Occupy Wall Street protest

[OregonDuck1989]

I think what makes Paul different is that his campaign is based on information and not talking points. He doesn't have a flashy slogan like change, and to be honest the only reason he is out there is just trying to spread a message of liberty. Before he took part of this nobody gave him a shot to win (media still isn't giving him a shot even though polling suggests otherwise), his only goal was to spread his message. It just so happens that more people have been more receptive to it than in years past.

Like HGM said what makes Paul different from other politicians? That he's not a typical presidential candidate? Neither was Obama. That he's an underdog in the primaries? So was Obama. That he's charismatic and promotes ideals that he votes with nearly 100% of the time? In 2008, there was no indication Obama would falter into the spineless President content with blaming everything on a do-nothing congress.

Paul is different because...you like him? I mean, I don't understand how someone can say they don't trust any politician or the government in general, but throw such love behind a man who is part of what you don't trust.

Furthermore, I'm not going to vote for someone I disagree with. And I never should have to just because my other choices might lie to me. So that's the silliest pro-Paul argument ever. I don't like Paul, I will never like Paul, and Ron Paul is not my choice for President.

[Pete4256]

This thread is all over the place .. lol

I did like that youtube rant ... I thought he was channeling me there at times. I just K.I.S.S..and say" he who has the gold makes the rules".

There are only 3 GOP members that have the money to get the nomination:
Romney (ie McCain II)
Perry
Cain (and he is only a maybe money wise)

And Perry in the last debate acted darn foolish a couple times trying to make Romney appear crazy for hiring illegal workers (sad).

If Romney is the GOP pick, I pretty much plan to vote for Obama at this point. If the GOP party can't get it right by george, I'm in favor of giving them another four years to figure it out. Misery loves Company and I figure another four years of Obama and we ought to have plenty of unemployed company around here. By then I'll be hooked up to the government SS plan and I'll be voting your taxes up higher to cover my retirement adventures, just so you know now why I change my party in a couple of years ... hehehe

BTW - I discovered this week I am officially to be labeled a Euro-American

[Pete4256]

The Tea Party wants 3 things and they are:

Limited Government
Lower Taxes
Free Commerce

And they are not going to compromise ... especially with Occupy Wall Street (come on, you can't be for real).

[Jayeburgh]

I think it's great that these protesters are now committing crimes against each other.

[ragecage]

Like HGM said what makes Paul different from other politicians? That he's not a typical presidential candidate? Neither was Obama. That he's an underdog in the primaries? So was Obama. That he's charismatic and promotes ideals that he votes with nearly 100% of the time? In 2008, there was no indication Obama would falter into the spineless President content with blaming everything on a do-nothing congress.

Paul is different because...you like him? I mean, I don't understand how someone can say they don't trust any politician or the government in general, but throw such love behind a man who is part of what you don't trust.

Furthermore, I'm not going to vote for someone I disagree with. And I never should have to just because my other choices might lie to me. So that's the silliest pro-Paul argument ever. I don't like Paul, I will never like Paul, and Ron Paul is not my choice for President.

And I said and agree that there is no guarantee. But Paul has been doing the same things, been Libertarian for 30 years man. Obama has not been doing the same thing as long if you want to be picky about it. Go over Paul's voting history, mostly NO, NO, NO, NO. I don't know what more I can say without being railroaded by you.

And that's fine to do what you want with your vote, but when you all are in love with a commentator when he goes the **** off, and Paul wants to remedy that, and you say I am a loverboy when you don't even get that is kinda the problem Paul has with the Government, don't get all pissy at me when I point it out.

[ragecage]

I mean Kobie and HGM have been able to talk about this with cool heads. Just because a friend of yours does that Paul **** all the time, doesn't make me the same. I kinda take recentment to this loverboy, fanboy ****. Because I am not, but you know to me, in my OPINION, he makes more sense than anyone we have to offer and I wish we had more choices.

[etothep]

We're not gonna protest!

[OregonDuck1989]

And I said and agree that there is no guarantee. But Paul has been doing the same things, been Libertarian for 30 years man. Obama has not been doing the same thing as long if you want to be picky about it. Go over Paul's voting history, mostly NO, NO, NO, NO. I don't know what more I can say without being railroaded by you.

And that's fine to do what you want with your vote, but when you all are in love with a commentator when he goes the **** off, and Paul wants to remedy that, and you say I am a loverboy when you don't even get that is kinda the problem Paul has with the Government, don't get all pissy at me when I point it out.

First off I'm not even pissy, you clearly are though, second what I love about that Ratigan rant is that he wants his President to come out and say "Your congress is bought and paid for by the highest bidder." I don't want a guy who claims he can shrink government and remove the income tax and do whatever else it is that Paul wants to do. Big government's an issue, but the fact is you can make government as small as you want it, we need money out. And Ron Paul is not going to kick money out if he wins on money. This isn't going to take just electing someone else who makes promises he may or may not be able to keep. This is going to take a systematic change to the way they do business in Washington. This isn't going to take Reagan like cuts to Social program spending, this isn't going to take limiting the defense budget, this is going to take ending the war on drugs, this isn't about that. This is about a government that is bought and paid for. And electing Ron Paul is not the way to fix things, neither is re-electing Obama, neither is electing ANYONE until SOMEONE steps up and says "You know what? You guys are right. There is a systemic issue inside the way we do business in Washington and we've been riding the Status Quo for 50 years and that's the way we do things and that's not right. And that's on us."

That's fine if Ron Paul takes a paycut as President. That's. Not. The. Issue. You can't fix government by just electing someone else. Mexico tried that, it didn't work. As much as Ron Paul can say, he can't fundamentally change the way Washington does business on his own just by becoming President. He just can't. The problem is too large, the problem is too systemic.

But clearly I'm a douchebag for even suggesting that maybe, just maybe, Ron Paul isn't who he says he is.

[guidi2009]

First off I'm not even pissy, you clearly are though, second what I love about that Ratigan rant is that he wants his President to come out and say "Your congress is bought and paid for by the highest bidder." I don't want a guy who claims he can shrink government and remove the income tax and do whatever else it is that Paul wants to do. Big government's an issue, but the fact is you can make government as small as you want it, we need money out. And Ron Paul is not going to kick money out if he wins on money. This isn't going to take just electing someone else who makes promises he may or may not be able to keep. This is going to take a systematic change to the way they do business in Washington. This isn't going to take Reagan like cuts to Social program spending, this isn't going to take limiting the defense budget, this is going to take ending the war on drugs, this isn't about that. This is about a government that is bought and paid for. And electing Ron Paul is not the way to fix things, neither is re-electing Obama, neither is electing ANYONE until SOMEONE steps up and says "You know what? You guys are right. There is a systemic issue inside the way we do business in Washington and we've been riding the Status Quo for 50 years and that's the way we do things and that's not right. And that's on us."

That's fine if Ron Paul takes a paycut as President. That's. Not. The. Issue.

But clearly I'm a douchebag for even suggesting that maybe, just maybe, Ron Paul isn't who he says he is.

I like Ron Paul personally and I would rather have him then any of the other Republican game show hosts. The fact is that Paul would do nothing about power accumulating at the top, he would endorse it and support the destruction of the middle class. Obama will win and the Republicans need a change of game plan if they want to avoid destruction. I suggest they support the middle class for once.

[ragecage]

First off I'm not even pissy, you clearly are though,

Well yeah, when you get labeled something you're not, any normal person probably wouldn't like it that much.

second what I love about that Ratigan rant is that he wants his President to come out and say "Your congress is bought and paid for by the highest bidder." I don't want a guy who claims he can shrink government and remove the income tax and do whatever else it is that Paul wants to do. Big government's an issue, but the fact is you can make government as small as you want it, we need money out. And Ron Paul is not going to kick money out if he wins on money. This isn't going to take just electing someone else who makes promises he may or may not be able to keep. This is going to take a systematic change to the way they do business in Washington. This isn't going to take Reagan like cuts to Social program spending, this isn't going to take limiting the defense budget, this is going to take ending the war on drugs, this isn't about that. This is about a government that is bought and paid for. And electing Ron Paul is not the way to fix things, neither is re-electing Obama, neither is electing ANYONE until SOMEONE steps up and says "You know what? You guys are right. There is a systemic issue inside the way we do business in Washington and we've been riding the Status Quo for 50 years and that's the way we do things and that's not right. And that's on us."

Yeah the way to do that is if somehow to Supreme Court reverses it's decision on Corporate Donations to Campaigns.

That's fine if Ron Paul takes a paycut as President. That's. Not. The. Issue. You can't fix government by just electing someone else. Mexico tried that, it didn't work. As much as Ron Paul can say, he can't fundamentally change the way Washington does business on his own just by becoming President. He just can't. The problem is too large, the problem is too systemic.

You can't fix it, but with someone like Paul you have a shot to reign in spending. NOT A GUARANTEE, but a shot.

But clearly I'm a douchebag for even suggesting that maybe, just maybe, Ron Paul isn't who he says he is.

No just for the label. I wouldn't go as far as to say you're a douche, but I'm just thinking maybe chillout on that.

[HoustonGM]

You can't fix it, but with someone like Paul you have a shot to reign in spending. NOT A GUARANTEE, but a shot.

While still cutting revenue...

[ragecage]

While still cutting revenue...

That's fine, it is our money after all.

[HoustonGM]

That's fine, it is our money after all.

There is no way to balance the budget and get rid of the debt that we have while continuing to cut taxes on the rich.

[ragecage]

There is no way to balance the budget and get rid of the debt that we have while continuing to cut taxes on the rich.

I didn't say not to cut taxes on the rich. I personally would enjoy paying less taxes though. Cutting spending would do that.

[HoustonGM]

I didn't say not to cut taxes on the rich.

Mistyped there?

I personally would enjoy paying less taxes though. Cutting spending would do that.

Cutting spending wouldn't do that. Cutting spending would allow taxes to be cut, yes...but not yet...if we actually want to dig out of the hole we're in. And Ron Paul's plans include cutting spending, sure, but also completely getting rid of all income tax and capital gains taxes AND slashing the corporate tax rate.