Zagg said:
The state, at any level, is going to be dominated by the dominant social class, which in the modern world is the capitalist class. I certainly wouldn't argue that the state is the solution to anything. But eliminating the state without eliminating transnational finance capital is to leave transnational finance capital in absolute control of everything. Which, of course, is just what the capitalists want. And it's just what Ron Paul and his ilk want to give them.
iraddict said:
Zagg said:
Some of it sounds good, but what right-wing libertarianism is about is letting transnational corporations control everything without any social control. Okay, they control almost everything now. But they want the rest. And Ron Paul and his ilk want them to have it.
iraddict said:
I realize that this isn't really a political forum, but if you guys care about freedom, think about voting for Ron Paul. He opposed SOPA. He also opposed the act that Obama just signed into law which allows the Federal Government to lock you up indefinitely without trial if they SUSPECT you of being a terrorist. He opposes the war on drugs. He opposes the Federal Reserve. He refused the pension he is allowed as a United States Senator, because "If the average American doesn't deserve it, then we don't either." He wants to bring ALL our troops home. He said he would be willing to send our troops to war if it was absolutely necessary, but he's not going to send our kids overseas to "get their legs blown off" for corporate interests or the military industrial complex. (He's also gotten more donations from active duty military personnel than all the other Republican candidates and Obama COMBINED) He's the only candidate who has stood up to Wall Street. In 2002 he gave a speech in which he claimed that "In ten years time we will have had a financial collapse, the dollar will be worth less, and we will all be poorer and worse off." He wants to abolish the Federal Income Tax. etc, etc, etc.
And the best part is that he scares the crap out of the 1 percenters. The corporately controlled media are trying their damndest to pretend like he doesn't exist, despite consistently coming in either second or third in almost every major poll.
Please, Please, PLEASE take four minutes and watch this video of Jon Stewart exposing the blatant media bias when covering this guy. It's both hilarious and scary as hell at the same time. I don't care whether you agree with Dr. Paul or not, after you watch this, you won't ever trust the mainstream media ever again. It's THAT obvious. And if that's not enough, I included a link to Fox News talking about the South Carolina debate. Watch as the anchor (who is getting real time feedback from people on Twitter) tries to get the analyst to admit that Dr. Paul won the debate. Even though he scored higher with audiences in EVERY SINGLE category, the best she can get out of him is "Yes, he did very well." She then says something to the effect of "He did better than very well, according to that, he did the best." The analyst says "Well.. his green bar is higher, yes he did very well." She says, "I'm just trying to be fair. He did the best." To which he replies "Well, we report, and you decide."
Jon Stewart-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb5aGgQXhXo&feature=related
Fox News Coverage of South Carolina debate-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhjkLOvD40E
Guys, don't listen to the media. This guy is for real. He CAN win, and he WILL change things. I've been following politics for a long time, and this guy is the first authentic candidate I've seen since I started paying attention back in the early ninties. We don't need a revolution, we just need to register and vote. That's all it would take...
Actually Zagg, it's just the opposite. I saw someone throw the same argument at Dr. Paul. His response? Take the Environmental Protection Agency, for example. Right now, if a huge multinational corporation is caught polluting, we have the EPA go after them. There is a set fine. If you're a huge corporation this fine basically amounts to a slap on the wrist (since they make millions/billions of dollars a year). But if you're a small business owner, that same fine would likely bankrupt you. So the result is to punish the smaller business owners, thus lessening the competition for the huge multi national corporations. Meanwhile, for the huge corporations, paying the fine is usually MUCH cheaper than getting rid of their waste the way they're supposed to. Ergo, when both pollute, the small business gets shut down, while the huge business pays a small fine (relative to their annual profits).
What Ron Paul proposes is that we do away with the large federal regulations (which are usually WRITTEN by the lobbyists for these large corporations) that allow this to go on. Instead, local (read: state) governments would be free to set up their own rules for punishing polluters.
Again, if you want to know who these guys are working for, look at the donations to their campaigns. Romney, Obama, Gingrich, etc all have massive war chests paid for by huge corporations. Paul has virtually NO corporate campaign sponsors. His support is almost completely grass roots individual contributions. A Ron Paul presidency is their worst nightmare...
If anyone else has any reservations about the guy, please post them. THE reason I'm so in favor of him is precisely because the super wealthy hate him so much...
Okay. I'll bite. So if Ron Paul and his "ilk" want to give the capitalists complete control, why is it that they've donated HUGE sums of money to the campaigns of Romney, Gingrich and Obama (and to a lesser extent the rest of the Republican candidates) and none to Dr. Paul? Not sure who you think the better candidate is (I'm gonna' assume Obama) but here's a breakdown of top campaign contributors by the nonpartisan watchdog website Opensecrets.org. I'll start off with some of the top contributors in Obama's top twenty during the 2008 election. You might recognize some of these names from the financial crisis. Although I doubt that this has anything to do with the fact that NOT ONE SINGLE prosecution has been made regarding the financial scandal by this administration....
Obama- 2008 election
Goldman Sachs- $1,013,091.00
JP Morgan- $808,799.00
Citigroup- $736,771.00
TimeWarner- $624,618.00
General Electric- $529,885.00
Morgan Stanley- $529,232.00
Ron Paul wasn't listed for 2008, but here are HIS top five contributors for this years election...
Natural Resources- $10,000.00
Morning Star Co- $5,000.00
Davis Lynch Inc- $5,000.00
Hoggy Bottom LLC- $5,000.00
Itellus Holdings- $5,000.00
and just for good measure, here are Mitt Romney's top contributors so far for this year's election-
Goldman Sachs- $367,200.00
Credit Suisse Group $203,750
Morgan Stanley $199,800
HIG Capital $186,500
Barclays $157,750
Now like I said, the numbers for Obama are for the 2008 election. Since he's the incumbent, he hasn't really started raising money yet.
Take a close look at those names and numbers. Are you REALLY going to tell me that Paul is the corporate whore of the bunch? His top five contributors COMBINED equal $30,000.00. NOT ONE fortune 500 company on the list. Romney's fifth highest contributor ALONE is $157,750. And while it's not really fair to compare Obama to these guys yet, a look at the 2008 cycle gives you a pretty good idea of how much he's going to end up with and where it's going to come from.
If you want to check my numbers, the legitimacy of the site, or any of the other Republican primary candidates, here's the link to the site I got my info from...
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php
Now tell me again how much the capitalists love Ron Paul and his "ilk"....