patrick.net

corntrollio says

Sure, here you go:

http://www.thirdway.org/taxreceipt

Fun! How about one for California?

The "Liberal media" who allegedly hate Ron Paul and mastermind his being ignored.... does that include Jon Stewart?

Fox News: We have a top tier now of Bachmann, Perry, and Romney.

Oh wait, who did we forget, was it Rick Santorum? No....

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-scolds-media-for-ignoring-rep-ron-paul-i-mean-fck-that-guy-right/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9Ufecd4Bjs&feature=player_embedded

Rand Paul was on Hannity right after election.

It's a straw poll. Relax.

It is a crazy phenomenon with Ron Paul. He gets no attention from the main stream media. They have absolutley black listed the guy. I went to click on a fox news poll on their website and I selected Ron Paul as winning the GOP debate. The results had Paul at 7000 or something similar and the next person was at 3500. A couple of hours later I went to check and the survey was gone.

Reality says

The average income in the US grew much faster in the 19th century than in the 20th century.

This is true. The underclass went from not having a pot to piss in to having only a pot to piss in. 100% increase in piss pots.

I raised the average income significantly with my monopoly ownership of all piss pot makers. Damn that fool Harrison and his cursed antitrust nonsense.

Vicente says

The "Liberal media" who allegedly hate Ron Paul and mastermind his being ignored.... does that include Jon Stewart?

Fox News: We have a top tier now of Bachmann, Perry, and Romney.

Oh wait, who did we forget, was it Rick Santorum? No....

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-scolds-media-for-ignoring-rep-ron-paul-i-mean-fck-that-guy-right/

Ah, the media. Ron Paul's views on the US empire and subsidies doesn't sit well with special interest groups, and despite his low-tax leanings, is too dangerous to the establishment

It's not just Ron Paul, but any sort of reasonable ideas that defy the TWO puritan parties backed by special interests and who have a lot more in common than anybody would care to admit. Their only real differences are philosophical wedge issues like abortion.

thunderlips11 says

but any sort of reasonable ideas that defy the TWO puritan parties backed by special interests and who have a lot more in common than anybody would care to admit.

That is the platform of my anti Liberal rants.

thunderlips11 says

It's not just Ron Paul, but any sort of reasonable ideas that defy the TWO puritan parties backed by special interests and who have a lot more in common than anybody would care to admit. Their only real differences are philosophical wedge issues like abortion.

Bingo.

thunderlips11 says

It's not just Ron Paul, but any sort of reasonable ideas that defy the TWO puritan parties backed by special interests and who have a lot more in common than anybody would care to admit. Their only real differences are philosophical wedge issues like abortion.

This is exactly right. The establishment is bought and paid for, and this is why all third party candidates are marginalized and ignored too. Republicrats are all owned by banks and special interests and billionaires. It's like "Pro Wrestling". The outcome has already been determined, the rest is just for show. Primarily to make everyday Americans feel like they have a choice and their vote matters. It doesn't, and they don't.

It's like the simpsons episode where Homer and Margie vote for 2 different aliens (from another planet), while it's clear that human race is going to be put into slavery regardless of which one is elected.

For those paying attention, the extreme lack of respect Ron Paul gets from the media, helps those of us paying attention to realize just how true that is.

The question is which comes first ?

1) A strong meaningful protest by the people, leading to change ?

or

2) We continue to evolve in to a fascist state

We are kept divided (by the pro-wrestling like farce), making the unity we would need for #1 difficult to achieve

FortWayne says

It's like the simpsons episode where Homer and Margie vote for 2 different aliens (from another planet), while it's clear that human race is going to be put into slavery regardless of which one is elected.

"It does not matter which way you vote. Either way your planet is doomed. Doomed. Doomed."

marcus says

The question is which comes first ?

1) A strong meaningful protest by the people, leading to change ?

or

2) We continue to evolve in to a fascist state

We are kept divided (by the pro-wrestling like farce), making the unity we would need for #1 difficult to achieve

"We must move forward... not backwards, not to the side, not forwards, but always whirling, whirling, whirling towards freedom!!!"

The difference between me and Ron's fanatics, is I view his plight as a SYMPTOM of some problems in our political system. I do not believe for a second that if we elected Ron Paul President that we'd all be "saved". No, we'd just have an interlude of a crackpot outsider fanatic running things. Some things he'd do would be sensible, a lot of them would just be upsetting the applecart because it feels good to his followers to sow chaos. After his term(s) we'd be back to same-old same-old. Do you seriously see Ron Paul as the guy who will succeed at convincing Congress, courts, and people we must remove "personhood" from corporations, reduce lobbying influence, and take a machete to the financial sector? I don't.

Vicente says

I do not believe for a second that if we elected Ron Paul President that we'd all be "saved".

I don't think so either. I do, however, think that RP is the singularly different choice among all of the legitimate/electable Repub and Dem options. And he represents the only really different way forward post-2012.

Sure, liberals often claim to want mega-spending, and conservatives often claim to want mega-cuts but neither is going to happen. Our current environment of high unemployment and inflated asset prices (with periodic QE injections to keep things buoyed) works way to well for wealth extraction by our corporate overlords... so they will work hard to keep things that way by making sure an establishment candidate gets (re)installed in 2012. Maybe a little more bread, or maybe a little more circus, but status quo nevertheless

But I don't think our current state is a stable one that can be maintained indefinitely. As the status quo ensures that we make our slow grind back towards the 1880s, more people will get fed up with government incompetence and just plain being poor. Sure, today's soma takes the edge off of the anger, but that won't last forever. At some point things will have to change...

So again, can RP solve our problems? Probably not. Best (Worst?) case, he will weaken the corporatocrasy's stranglehold on policy enough that things will *start* to change for the better for the middle class. Worst (Best?) case, he'll pull off the e-brake and stomp on the gas and get us where we're already headed much sooner rather than later.

Anyone who believes we have to wait for change from Washington in order to save our country is in for a long wait. Whether it's Paul or someone else, change needs to come from the people.

As to the "Chaos" our current Central Government is holding us back from by not upsetting the cart, I give you the financial meltdowns of the 1920's, 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, and 2008, the lost purchasing power of our fiat currency, the endless wars on foreign soil, all thanks to central planning.

I support Ron Paul, but I will look through all the candidates from all parties before making my choice for the one who best represents me, as we all should... Your vote only counts if you cast it for the person you believe best represents you.

thunderlips11 says

It's not just Ron Paul, but any sort of reasonable ideas that defy the TWO puritan parties backed by special interests and who have a lot more in common than anybody would care to admit. Their only real differences are philosophical wedge issues like abortion.

People are rather naive if they think that the two parties are really that similar. This is just a propaganda tactic by someone trying to fool you. You can empirically show this to be wrong:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

If your argument is that we don't have enough candidates in the other three quadrants, that's fair, but that hasn't been your argument. Ron Paul isn't outside the top right quadrant, for one thing.

That doesn't independently mean there isn't a need for a solid third party, but saying the two parties are the same will remain a crappy argument.

corntrollio says

People are rather naive if they think that the two parties are really that similar. This is just a propaganda tactic by someone trying to fool you. You can empirically show this to be wrong:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

Those charts are pretty, and I applaud their attempt to actually quantify political similarities/differences among different politicians.

However, they are unsubstantiated, and seemingly based only on the authors' opinion(s). What do the units of the axes represent? How is the degree of left/right or libertarian/authoritarian actually quantified?

And finally, is their range really representative of the actual scale of all political beliefs/actions?

This seems to be their only explanation for ranking people who didn't take their test (basically everyone important):

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

Nothing but a descriptive analysis. Did I miss something?

corntrollio says

People are rather naive if they think that the two parties are really that similar. This is just a propaganda tactic by someone trying to fool you. You can empirically show this to be wrong:

That's OK you still get to wear the hat.

terriDeaner says

However, they are unsubstantiated, and seemingly based only on the authors' opinion(s). What do the units of the axes represent? How is the degree of left/right or libertarian/authoritarian actually quantified?

What specific flaws do you see?

Again, I was responding to your assertion, which was simply that the two parties are the same. Are you saying that their metric for determining the two parties are not the same is flawed? If so, how?

The concept is certainly not new, and there are other academics who believe in a multi-axis political spectrum.

People who think ideology will fix the world are really just making circular arguments.

To be clear, I am not saying that the two mainstream parties are identical. I am saying that they are controlled by the same master (the uberwealthy), and that both enact polices that produce the same result (keep them in a comfy job, and make the uberwealthy more wealthy at the expense of the middle class).

Sure there are differences in terms of how much bread they dole out, and what type of circus they put on, but how are they really different? Pretty charts are one thing, and actual history is another.

And I'm not arguing that the multi-axis political spectrum is bogus. It is an interesting and useful model. BUT I AM saying that their metric is flawed because they give no formula for how they calculated it (at least for folks who didn't take their online test). How do figure how any politicians fit on their scale? How reproduceable is their methodology? Why should I, or anyone else, trust their black box formulation?

corntrollio says

People who think ideology will fix the world are really just making circular arguments.

You lost me here... are you accusing me of being an idelogue, of making circular arguments, or both? Please clarify.

Ron Paul is doomed because

1. He is running in the wrong party. He'd be better off as a fiscally conservative Democrat. It's closer to the libertarian ideal also.

2. He touts his beliefs in small gvt and fiscal rights, but doesn't talk about civil and human rights. A lot of Ron Paul supporters like him because of his anti-torture, anti-war, anti-tyranny philosophy. But he only talks economics anymore.

Ron Paul could win if we had instant run-off elections instead of our current Wolf's Dilemma system. Absent that change, he'd stand a better chance as a Democrat since both liberals and conservatives see him as the anti-Bush.

Yes, he would lose some votes in the primary from pro-social spending voters, but there are enough Dem voters who want smaller government to give Paul a better chance than he'll get from Repub voters.

I just don't see redneck voting for someone who is pro-gay rights, for ending marriage as a secular institution, anti-death penalty, pro-narcotic legalization, and anti-military spending.

terriDeaner says

I am saying that they are controlled by the same master (the uberwealthy), and that both enact polices that produce the same result (keep them in a comfy job, and make the uberwealthy more wealthy at the expense of the middle class).

I'm not defending either party. I'm asking, why is Ron Paul different from that? If anything, he is closely identified with Teabaggers, who have been astroturfed by the Kochs and other people that are not known to be particularly poor.

terriDeaner says

As the status quo ensures that we make our slow grind back towards the 1880s

How is today more like the 1880s? Please explain. You like stereotyping ("liberals like this...conservatives like that..."), but you don't really incorporate facts very well. It would be very helpful if you incorporated facts about the 1880s and now that how they are allegedly converging.

terriDeaner says

You lost me here... are you accusing me of being an idelogue, of making circular arguments, or both?

Neither, I was making an independent statement. However, you haven't explained why Ron Paul's ideology would be better. It seems like you are saying you want someone outside the narrow mainstream (i.e. the diagonal line on my "pretty chart"). Would ANYONE that's not on that line be better? Why would Ron Paul be better than, say, Dennis Kucinich who also doesn't really fit within the mainstream? To pull more people from my "pretty chart," why not Mike Gravel? If you really don't like that chart, use Nolan's, I don't mind -- I was just suggesting that the two parties are different, and it's largely naive people who think they are not.

corntrollio says

People are rather naive if they think that the two parties are really that similar.

They are. You can tell by the token financial reforms enacted when the democrats were in power. You can tell by "triangulation", the ongoing DNC strategy of outflanking the republicans on tax cuts and social spending.

The difference between the Republicans and Democrats is the only the speed. The Republicans want to drive 80mph down the straight through the night, the Democrats want to drive at 55mph taking in some of the sights along the way and maybe stopping when they get tired. Both are driving down the same neoliberal highway.

Abortion, Guns, and Gay Rights are more philosophical wedge issues than economic issues.

On foreign policy, the majority of Democrats and Republicans are hyperinterventionist hawks. Obama, Hillary, Biden, Frank, Pelosi, etc. all voted for Iraq, Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, and Libya at various times. None of them want these things to truly end.

Or rather, it's about what both of their biggest mutual contributors want and don't want..

thunderlips11 says

The difference between the Republicans and Democrats is the only the speed.

Right ON!

thunderlips11 says

Abortion, Guns, and Gay Rights are more philosophical wedge issues than economic issues.

Yup.

thunderlips11 says

Abortion, Guns, and Gay Rights are more philosophical wedge issues than economic issues.

They aren't economic issues at all. They are social issues.

I think the parties are quite a bit different and it's pretty easy to see if you look at charts over longer periods of time. The country changed when Reagan took office and Republicans. Clinton was able to reverse the trend, but W. put us on our current path.

If you look at important issues, there is a clear divide:

Campaign finance reform--Dems for, Reps against.
Military spending--Reps for, Dems against (or at least for a reduction. Clinton actually started to address military spending)

Social programs (Dems for, Reps against)

There are clear differences. Saying there isn't ignores history.

tatupu70 says

They aren't economic issues at all. They are social issues.

Exactly. When it comes to bread and butter, the shit that actually matters like the state of my wallet, I have little choice.

Campaign Finance Reform is and was a joke.

No incumbent wants Campaign Finance Reform.

The McCain-Feingold Reform was a complete scam. All it did was encourage more soft money donations to the parties themselves. The influence of special interests is, if anything, stronger.

Similarly, Sarbanes-Oxley was just a means of looking tough on corporate accounting while simply funneling more money into the hands of accountants and auditors. It actually stopped very few abuses, it only required that shady shit had to go through some red tape hoops. Creative Accounting lives on and if anything is more widespread than it was in 2000.

But neither party put a reintroduction of Glass-Steagal up for a vote, for example.

Not in the interests of the banking industry that underwrites both parties, even candidates in areas where the banking industry is minimal (Montana, for example).

As Carlin said, "We have the illusion of choice."

For example, I dislike free trade. What major party can I vote for, that contains a majority of candidates that will roll back the trade policy disasters of this country?

A country of 300M people and there isn't one party that isn't doesn't have moderate trade in it's platform?

Considering that Free Trade was considered a fringe idea prior to the late 60s for ALL of US history?

Sherrod Brown does not the Democratic party make.

Poor, dear, gentle, easily confused tatupu... nice to hear from you again! So then they are social wedge issues. Still...

tatupu70 says

I think the parties are quite a bit different and it's pretty easy to see if you look at charts over longer periods of time.

That's why many of us are more concerned with where the parties stand NOW relative to the future. The past is done.

tatupu70 says

If you look at important issues, there is a clear divide:

Campaign finance reform--Dems for, Reps against.

Obama Opts Out of Public Financing: Promise-Breaker or Reform-Shaker?

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2008/06/obama-opts-out-public-financing-promise-breaker-or-reform-shaker

tatupu70 says

Military spending--Reps for, Dems against (or at least for a reduction. Clinton actually started to address military spending)

Trimming the Defense Budget, Tea Party Style
http://www.theworld.org/2011/08/defense-budget-tea-party/

tatupu70 says

Social programs (Dems for, Reps against)

(This one is a little old, but you get the point...)

George Bush: a good man in Africa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/15/georgebush.usa

thunderlips11 says

But neither party put a reintroduction of Glass-Steagal up for a vote, for example.

Bingo again.

terriDeaner says

Please don't take it personally if I don't agree with your methodology

Who took it personally? I can argue zealously without being personal. I even suggested that you can take my methodology *conceptually* as opposed to that my "pretty chart", and you agreed. I even suggested an alternative -- Nolan or other people who suggest multi-axis views.

terriDeaner says

corntrollio says

How is today more like the 1880s?

Read a little more carefully - I'm suggesting this is where we are headed, not where we are at today.

I could ask you to read carefully as well -- if we are headed this way, then clearly today is more like the 1880s than yesterday or yesteryear. Again, please explain, I can rephrase if that helps: how are we headed in this direction?

terriDeaner says

Sure they are different, but the issue you seem to be wrong on is HOW MUCH are they different?

No, I already took care of this argument. I said that we do not have anyone in the other 3 quadrants who is a serious candidate. I agree, that would be fundamentally different. Ron Paul is still within the same quadrant, just off the mainline.

terriDeaner says

terriDeaner says

I do, however, think that RP is the singularly different choice among all of the legitimate/electable Repub and Dem options.

Is Dennis Kucinich running for president?

Okay, fine. Why didn't you vote for Dennis Kucinich in the past? He is clearly different from the mainstream. What was his flaw? Why would he not have shaken things up like Ron Paul?

thunderlips11 says

Abortion, Guns, and Gay Rights are more philosophical wedge issues than economic issues.

I think the problem is that if you believe these are the only differences, then you are falling into the same trap as the people who believe wedge issues are important -- ignoring all the other stuff. There are real substantive differences that are economic, as tatupu70 said. I'm not expressing which ones are right and which ones are wrong -- I'm just saying you can't ignore them.

thunderlips11 says

Or rather, it's about what both of their biggest mutual contributors want and don't want..

Okay, so why not support campaign reform?

thunderlips11 says

Campaign Finance Reform is and was a joke.

No incumbent wants Campaign Finance Reform.

Okay, so you do support campaign finance reform, but the votes aren't there to do comprehensive reform. You have people on one side and people on the other, and they compromise. That's how legislation (should) work. Certainly there were some people who thought it should have gone A LOT further. This is what I mean when I say ideology generally doesn't produce much besides circular arguments -- ideology generally isn't pragmatic or fact-sensitive.

terriDeaner says

thunderlips11 says

But neither party put a reintroduction of Glass-Steagal up for a vote, for example.

Bingo again.

Ron Paul would repeal Glass-Steagall? Kucinich might. Why didn't you vote for him?

Right, TD.

The most recent Patriot Act extension was voted in by the majority of both the Democrats AND Republicans in the Senate.

corntrollio says

Ron Paul would repeal Glass-Steagall? Kucinich might. Why didn't you vote for him?

I thought the Democratic Party was for civil liberties and seem to always talk against the Patriot Act. Why did the majority of Dems in the Senate vote in favor of it?

corntrollio says

Okay, fine. Why didn't you vote for Dennis Kucinich in the past? He is clearly different from the mainstream. What was his flaw? Why would he not have shaken things up like Ron Paul?

The Democratic Leadership will never allow Kucinich to become President. Not a problem, the typical Democratic primary voter would never pick him as he is "unelectable". What they do is pick somebody like Obama who talks a big game to the left during the Campaign, but then governs as a neoliberal center-right President.

Then, when he's up for re-election, they'll point to some PHILOSOPHICAL, non-economic remark about abortion or gays and say "OMG! You can't consider NOT voting for our Obama because he let you down for being center-right when he actually got elected --- imagine the alternative! Sure, he's not very liberal, but he's not one of (dun, dun, duhhhh....) THEM!"

Rinse, wash, repeat. The old "campaign as left-of-center, govern as a neoliberal". Clinton did the same thing. Ron Paul will never be President if the Republican party has anything to say about it.

terriDeaner says

Poor, dear, gentle, easily confused tatupu... nice to hear from you again! So then they are social wedge issues. Still...

Was I gone?

terriDeaner says

That's why many of us are more concerned with where the parties stand NOW relative to the future. The past is done.

Agreed. The problem is you aren't using the right criteria to judge where the parties stand NOW.

Yes, Obama opted out of public financing. This is a common logical fallacy that simple minds often utilize. Similar to those saying if Buffet wants higher taxes on the rich, why doesn't he voluntarily pay more himself.

Obama played by the rules in place at the time. That doesn't mean he doesn't want the rules changed. I think it's pretty clear he does.

thunderlips11 says

The McCain-Feingold Reform was a complete scam. All it did was encourage more soft money donations to the parties themselves. The influence of special interests is, if anything, stronger.

And another poor argument. Just because the final bill that was passed was less than ideal, doesn't mean that Democrats didn't want something stronger. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Republicans (andn some Dems) in Congress that made sure real campaign finance reform didn't have a change. In general, however, it is pretty clear that Dems want reform and Reps don't.

terriDeaner says

Trimming the Defense Budget, Tea Party Style
http://www.theworld.org/2011/08/defense-budget-tea-party/

Are you seriously going to argue that Reps aren't the party of military spending? And Dems are the party of less military spending? If so, one op-ed piece on the Tea party isn't sufficient to make a compelling case.

Ditto with social programs. I don't think you are really going to argue the parties are the same.

thunderlips11 says

The most recent Patriot Act extension was voted in by the majority of both the Democrats AND Republicans in the Senate.

72-23 vote with 5 votes missing. That means 28 people didn't vote for it. If the majority of people don't think the Patriot Act is a problem, then why is this a surprise? If I remember correctly, we're not even talking about the whole Patriot Act (I'm sure there are provisions you agree with), but just some specific provisions of it.

As far as I can tell, you're saying you disagreed with the end result. That doesn't mean that the parties are the same. That just means people had to compromise. You can't always get what you want, but you can try sometimes...

That doesn't mean people who disagree are shut out -- they're part of the debate too. If there are enough of them, things change. If 4 million gun control advocates joined the NRA, you can bet their stance would change.

thunderlips11 says

The Democratic Leadership will never allow Kucinich to become President.

thunderlips11 says

Ron Paul will never be President if the Republican party has anything to say about it.

Why don't the voters have more control over that than party leadership? You are necessarily saying that the majority of voters won't vote for Ron Paul either. That just means the majority of voters don't agree with you.

To put it another way, a third party or a third way or whatever will never have a winning presidential candidate until that third party gets at least some Congressional seats. Start smaller than you're talking about and build a groundswell. Ron Paul will not win if a majority of people won't vote for him, not because of any other reason.

I've gotta run so I'll make this quick:

Corntrollio - glad to hear that you don't take these things personally. Late 19th century corporations had heavy handed control of the government, at the expense of the poor (there was no large middle class then). And I still don't trust the charts to estimate party differences - explain to me how they are calculated and I might change my mind. And I'm not for or against Kucinich, but this post is about the electability of Ron Paul.

tatupu - I didn't think you went anywhere, I just haven't chatted with you in a while. And, as usual, I think you misunderstood my reasoning. I am not trying to simply support my position with solitary facts, I am disproving yours with exceptions to your hard-and-fast rules about what Dems and Repubs stand for. Enjoy!

BTW - this one made my day!

tatupu70 says

This is a common logical fallacy that simple minds often utilize.

terriDeaner says

tatupu - I didn't think you went anywhere, I just haven't chatted with you in a while. And, as usual, I think you misunderstood my reasoning. I am not trying to simply support my position with solitary facts, I am disproving yours with exceptions to your hard-and-fast rules about what Dems and Repubs stand for. Enjoy!

When did I make any hard and fast rules? I merely pointed out some of the obvious differences between the parties.

And your exceptions were hardly that. I think I showed how your logic was flawed.

Somehow I get the impression this thread exists to convince anyone reading it that they should not vote for Ron Paul. Given that the majority posting here are pro-socialist/communist, I'm not surprised.

Ron Paul is a direct threat to the central banker-controlled establishment that put Obama and Bush in office.

Basically, if you want to exit the paradigm of presidents who continue where the last one left off, then vote Paul into office. He does not represent a continuation of the same agenda.

Greg H says

Given that the majority posting here are pro-socialist/communist, I'm not surprised.

Oh great, another first-time poster trying to categorize broad swathes of people. You don't know anything about the people here and have never participated in discussion here.

No one is saying don't vote for Paul. What people are challenging is the stated reasons for doing so. If you want to participate in this debate, talk about those, instead of trying to label people with your nonsense. If your sole reason is to kill the fed, then good luck to you, sir -- what is your coherent argument to do that and what makes you think Ron Paul could do this alone as president? (although I suspect you would capitalize it to FED)

corntrollio says

Ron Paul would repeal Glass-Steagall? Kucinich might. Why didn't you vote for him?

He actually voted against the House equivalent of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (Financial Services Act of 1999) bill that repealed Glass-Stegal on the first round, then abstained on the second round.

first round:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1999-276

final vote:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/money-and-votes-aligned-in-con.html

Paul's stated reason for doing this was put in the congressional record, although I can't seem to get at it for some reason...

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr110899-glb.htm

Here's a summary - I've never read this site before so I can't vouch for it's truthiness:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/23595.html

According to this guy's summary, it seems that Paul didn't think the repeal went far enough, and in its proposed state would simply make the financial sector more unstable.

Oh yeah, Kucinich also voted Nay.