Ron Paul Has International Support

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
The tax breaks that weren't paid for? Oh, you mean the money they borrowed from China and printed out of thin air that you will have to pay back ten-fold with higher taxes in the future because they didn't cut spending to make up for the lower revenue. Yeah, that's awesome. $17 trillion in debt, here we come.
i forgot...tax breaks are only good when republicans pass them. silly me.

Pre-existing condition...that's awesome considering you actually still call it "insurance", I wrecked my car and I think I'll go get some "insurance" to get it fixed... any takers? Of course insurance premiums are SKYROCKETING for everyone to the point that now people who used to be able to afford it, now can't. But, that's great for your wife. Needs of the few, outweigh the needs of the many... isn't that how Spock said it?
so, because my wife takes meds for anxiety (a pre existing condition) she should be unable to protect her many assets by being precluded from buying health insurance?

and it's not like premiums nearly tripled in the 20 years before the PPACA passed. but to acknowledge that would sap all the power out of your short-sighted talking point.

MILLIONS of lost jobs during his presidency... MILLIONS, still hovering at a "real" unemployment number around 17%... fantastic, well worth the TRILLIONS he's spent.
millions lost in the few months after he first sat down in the oval office.

millions gained later on.

but i forgot, you live in a world where somehow liberals are expected to wave a magic wand and get us out of the worst recession since the depression overnight.

LOL!

And the regulations, awww yes, the regulations... doing so much to jump start business investment.

Signing and lying about the NDAA.

Breaking legal contracts.

Making a "recess appointment" when the Senate was still in session.

The list goes on and on... quite a guy.

Lowest job approval rating of any President in modern history at this point in his Presidency. He actually makes Carter look good.

I'm actually starting to hope he wins reelection, it may be the only way to hit bottom so we can once and for all be done with this Progressive bullshit.
omg the regulations!

i'm sure we could jump start this economy overnight. no one will mind that the rivers are catching on fire.

so sorry that this president did so many of the key platforms he was elected to fulfill. i especially apologize for those tax breaks. i know you, as a conservative, feels that government knows how to spend your money better than you do.
 

Brick Top

New Member
it matters if you want to get elected, as many people vote based on who they would rather look at for the next four years, rightly or not.
That is because American voters have become stupid and have allowed the superficial to become far more important than anything else. They vote for the sizzle, not the steak.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
That is because American voters have become stupid and have allowed the superficial to become far more important than anything else. They vote for the sizzle, not the steak.
it's true.

but still, how hard is it to get a suit that fits?

i have two suit that fit, and i don't even have intentions at running for president.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
I see you have changed your argument, now instead of saying it takes insurance to have a better chance to stay alive you are saying it takes money. I agree.


Then you agree that if you don't have enough money to cover situations where tens or hundreds of thousands may be required, you should certainly have insurance - a way for many to pool their resources so that a few will indeed have the money necessary to deal with those complecations.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
That is because American voters have become stupid and have allowed the superficial to become far more important than anything else. They vote for the sizzle, not the steak.


And they say that liberals are elitist. Amercian voters have become stupid, except for the ones that vote as you would have then vote?
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
i forgot...tax breaks are only good when republicans pass them. silly me.
Not at all, tax breaks are greeeeaaat. I just think they need to be offset with reductions in spending, regardless of who is in the white house. Gonna give $500 billion in tax breaks across the board, knock $200 billion off of each...military budget, social security and foreign aid. Easy peasy japaneesy.

so, because my wife takes meds for anxiety (a pre existing condition) she should be unable to protect her many assets by being precluded from buying health insurance?

and it's not like premiums nearly tripled in the 20 years before the PPACA passed. but to acknowledge that would sap all the power out of your short-sighted talking point.

No, I just don't think it's fair to call it insurance and force INSURANCE companies that didn't receive premiums in advance of her diagnosis to pay for her treatment. At that point the "insurance" company ceases to be exactly that, and instantly becomes a health care provider. Why force them to pay for it, they haven't received funds to offset the costs... might as well just FORCE the hospitals and doctors to provide the treatment without compensation. It amounts to the same thing.
millions lost in the few months after he first sat down in the oval office

millions gained later on.
.

Just because RECORD numbers of people are dropping off the new and improved "revamped" unemployment lists, doesn't change the fact that we aren't gaining ANY jobs since he took over. Grow up. And don't even bother with the, that's how it's been for a long time bullshit either... NEVER in the last 70 years have you had people on unemployment for such extended periods that they actually drop off and make the numbers look better than they are.


but i forgot, you live in a world where somehow liberals are expected to wave a magic wand and get us out of the worst recession since the depression overnight.

LOL!
I'd settle for not making the problem far worse than it ever was. Running up massive debt for a few years of slightly slower sinking to our doom is hardly getting us out of anything. You don't ACTUALLY think anything has improved, do you? Really?
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Not at all, tax breaks are greeeeaaat. I just think they need to be offset with reductions in spending, regardless of who is in the white house. Gonna give $500 billion in tax breaks across the board, knock $200 billion off of each...military budget, social security and foreign aid. Easy peasy japaneesy.




No, I just don't think it's fair to call it insurance and force INSURANCE companies that didn't receive premiums in advance of her diagnosis to pay for her treatment. At that point the "insurance" company ceases to be exactly that, and instantly becomes a health care provider. Why force them to pay for it, they haven't received funds to offset the costs... might as well just FORCE the hospitals and doctors to provide the treatment without compensation. It amounts to the same thing.
.

Just because RECORD numbers of people are dropping off the new and improved "revamped" unemployment lists, doesn't change the fact that we aren't gaining ANY jobs since he took over. Grow up. And don't even bother with the, that's how it's been for a long time bullshit either... NEVER in the last 70 years have you had people on unemployment for such extended periods that they actually drop off and make the numbers look better than they are.




I'd settle for not making the problem far worse than it ever was. Running up massive debt for a few years of slightly slower sinking to our doom is hardly getting us out of anything. You don't ACTUALLY think anything has improved, do you? Really?

All of a sudden you guys actually believe that the President has a direct influence on job creation? On the one hand you don't want federal interference in the doings of the economy and on the other you want the president to - DO something about the economy.
 

Brick Top

New Member
it's true.

but still, how hard is it to get a suit that fits?
How hard is it to not let how someone's suits fit influence you in a negative way?

Not that I think FDR was a great president, though he was a great wartime president, in this day and age he could not win an election. Between his looks, his age, the metal braces on his legs, his inability to stand for a full debate, let alone leave his podium and walk around a little and try to act, the way candidates now do would doom his candidacy, even though in the past he was elected for four terms of office.

Think about the looks of president's prior to JFK and what sort of public speakers presidents prior to JFK were like, you know, back when the U.S. worked. Then compare them to presidents from JFK on, what they looked like and what they were like as speakers. Most, not all, but most were better looking than presidents prior to JFk and most, not all, but most were better public speakers than prior to JFK.

JFK was the first TV president, and the visual is what gave him the win, well that and the almost last minute finding of manufactured previously uncounted almost all Democrat votes in Cook County Illinois, thanks to Mayor Richard J. Daley, "Last of the Big City Bosses."

Without TV even Mayor Richard J. Daley could not have done enough to steal the win for JFK. Nixon would have won. Ever since then, for the most part, presidents have needed to be better looking than in the past, in most cases younger than in the past and for the most part very good public speakers.

You're hung up on the packaging of a candidate, Ron Paul. You illustrate how elections have become the selling of a candidate to voters over the electing of the very best candidate.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
How hard is it to not let how someone's suits fit influence you in a negative way?

Not that I think FDR was a great president, though he was a great wartime president, in this day and age he could not win an election. Between his looks, his age, the metal braces on his legs, his inability to stand for a full debate, let alone leave his podium and walk around a little and try to act, the way candidates now do would doom his candidacy, even though in the past he was elected for four terms of office.

Think about the looks of president's prior to JFK and what sort of public speakers presidents prior to JFK were like, you know, back when the U.S. worked. Then compare them to presidents from JFK on, what they looked like and what they were like as speakers. Most, not all, but most were better looking than presidents prior to JFk and most, not all, but most were better public speakers than prior to JFK.

JFK was the first TV president, and the visual is what gave him the win, well that and the almost last minute finding of manufactured previously uncounted almost all Democrat votes in Cook County Illinois, thanks to Mayor Richard J. Daley, "Last of the Big City Bosses."

Without TV even Mayor Richard J. Daley could not have done enough to steal the win for JFK. Nixon would have won. Ever since then, for the most part, presidents have needed to be better looking than in the past, in most cases younger than in the past and for the most part very good public speakers.

You're hung up on the packaging of a candidate, Ron Paul. You illustrate how elections have become the selling of a candidate to voters over the electing of the very best candidate.
ron paul could be tom cruise in a sharp suit and i would still reject him on platform.

i still don't think you get what i'm saying though. i cede the point that takes up the body of your post. looks now matter but shouldn't.

now, given the REALITY that faces the candidates, don't you think it would be a wise idea to at least get a suit that fits?

like i said, it's not that hard.

and if a candidate can't even manage something simple like getting a suit that fits, it reflects poorly on his ability to surround himself with the right people, which every president must do. if paul's people can't even get him a fitting suit, how well do you think his cabinet would perform?
 

Brick Top

New Member
Originally Posted by MuyLocoNC
MILLIONS of lost jobs during his presidency... MILLIONS, still hovering at a "real" unemployment number around 17%... fantastic, well worth the TRILLIONS he's spent.

millions lost in the few months after he first sat down in the oval office.

millions gained later on.
If the above comments were about Obama I hope to God that you were not attempting to imply that the numbers of lost jobs and alleged created jobs roughly equaled out since Obama became president.

On the day Obama took office the unemployment rate was 7.8%. Until Nov. 2011 unemployment hovered right at about 9% and in Nov. 2011 it dropped to 8.6%. That means Obama is still in negative numbers, in the bucket, when it comes to job creation during his time in office. Many jobs that were created during Obama's time in office so far were short term temporary positions, like the large number of census workers that gave a short term better appearance to the unemployment figures, but then only ended up making the numbers go up in the end.

Plus if you add those who have fallen off the unemployment rolls due to time unemployed, who have given up looking, the actual unemployment rate is more like 16.6%. But then those numbers, the true unemployment rate figures, are never uttered by any administration.

When it comes to handling the economy, which is job creation, Obama has been an unmitigated disaster. Going by all past economic recoveries after recessions, by now the economy should have recovered a great deal and be much stronger than it is and unemployment should have dropped to levels below the 7.8% they were when Obama took office.

People can say what they will about President Bush, and admittedly the 2001 recession was not as bad as the last one, but the economy was on the verge of collapse when Dubya took office. All but two of the economic indicators that when they have all bottomed out say there is a recession had bottomed out prior to Dubya being elected. The last two bottomed out less than two months into his presidency, way sooner than he had any time to do anything to effect the economy in such a way, so he was handed a recession that just was not officially a recession yet, but through actions he took and asked Congress for the economy returned to growth in the fourth quarter of 2001 and continued to grow for 24 consecutive quarters.

The economy grew at a rapid pace of 7.5 percent above inflation during the third quarter of 2003 – the highest since 1984.

Under President Bush the United States had 52 months of uninterrupted job growth, the longest run on record.

Yes, then the bottom did fall out, but that was largely due to policies that dated back to the Clinton years, and once Barry took over, with a 7.8% unemployment record things only got worse, compared to the 52 consecutive months of job growth under Dubya that only ended because of policies a decade old, or older, from the previous administration finally blew up in his face.

And event that Dubya and Congressional Republicans repeatedly asked and practically begged Congressional Democrats, starting in 2001 and right up until the implosion, to help them head off before it became disastrous, but of course Congressional Democrats refused to accept that there was a problem in the making and repeatedly refused to help head off the disaster.

So the terrible Dubya set an all time record for number of months in a row of job creation, and Barry took over with 7.8% unemployment and after it hovering around 9%, after three years in office, he's managed to get it all the way down to 8.6%.

That's the difference between having a president in the White House and having a community organizer in the White House.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
...Obama is still in negative numbers, in the bucket, when it comes to job creation during his time in office.
shrub left us bleeding 700k jobs a month when he took office, and recoveries are not instantaneous.

i would think that someone who brags so much about his years of wisdom would not need this historical fact explained to them.

no one is disputing we are still at a net negative, so to claim that as some sort of trump card reeks of partisan hackery.

Going by all past economic recoveries after recessions, by now the economy should have recovered a great deal and be much stronger than it is and unemployment should have dropped to levels below the 7.8% they were when Obama took office.
again, for someone who boasts about their age, you seem to have a selective memory about these things.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

set the parameters for 1/1981 to 1/1984 and tell me if you still want to stand by your statement :dunce:

...the economy was on the verge of collapse when Dubya took office.
lol. hyperbole. false.

... the bottom did fall out, but that was largely due to policies that dated back to the Clinton years...
LOL!

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_04/b3867048.htm

he was still bragging about his "ownership society" well into his time in office. more partisan hackery, trying to blame clinton for things bush boasted about.

and once Barry took over, with a 7.8% unemployment record things only got worse, compared to the 52 consecutive months of job growth under Dubya that only ended because of policies a decade old, or older, from the previous administration finally blew up in his face.
as i've shown you, bush not only did nothing to change those policies, which were only a PART of the economic collapse, he BRAGGED about them.

but as a partisan hack would do, let's just blame it on the democrats instead, ignoring historical facts.

why didn't you mention obama being left with an economy that was "on the verge of collapse", despite the situation he was faced with being much worse than the one that faced shrub? more hackery, perhaps?

And event that Dubya and Congressional Republicans repeatedly asked and practically begged Congressional Democrats, starting in 2001 and right up until the implosion, to help them head off before it became disastrous, but of course Congressional Democrats refused to accept that there was a problem in the making and repeatedly refused to help head off the disaster.
LOL!

wow. SPIN! spin, brick top, SPIN!

republicans controlled the house and senate until 2006. bush bragged about his ownership society. i have already documented this. you continue to LIE about this.

SPIN!

So the terrible Dubya set an all time record for number of months in a row of job creation, and Barry took over with 7.8% unemployment and after it hovering around 9%, after three years in office, he's managed to get it all the way down to 8.6%.

That's the difference between having a president in the White House and having a community organizer in the White House.
go ahead and tell me reagan did better during the less severe early 1980 recession with a straight face. i dare ya.

again, for someone who is quite the braggadocio about his age, you sure seem to have forgotten (or willfully ignored) a lot of historical facts for partisan gain.

i simply LOL.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Then you agree that if you don't have enough money to cover situations where tens or hundreds of thousands may be required, you should certainly have insurance - a way for many to pool their resources so that a few will indeed have the money necessary to deal with those complecations.
Yep, i agree, but not having money OR insurance doesn't mean you won't get care, it just means you are going to get a big bill. Also having insurance does not mean you are going to beat all the odds and are guaranteed to live to a ripe old age of 110 either because you go to the doctor every time you bump yourself or just don't feel "perfect". You can have great insurance and they can catch what ails you right away and you can still die, insurance is not the factor that determines your death. Anyone that says "he died because he didn't have insurance" is Dumb as shit. If you write that in the NY times or the Washington post then you are Dumb as Shit, and the readers who can't see it are also Dumb as shit..
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
None Other Then The Biggest Villain From Wallstreet
Goldman Sachs!
View attachment 1977130
Maybe you should ask Ron Paul why he's accepted campaign contributions from them while he was on the house committee on financial services. Maybe you could ask him why he took money from Dunn Capital while you're at it. Or ask him about why he took money from Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley in the last election.
 
Top