Not just Romney is a serial killer.

So, I posted this video to a Ron Paul supporting friend of mine. Here is his response, written directly to Noam:

"Hi, I saw this and noticed you used an emotional tactic when you referred to the person on life support and Ron Paul's first answer was with Liberty. First, some context of what he was dealing with... Notice what makes the crowd cheer! - http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/396581/september-13-2011/cnn-tea-party-republican-debate .

"You are a very well read man (there are whole sections of you in bookstores, sorry, havn't read any) so I'm surprised you havn't read his overview, I've explained it for "Liberals" here: http://case4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/10/overview-of-ron-pauls-plan-to-restore.html (I know economics, please explain to me how this won't work? Keep in mind Obama has already started condensing 6 departments into 1) .

"Also, if you have been following politics then you may have noticed that the only person that the "Libertarians" have been able to work with is Senator Bernie Sanders (who has been fighting on the front lines for lot longer than you) and he has a team of economists to help us with the FED - Read about Sen. Sanders' team of economists here: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=de4c73fb-131c-4a25-b83e-4604eaefcebb ."

Nice find, pretty much sums up what I think.

>> ^Trancecoach:

So, I posted this video to a Ron Paul supporting friend of mine. Here is his response, written directly to Noam:
"Hi, I saw this and noticed you used an emotional tactic when you referred to the person on life support and Ron Paul's first answer was with Liberty. First, some context of what he was dealing with... Notice what makes the crowd cheer! - http://www.colbertnation.com/th
e-colbert-report-videos/396581/september-13-2011/cnn-tea-party-republican-debate .
"You are a very well read man (there are whole sections of you in bookstores, sorry, havn't read any) so I'm surprised you havn't read his overview, I've explained it for "Liberals" here: http://case4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/10/overview-of-ron-pa
uls-plan-to-restore.html (I know economics, please explain to me how this won't work? Keep in mind Obama has already started condensing 6 departments into 1) .
"Also, if you have been following politics then you may have noticed that the only person that the "Libertarians" have been able to work with is Senator Bernie Sanders (who has been fighting on the front lines for lot longer than you) and he has a team of economists to help us with the FED - Read about Sen. Sanders' team of economists here: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=de4c73fb-131c-4a25
-b83e-4604eaefcebb ."


Your Ron Paul supporting friend is a nice guy, but...

Not that it would change Chomsky's opinion about RP...but the story he is using to make a point isn't very accurate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMHY21VA8WE

He pretty much nails it, but is also not revealing anything new. Everyone I know who supports Paul disagrees with the vast majority of his views, but still support him based solely on his common sense approach to US wars, foreign policy and drug laws.

If he actually won the presidency, I'm fairly certain he would be assassinated soon after, or the US would see another domestic terrorist attack to rally the public against him. I really don't know how you fix a country like the US...

>> ^Grimm:

Not that it would change Chomsky's opinion about RP...but the story he is using to make a point isn't very accurate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMHY21VA8WE


It wouldn't change his view because he's just talking about one instance. There are many MANY more which he could cite. Ron Paul's crazy.

That was my point. I'm just saying Chomsky should at least get the story right.

BTW, You're Crazy.>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Grimm:
Not that it would change Chomsky's opinion about RP...but the story he is using to make a point isn't very accurate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMHY21VA8WE

It wouldn't change his view because he's just talking about one instance. There are many MANY more which he could cite. Ron Paul's crazy.

Ron Paul is crazy, but it says a lot about his character that he's not afraid for people to know he's crazy.
He's definitely not the usual party commodity, that's for dang sure.
Would I vote for him? Hrm.

I love Noam Chomsky; I quote him regularly, many times on videosift, but I disagree with him here. I think Noam Chomsky is confusing libertarian with anarchist. Ron Paul, by definition knows his limits as a POTUS. His constitutional ethics cannot force his rule, or the Fed's rule, onto a state. This is where Noam gaffed.

Ron Paul doesn't dictate what a state should do, with regards to health care, EPA, or anything, but he does have the power to limit the federal government involvement; that's a huge difference from what Noam is saying.

For example, I live in the state of California, and we strongly believe in an environment protection/regulation agency, because we saw how bad it got over here, and we are trying to back out of our mess - think of it as a cancer patient starting to eat healthy all of a sudden. What California wants should not apply to Montana for example, but California can still enforce tariffs on products from other states that infringe on its own policies, outside federal protocols. That's the Tenth Amendment, and that's how it should be.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

I love Noam Chomsky; I quote him regularly, many times on videosift, but I disagree with him here. I think Noam Chomsky is confusing libertarian with anarchist. Ron Paul, by definition knows his limits as a POTUS. His constitutional ethics cannot force his rule, or the Fed's rule, onto a state. This is where Noam gaffed.
Ron Paul doesn't dictate what a state should do, with regards to health care, EPA, or anything, but he does have the power to limit the federal government involvement; that's a huge difference from what Noam is saying.
For example, I live in the state of California, and we strongly believe in an environment protection/regulation agency, because we saw how bad it got over here, and we are trying to back out of our mess - think of it as a cancer patient starting to eat healthy all of a sudden. What California wants should not apply to Montana for example, but California can still enforce tariffs on products from other states that infringe on its own policies, outside federal protocols. That's the Tenth Amendment, and that's how it should be.


Yes but he's saying that Ron Paul would cut out federal restrictions. California isn't more powerful than the companies that own it they would have to bow down to them immediately.

Sorry but Chomsky is right as usual. Ron Paul is fucking crazy, what he believe would create a world in which corporations would enslave us completely.

You, I, and the American people are crazy! For this reason, representationally, RP should be POTUS! I certainly am voting for him.

Why?
He wants to outlaw lobbying at the Federal level. If corporations really loved him, then you'd see that in his political contributions, instead they are backing Mitt Romney:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286

It's easier to call the man crazy, but I still don't see why he is crazy for limiting federal involvement. I voted for Obama, but I fail to see why Ron Paul is such a big pill for people to swallow. If the Bush (real crazy) administration had less control over the 50 states, we wouldn't be in the mess in the first place.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^MonkeySpank:
I love Noam Chomsky; I quote him regularly, many times on videosift, but I disagree with him here. I think Noam Chomsky is confusing libertarian with anarchist. Ron Paul, by definition knows his limits as a POTUS. His constitutional ethics cannot force his rule, or the Fed's rule, onto a state. This is where Noam gaffed.
Ron Paul doesn't dictate what a state should do, with regards to health care, EPA, or anything, but he does have the power to limit the federal government involvement; that's a huge difference from what Noam is saying.
For example, I live in the state of California, and we strongly believe in an environment protection/regulation agency, because we saw how bad it got over here, and we are trying to back out of our mess - think of it as a cancer patient starting to eat healthy all of a sudden. What California wants should not apply to Montana for example, but California can still enforce tariffs on products from other states that infringe on its own policies, outside federal protocols. That's the Tenth Amendment, and that's how it should be.

Yes but he's saying that Ron Paul would cut out federal restrictions. California isn't more powerful than the companies that own it they would have to bow down to them immediately.
Sorry but Chomsky is right as usual. Ron Paul is fucking crazy, what he believe would create a world in which corporations would enslave us completely.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

Why?
He wants to outlaw lobbying at the Federal level. If corporations really loved him, then you'd see that in his political contributions, instead they are backing Mitt Romney:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286
It's easier to call the man crazy, but I still don't see why he is crazy for limiting federal involvement. I voted for Obama, but I fail to see why Ron Paul is such a big pill for people to swallow. If the Bush (real crazy) administration had less control over the 50 states, we wouldn't be in the mess in the first place.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^MonkeySpank:
I love Noam Chomsky; I quote him regularly, many times on videosift, but I disagree with him here. I think Noam Chomsky is confusing libertarian with anarchist. Ron Paul, by definition knows his limits as a POTUS. His constitutional ethics cannot force his rule, or the Fed's rule, onto a state. This is where Noam gaffed.
Ron Paul doesn't dictate what a state should do, with regards to health care, EPA, or anything, but he does have the power to limit the federal government involvement; that's a huge difference from what Noam is saying.
For example, I live in the state of California, and we strongly believe in an environment protection/regulation agency, because we saw how bad it got over here, and we are trying to back out of our mess - think of it as a cancer patient starting to eat healthy all of a sudden. What California wants should not apply to Montana for example, but California can still enforce tariffs on products from other states that infringe on its own policies, outside federal protocols. That's the Tenth Amendment, and that's how it should be.

Yes but he's saying that Ron Paul would cut out federal restrictions. California isn't more powerful than the companies that own it they would have to bow down to them immediately.
Sorry but Chomsky is right as usual. Ron Paul is fucking crazy, what he believe would create a world in which corporations would enslave us completely.



Ok let me put it this way. Noam Chomsky is smarter than you and he's right. Go argue with someone who cares.

Yeah, coz Yogi doesn't care about whether Noam Chomsky is right or not.

I think one thing not mentioned yet is that the positive things Ron Paul is promising were already promised by the current president (to an extent):

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007

Yes, the last troops did come home last December, however an enormous private security presence remains - up to 20,000 people costing America ~$3.5 billion a year.
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2011/12/18/iraq-war-us-troops-are-out-but-blackwater-and-halliburton-will-stay/

...and America is expanding it's wars and troop presence in other countries, e.g. in the Asia Pacific, including here in Australia (FU), and trying to escalate the situation with Iran.

So the war has morphed into something else, and the spirit of his statement has been broken, you don't promise to end wars if you plan on just starting others somewhere else.

He also made plenty of other promises, for example @MonkeySpank about stopping corporate lobbying:
“You said the time has come to tell the lobbyists who think their money and their influence speak louder than our voices that they don’t own this government – we do. And we are here to take it back.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks, Des Moines, IA, 1/3/08)

Here's some more broken promises of his:
http://www.politisite.com/2012/01/05/obamas-failed-promises/

So the point? They are both politicians, they can say whatever they want and continue to do the exact opposite, all they have to worry about is a few people sleeping in a park, there is absolutely no accountability in Washington. Obama got far closer to highlighting many of the issues that face America than Ron Paul ever has, and look at the result, all Ron Paul will bring is fewer broken promises, so the only reason to vote him in is if you want to be 'let down less'.

However I think he has been clearer about the fact all troops need to be brought home, not just some troops involved in a specific conflict, so in that regard I think Yogi is right in that there would be some serious consequences from the establishment if he tried to do that, so it would be impossible for him, even if he is actually telling the truth about wanting to do it. As for the policies he wants to introduce that will have far reaching negative consequences for the vast majority of Americans (e.g. dropping/lowering corporate taxes), those will get passed easily.

I guess that ends our argument.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^MonkeySpank:
Why?
He wants to outlaw lobbying at the Federal level. If corporations really loved him, then you'd see that in his political contributions, instead they are backing Mitt Romney:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286
It's easier to call the man crazy, but I still don't see why he is crazy for limiting federal involvement. I voted for Obama, but I fail to see why Ron Paul is such a big pill for people to swallow. If the Bush (real crazy) administration had less control over the 50 states, we wouldn't be in the mess in the first place.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^MonkeySpank:
I love Noam Chomsky; I quote him regularly, many times on videosift, but I disagree with him here. I think Noam Chomsky is confusing libertarian with anarchist. Ron Paul, by definition knows his limits as a POTUS. His constitutional ethics cannot force his rule, or the Fed's rule, onto a state. This is where Noam gaffed.
Ron Paul doesn't dictate what a state should do, with regards to health care, EPA, or anything, but he does have the power to limit the federal government involvement; that's a huge difference from what Noam is saying.
For example, I live in the state of California, and we strongly believe in an environment protection/regulation agency, because we saw how bad it got over here, and we are trying to back out of our mess - think of it as a cancer patient starting to eat healthy all of a sudden. What California wants should not apply to Montana for example, but California can still enforce tariffs on products from other states that infringe on its own policies, outside federal protocols. That's the Tenth Amendment, and that's how it should be.

Yes but he's saying that Ron Paul would cut out federal restrictions. California isn't more powerful than the companies that own it they would have to bow down to them immediately.
Sorry but Chomsky is right as usual. Ron Paul is fucking crazy, what he believe would create a world in which corporations would enslave us completely.


Ok let me put it this way. Noam Chomsky is smarter than you and he's right. Go argue with someone who cares.

This anti SOPA campaign is pretty awesome.

ron paul is a true blue bible-thumper. and in my book, that equals crazy, or at least severely lacking in rationality.

anyone who believes that there is an all-powerful invisible man in the sky should immediately (in effect) be disqualified from seeking any political office.

If I were to espouse Odin, or Mithra, or Baal, such would be my fate should i seek political office.

Using primitive mythology as a basis for decision-making, in this day and age, is entirely unacceptable.

I think we need to start recognizing that such a mind has a severe psychological deficiency.

not sarcasm