Ron Paul campaign Press Release: Ron Paul WINNING the Battle for Delegates.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
But ya...Ron Paul has many ideals I agree with...same with Mickey.

From one ridiculous comparison to another. Are you a one trick pony, or what? And I'm under no illusion that the GOP establishment is going to play fair, but we're participating and we're gonna fight all the way to the end.

I wonder what "you people" will be writing on here when he finally drops out....it will be obvious for most...they will go lockstep into whomever the reps choose and it will be all about the anti-obama bandwagon no matter what the opposition is suggesting they will do.

What do you mean "you people"?

Anyway, you must not have read a page back when I said I voted Democrat the last two Presidential elections. I'm only registered Rep. for Ron Paul, and if Ron Paul isn't on the ticket, or doesn't run 3rd party, I'm voting for Gary Johnson (since AZ doesn't allow write-ins). I will also be voting AGAINST every other Republican on the ticket unless they endorsed Ron Paul. You see, I'm not the one going "lockstep" with anything. That's you, admitting Obama is a liar, but saying you're gonna vote for him anyway. But, just like I told Gingrich's campaign manager here in AZ when he tried to tell me our main goal is to "beat Obama", that's not my goal at all. No sense replacing one establishment puppet with another.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
He promises to allow monopolies. He promises to let corporations write their own rules. He promises to remove any safety net or compassion from society. He promises to privatise almost every aspect of government, putting corporate profits over people. He promises a mad max style dystopia wherein only the very rich have any say in their country.

I'd rather he not be able to keep those promises.

I'd also rather deal with corrupt government than corrupt business any day of the week.

Really? Did you really just say that? You really need to understand what the hell you're talking about before you post. Monopolies wouldn't exist in a free market. We haven't lived in a free market for a looooong time. Monopolies exist, because the most powerful corporations buy politicians, then they lobby and shape regulations that don't apply to them, but instead stifle competition against them. Have you been here, on earth during the past 10 years? If you were, you would have seen what happens when government interferes in the private markets. Ron Paul promises a true free market, where consumers will have REAL choices and the people will actually have a voice when their property rights are infringed upon by polluters, etc. without being blocked by the corrupt government we have now that protects corporations. We LIVE in your above scenario RIGHT NOW. That's what we Ron Paul supporters are trying to put an end to.

reply to post by 27jd


You've been drinking the koolaid.

Without regulations corporations would absolutely form monopolies. The government has stopped monopolies repeatedly because companies did just that. There's never gonna be a situation where a corporate entity says, "fine that's enough profit". Companies will, and HAVE destroyed themselves chasing profit. They are necessarily amoral. To believe anything else denies all history.

On top of ALL of that, in a purely free market the existing wealth would simply corrupt any existing government and create fascism.

Too much koolaid my friend. Way too much.

Wait....You mean the RP supporters...the ones that are stupid, lazy and don't go out and vote for him figured out that you don't need to win the popular vote to be nominated?

You mean all it takes is not rushing home after the vote to watch American Idol or some other garbage that keeps you asleep?

SHHHHH! Don't tell the MSM. Don't tell the Anti-Paul Trolls. Let em keep laughing!

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Oh boy, a Koolaid reference, how original. You obviously didn't absorb what I posted. So, what about when people realize those corporations are greedy, and put making money above providing a quality product, or service? In a free market, that would provide enterprising individuals incentive to create their own business to compete with them, and provide a better service for a better price and people would start spending their money with them. The greedy corporation that provides a crappy service, would go out of business and they would be seen as an example of what happens when corporations get greedy and treat customers poorly. That type of behavior would go away once it was recognized that would cause your business to fail. Today what we have is an environment where corporations with enough money to buy politicians, influence the regulations that are meant to keep them in line. Instead, again, they are exempt and those regulations do nothing to protect the consumer or the environment, and everything to stamp out any competing upstarts through endless, redundant red tape and processes. Today the government uses tax payer money to "bail out" failing monopolies (that you think don't exist). Keep in mind, we're only talking about the FEDERAL government, states are still able to regulate businesses however the PEOPLE of those states see fit, as long as those regulations abide by our Constitution. State governments are much more accountable to the people, and we get to actually vote on them.

reply to post by 27jd


Pure delusion.

Without regulation a monopoly will necessarily form and control the means of production, meaning that there won't be competition. This happens all the time. Companies control rare products and make competiton untenable, or control the government and create tax advantages only they can take advantage of, or control government and all contracts the governments generate.

There is NO history of unregulated business not forming monopolies and unfairly destroying their woldbe competition. You are being wilfully naive. Competition creates one winner and a multitude of losers.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


*sigh*

Here, read this since you still don't seem to get it the way I'm putting it, perhaps it's my fault...

Market domination that has been achieved in the private sector through efficiency and consumer satisfaction is a phenomenon of a free-market economy. Even without any competition, such a business can never take customers for granted because of the possibility that new entrants will enter the marketplace to compete. Indeed, big, well-established companies with large market share must constantly strive to satisfy consumers.

A monopoly created through the legal protection and the police powers of a state is something completely different. Here, the state makes it illegal for competitors to enter the market. This kind of privileged power inevitably institutionalizes inefficiency and discourages innovation.

Owners of big, successful businesses can never be sure that they will retain their strong position no matter how dominant they may look at a particular point in time. However, state monopolies are in a very different situation. They have a unique no-competition guarantee backed by the force of the state.
www.fff.org...

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Regulations corrupt and what rules this system of regulation is corruption and bureaucracy. And you don't get one without the other.

So who's being delusional? Who's drinking the Kool-Aid?

reply to post by maddog99


Regulations do NOT corrupt. This is the kind of mush headed nonsense I've come to expect from Paul supporters.

No lead in Children's toys? Who's that corrupted? Etc. Etc.

The founding fathers in no way sanctioned anarchy, but you'd never know that listening to a Paul supporter.

In fact, the Constitution is essentially one big regulation. Who'd that corrupt? Mr constitution Ron Paul I suppose.

Meanwhile, back to the topic at hand...

I think it's entirely possible to amass enough delegates to make things really interesting at the convention if no one can win on the first vote. If any candidate gets a bunch of their people in (and I suspect other candidates aren't bothering to be so detailed, figuring the fact delegates are bound for a first vote in many states is sufficient), you could see whichever candidate has those people have clout far beyond what you'd predict.

It's entirely undemocratic, and amounts to a party coup. But perfectly legal, and frankly, no worse than other party games that aren't covered as dramatically.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
Regulations do NOT corrupt. This is the kind of mush headed nonsense I've come to expect from Paul supporters.

Corrupt people authoring regulations create corrupt regulations.

No lead in Children's toys? Who's that corrupted? Etc. Etc.

Do YOU even believe you're own BS? First, regulations haven't prevented lead from being used in children's toys. Some toys manufactured elsewhere make it through. In a free market, there would still be the option to seek damages from a company that provides a product that is harmful. There are private consumer protection agencies that do a great job uncovering dangerous products. They are much less corruptable and much more efficient than our government. A business providing dangerous products would be sued out of existence, especially once everybody stops buying their products. As it is our government and the "regulations" that are in place now would PROTECT those corporations. Just look at BP. The "regulators" took a back seat while BP ran the show. They're still in business and going strong, because they own politicians.

ETA: Also, what have regulations have done to prevent all kinds of toxins from being added to our food? Tests show all kinds of nasty stuff in milk for instance...but the federal government won't allow anybody to sell raw milk as an alternative, because Monstanto owns politicians. And, you can still buy cigarettes, with known carcinogens...but raw milk is bad, so you get raided if you sell it. How are these regulations working out, really?

The founding fathers in no way sanctioned anarchy, but you'd never know that listening to a Paul supporter.

Who said anything about anarchy? It's sad all you can do is exaggerate. The founding fathers intended most of these regulations and laws to be handled at the state level. They never intended for us to have two layers of redundant government meddling in our lives. The people vote on laws at the state level. The federal government was intended to protect the borders, ensure interstate commerce, and that the states stay within the Constitution, as in not depriving the people of life or liberty.

In fact, the Constitution is essentially one big regulation. Who'd that corrupt? Mr constitution Ron Paul I suppose.

out of all the republicans running for president Ron Paul is the smartest of the bunch imho

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by MegaMind

 

Ron Paul won't be on the ballot, so I can't suggest you vote for him. All the other Republicans are worse than Obama. Vote Obama.

Easy.

Ron Paul is neither a viable or good candidate. Like Chomsky said, US Libertarians are pro-tyranny. They desire a system in which unelected and unaccountable businesses control much more of your life and are even less accountable than they are now.

So yeah, if you think corporate boards are better than democracy, vote Paul.

A MUCH better plan is fixing US democracy, not throwing it out.

You poor misguided soul. What you're describing that you don't like is exactly as it is right now. Big business and banking own the government. They own Obama. They own most of the dems and repubs. Ron Paul is about the only one they don't own. That's why they're so afraid of him.

reply to post by capone1


You had 6 stars plus when I hit your star and it still said 6 plus stars???

reply to post by mrnotobc


They're not afraid of him; they know he has no chance. Besides he essentially endorsed Romney earlier. On top of all of that there no candidate more pro-business than Paul. And no candidate more willing to let businesses run roughshod over your rights.

You use the word essentially once again...I am beginning to think you have no idea what your talking about...

Way to obvious...Is that the only word you can think of intelligently? Seriously, the MODS must not be doing there job because all your doing is repeating...So you are trolling...

reply to post by KonquestAbySS


It's a verbal tick. I've got about three of them and they drive people bonkers. Essentially, it means nothing.

reply to post by 27jd


I'll respond to your insanity bit by bit.

Corrupt people authoring regulations create corrupt regulations.

So, regulations themselves aren't the issue. In fact it's the motivation of the people making the regulations that can cause problems.

Good people can make good regulations. Bad people can make bad regulations.

Therefore a smart person would say, good regulation can be beneficial to society; what we need is not an anti-regulation agenda, but an anti-bad politician agenda.

In fact anti-regulation agendas are almost exclusively supported politicians in the pocket of big business, and the occasionally wackadoo ideologue libertarian. Why? Because business finds ALL regulation, even good regulation made my good politicians to be a potential drag on their profit. It's in business interest to not make distinction between good and bad regulation. That is NOT however in the interest of individuals who often greatly benefit from good regulation.

Do YOU even believe you're own BS? First, regulations haven't prevented lead from being used in children's toys. Some toys manufactured elsewhere make it through. In a free market, there would still be the option to seek damages from a company that provides a product that is harmful. There are private consumer protection agencies that do a great job uncovering dangerous products. They are much less corruptable and much more efficient than our government. A business providing dangerous products would be sued out of existence, especially once everybody stops buying their products. As it is our government and the "regulations" that are in place now would PROTECT those corporations. Just look at BP. The "regulators" took a back seat while BP ran the show. They're still in business and going strong, because they own politicians.

This is again wildly misguided and delusional.

Your attitude: Businesses find ways to break the law, therefore the law is wrong. Lot's of people get away with murder, therefore there should be no laws against murder. Just put a tax on it.

As for the rest of your free market blather.

It's obvious it's nonsense.

What ACTUALLY happens is retailers choose products with the highest profit margins, typically. Consumers ACTUALLY care more about cost than danger. Producing a dangerous product has never, on it's own, stopped a business. Look at diabetes in America. Americans are grossly obese and a LOT of the issue has to do with what foods hey choose to eat. American society chooses to let the market dictate what food is on the shelf and instead of consumers producing a super food, the out come you'd suggest, consumer choice produces an endless stream of cheap garbage. And that's WITH some safety regulation. In a (imaginary and untenable) perfect free market consumers wouldn't suddenly turn on McDonalds et al and demand food that was good for them, no. In fact business, unfettered by all government control, would produce cheaper less healthy food and consumers, whose impulse control isn't ... strong... would gobble it up and fill the hospital even more quickly.

This isn't an economic abstraction. You can see the consumer driven decline in food quality. Driven by an unwillingness to change habits to be healthy and driven by a desire for cheap crap.

The desire for a larger quantity of cheaper crap is a dream come true for business. Business would HAPPILY increase caffeine and salt content to dangerous levels to increase sales. Consumers have no will to change and like with cigarettes, if a dangerous product creates a physical or psychological dependency ONLY government can regulate it.

ETA: Also, what have regulations have done to prevent all kinds of toxins from being added to our food? Tests show all kinds of nasty stuff in milk for instance...but the federal government won't allow anybody to sell raw milk as an alternative, because Monstanto owns politicians. And, you can still buy cigarettes, with known carcinogens...but raw milk is bad, so you get raided if you sell it. How are these regulations working out, really?

That's a product of a corrupt system, not a side-effect of regulation. Live somewhere with more regulation, like the EU, and the whole dangerous crap in food dilemma is greatly reduced. In fact, places where the standard of living and life expectancy are much higher than the US tend to have:

- more regulation
- less legislated individualism
- higher taxes

And yet, instead of following facts you trust dusty disproven ideology.

reply to post by 27jd


Finally, you say

Who said anything about anarchy? It's sad all you can do is exaggerate. The founding fathers intended most of these regulations and laws to be handled at the state level. They never intended for us to have two layers of redundant government meddling in our lives. The people vote on laws at the state level. The federal government was intended to protect the borders, ensure interstate commerce, and that the states stay within the Constitution, as in not depriving the people of life or liberty.

This is such a pile of steaming #.

The government can not protect people without meddling. Pure and simple.

On top of that in a federal system there is necessarily two levels of government, in fact there's no limiting of the NUMBER of levels of government in the constitution. The founding fathers were heavily involved from the local up to the national level and were NOT expecting there to be no national government. In FACT, they expected the national and local governments to both have power.

As for your very silly assertion that all the federal government was supposed to do was "protect the borders, ensure interstate commerce, and that the states stay within the Constitution"

The role of the Federal government has changed dramatically throughout it's history precisely BECAUSE it's limitations are NOT spelled out explicitly in he the Constitution. The basis of Federalism is NOT a limited national government, any more than it's a limited state government. It's a system wherein these two levels of government balance each other out, but which gives ultimate legal authority to the national government.

The founders also, as they were not idiots, allowed the Constitution to be modified, to prevent it from become outmoded. The combination of all of this completely undermines ANY argument wherein the Constitution has a certain small set of rules controlling the activities of the Federal government.

The whole charade, that the founders only wanted states to govern the people is just right-wing rhetoric based on ideology, not on the text of the constitution and certainly not on how the constitution has been legally applied since it was written.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
So, regulations themselves aren't the issue. In fact it's the motivation of the people making the regulations that can cause problems.

You have a REAL comprehension problem. I never said regulations were the issue, but they should be handled at the state level. It is not in the scope of the federal government which is much more open to corruption. This country was intended to be 50 states, with the people of each state voting on laws and regulations that best suit their needs. The federal government is only supposed to make sure they abide by the Constitution in doing so. Again, we don't need TWO layers of government making laws that often contradict each other. The federal government has been corrupted by the corporations you keep talking about, plain and simple. Obama is JUST as much a part of that corruption as the GOP.

I'm done going in circles with you, you either have ZERO ability to understand what is being stated, or are just purposefully pretending you have ZERO ability to understand. I suspect the latter.

Oh, and if you like Europe so much, please by all means, MOVE THERE. Things are going great over there, I hear.