If Ron Paul was President, Would You Ever Criticize Him?

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
Are you proposing that I share my wealth with everyone, even if I don't want to give it all to those who have not worked as hard as I? Because that's communism and my friend I ain't no communist!

Proposing? no..your wealth will be shared..this isn't an option for you..never was. You don't get to opt out of paying for roads everyone uses, nor do you get to opt out of paying for a bridge you will never ride over...pretending like you have a choice in the matter is childish and unrealistic...and the concept is a bit communistic (community being the root word...the rulers of earth realized the average person is so moronic that they would let the forest burn without concern until their specific tree was on fire..so, they impose taxes to build things for the community as a whole, because the average individual is too stupid or selfish to do it themselves).

So, communism (forced community sponsorship) has always and will always be a part of society..the only area to discuss is how much communism is necessary verses capitalistic prosperity. Got to find that nice line

I use the term communism, even though it is an incorrect term, because you have no concept of what communism is, but seem to have redefined it to fit anyhow..so meh.

Enjoy your freedom to use your wealth as you see fit. just don't forget to pay your taxes, else to jail you go

That's socialism. Not communism, so your entire argument is moot!

Ummm... really, moot? Are you trying to say the two are mutually exclusive?

Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

Socialism play /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[2] There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
I use the term communism, even though it is an incorrect term, because you have no concept of what communism is, but seem to have redefined it to fit anyhow..so meh.

Enjoy your freedom to use your wealth as you see fit. just don't forget to pay your taxes, else to jail you go

That's socialism. Not communism, so your entire argument is moot!

Ahh, so your pro socialism.
Gotcha.

Same here (to a degree, all societies need some socialism to balance out the capitalism, else it turns into a corporatism...our balance, incidently, is off as of late (eyes our trade laws and our new corporation people)

reply to post by Swills


Well, thats taking it to a pure extreme..which doesn't work. Nothing pure works...a balancing act of the best traits in conjunction with other forms seems overall the best.

Utopia feeds all its people, even though it may not be the finest dining, it is food. you have a place to live..not a mansion, but you will have a bed and walls that is yours. You have health care, you have etc etc etc.

But, if you want more than just some generic food and a mundane cell style home, you work and better yourself...sure, you can nap every day of your life and live in a state of relative poverty (or kingly when compared to some tribal places around the world)..materialistic pressure will drive you to get more in life.

a net and ladder working together is best for society in my opinion.

To date i have never seen a Ron Paul supporter criticize anything he's done or said and i see a few saying they would but all anyone has to do is look at any thread questioning Paul and they turn in to a pack of wolves going around anyone who disagrees with Paul:

Traitor!
Disinfo Agents!
Shills!

And a few Other labels.

Read any pro Paul thread the proof is in the pudding.

reply to post by neo96


While true most supporters are all for what Ron stands for I have seen a few supporters who disagree with a few of his polices (ie, abortion, gay marriage, wanting to end: CIA, NSA, EPA, DOE, etc) but as a whole they like what he wants to do.

Well Ron paul would do many extreme things and in the short term it might seem crazy and suck like hell. But we need a different course of action in most of our policies and no one will bite the bullet because it would cause discomfort in the general population. Change is not easy so of course people would criticize the hell out of him. But RP will never win not a chance in hell. TPTB have given you the two choices you have and the only difference between them is the color of their skin.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by Swills

 

Well, thats taking it to a pure extreme..which doesn't work. Nothing pure works...a balancing act of the best traits in conjunction with other forms seems overall the best.

Utopia feeds all its people, even though it may not be the finest dining, it is food. you have a place to live..not a mansion, but you will have a bed and walls that is yours. You have health care, you have etc etc etc.

But, if you want more than just some generic food and a mundane cell style home, you work and better yourself...sure, you can nap every day of your life and live in a state of relative poverty (or kingly when compared to some tribal places around the world)..materialistic pressure will drive you to get more in life.

a net and ladder working together is best for society in my opinion.

I wouldn't like utopia, but I understand why those seemingly socialist entities were created. Do You? You yourself say something pure communism would never work. So pure libertarian will never work! Neither will ending the fed because something will take its place! And it could be something worse.

Are these pointless Ron Paul posts really necessary? We know he is not going to be president. The guy is not perfect, but nobody can say the man doesn't care about his country. It has been the same threads, same bickering, same agenda by the same people for the last 3 months. What is the point? Really? Ron Paul supporters just need to stop feeding these people. Outkast, jjfrd, tinfoil, spad, you guys are better than this. So am I.

Originally posted by Novaroc
Are these pointless Ron Paul posts really necessary? We know he is not going to be president. The guy is not perfect, but nobody can say the man doesn't care about his country. It has been the same threads, same bickering, same agenda by the same people for the last 3 months. What is the point? Really? Ron Paul supporters just need to stop feeding these people. Outkast, jjfrd, tinfoil, spad, you guys are better than this. So am I.

So how does you posting this help in your cause hm...?

If he does not hold onto his promises he should be impeached!!

However with a 30yr great voting record I would be surprised if that happened
But don't forget, he needs congress, he's not a dictator
He does not believe in a dictatorship!

reply to post by jjf3rd77

So how does you posting this help in your cause hm...?

It doesn't. That's my point. Nobody is getting anywhere with these. So I promise not to waste my own or any other's time by participating in RP, Obama, or Romney threads. The wheels are spinning, but it's not going anywhere.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
You yourself say something pure communism would never work. So pure libertarian will never work! Neither will ending the fed because something will take its place! And it could be something worse.

Nothing pure works...libertarianism, communism, socialism, capitalism, etc. Each has tried, each has failed. merging elements together over time tends to stablize aspects..but when some start moving ahead or behind, then the system becomes destablized.

We need to get politicians out of control and put in scientists and intellects whom can work on the balance verses the noise the politicians make for career points. Maximum benefit of prosperity and growth tempered with a overall civilization uplifting. The goal here is not for a few dudes to make a zillion bucks, but for us as a species to get colonizing space and securing ourselves for the long haul. This will not be done by suppression of most people to benefit a few...but rather to get all people moving up and out.

Personally, I see us biding our time until we can establish a united council technocracy. We currently do not have the technology to effectively try it yet and attain any success, but one day it will come..it will be inevitable so long as we don't blow each other up before then.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
reply to post by Zngland

 

Spoken like a true Paul-o-maniac.

He packs his legislature with pork spending then votes against it but some of the pork spending that he initiated still gets sent home to grease the paws of his constituents. He is proven to be just as much of a slimy politician as any on Capitol Hill.

And nobody votes for him in national elections, because he is transparent. Only the braindead sheeple fall for his brand of politics.

Why shouldn't he vote for things that affect his home district? They pay taxes as well and has every right for some of it to be used at home.

His brand of politics? You mean ending our failure of trying to police the world and going broke doing it? Or don't you thing it would be a good idea to end giving money away to other countries and use it at home instead?

If you think Paul's brand of politics is bad I shudder to think what kind of failure you would support for president. Lemme guess to get your vote all he would have to do is wear something shiny?

reply to post by michaelbrux


That was a very interesting point actually, is Ron Paul capable of being ruthless? Probably not, but isn't that what we love about him? I guess it's a dog eat dog world in many peoples minds, lol, shoot, I guess the notion of no war and "cleaning our own house" is not a message enough people are willing to embrace...friggin makes me sad.....

reply to post by jjf3rd77


We all share the same responsibilities

I like creating solution-oriented thoughts/ideas instead of bashing others though, so no, I wouldn't criticize him.

reply to post by SaturnFX


He's not talking about roads most likely, probably he means women's contraceptives, abortions, welfare, illegals education and health care etc.

you think something will change when he is president?

Originally posted by buster2010

Why shouldn't he vote for things that affect his home district?

I don't know why he should and neither does he because he always votes against them, every time. It is all a trick, once the pork is packed in on a Bill he knows will pass for other reasons, he safely votes no so that it appears he has a record against pork when he was the one putting the pork there. Very slimy political move which nobody else really does but him. Others who baste Bills with pork quietly vote for them but he pretends to distance himself with a fake "perfect record" against pork, and all the suckers lap it up and believe it.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

Originally posted by buster2010

Why shouldn't he vote for things that affect his home district?

I don't know why he should and neither does he because he always votes against them, every time. It is all a trick, once the pork is packed in on a Bill he knows will pass for other reasons, he safely votes no so that it appears he has a record against pork when he was the one putting the pork there. Very slimy political move which nobody else really does but him. Others who baste Bills with pork quietly vote for them but he pretends to distance himself with a fake "perfect record" against pork, and all the suckers lap it up and believe it.

You are wrong again. Saying that he votes against them every time just shows you are doing no research into his voting record and what the votes are for. So basically your just another clueless hater that does no checking into anything and just repeats what the ignorant morons at FOX tells you to say.

I plan on voting for Ron Paul but NO ONE is beyond criticism.

If you think ROn Puaul Is beyond criticism you are missing the netire point. He wants to be criticized unlike Obama.