Ron Paul Cheering Entrance California

[netrin]

nuts (adjective) /nəts/
    Insane

in·sane (adjective) /inˈsān/ 
    In a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill
    (of an action or policy) Extremely foolish; irrational or illogical
    "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein

de·lu·sion (noun) /diˈlo͞oZHən/ 
    An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder
    The action of deluding someone or the state of being deluded

To believe and support most candidates is to share the qualities of one who is 'nuts', 'insane', or 'delusional'

[1714116795]

1714116795

[1714116795]

1714116795

[1714116795]

1714116795

[1714116795]

1714116795

[The Script]

nuts (adjective) /nəts/
    Insane

in·sane (adjective) /inˈsān/ 
    In a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill
    (of an action or policy) Extremely foolish; irrational or illogical
    "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein

de·lu·sion (noun) /diˈlo͞oZHən/ 
    An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder
    The action of deluding someone or the state of being deluded

To believe and support most candidates is to share the qualities of one who is 'nuts', 'insane', or 'delusional'

Sorry, what's your point?

[netrin]

Sorry, what's your point?

Would you say, for example, that a government who created this misinformation (that I just stumbled upon) maintains a firm grasp of reality? Could you tell me two candidates who could point out the errors, whose perception of effect and cause are not reversed? I am disgusted by the circular smiling irrational arguments of politicians in the US and Europe. And voters are 'nuts' to keep voting for them over and over again expecting different results.

[Elwar]

Also this PPP Poll:

"This may be the most positive poll for Paul that we've ever conducted- he leads by 15 points with independents (against Obama) even as the rest of the Republican candidates trail Obama with that voting group."
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/09/florida-close.html

It is the independents that choose presidents.

But it's the crazy fringe that choose candidates 

In the general election Republicans fall behind the Republican and Democrats fall behind the Democrat.

It is the independents that choose the president.

His hardest election will be the Republican primary which he is now polling in 3rd place behind a fake Tea Party that is parroting his talking points but has no record to back it up and against a liberal Republican who changes his stance on everything every day.

[The Script]

Sorry, what's your point?

Would you say, for example, that a government who created this misinformation (that I just stumbled upon) maintains a firm grasp of reality? Could you tell me two candidates who could point out the errors, whose perception of effect and cause are not reversed? I am disgusted by the circular smiling irrational arguments of politicians in the US and Europe. And voters are 'nuts' to keep voting for them over and over again expecting different results.

I agree.    "But if we just vote in a Republican everything will be better!"

[Macho]

I agree.    "But if we just vote in a Republican everything will be better!"

I'm not an American but this is not a matter of parties, those who support Ron Paul do not want to vote for him because he is a republican but because he is Ron Paul! Because of his principles that he advocates for several decades without flip-flopping, ever. I also see that Ron Paul supporters see right trough the BS of Perry the bankster puppet (just like Obama) or Bachman or similar posturing clowns so no ... it's not a matter of "electing a republican", look at the person not the party. He would run like an independent if he had any chance to get into debates like one - but thanks to the  two-party worshiping corporate media he doesn't.

There are really only few extremely important points that I care about with Ron Paul:

1. Ending the FED - which is an entity outside of any oversight by congress wielding huge powers and they're the ones impoverishing Americans and indeed by proxy the whole world. They're the arm of private banksters and wall street sharks stealing the shit out of America ...

2. Ending the useless and pointless wars that are not only costing trillions of dollars further impoverishing people and growing the military-industrial complex but cost the lives of over million innocent people. And are making America less safe, in fact pose a threat to national security by creating enemies all over the middle east and elsewhere ... a principle called blowback.

3. Repealing the blatantly unconstitutional PATRIOT Act that authorizes spying, surveying and kidnapping of American citizens without due process of law, no trial, no jury. There is no more anti-american and indeed anti-human legislation than that ...

NO OTHER CANDIDATE is willing or even speaking of these fundamental issues - not even Obama (who predictably broke his promise regarding wars and pushed for PATRIOT Act renewal), frankly I believe that anything else is more or less a distraction ... it pales in significance in comparison to these things. If I were a gay person, should I worry more about some paper I can hang on my wall or that I actually have a wall and do not live in a tent under a bridge in a security police state surviving on food stamps.

I found this video, it sums up RP's foreign policy and FED stance pretty well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohKz9OeiI0g

[The Script]

I agree.    "But if we just vote in a Republican everything will be better!"

I'm not an American but this is not a matter of parties, those who support Ron Paul do not want to vote for him because he is a republican but because he is Ron Paul! Because of his principles that he advocates for several decades without flip-flopping, ever. I also see that Ron Paul supporters see right trough the BS of Perry the bankster puppet (just like Obama) or Bachman or similar posturing clowns so no ... it's not a matter of "electing a republican", look at the person not the party. He would run like an independent if he had any chance to get into debates like one - but thanks to the  two-party worshiping corporate media he doesn't.

There are really only few extremely important points that I care about with Ron Paul:

1. Ending the FED - which is an entity outside of any oversight by congress wielding huge powers and they're the ones impoverishing Americans and indeed by proxy the whole world. They're the arm of private banksters and wall street sharks stealing the shit out of America ...

2. Ending the useless and pointless wars that are not only costing trillions of dollars further impoverishing people and growing the military-industrial complex but cost the lives of over million innocent people. And are making America less safe, in fact pose a threat to national security by creating enemies all over the middle east and elsewhere ... a principle called blowback.

3. Repealing the blatantly unconstitutional PATRIOT Act that authorizes spying, surveying and kidnapping of American citizens without due process of law, no trial, no jury. There is no more anti-american and indeed anti-human legislation than that ...

NO OTHER CANDIDATE is willing or even speaking of these fundamental issues - not even Obama (who predictably broke his promise regarding wars and pushed for PATRIOT Act renewal), frankly I believe that anything else is more or less a distraction ... it pales in significance in comparison to these things. If I were a gay person, should I worry more about some paper I can hang on my wall or that I actually have a wall and do not live in a tent under a bridge in a security police state surviving on food stamps.

I found this video, it sums up RP's foreign policy and FED stance pretty well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohKz9OeiI0g

You're preaching to the choir, Macho.  Notice the quotes on my statement about voting in a Republican.  I know very well that the two party system is a sham.  I was making fun of the people who think that simply by getting Obama out of the office and putting a Republican in things will get better.

[Macho]

You're preaching to the choir, Macho.  Notice the quotes on my statement about voting in a Republican.  I know very well that the two party system is a sham.  I was making fun of the people who think that simply by getting Obama out of the office and putting a Republican in things will get better.

Oh, ok then ... I misunderstood because as bizarre as it is there are people who actually think like that so it's hard to tell sarcasm from serious statement

I guess I get confused by people who think that some of his policies are "nuts" and that he's "fringe" and similar things that are just irrelevant in the big scheme of things ... and don't look at the very important issues that actually matter and do have huge impact on people's lives. He is not going to be an exact mirror image of your beliefs, it's silly to expect that ... but he is 100x better than any other candidate and finally there is someone who can be voted FOR as opposed to voting AGAINST someone as happens too often unfortunately - lesser evil is still evil. I really hope he'll win, it would be the best thing that happened to America in a long time ...

[The Script]

You're preaching to the choir, Macho.  Notice the quotes on my statement about voting in a Republican.  I know very well that the two party system is a sham.  I was making fun of the people who think that simply by getting Obama out of the office and putting a Republican in things will get better.

Oh, ok then ... I misunderstood because as bizarre as it is there are people who actually think like that so it's hard to tell sarcasm from serious statement

I guess I get confused by people who think that some of his policies are "nuts" and that he's "fringe" and similar things that are just irrelevant in the big scheme of things ... and don't look at the very important issues that actually matter and do have huge impact on people's lives. He is not going to be an exact mirror image of your beliefs, it's silly to expect that ... but he is 100x better than any other candidate and finally there is someone who can be voted FOR as opposed to voting AGAINST someone as happens too often unfortunately - lesser evil is still evil. I really hope he'll win, it would be the best thing that happened to America in a long time ...

100% agree. 

Sorry, for the misunderstanding, I've got to figure out how to develop a sarcasm font. 

[netrin]

I've just noticed that InTrade predicts a higher chance that Ron Paul wins the Presidency (2.75%) than his chance of winning the Republican nomination (2.2%).

I misunderstood because as bizarre as it is there are people who actually think like that so it's hard to tell sarcasm from serious statement

I often fail to see the sarcasm, ignore the 'trolls' and figure out later it was a joke (perhaps on me). Sarcasm is not universally understood and even more difficult to emerge from text.

I guess I get confused by people who think that some of his policies are "nuts" and that he's "fringe"... but he is 100x better than any other candidate and finally there is someone who can be voted FOR as opposed to voting AGAINST

I don't understand the accusation "nuts" and I don't believe we are meant to. I believe it is an example of people regurgitating what they are told to think. Criticize him on his stance on abortion or vague religious views, if those truly matter to you, but to say he is "nuts" is sheep mentality without the responsibility to defend a view with a grain of substance. It reminds me of thirteen year old girls who refers to their pre-pubescent loves as 'weird'. It's ambiguous at best. I would not consider Ron Paul 100x better, but infinitely better because he has sincerity and has integrity while all others have none.

If by "nuts" his views contrast established power structures, the same policies of the generations, then Long Live Ron Paul!

[Rassah]

At my old university, the majority opinion of why students thought he was "nuts" was because we wants to get rid of public education. For me, that is the biggest issue I have with him. I don't believe free market libertarianism can work with K-12 education, since for a free market to work properly, people need to be able to make choices and enter into contracts. Kids often don't have that option, so a kid from a poor or an uncaring family who is prevented from going to school, or who's parents can't afford it, will be at a huge disadvantage through no fault or choice of their own. With universally required and freely supplied basic education, at least everyone gets somewhat of an even chance to start their life with. True, the system is screwed, poor areas have bad schools, and the whole system lags WAY behind Europe and Asia (probably biggest reason to worry about the future of USA's economy), but Europe and Asia are not private-education countries, either, so I think something else may be wrong with our system.

[jwzguy]

At my old university, the majority opinion of why students thought he was "nuts" was because we wants to get rid of public education. For me, that is the biggest issue I have with him. I don't believe free market libertarianism can work with K-12 education, since for a free market to work properly, people need to be able to make choices and enter into contracts. Kids often don't have that option, so a kid from a poor or an uncaring family who is prevented from going to school, or who's parents can't afford it, will be at a huge disadvantage through no fault or choice of their own. With universally required and freely supplied basic education, at least everyone gets somewhat of an even chance to start their life with. True, the system is screwed, poor areas have bad schools, and the whole system lags WAY behind Europe and Asia (probably biggest reason to worry about the future of USA's economy), but Europe and Asia are not private-education countries, either, so I think something else may be wrong with our system.

Ok, so thanks for proving my point. NO HE DOESN'T.

He just wants to get the federal government out of public education, which it should be. If the states want to run and fund public education, they'll have a lot more $$$ to do so once the federal government isn't stealing so much of our money and spending it on war. And they'll do a much better job - the more locally organized your education system is, the more control the people who are actually affected by it have. They're the ones with a vested interest in making sure it's being done efficiently and effectively.

[JeffK]

At my old university, the majority opinion of why students thought he was "nuts" was because we wants to get rid of public education. For me, that is the biggest issue I have with him. I don't believe free market libertarianism can work with K-12 education, since for a free market to work properly, people need to be able to make choices and enter into contracts. Kids often don't have that option, so a kid from a poor or an uncaring family who is prevented from going to school, or who's parents can't afford it, will be at a huge disadvantage through no fault or choice of their own. With universally required and freely supplied basic education, at least everyone gets somewhat of an even chance to start their life with. True, the system is screwed, poor areas have bad schools, and the whole system lags WAY behind Europe and Asia (probably biggest reason to worry about the future of USA's economy), but Europe and Asia are not private-education countries, either, so I think something else may be wrong with our system.

Ok, so thanks for proving my point. NO HE DOESN'T.

He just wants to get the federal government out of public education, which it should be. If the states want to run and fund public education, they'll have a lot more $$$ to do so once the federal government isn't stealing so much of our money and spending it on war. And they'll do a much better job - the more locally organized your education system is, the more control the people who are actually affected by it have. They're the ones with a vested interest in making sure it's being done efficiently and effectively.

Oh this makes sense. Growing up in Indiana, I wish my state would have had more control over education than the Federal Government. Taking 'Jesus 101' and 'The History of the Earth, According to the Bible 200' would have been much easier than the math and science classes I took.

[netrin]

I've been predicting a federal European state for a decade and have always received a sort of "your nuts" reaction. The EU was founded on a very similar structure as the United States. The central government received power from the individual states. State power and voting rights were based proportionally to both discreet states and population size (in the US, 2 senators and congressmen proportional to population). Both systems solidify more central power during times of conflict and crisis until the states lose all sovereignty. It's a slow and seemingly inevitable process. The United States is on a path toward Empire, the Zenith before the fall. Ron Paul uniquely tries to turn the wheel back. Europe would be lucky to have such an knowledgeable, intuitive and noble politician.

[netrin]

Taking 'Jesus 101' and 'The History of the Earth, According to the Bible 200' would have been much easier than the math and science classes I took.

I suggest you support a state religion. Look at the apathy toward religion in educated societies where religion is state sponsored as opposed to the cultish fervor in nations with rampant unrestrained religious freedom marketing.

[Rassah]

He just wants to get the federal government out of public education, which it should be. If the states want to run and fund public education, they'll have a lot more $$$ to do so once the federal government isn't stealing so much of our money and spending it on war. And they'll do a much better job - the more locally organized your education system is, the more control the people who are actually affected by it have. They're the ones with a vested interest in making sure it's being done efficiently and effectively.

Sorry, yeah, that's what I meant, that he wants to get rid of the department of education. In my opinion, schools in US are already largely state influenced, and I think that may be one of the problems. With each state just trying to get as many kids to graduate as possible, it feels like it's a race to the bottom. Plus with states getting most of their materials from a single other state (Texas), a lot of kids basically end up learning what some elected (not necessarily educated) school board officials in that state decided is right. In the country I came from, curriculum is designed and set by people who have some knowledge about education, history, math, and science (though admittedly our history included A LOT of propaganda), and all schools were required to teach that. If a kid under performed, tough luck. He was forced to study harder, instead of being moved to an easier class. If a lot of kids under performed, the teacher was replaced, and the students were still expected to learn the stuff, instead of the curriculum being changed to make it easier for the kids. (Heck, we started cramming overnight for exams since 3rd grade). That classroom culture seems to be pretty much the same in Italy and Japan, too. So, it was a bit of a shock to me when I came to US, and instead of things like multi-variable algebra, cellular biology, intro to engineering, and a second language that I had in 3rd grade, in my 4th grade I was taught single-digit multiplication, the same 1492 to revolution American history (for 5 years), very elementary science, and basics of english with rather low level reading requirements.

[netrin]

I believe most of the US's failing (and strengths) are cultural. It is a known fact that children of less educated parents will be less educated themselves relative to their peers. There is good evidence to suggest that student performance is directly related to parental involvement. In many more culturally homogeneous nations, policy takes average parental responsibility as a given. If as is the case in Latin America education is a lower priority than for example Northern Europe or East Asia (regardless of CPI) then focusing on averages is good government policy, while in higher achieving countries, focusing on the top is better policy. The United States has no such norms. It has an inconsistent mix of over- and under- achievers (greater standard deviation from manically diligent to morbidly lazy). If you reward parental responsibility or student performance the result will be stratification. If you reward the median then the best will be handicapped. I believe this problem is most pronounced in the United States than any other nation in which I have lived.

Personally, I think the federation is too big to be governed. Policy from high is irrelevant to the majority. Let the states compete. If they want to teach creationism in Indian or that God decreed pi to be precisely three in Alabama, then we should allow their GDP to fall and the intelligent to flee. Maybe after a generation they'll be smart enough to remodel their education system on successful States.

He just wants to get the federal government out of public education, which it should be. If the states want to run and fund public education, they'll have a lot more $$$ to do so once the federal government isn't stealing so much of our money and spending it on war. And they'll do a much better job - the more locally organized your education system is, the more control the people who are actually affected by it have. They're the ones with a vested interest in making sure it's being done efficiently and effectively.

[Rassah]

Netrin, what you say actually makes a lot of sense (never looked at it from standard deviation point of view). You almost changed my mind, but the only thing I still can't let go of is that kids growing up in Alabama will have no choice but to grow up stupid, through no fault of their own :/

[Anonymous]

I find it offensive that people feel they are entitled to take ownership over the lives of others. They are arrogant and self-important enough to think they can dictate how one should be raised and how one should be culturally. What makes you so virtuous and wise to say that one must submit to the education our government demands? What makes your opinion so grand that it can dictate how society should be?

That is my position.

[speeder]

What is he nuts on?

Abortion. I'm still voting for him though since it's unlikely he can change the current abortion laws.

He wants to leave the abortion issue to the States instead of having the Federal government intervene.  He's pointed out that before Roe v Wade doctors would perform abortions anyway for certain cases (rape, certain harm to the mother, etc.).  I guess I fail to see how that makes him nuts.  But you're right in that he doesn't believe in a president exceeding constitutional powers and so is unlikely to be able to change something like abortion without congressional support.

The fact he's against abortion is what bothers me. The fact he claims to be a libertarian yet doesn't understand that a woman removing a baby from her womb is her right also bothers me.

He still is a libertarian, he only believes that baby has right to live (and thus, the mother rights end there... she does not have the right to kill the baby, because the baby have the right to live).


You must understand, that libertarians may still believe in different sets of rights than you do.


I cannot claim truly that I am libertarian, but I agree with several libertarians that say you have right to declare any of your rights void (thus, you can for example volunteer yourself to slavery if you want to). While I know that several other libertarians think that some rights are unalienable.