Ron paul 2012`

jdillinger

Active Member
the video sounds very sensible on its face. that is why some people consider him as a serious candidate.

the devil is in the details. one line, at 0:38 stands out: "...of course, we want to go in the direction of privatizing ALL SCHOOLS..."

to privatize all schools is equivalent to abolishing public education. what country can you name me that does pretty well without a public education system?
No, private school doesn't mean everybody wouldn't have an education. Thats foolish. It just means you'd have to pay for your education. What would they do, with a closed down education, and empty schools, turn them into apartments. They would transitionally become, privatized.
 

jpill

Well-Known Member
Uncle Buck,
If you haven't noticed, Public schooling is absolutely terrible and is failing horribly .On top of failing horribly Public schooling is about to be shortened from 5 to 4 days. Teachers salaries are at an all time low and not getting any better, The class rooms are way over crowded and extra curricular programs such as art,music and phys ed. are beginning to be eliminated. Lets face it , Public schooling fucking sucks.

If you haven't learned anything about our current government understand this, Any time our "current government" has stepped in to over see or take control any type of program, it FAILS HORRIBLY .

Ron Paul is not trying to end education, He states it's heading in the direction of privatization. Mainly because Funding is at an all time low and cut backs are at an all time high and You wonder why we are no longer considered the "smartest" country anymore? If privatized schooling can help the youth of our country by offering better curriculum and smaller classes sizes where students can actually interact with their professors/teachers i'm for it.

P.S.
RON PAUL SPEAKS KNOWLEDGE ......And I'm still waiting to see those 5 new paper articles on him supporting his racist comments.. you hater!
 

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
Agreed, he doesn't want government to pay for education. He wants you the individual to pay for your own education. Lets just be glad that some people like this don't vote :).
Actually he wants to make it a state issue (like it was previously). He wants to get red of the dept of education AFAIK. Seeing as how the standards of education have only sharply declined since it's inception, I don't see how it could possibly be a bad idea.
 

ANC

Well-Known Member
Free anything means someone somewhere has to get up every morning and go earn the money to pay for it... i.e. communism. What is his is everybody's..
 

jdillinger

Active Member
Like if votes really matter...just ask Jed bush.
ummm..


And don't me that recount crap, they did recount it, Demos just wanted it recount again, but the recount said they lost they were little bitches and made a huge fuss now everyone just says they got cheated out of an election. GB won its already over, deal with it.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Actually he wants to make it a state issue (like it was previously). He wants to get red of the dept of education AFAIK. Seeing as how the standards of education have only sharply declined since it's inception, I don't see how it could possibly be a bad idea.
Well for one thing it would be a horrible idea in states where a sufficiently large creationist constituency wants to outlaw the teaching of science.
Imo privatization andor deregulation is just as bad as over-regulation. Deregulation brought us the banking collapse of '08-09, which was a feeding frenzy by bankers and brokers amassing vast wealth on a suddenly-legal pyramid scheme of insuring obviously toxic debt derivatives. The amount of real wealth that was lost by real people (and the few unlucky bankers who didn't grab a chair when the music stopped) is going into the trillions.

Imo libertarianism and marxism both share one salient trait: they both institutionalize a fundamental misperception of human nature. cn
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Ron Paul is not trying to end education, He states it's heading in the direction of privatization.
are you willfully ignoring what he said? he said the goal is to privatize all schools, he does not state that's where it's headed. he states that's where he wants it to go. :dunce:

your comprehension is about on par with all the other robotic paulophiles.

Mainly because Funding is at an all time low and cut backs are at an all time high and You wonder why we are no longer considered the "smartest" country anymore?
so the solution is to throw out the system instead of fix it?

herp derp.

If privatized schooling can help the youth of our country by offering better curriculum and smaller classes sizes where students can actually interact with their professors/teachers i'm for it.
and where is the evidence for this?

P.S.
RON PAUL SPEAKS KNOWLEDGE ......
why are all the fucking paulbots the same?

according to the brainwashed paulophiles, if you don't fall in lockstep with the crazy old turtle fucker, then you need to "wake up" and "open your eyes" or you're a "sheeple".

it really is pathetic.

you go have fun worshipping at the ALTAR OF PAUL, i will go about making informed decisions that aren't based solely on what one racist old nut who pastes on his eyebrows has to say.

And I'm still waiting to see those 5 new paper articles on him supporting his racist comments.. you hater!
you're welcome.

http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

The Dallas Morning News:
Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation...In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men. "If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said. He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.

The Houston Chronicle:
Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."...Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers." A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

The Austin American-Statesman:
"Dr. Paul is being quoted out of context," [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said. "It's like picking up War and Peace and reading the fourth paragraph on Page 481 and thinking you can understand what's going on."... Also in 1992, Paul wrote, "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions." Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, Sullivan said, do not share Paul's views. The issue is political philosophy, not race, Sullivan said. "Polls show that only about 5 percent of people with dark-colored skin support the free market, a laissez faire economy, an end to welfare and to affirmative action," Sullivan said.

The Washington Post:
Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context. "Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."

Roll Call:
In a statement, Paul said he had "labored to conduct a campaign based upon the issues that are vital to our nation" and charged Morris with "repeated attempts...to reduce the campaign to name calling and race-baiting." He called Morris's request that he release all back issues of the newsletter "not only impractical, but...equivalent to asking him to provide documents for every lawsuit he has been involved in during his lengthy legal career." Of his statements about Jordan, Paul said that "such opinions represented our clear philosophical difference. The causes she so strongly advocated were for more government, more and more regulations, and more and more taxes. My cause has been almost exactly the opposite, and I believe her positions to have been fundamentally wrong: I've fought for less and less intrusive government, fewer regulations, and lower taxes."

When Ron Paul was asked by several newspapers about the racist newsletter articles in 1996, he did not deny writing them, and it's quite apparent that his staff thought he wrote them, too.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Free anything means someone somewhere has to get up every morning and go earn the money to pay for it... i.e. communism. What is his is everybody's..
communism is state-owned means of production, actually.

public education does not a communist make. otherwise warren buffet would be a communist, as he supports public education :dunce:

i love it when stoners try to throw around terms.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ah, hell. let's just privatize all schools, like ron paul wants.

i mean, it's working so well with prisons.
 

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
Well for one thing it would be a horrible idea in states where a sufficiently large creationist constituency wants to outlaw the teaching of science.
Well, that's their decision. It wouldn't affect you unless you lived there, and you could always move to another state with laws and folks more like minded (seems like a positive to me).

Imo privatization andor deregulation is just as bad as over-regulation. Deregulation brought us the banking collapse of '08-09, which was a feeding frenzy by bankers and brokers amassing vast wealth on a suddenly-legal pyramid scheme of insuring obviously toxic debt derivatives. The amount of real wealth that was lost by real people (and the few unlucky bankers who didn't grab a chair when the music stopped) is going into the trillions.
Fractional reserve banking will always fail. It's mathematically certain. Regulation, deregulation, none of that shit is particularly important in the long term. The system we have now will always fail. There will never be enough money to pay back the debts owed. The entire system is a pyramid scheme. I do want to suggest that real wealth... well, I think we're probably using different definitions of that. Owning a house in an area where the only jobs were in the service industry or worse... that's not really a valuable piece of property. Never will be either unless those services are so in demand that other places cannot compete. The issues are much bigger than you suggest.

Imo libertarianism and marxism both share one salient trait: they both institutionalize a fundamental misperception of human nature. cn
IMO most people are not informed enough to have strong opinions about either option (of course that won't stop anyone ;) ). Most folks complaints about "Capitalism (I use the world loosely as we haven't experienced much in the way of actual capitalism in a long time outside of the black markets)" actually are issues that are created by the monetary system. Reality is as long as there is a debt based fractional reserve centralized banking systems in place all over the world, the countries with theses systems will continue to share a similar set of problems that vary only slightly based on regional differences.

1) Wealth disparity (that continues to grow until the system collapses, which it always will, every single time, due to mathematical certainties associated with systemic properties shared by all centralized banking systems based on debt that allow fractional reserve deposits)
2) Unstable economies (boom/bust)
3) Elected officials that do not actually represent their constituents
4) Poverty and dependence on government structures (which ironically just create more poverty but offer short term solutions for these people so as to keep them from revolt)

IME most criticisms of various systems of government or economic systems are very uniformed and misguided. I think socialism can be quite effective, but I also think it's irrelevant if you don't address the underlying systemic issues. Ron Paul (that has a chance at winning anything at least) is the only politician in the world, anywhere in the world, that has acknowledged these issues and offered potentially viable solutions to them.

It's interesting though what the founding fathers had to say about banking in general.

Ben Franklin -
The English officials asked how it was the Colonies managed to collect enough taxes to build poor houses, and how they were able to handle the great burden of caring for the poor. Franklin's reply was most revealing: "We have no poor houses in the Colonies, and if we had, we would have no one to put in them, as in the Colonies there is not a single unemployed man, no poor and no vagabonds." Think long and hard about this. In the American colonies before the American Revolution, there was "not a single unemployed man, no poor and no vagabonds". -- no one on Welfare, no one on Social Security, no homeless, no income tax, no alphabet agencies, No IRS, BATF, FBI, DEA, CIA, HEW, OSHA, SBA, and on and on and on to provide for the "general welfare" of our villages, towns, cities and states. How did Benjamin Franklin explain this to the British officials of his day?
How would he explain it to today's lawyers, judges, politicians and other government officials? "It is because, in the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. We call it Colonial Script, and we issue only enough to move all goods freely from the producers to the Consumers; and as we create our money, we control the purchasing power of money, and have no interest to pay."


http://www.kamron.com/Liberty/colonial_script.htm
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." Thomas Jefferson




 

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
ah, hell. let's just privatize all schools, like ron paul wants.

i mean, it's working so well with prisons.
Ron Paul doesn't want to privatize all schools, at least I haven't heard him say that. Even if he does, so what? If the underlying issues of the system are resolved it won't be a big deal, and even if he is elected he's long been a states rights guy and the states have long had their own education systems financed by property taxes. I see no reason to centralize anything. Centralized power is always extremely dangerous to society. It feels like all through history there are people who doubt this fact and all through history centralized power ends up causing wide spread destruction.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Ron Paul doesn't want to privatize all schools, at least I haven't heard him say that.
i posted a video of him saying exactly that in this thread :roll:

you are about as sharp as most every other ron paul worshipper that i have had the displeasure of conversing with.
 

beardo

Well-Known Member
communism is state-owned means of production, actually.

public education does not a communist make. otherwise warren buffet would be a communist, as he supports public education :dunce:

i love it when stoners try to throw around terms.
People are means of production
 

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
i posted a video of him saying exactly that in this thread :roll:

you are about as sharp as most every other ron paul worshipper that i have had the displeasure of conversing with.
I didn't watch your video. And as I already explained, it doesn't even matter. I can see you are a real pleasure to converse with.
 
Top