because he is not a “company” man. But as far as his ideas go – they are faith based.

Examples? Be careful. Don’t make me drink a coffee and destroy the rubbish you will have to produce! ;)[/quote]

Without going into is fairy tail beliefs

From RP

However, many in Washington fail to realize it was government intervention that brought on the current economic malaise in the first place. The Federal Reserve’s artificially low interest rates created the loose, easy credit that ignited a voracious appetite in the banks for borrowers. People made these lending and buying decisions based on market conditions that were wildly manipulated by government.

Simplistic and shallow analysis of the dynamics in play. And the simplicity is either dishonesty or ideological driven blindness.

His ideas on where the influences come are backwards. He paints a picture of the misguided “state” decisions forcing conditions that caused the banks and borrowers to go crazy, without every any thought on where the influences came from. He paints it as misguided government action rather than what it is, industry control over the government.

What we had was a massive market failure. The government did not cause banks to get rid of standards – competition did.

The government did not force people to buy homes fraudulently with help from RE agents and Mortgage brokers.

The government sure set up the conditions for this – but he ignores why the government set up the conditions for this. That “why” contradicts directly with his belief system, so he ignores it.

Don’t get me wrong it does not mean I like any of the corporate mafia choices that we are given. In fact, I’d like to see the whole system implode if RP was elected. But he would get a world that goes to the exact opposite ideology that he espouses. Capitalism can’t stand without massive state intervention. It’s time for adults to stop believing in fairy tails.[/quote]

Adults look at results objectively. RP was correct
(in 2002)on the uncontrolled wars, the housing bust, gold’s value, lack of confidence in the government, and the dollar losing value, he was correct about the US losing its manufacturing base and the erosion of our civil liberties. Bernanke said that FMNA FHLB (as late as 2008 by the way) would be fine!! Greenspan said that real estate in the US would never go down in value substantially. He actually stimulated housing to “get us out of” the recession brought on by the dotcom bust of 2000. What fairy tail would you have me listen to? The one that has predictive power or the one that is always wrong but is in power? I do not get your stance at all.
Ron Paul simply says that capital will flow where it can make the fastest and easiest ROI. If one can make a ton of dough “flipping houses” just by lying on an application – one won’t go to the trouble of building a plant or opening a restaurant. I agree it is a simple idea but is that contrary to your experience? I had a 75 year old client with 25 houses. He outright told me that he would never lose money because it was real estate!! So if an idea is simple and it tells the reality – it is not a fairy tale.
Furthermore, I would like to address your point about unmitigated Capitalism. Read Bastiat (the Law). Our government exists to ensure our liberties. From outside enemies as well as internal enemies. I submit to you that anyone who is willing to lie outright to their shareholders and are coddled by the those in power are not participating in capitalism. They are participating in croney capitalism. Oligarchy. The wealthy hiring the government class to build the rules in their favor. I ask you this question: was it the small regional bank which caused the housing crisis or was it the giant banks securitizing those loans which caused this mess? Who got bailed out? The giant banks. The bonuses at the big banks the year after the bust were RECORD bonuses. The way to view this is :FOLLOW THE MONEY. Goldman and MSDW being able to convert overnight to a commercial bank? Wives of these banksters getting millions of taxpayer $$ as part of the bailout while small banks get put into receivership by the FDIC.What about the small bankers wifes and kids? Hell what about the dry cleaner that can’t qualify for a TBTF bank loan? You and I have been robbed! Our regulators have been captured (think Madoff, think Moody’s and S&P, think Duke Cunningham) and our assets are being used to line their pockets.
I think if you want to stop believing in fairy tales you should start by figuring out who has had the correct answers. Paul Krugman? Austin Goolsby? Chrisina Romer? Uncle Ben? Big Al? Any of the other Candidates? or Ron Paul?

[aldante]

[quote=Arraya][quote=curiousmind] I do think this is because he is not a “company” man. But as far as his ideas go – they are faith based.

Examples? Be careful. Don’t make me drink a coffee and destroy the rubbish you will have to produce! ;)[/quote]

Without going into is fairy tail beliefs

From RP

However, many in Washington fail to realize it was government intervention that brought on the current economic malaise in the first place. The Federal Reserve’s artificially low interest rates created the loose, easy credit that ignited a voracious appetite in the banks for borrowers. People made these lending and buying decisions based on market conditions that were wildly manipulated by government.

Simplistic and shallow analysis of the dynamics in play. And the simplicity is either dishonesty or ideological driven blindness.

His ideas on where the influences come are backwards. He paints a picture of the misguided “state” decisions forcing conditions that caused the banks and borrowers to go crazy, without every any thought on where the influences came from. He paints it as misguided government action rather than what it is, industry control over the government.

What we had was a massive market failure. The government did not cause banks to get rid of standards – competition did.

The government did not force people to buy homes fraudulently with help from RE agents and Mortgage brokers.

The government sure set up the conditions for this – but he ignores why the government set up the conditions for this. That “why” contradicts directly with his belief system, so he ignores it.

Don’t get me wrong it does not mean I like any of the corporate mafia choices that we are given. In fact, I’d like to see the whole system implode if RP was elected. But he would get a world that goes to the exact opposite ideology that he espouses. Capitalism can’t stand without massive state intervention. It’s time for adults to stop believing in fairy tails.[/quote]

Adults look at results objectively. RP was correct
(in 2002)on the uncontrolled wars, the housing bust, gold’s value, lack of confidence in the government, and the dollar losing value, he was correct about the US losing its manufacturing base and the erosion of our civil liberties. Bernanke said that FMNA FHLB (as late as 2008 by the way) would be fine!! Greenspan said that real estate in the US would never go down in value substantially. He actually stimulated housing to “get us out of” the recession brought on by the dotcom bust of 2000. What fairy tail would you have me listen to? The one that has predictive power or the one that is always wrong but is in power? I do not get your stance at all.
Ron Paul simply says that capital will flow where it can make the fastest and easiest ROI. If one can make a ton of dough “flipping houses” just by lying on an application – one won’t go to the trouble of building a plant or opening a restaurant. I agree it is a simple idea but is that contrary to your experience? I had a 75 year old client with 25 houses. He outright told me that he would never lose money because it was real estate!! So if an idea is simple and it tells the reality – it is not a fairy tale.
Furthermore, I would like to address your point about unmitigated Capitalism. Read Bastiat (the Law). Our government exists to ensure our liberties. From outside enemies as well as internal enemies. I submit to you that anyone who is willing to lie outright to their shareholders and are coddled by the those in power are not participating in capitalism. They are participating in croney capitalism. Oligarchy. The wealthy hiring the government class to build the rules in their favor. I ask you this question: was it the small regional bank which caused the housing crisis or was it the giant banks securitizing those loans which caused this mess? Who got bailed out? The giant banks. The bonuses at the big banks the year after the bust were RECORD bonuses. The way to view this is :FOLLOW THE MONEY. Goldman and MSDW being able to convert overnight to a commercial bank? Wives of these banksters getting millions of taxpayer $$ as part of the bailout while small banks get put into receivership by the FDIC.What about the small bankers wifes and kids? Hell what about the dry cleaner that can’t qualify for a TBTF bank loan? You and I have been robbed! Our regulators have been captured (think Madoff, think Moody’s and S&P, think Duke Cunningham) and our assets are being used to line their pockets.
I think if you want to stop believing in fairy tales you should start by figuring out who has had the correct answers. Paul Krugman? Austin Goolsby? Chrisina Romer? Uncle Ben? Big Al? Any of the other Candidates? or Ron Paul?

[aldante]

[quote=Arraya][quote=curiousmind] I do think this is because he is not a “company” man. But as far as his ideas go – they are faith based.

Examples? Be careful. Don’t make me drink a coffee and destroy the rubbish you will have to produce! ;)[/quote]

Without going into is fairy tail beliefs

From RP

However, many in Washington fail to realize it was government intervention that brought on the current economic malaise in the first place. The Federal Reserve’s artificially low interest rates created the loose, easy credit that ignited a voracious appetite in the banks for borrowers. People made these lending and buying decisions based on market conditions that were wildly manipulated by government.

Simplistic and shallow analysis of the dynamics in play. And the simplicity is either dishonesty or ideological driven blindness.

His ideas on where the influences come are backwards. He paints a picture of the misguided “state” decisions forcing conditions that caused the banks and borrowers to go crazy, without every any thought on where the influences came from. He paints it as misguided government action rather than what it is, industry control over the government.

What we had was a massive market failure. The government did not cause banks to get rid of standards – competition did.

The government did not force people to buy homes fraudulently with help from RE agents and Mortgage brokers.

The government sure set up the conditions for this – but he ignores why the government set up the conditions for this. That “why” contradicts directly with his belief system, so he ignores it.

Don’t get me wrong it does not mean I like any of the corporate mafia choices that we are given. In fact, I’d like to see the whole system implode if RP was elected. But he would get a world that goes to the exact opposite ideology that he espouses. Capitalism can’t stand without massive state intervention. It’s time for adults to stop believing in fairy tails.[/quote]

Adults look at results objectively. RP was correct
(in 2002)on the uncontrolled wars, the housing bust, gold’s value, lack of confidence in the government, and the dollar losing value, he was correct about the US losing its manufacturing base and the erosion of our civil liberties. Bernanke said that FMNA FHLB (as late as 2008 by the way) would be fine!! Greenspan said that real estate in the US would never go down in value substantially. He actually stimulated housing to “get us out of” the recession brought on by the dotcom bust of 2000. What fairy tail would you have me listen to? The one that has predictive power or the one that is always wrong but is in power? I do not get your stance at all.
Ron Paul simply says that capital will flow where it can make the fastest and easiest ROI. If one can make a ton of dough “flipping houses” just by lying on an application – one won’t go to the trouble of building a plant or opening a restaurant. I agree it is a simple idea but is that contrary to your experience? I had a 75 year old client with 25 houses. He outright told me that he would never lose money because it was real estate!! So if an idea is simple and it tells the reality – it is not a fairy tale.
Furthermore, I would like to address your point about unmitigated Capitalism. Read Bastiat (the Law). Our government exists to ensure our liberties. From outside enemies as well as internal enemies. I submit to you that anyone who is willing to lie outright to their shareholders and are coddled by the those in power are not participating in capitalism. They are participating in croney capitalism. Oligarchy. The wealthy hiring the government class to build the rules in their favor. I ask you this question: was it the small regional bank which caused the housing crisis or was it the giant banks securitizing those loans which caused this mess? Who got bailed out? The giant banks. The bonuses at the big banks the year after the bust were RECORD bonuses. The way to view this is :FOLLOW THE MONEY. Goldman and MSDW being able to convert overnight to a commercial bank? Wives of these banksters getting millions of taxpayer $$ as part of the bailout while small banks get put into receivership by the FDIC.What about the small bankers wifes and kids? Hell what about the dry cleaner that can’t qualify for a TBTF bank loan? You and I have been robbed! Our regulators have been captured (think Madoff, think Moody’s and S&P, think Duke Cunningham) and our assets are being used to line their pockets.
I think if you want to stop believing in fairy tales you should start by figuring out who has had the correct answers. Paul Krugman? Austin Goolsby? Chrisina Romer? Uncle Ben? Big Al? Any of the other Candidates? or Ron Paul?

[aldante]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=curiousmind]Plus he just doesn’t have media appeal. Although some of his ideas may make sense, he just comes across as another also-ran oddball.

That’s your opinion, and you are very disconnected if you think that Paul is just a random “also-ran” candidate. Wake up.[/quote]

[quote=curiousmind]Ron Paul is the only candidate running who has walked the walk. He is the only candidate who’s views are based on principles(constitutional ones)- not fame, money or status quo. He is also the only candidate who implements any form of critical thinking.[/quote]

Ron Paul is not an electable candidate. As much as you might want him to be. I’ve said I don’t think it’s any kind of back room conspiracy (and I certainly could be wrong on this), but the fact remains that the media has not and is unlikely to get behind him. They barely give him the time of day. He hasn’t and probably won’t get the media attention that Ross Perot got 20 and 16 years ago. Despite whether he might be electable if everyone knew who he was, they don’t and won’t. That makes him unelectable. That makes him an also-ran.

I don’t know what walk he’s walked that others haven’t. He’s a politician. He’s made deals. His principles are no more constitutionally or ideologically consistent than any other candidate. See his views on DOMA, states rights, and full faith and credit clause. See his views on abortion, which are inconsistent with his claims to be a libertarian. (His argument that it should be left up to the states, just as he has made at times with DOMA is a total abandonement of libertarian principles on issues which he believes the government SHOULD invade personal liberties.)

Paul is an idealogue. Just the same as many politicians. Ideologies and critical thinking are like oil and water. You can craft rhetoric to make them appear to be compatible, but eventually they separate. And the critical thinking always disappears.[/quote]

Explain how he is as inconsistent as the other candidates in his beliefs given his voting record in Congress. Also, given his stance on the wars, appropriations bills, and civil liberties. Oh and do please make sure that you reference the other candidates stances on the FED (as well as the other issues I mentinoned) in 2008. That way you can make it clear that he is as inconsistent as the other candidates. Who knows maybe you will make me a believer…………….
Assuming you will not be able to do that – and you will not….then we can talk about the real issue which is why there is a perception out there that he is unelectable. I think you will find it is NOT becasue he is inconsistent!

[aldante]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=curiousmind]Plus he just doesn’t have media appeal. Although some of his ideas may make sense, he just comes across as another also-ran oddball.

That’s your opinion, and you are very disconnected if you think that Paul is just a random “also-ran” candidate. Wake up.[/quote]

[quote=curiousmind]Ron Paul is the only candidate running who has walked the walk. He is the only candidate who’s views are based on principles(constitutional ones)- not fame, money or status quo. He is also the only candidate who implements any form of critical thinking.[/quote]

Ron Paul is not an electable candidate. As much as you might want him to be. I’ve said I don’t think it’s any kind of back room conspiracy (and I certainly could be wrong on this), but the fact remains that the media has not and is unlikely to get behind him. They barely give him the time of day. He hasn’t and probably won’t get the media attention that Ross Perot got 20 and 16 years ago. Despite whether he might be electable if everyone knew who he was, they don’t and won’t. That makes him unelectable. That makes him an also-ran.

I don’t know what walk he’s walked that others haven’t. He’s a politician. He’s made deals. His principles are no more constitutionally or ideologically consistent than any other candidate. See his views on DOMA, states rights, and full faith and credit clause. See his views on abortion, which are inconsistent with his claims to be a libertarian. (His argument that it should be left up to the states, just as he has made at times with DOMA is a total abandonement of libertarian principles on issues which he believes the government SHOULD invade personal liberties.)

Paul is an idealogue. Just the same as many politicians. Ideologies and critical thinking are like oil and water. You can craft rhetoric to make them appear to be compatible, but eventually they separate. And the critical thinking always disappears.[/quote]

Explain how he is as inconsistent as the other candidates in his beliefs given his voting record in Congress. Also, given his stance on the wars, appropriations bills, and civil liberties. Oh and do please make sure that you reference the other candidates stances on the FED (as well as the other issues I mentinoned) in 2008. That way you can make it clear that he is as inconsistent as the other candidates. Who knows maybe you will make me a believer…………….
Assuming you will not be able to do that – and you will not….then we can talk about the real issue which is why there is a perception out there that he is unelectable. I think you will find it is NOT becasue he is inconsistent!

[Author]

Posts