Is the GOP finally taking Ron Paul seriously ?

I think we all need to take a deep breath and get back on topic. It's easy to get off track when you start debating and arguing, but it has basically devolved into name calling, semantics, and seeing who can shout who down. Diablos I suggest making a thread about whether a world government can be good or bad, as well as one for whether War is good for anybody or not.

Having said that, I myself contributed to the off topic-ness of this thread and remove myself from the conversation until we start talking about the GOP's position on Ron Paul again.

Originally posted by Kester

Originally posted by Diablos
No one takes that senile old man seriously. I am beginning to think he doesn't even take himself seriously, and his run is just a big joke at this point. Romney will obviously be the nominee.

He's been quoted as saying he only entered politics for a laugh. You might be right in thinking he doesn't take himself seriously.
Watch a few seconds from two minutes onwards to see how he speaks to the rest of them when he isn't aware he's being watched by millions.

There is nothing in that video which suggests that any of the speakers that day did not know they were being viewed by millions. In fact, toward the end of your linked YouTube video clip the CNBC commentators complain that all the speakers are deliberately talking too long because they are getting "free air time". How arrogant of these CNBC talking heads!. That clip is an example of how the media believes they have the right to mould political opinion in this country rather than allow the people to draw their own conclusions based on what their representatives actually say versus what the media tells you they said.

Your post suggests that you think there is something worng with Dr. Paul's statements of that day. I'll give you a little credit by assuming you did not actually listen to what Dr. Paul says in that video because, if you had listened to his words and took a moment to think about what he said, then based on your post I cannot fathom how your brain works.

To make it easy for you, here is a verbatim transcript of what he said. I could not agree with him more. This was back in February 2009. Obviously, his fellow members of Congress were as asleep then as you were when you viewed the video. The past two years have proven the truth of his words.

"Yesterday a report came out that said the consumer confidence index is down to 25. Sometimes I think that might be overly optimistic. Nevertheless, I think that vote of confidence is really a reflection on our financial system, our monetary policy, our spending policies here in Congress, and then they see it in the economy. But it is fundamental for us to understand this because if we think we can patch a system up that failed, it's not going to work. We have to come to the realization that there is a sea change in what's happening. This is the end of an era and that we can't re-inflate the bubble. Just as we devised a new system of Bretton Woods in '44 which was doomed to fail. It failed in '71 and then we came up with the dollar reserve standard which was a papers standard. It was doomed to fail. We have to recognize that it has failed. And if we think we can re-inflate this bubble by creating credit out of thin air and calling it capital, believe me, we don't have a prayer of solving these problems. We have a total misunderstanding of what credit is versus capital. Capital can't come from the thin air creation by the Federal Reserve System. Capital has to come from saving. We have to work hard, produce, live within our means, and what is left over is called capital. This whole idea that we can recapitalize markets by merely turning on the printing presses and increasing credit is a total fallacy. So the sooner we wake up to realize that a new system has to be devised the better. Right now I think the central bankers of the world realize exactly what I'm talking about in their planning. But they're planning another system that goes one step further to internationalize regulations, internationalize the printing press, give up on the dollar standard, but we have to be very much aware that that system will be no more viable. We have to have a system which encourages people to work and to save. What do we do now? We're telling consumers to spend and continue the old process. It won’t work. "

Then some other members of Congress spoke, but their segments were removed from this video clip. Then the CNBC commentators chime in at 2:21 in the video clip as follows:

"This is not going as planned."
The female says, "No, it is not".
The male says, "We were told it would be a very limited number of opening statements, ah, and it seems to be getting out of control."
The female says, "Here's what we forgot, everybody's taking this live. And you know what that means? Why would they miss an opportunity for free air time? So we're taking a break"
The male says, " We're gonna take a commercial break, get them out of the way, so that when something really (unintelligible word] is happening, we don't have to interrupt them. We'll be right back."

CNBC apparently thinks it's better for the dumbed down masses to view a commercial and be told to buy something than to hear what their representatives in Congress have to say.

reply to post by dubiousone


I just finished watching the clip myself and was thinking the same thing. This video seems to be exactly what people need to hear from Ron Paul, and here I thought, based on the comment the guy who posted this, that he was going to say something inflammatory that would cause people to think twice. I guess the real question is, just speaking strictly on the content of this video, is ANYBODY taking what he said seriously? I'm curious as to whether anyone has an argument against what he said.

reply to post by Diablos

Since you clearly have proven you are unwilling to to stick to the actual topic of debate (which was whether or not war was beneficial to mankind, in case you forgot), I'm done Diablos. The world government thing you keep bringing up was really irrelevant to the actual argument and did nothing to further anyone's understanding of the issue, or introduce a new thought process, which is the actual point of debate. If you want to think that you've won, go right ahead. I concede, as I am unwilling to fill this thread anymore than I already have with a debate that is becoming more and more convoluted as you stray further and further from the original topic. I would love to tell you it was a pleasure debating you, but you really never came close to actually exploring or submitting your side on the actual issue. I didn't learn anything new, or expand my perspective from the engagement. Thank you anyway for at least taking the time to respond to my claims, even if they weren't exactly the type of responses that I was looking for. I certainly hoped that you gained something from this, so at the very least it wasn't a total waste of time. Have a nice night.

Please note: If you read what I actually said, the words were "scientific mindset" not scientific evidence. Please don't put words in my mouth, that's poor form. And I was not referring to a globalized government with this statement, but to my original applications of Darwinian logic to discredit your original assertion that war was beneficial to mankind. I apologize if my words were misleading or confusing.

Addition: I would also like to concede that you are correct, your argument was not both straw man and red herring, but simply red herring. Which I believe even you can admit.

Originally posted by Diablos

Originally posted by ugie1028You clearly lack skepticism and critical thinking because you have turned a blind eye to the MIC 'Military industrial complex.' A true critical thinking will weigh BOTH sides of the argument. and NOT insult the other side of the debate. Really shows your lack of 'critical thinking' you claim to have.

So, you dispute the FACT that war is one of our most prominent industries and employs the most Americans and that slashing funding for our war and ending the military industrial complex is good for the country? This is common sense and doesn't require critical thinking. War keeps millions of manufacturing and R&D professionals employed to always innovate better and more efficient weaponry to keep our national security and foreign interests intact. The military industrial complex goes a long way to help keeping these efforts funded. Cut funding, and millions of people are out of work.

This is common sense. Would you want to me to post a study for you to that 2 + 2 = 4?

Funny how some conspiracy theorist is trying to lecture me on scepticism.

Originally posted by ugie1028since when do critical thinkers 'as you claim to be' insult the libertarians by calling them lolibertarians? if anything you are trolling this thread and not to mention you have PROVIDED NOTHING to support what you have been posting. If you keep this up.. your membership here will be cut short. Trolls have a short life span on this site and you're IMO treading on thin ice.

I have not breached any of terms of service (I have read it word for word). Have you read the terms of service? Because it seems you would know that threatening others with a ban when you don't have the power (impersonating a moderator/administrator) is a very serious violation of the terms of service. Perhaps, you should take your own advice and stop threatening other users with a ban when you do not have that authority?

I've read other posts on this forum, and it seems anybody who opposes RP is by defined as a "troll" by his fan boys. Funny how these trolls are still around for years and years. I guess the moderators do not agree with who RP supporters define as a troll (anyone who disagrees with your ideologies)?

You're an ideologue of the worst kind.

edit on 14-1-2012 by Diablos because: (no reason given)

I don't really have much to say on either side of the debate here, but how do you expect credibility when you can't cite sources or give examples of what you're saying? I've read most of this thread, and you are getting served from various different angles, yet you can't think critically enough to maybe think that you're, in fact, wrong?

Another thing is, just because you're in engineering courses, doesn't mean you know the first thing about politics.

Originally posted by dubiousone

There is nothing in that video which suggests that any of the speakers that day did not know they were being viewed by millions. In fact, toward the end of your linked YouTube video clip the CNBC commentators complain that all the speakers are deliberately talking too long because they are getting "free air time". How arrogant of these CNBC talking heads!. That clip is an example of how the media believes they have the right to mould political opinion in this country rather than allow the people to draw their own conclusions based on what their representatives actually say versus what the media tells you they said.

Trying to stay on topic I hope my efforts have helped make the GOP take Ron Paul seriously. I did a three day publicity stunt in 2007 that got the message to an entire town here in England. I've mentioned him whenever possible since.

My evaluation of that video is different from yours. I don't think he knew he was being viewed by millions and his manner appears to be more relaxed and less bashful than usual. My perception is that he speaks to the rest of them as if they were slightly backward children which they are compared to him in my opinion. I suspect several speakers were supposed to have a short segment but Ron Paul supporters within the network fiddled it so we only got his excellent words. The commentators then made their pathetic attempt to play down the message. The word that you described as unintelligible appears to be 'substandard'. I think it's a Freudian slip. The commentator actually said "...when something really substandard is happening... we'll be right back." Presumably he meant to say substantial but his slip revealed the truth.

I'm so impressed with the message in this particular video that I've drawn many peoples attention to it over the years. The way he ends with the brief statement "I won't work." and the expression on his face as he says it speaks volumes to me. I had no interest in politics until I heard about Ron Paul, now I'm one of the most politically active people in my area. He certainly cured my political apathy.

I don't think he takes himself seriously and that's what makes him such a great man. Humility is the key to avoiding temptation.

Originally posted by Diablos
* * * *

If you think the pacifist isolationism espoused by RP is so great, then what about Pearl Harbour? Did isolationism and complete neutrality cause other countries to stop from attacking us?

If you pacifists had you way with our country, we would have been completely invaded and conquered by a tyrannical government a long time ago.

Now you're being silly and naive. As another member or members have said on this thread, you have an annoying and time wasting habit of setting up straw men so that you can argue against yourself. You engage in unsound logic when your arguments use false premises.

The followng is based on what I understand to be Ron Paul's position. I welcome anyone to correct me where I may be wrong.

Ron Paul is no isolationist. It seems you're parrotting what you've heard various media talking heads and, perhaps, some of the other Republican candidtates say. Show us a clip of Ron Paul saying that he espouses an isolationist policy for the U.S. It will be a long, tedious, and unproductive task. But go ahead and try anyway.

Ron Paul is against the expanding imperialism that has characterized the U.S. for the past half century. That does not equate isolationism.

Ron Paul is against meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, against murder and assassination of citizens of other countries, against invading and occupying other nations in order to change their form of government, against doing so to secure their resources for our benefit or for the benefit of some domestic interest group or multinational conglomerate, and against invading other nations to set up permanent control centers (like the new massive "embassy" in Iraq, and setting up military bases on their soil. That isn't isolationism either.

Ron Paul believes we should bring our military home and close the myriad military bases the U.S. has installed and operates on foreign soil.

Ron Paul believes our resources should be used first for the benefit of the citizens of the United States
of America, rather than for the expanding militarization of America, or to promote the agendas of nefarious groups like the CFR and CNAC.

How does any of the foregoing equate to isolationism?

You confuse the concept of isolationism with his policy of non-intervention.

Get clear on what you're saying and maybe some people here will be able to have an intelligible discussion with you.

Originally posted by Gigatronix
reply to post by Littikani

 

I called you a troll because after a brief look at your posting history all I see is generalizations, assumptions, and name calling. This is what trolls do, say stupid things to fire people up.

Oh the irony. What name did I call you again? I was called troll. I believe I have called you gigatronix. Let me know when you join us in the real world.

You wnat to learn about Ron Paul do you? Go to different news sites, RPs own website, and maybe check out a youtube video of him actually saying stuff.

Why cant I talk to his supporters?

Saying that you want to learn but ron paul supporters aren't sharing is just plain dumb.

Cool. Since I never said that anywhere I do not really give a # how dumb it is.

To say that in the absence of input from his supporters, you'll form an opinion based on the character of his supporters, is just stupid. I really hope you aren't voting with a strategy like that.

To say what you just said means you either cannot read or are not reading. Again, let me know when reality comes into the equation. Next time you address me with what I said, use what I actually said and we can have a discussion. If you are going to make up straw men and knock them down on your own there is no need to include me at all.

Do that # amongst yourselves.

Originally posted by wildtimes

Wow, dude. Did you see the thread that talks about how to identify disinfo agents?

Totally not, dude. Was it killer?

The one that links to the site where the 25 techniques are explained?

Gnarly, dude but not really my gig.

Might wanna check it out....and, no, I'm not going to post the link to that thread for you.
But.... Wow.

So you are calling me a disinfo agent? So I point out that Ron Paul supporters are just sitting around calling names and you write an entire post that does nothing but call me a name.

OK, PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS.

Show me the disinformation I am posting. Even one example will do.

STOP CALLING PEOPLE NAMES AND ACTING LIKE CHILDREN AND TRY HAVING A CONVERSATION LIKE PEOPLE. Just try it.

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by Littikani

 

You say that you are interested in learning more about Ron Paul...I am directing you to a place you can do that.

www.issues2000.org...

Let me ask you something. Do you believe that website is so perfect that no one could walk away with questions remaining? Cuzzzz....that was kinda how I got to where I was when I joined ATS but thanks anyway.

I am curious...are you a supporter of Mitt Romney?

I am not a supporter of anyone at the moment but mittens is not high on my list.



ETA: So the page has been updated quite a bit but mainly just as to what is where so it is highlighted now compared to what was and let me just say that the top of the page being

More laws don't solve problems on abortion. (Sep 2011)
Efforts to fund abortion ranks among stupidest policies. (Apr 2011)
Deregulate the adoption market. (Apr 2011)
Abortion laws should be a state-level choice. (Apr 2011)
Abortion causes inconsistent moral basis for value of life. (Apr 2011)
Day-after pill allows individual moral choice. (Apr 2011)
Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008)
Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008)
Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008)
Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty. (Feb 2008)
Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)
Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
Save “snowflake babies”: no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)

Is NOT what you wanted me to see.

reply to post by Littikani


Of course people will always have questions...after reading a political website...I would be surprised if they didn't.

The website is a place to read some information...but of course...there is always more information in other places to be studied.

Originally posted by Littikani

Originally posted by Gigatronix
reply to post by Littikani

 

I called you a troll because after a brief look at your posting history all I see is generalizations, assumptions, and name calling. This is what trolls do, say stupid things to fire people up.

Oh the irony. What name did I call you again? I was called troll. I believe I have called you gigatronix. Let me know when you join us in the real world.

You wnat to learn about Ron Paul do you? Go to different news sites, RPs own website, and maybe check out a youtube video of him actually saying stuff.

Why cant I talk to his supporters?

Saying that you want to learn but ron paul supporters aren't sharing is just plain dumb.

Cool. Since I never said that anywhere I do not really give a # how dumb it is.

To say that in the absence of input from his supporters, you'll form an opinion based on the character of his supporters, is just stupid. I really hope you aren't voting with a strategy like that.

To say what you just said means you either cannot read or are not reading. Again, let me know when reality comes into the equation. Next time you address me with what I said, use what I actually said and we can have a discussion. If you are going to make up straw men and knock them down on your own there is no need to include me at all.

Do that # amongst yourselves.

I said I wasn't going to get involved in any more off topic convo. I've already admitted that my remarks were counter productive. In any case I stand by what I said, you'll just have to live with it.

You guys know what "pithy" means?

Giving me a headache...