Welcome to PatsFans.com

Ron Paul on Larry King

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Real World, Nov 10, 2009.

  1. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,003
    Likes Received:
    191
    Ratings:
    +443 / 5 / -2

    I really wonder if this guy will have a punchers chance in 2012. I highly doubt it, but he's sounding more and more like what we need, with each passing day. Too bad he's so old, in his 70's I believe, cuz his ideology has been gaining steam over the last few years. Supposedly his son is a chip off of the old man's block, and is being courted to follow in his dad's political foot steps. We shall see I guess.


    YouTube - Ron Paul vs. Michael Moore on Larry King CNN 10/29/2009
  2. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,511
    Likes Received:
    135
    Ratings:
    +344 / 3 / -13

    Someone who believes in fiscal responsibilty? No way a guy like that could win RW!:rolleyes:
  3. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    Wow, here you go again, 5 years behind the curve. A few years from now this joker will probably be complaining about credit default swaps.
  4. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,511
    Likes Received:
    135
    Ratings:
    +344 / 3 / -13

    Oh will cut the crap Mav?!

    You act as if you're so "in-tune" with all current events...

    Guess what brother?

    YOU'RE NOT!
  5. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    What are you talking about? Paul was out in front of this whole collapse of the currency, banks failing, trade deficit, Foreign entanglements...the list is long.

    What's your specific point? How has he been "behind the curve"?
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,861
    Likes Received:
    147
    Ratings:
    +201 / 5 / -6

    I'm not surprised you're attracted to his his dated views, ideas that were rejected around the turn of the last century.

    Also, he had that troubling racist newsletter, Ron Paul's Political Report. Also, if you believe Paul's Libertarian, consider that he's actively anti-abortion.
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2009
  7. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    I believe Mav is referring to RW, not Paul.

    I've always liked a lot of what Paul has to say. (And for the record, he is NOT a racist, had nothing to do with the editorial content of that newsletter, and his ideology runs completely perpendicular to bigotry).

    Where I differ with Paul (and I suspect his son) is his clamoring for completely unregulated free market capitalism. If we've learned anything the past 50 years, it's that private enterprise can not be counted on to help or protect their fellow Americans, and care only for bottom-line profit, even if that means putting their fellow Americans in peril. It's largely the reason we are where we are. Greed. And at the core of free market capitalism IS greed.

    I don't agree with big government, especially when it doesn't act ethically. But there is far more accountability with government oversight than there is with unchecked private enterprise. We need look no further than triple-billed Iraq reconstruction and Katrina aid to be convinced of that fact.
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2009
  8. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Ron Paul the person is Anti-Abortion, that is true, Ron Paul the Politician believes the issue is best decided at the local level and doesn't think the Federal Government should decide that. He believe in individual rights, which allows him to personally be anti-abortion.

    He's never once said he wants to pass a law to force you to be anti-abortion as well...

    And that my friend is huge difference between Ron Paul and all the other career politicians.
  9. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    WHAT!!??!!?? Are you serious?

    Every regulatory Board is staffed with Industry Insiders!!! Our Fed Reserve people come from the banks, our FDA people come from big Agro and Big Pharma.

    If anything, Government is the biggest problem of the last 50 years, push legislation that benefits few at the cost of many. time and time again.

    To sit there and say Government regulation is better than the Free Market regulation is crazy.

    Government all too often determines for you that you will use Oil, you will use Corn, and they have been deciding for you by subsidizing the things they want, based on who's getting the lobbyist money and gets the fancy positions in DC.

    Government is the biggest, most transparently corrupt organization in this country, they don't advertise what they do, but if you look, its nothing but favors, and bribes.

    Everything done in government follows this model. Concentrate the benefit and spread around the cost. This way when every American pays an additional 0.03 cents, we don't care, while 1 or 2 companies are getting an additional 400 million dollars to do some project that really didn't need doing. What makes the system even more evil, is the company that stands to make that 400 million, pays lobbyists to write that bill, donates money to a senator to sponsor it, and pays government to give them money.

    And you say it's the best system of regulation?

    We are getting nickled and dimed to death, while lobbyist are making out like bandits... Have you been to DC lately? Or surrounding areas? There isnt a no recession there... All our money, taken, focused into DC, given to a small number to live high on the hog, while we get no real value out of it.

    "I find your lack of faith in the free market disturbing..." ... spoken in the voice of Darth Vader.
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2009
  10. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,511
    Likes Received:
    135
    Ratings:
    +344 / 3 / -13

    Yup, I agree so far....

    Wow...I'm agreeing once again!

    Holy Mackeral....I can't believe we agree on 3 consecutive points!!!

    I better stop now before I have a manic-meltdown or whatever you called it! ;)
  11. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Instead of telling me the latest and greatest blunders of government, can you tell me a list of things I should look towards that government does extremely well and for the pure benefit of the people?

    The Free Market, no matter how greedy, is 100% responsible to the consumer. Your fear of the free market was becuase the market actions of the past few years were not free market actions. They were created by cheap credit, which government pressures set that ) and government sponsored organizations like Fannie and Freddie mack artificially setting the market.

    IF it was truly free market, it would act more like you do, saving when you feel you may need an emergency fund, spending when you feel you have extra.

    The only reason why people fear the Free Market is becuase you see Companies who thrive of government contracts acting ruthlessly, you see companies who stop answering to it customers, and only care about getting another law to prevent more compition in the market place.

    When you have government as a business partner, you stop caring about your customers, you stop worrying about being relevant and in touch with who's buying your product, and you only care baout getting lobbyists, and securing more government funds.

    Government is the enabler to bad Free market economics.

    Small business's run like a free market. Your local bar, restaurant, etc... acts as though we are a free market. They aren't getting kick backs, they aren't getting government contracts, they are receiving billions in foreign investment... Did they start watering your beer down? Did they start serving you less for more? Did these business's start ruthlessly cheating you? No, becuase they are answering to you. You have the power of keeping them in business, by spending your money there or not. they rely on you, and they try their hardest to ensure you come back again...

    That's what the free market would give us. Competition, which drives innovation, which lowers cost... all focused on delivering to you the best product at the best price.

    Government ensures you get the product they decide at a fixed priced that safely ensures a few hand picked companies enjoy secured government contracts or no competition from the market.
  12. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    Which is exactly my point. Old World has a knack for picking up on ideas and truths years after the fact... and then thinks it's a new discovery. Ron Paul's messages have been here on this very board for years. Old World is in his own tunnel-vision vaccuum, when it comes to reading even the stuff posted here.
  13. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Are you referring to me?
    I know you don't like Paul. That's fine, but you can't have any candidate with whom you agree with on everything. Look at how Obama has turned on his base. How is McCain a Republican? Nixon was extremely progressive on the environment and relations with China. Johnson was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people for no reason in SE Asia.

    I don't agree with Paul on some issues but his big ones, like the abolition of the IRS, and the return of the US military to within our borders (where they BELONG!) went a long way toward solving our biggest, most expensive problems. Paul would not have done anything to Roe v Wade and would have done the same thing for gay marriage in Maine as Obama did...nothing. At least you knew where he was coming from.

    Either way, Paul is just a symbol of a set of ideals. He can't be elected for many reasons like Kicinich, Nader and Gus Hall.
  14. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,003
    Likes Received:
    191
    Ratings:
    +443 / 5 / -2

    MMAv, I've known about Paul for over a decade. My buddies in Cali are die hard libertarians who've been pimping Paul from the day I met them. He was unelectable then, and in all honesty, is still unelectable now. I know you're not that bright, so I can understand the fact that you don't remember the countless threads we've had on the guy in this very forum. My point about him, is that he's more electable now, than ever before, because of the realities of the last year. The bailouts, financial crisis, and massive expansion of gubmit on a level never seen before, coupled with the disappointment of many in The One, has created an environment where people are more willing to listen to what someone like Paul has to say. He's still unelectable IMO though, because a sizable chunk of his platofrm is too far out from the mainstream. Paul is the type of "change" we needed, more so than the socialist like platform of the current people in power. Sadly, you supported the current CIC, didn't you? No wait, things aren't going to be as bad now, as you originally thought when GW was in office, right? Isn't that was you said in here not too long ago? :rolleyes:
  15. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0


    I would have preferred Paul or Romney as President, but it's funny that so many are buying into Paul's wisdom now, after he was already saying these things for years. The ones jumping on the Ron Paul band-wagon, unfortunately, still can't understand what Paul is saying about 'blowback' as the reason for why the Middle East is hostile.
  16. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,805
    Likes Received:
    315
    Ratings:
    +525 / 9 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    Um, the answer to at least some of those questions would be "Yes."

    Foodservice operators in the US are already feeling the pinch as the economy heads towards recession and are turning to price wars, smaller portions and cheaper ingredients in order to survive the downturn.

    US restaurants consider smaller portion sizes - Cost Sector Catering
  17. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Yes, and you have the power to stop going there, and they go out of business...

    That is the Free Market.

    Our government, with Big Business, with the same case example, would just tax you, to give your local resturant the money it needs to stay afloat, or pass a law that shuts down other resturants making it the only wing place in town, etc...

    In the Free market example, it was just you and your choice to trade with that business or not. They have to provide a service you find valuable enough to spend your money at.

    In the second example, there is no care for what you want, or how you want to spend your money, the game is rigged to force your money towards a favorite restaurant.

    Small business is 100% more free market oriented than big business.
  18. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    Why are you still arguing about free markets, as if we have them?

    The US showed the world last year that we are socialist, but only for the rich.

    Up to 5Trillion dollars were used to bail out banks, and the ultimate payers are going to be everyday Americans.

    We also use all sorts of mechanisms to defend domestic industries against foreign ones.



    If you truly believe in free markets, especially as it pertains to the entire world, then you must agree that there is no way we can continue to earn what we earn, when there are hundreds of millions of people in India and China who can do the same job, if not better, for a fraction of the price.
  19. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I believe in Free markets, simply becuase i so DIS-believe in governments ability to manage the economy, or the markets.

    I agree on 100% free markets, on level playing grounds. We should not trade with people that treat their citizens as slave, etc...
  20. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    The problem with that line of thinking is that you create a train with no brakes, whereby the wealthy elite establish a system of privatized everything. The basic services of citizens should never have "profit" as the underlying guideline. The rich can never be trusted to truly help the blue collar. Especially in the case of disaster aid.

    I agree that government needs to be completely washed and refitted, from top to bottom. And I think a hybrid system is best. Where people have a private option, but no private entity is left unchecked to pollute a region, poison consumers, steer resources exclusively to the wealthy and on and on and on.

    Watch "The Corporation" or read "Shock Doctrine" to truly acknowledge the evils of Friedman economics that you're so in favor of.



    Based on breakthrough historical research and four years of on-the-ground reporting in disaster zones, The Shock Doctrine vividly shows how disaster capitalism – the rapid-fire corporate reengineering of societies still reeling from shock – did not begin with September 11, 2001. The book traces its origins back fifty years, to the University of Chicago under Milton Friedman, which produced many of the leading neo-conservative and neo-liberal thinkers whose influence is still profound in Washington today. New, surprising connections are drawn between economic policy, “shock and awe” warfare and covert CIA-funded experiments in electroshock and sensory deprivation in the 1950s, research that helped write the torture manuals used today in Guantanamo Bay.

    The Shock Doctrine follows the application of these ideas through our contemporary history, showing in riveting detail how well-known events of the recent past have been deliberate, active theatres for the shock doctrine, among them: Pinochet’s coup in Chile in 1973, the Falklands War in 1982, the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Asian Financial crisis in 1997 and Hurricane Mitch in 1998.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>