<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ge6A2av1lhA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> this guy is one of the best reporters out there. funny how one guy can find the truth about the newsletters in a couple weeks but main stream media can't or won't bother with it for years.
Screw the newsletters, guys. There are more pressing reasons that he's not going to win the nomination. Is there anyway to rescue this thread from Area 51?
You're not understanding the point we are making -- we know and have known that Ron Raul didn't write the the articles in question, but he did allow them to run in his newsletter. The videos from this reporter are at best vague and prove nothing regarding the subject matter and Paul's knowledge of what went in the newsletters. The fact that it was the same author who wrote the stories including an entire special issue make Paul look even worse when he says he knew nothing of the contents of his own 'newsletter'. /last post B-Bob
How about telling us what his involvement was and who actually did write them? You know - that whole transparency thing he always talks about. In other words, he just yells and screams at the top of his lungs in an environment where no one is listening and accomplishes nothing. A big part of being a leader is the ability to engage people with different views and find areas of agreement to get things done. He has shown exactly zero ability to do that.
Ron Paul is just another politician who's going to help destroy the earth and then go to the secret illuminati colony on Mars.
The problem with Ron Paul is not that he is a racist (I doubt he is) nor that he can't get elected nor that he can't get anything done nor even that his supporters are annoying nutbags like ToyCen and derail and ruin an otherwise good thread. The problem with Ron Paul is that if he had his way and his policies were enacted, there would be no more public schools, no more admission to emergency rooms for those that can't afford emergency care, no more fire departments for those that haven't bought fire insurance, likewise no more police except for private police, no highways except ones that private enterprise judged worthy of making (toll roads, all), likewise no parks or zoos or museums but those with admission fees, in fact the only thing the government would provide would be a national defense. Have a heart attack? Be rich or die. Want your kid to be educated? Be rich or forget it. Your house is underwater because private enterprise didn't judge a levee to be profitable? You have the liberty to be homeless. His solution to all these problems? Relying upon charity. Relying upon "a thousand points of light." This is libertarianism people. Ron Paul is a very charming old man and I agree with him that we shouldn't go around bombing people or arresting potheads or even crackheads. But he is also a crazy, dangerous nut who cares not at all about the welfare of his common man. This is his idea of liberty. You are free to drop dead. Welcome to Ron Paul's America.
Yes, it does - both of them passed an incredible amount of positive things that helped a lot of people in their time as Governor / President. Ron Paul? Not so much.
Hm. I've thought about his policies a lot too since they are so radical. Ron wants to get rid of the dept of education because he feels like the quality of public schools are piss poor and thinks this is because of the federal government's involvement. Tell me this, are you satisfied with the public school system? He promotes leaving education decisions to be made at the state, local or personal level. His stance on education: “First, the Constitution does not authorize the Department of Education, and the founders never envisioned the federal government dictating those education policies. Second, it is a huge bureaucracy that squanders our money. We send billions of dollars to Washington and get back less than we sent. The money would be much better off left in states and local communities rather than being squandered in Washington. Finally, I think that the smallest level of government possible best performs education. Teachers, parents, and local community leaders should be making decisions about exactly how our children should be taught, not Washington bureaucrats. The Department of Education has given us No Child Left Behind, massive unfunded mandates, indoctrination, and in some cases, forced medication of our children with psychotropic drugs. We should get rid of all of that and get those choices back in the hands of the people.” As for healthcare, he's been a doctor for most of his life, so I'm quite certain that he has a better understanding of what works or does not. The current system is most definitely broken. If you take the time to research his stances on these and more issues it would at least encourage you to think about why we accept the status quo despite most things being sub par ~ unacceptable in quality.
valorita: When education is handed over to the states, there is no longer any guarantee of public education. So elementary through high school can, in any given state, go to private school only. And those private schools can be available only to the highest bidders. This is what Paul (and all libertarians) mean by liberty when they talk about education. More control of public schools can be returned to the states without removing a federal mandate that all states provide public education. Paul, like all libertarians, would like to remove that mandate and have total "liberty" in education. In other words, if there's no public ed where you live and you can't afford private ed, too bad. As for health care, yes Paul is a doctor. That doesn't make him an expert on health care. He recently said in a debate that no one went without care in America before 1965. The only reason he wasn't called on that insane statement is that no one takes him seriously. He also said that there wasn't anything wrong about the situation in which his own former campaign staffer died because he had inadequate health care. He also, when asked what should happen to someone that showed up at the emergency room without insurance and therefore wasn't treated, refused to answer. When asked if that person should just be allowed to die, the crowd cheered and he dodged. He pretends that before the government became more involved, everything was groovy. It wasn't. Similarly he recently suggested that we should eliminate FEMA and all other federal disaster relief. He said things worked just fine 100 years ago when the government didn't deal with natural disasters. Sure, that's true, if you just believe in survival of the fittest. It's dishonest debating to say "Are you happy with how public ed works now? No? Then vote Ron Paul." I'm not happy with public education, no. I also don't believe the solution is to eliminate it. This is Paul's method, his strategy. He gets a lot of people to agree that things suck now in various ways (which they do) and then people go, hey, he makes a lot of sense. What they don't realize is that he wants government to have no role and provide no protections except for national defense. This is the same kind of thinking that led him recently to say that he opposed the 1965 Civil Rights legislation and believed that anti-discriminatory laws were unconstitutional and an unfair burden on the free market. Our choices are not limited to the current system or NO system. Paul is for NO system. He is for letting everyone fend for themselves. This is the dark side of what he calls "liberty."
That's a great post Batman. But I think you may as well have just posted a video by Unter Null or some such.
I'm a 4th year medical student with a master's in pathobiological sciences and have spent time studying/living in 4 continents throughout my life. I'm not trying to brag or show people up. I just don't want people to accuse me of being a mindless paulbot. I genuinely take interest in these topics and have tried to keep an open mind while doing some recreational research. I think there are a lot of misconceptions about Paul's platform. He says, "let's get rid of departments like education and energy". Does that mean there will be no public schools and electricity? No. Ron is against the notion that federal government should be in charge of these things. Why? 1) Because they are largely inefficient. For every dollar we send to Washington in taxes or otherwise, we get a terribly inefficient amount in return (various audits claiming that only 26% gets spent back in the classroom). They spend $809 billion in education spending, yet only ~40 percent of American 12th graders are reading proficient according to some studies. Furthermore, the US is only ranked "average" in terms education when compared other nations despite spending the most per student. This is not to say that they don't have good intentions. It's just that when you have a lot of distance/middle men between the consumer (child) and the product (education), you are bound to have unnecessary expenses and limited efficiency. 2) "Q: Where, in the Constitution, is there mention of education? A. There is none; education is a matter reserved for the states. The case against federal involvement in education is not based simply on a commitment to the original Constitution, as important as that is. It also reflects an understanding of why the Founders were right to reserve most subjects to state, local, or private endeavor. The Founders feared the concentration of power. They believed that the best way to protect individual freedom and civil society was to limit and divide power. Thus it was much better to have decisions made independently by 13–or 50–states than to have one decision made for the entire country. Each state can innovate and can observe and copy successful innovations in other states, and just as important can avoid failed policies tried in other states" 3) What's good in theory is just not some dream. There are examples of successes around the world. How about the highest rated education system such as the one deployed in Finland. They spend only about 65% of what we spend per child and have less "classroom" time. Yet how can they possibly give everyone kid not only a better education but free school/transportation/supplies/meals? You could argue that they only have 6million people as a country thus far less students to manage. Roughly 40 states in the US have a population that is within that range or less. Bottom line is that I will spend my hard earned money to send my kids to a private school because I believe the quality of education they receive in the current public school system is not sufficient to equip them with the right foundation to succeed in their future endeavors. I am certain that all parents would do the same if they were free from the financial burden of an extremely overpriced private education sector (which is inflated because federal government keeps subsidizing and pumping money into it).
So you didn't really read or respond to Batman's sincere post to you. You recited some Paul talking points (in your own words, certainly.) But you see what I mean, right?
Sorry about the back to back post. I forgot to respond to your main point. If there is no federal guarantee of public schools, would there be no education? Wrong. I'm absolutely certain that States or even metropolitan cities would setup their own form of education accessible to the public. Because if they don't, then I can assure you that there would be mass migration of folks to the states that do. Parents move to districts that have a better public school system all the time. If we wanted uniformity and the federal govenment to regulate all things, then what is the point of having states? Why not just abolish them and just get rid of the headaches associated with it. Allowing states to adapt their own policies based on the beliefs of their inhabitants grants the people in the US a freedom to make their own choices and have the opportunity to live in a place that most resembles their views.
If so, then you really should actually do research instead of posting this stuff. The federal government does not spend anything close to $809 billion in education. Almost all education money is taxed and spent at the local and state level. So you complain about the system but want even more control to be done locally? Batman already addressed all this. Just saying "the current system is bad" does not get us to "Ron Paul's system is good". Ron Paul has one interpretation of the Constitution. That does not make it the only or correct one. There are lots of things not mentioned in the Constitution, because they didn't envision a world with the communication and transportation abilities that we have today. Decentralization was a necessity because it was difficult to centrally manage a large block of states at the time. Besides which, are you really sure you want to commit to the original Constitution? After all, the founding fathers allowed slavery in there. So do you believe things change and should be updated, or do you believe we should just stick with what the
In addition to points made by Batman and Major, I will just note that this view shows a stunning lack of historical knowledge. As one quick example, I will say there's a reason the case was called Brown v. Board of Education.
Hey, wasn't this thread about the GOP presidential primary? I love how we are we talking about a fringe candidate who is not even in consideration as the top GOP choice, much less any national following greater than a hardcore 10%. Everyone knows how I feel about Ron. Politically and ideologically? One step above Lyndon Larouche. Personally? Seems like a nice enough old man who is pretty out of touch with the modern world. Not to mention out of touch with what is published under his signature. For the life of me, with all the "sturm und drang" that his followers spout about his integrity, yet they give him a pass on the newsletters? ...and they call us sheeple.
quote your SOURCE that you copy/paste your analysis from, ToyCen! paulbots are spreading this around like its gospel. they got it from the comment section from one of their message boards http://www.dailypaul.com/208898/its-a-2-man-race http://www.reteaparty.com/2012/01/26/tea-party-romney-most-electable-paul-best-president/ I don't think so...
I support Paul but I have to say that Paul has very little chance of winning the nomination. What could happen though is that Romney and Gingrich get an about equal number of delegates with neither getting a majority. This would make Paul and his delegates potential kingmakers at the GOP convention. So at best he may parlay his delegates into forcing a candidate to agree to audit the Fed, go against the NDAA/Patriot Act, bring troops home from Germany/Japan/Korea, or some other libertarian position of his. Or he might get his son, Rand, a VP spot. No one really knows what Ron Paul would do in this position. But even that scenario seems unlikely as Romney has pulled ahead of Gingrich in Florida and all the February contests favor Mitt. Add to that Gingrich not making the ballot in Virginia (Paul/Romney being the only ones on it). So basically we are looking at a Romney vs Obama election unless something drastic happens...
