"Freedom" thread or something

http://bloom.bg/JNtoDp

Cool back and forth between Krugman and Ron.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: http://bloom.bg/JNtoDp Cool back and forth between Krugman and Ron.

 

Running third party would destroy everything Ron Paul is trying to do.  He knows from first hand experience that 3rd parties are DOA and that taking over the republican party is what has to be done (this doesn't discourage Paul supporters from running as dems in dem districts, of course).  I agree with the f**k both parties sentiment but it's impractical if you want to actually change anything.  Had I realised this sooner, myself, I'd have soldiered through my disgust, not plastered facebook with republican party hatred, switched parties earlier, and become a delegate.  Libertarians have the opportunity to take control of one of the "two" parties who's current, ancient, voting base won't be around much longer and they should be occupying any position they can within it whenever an opening presents itself.

Will they invite him to the debates? Did they invite Perot back in the year when he run? Or any other third party candidates? I didn't live here back then so I don't know. 

I'm still more interested in boobs than Ross Perot.  But I'm pretty sure he was in them.

Finnforest wrote: I'm still more interested in boobs than Ross Perot.  But I'm pretty sure he also has them.

I tend to agree with Rob, if you want to keep spreading the message, keep running.
I don't think it would destroy Paul's work.
Besides, maybe it's just the fact that I came from the other side...but I really would like to see limited government become a transcendental idea, over "bringing the Republicans back".

I'm in the FB group "Blue Republican" which are Democrats/Independents who registered Republican to vote Paul in the primary. It's morphed into more of a general "Liberals for Ron Paul" movement.
Got over 12K members and I spoke with the creator (actually a British guy who has become an American citizen) and he was talking about how he thought "Blue Republican" was subversive to the 2 party system, thus more appealing than something like "Democrats for Paul".

A bit idealist but we'd like to see less emphasis on the 2 party bullsh*t and have both camps dedicated to limited government.


Edit: It brings me back to Krugman, as Rob said...there is appeal but what he says is all wrong.
I still consider myself 'liberal' I believe still in what I used to, just the means have changed. Because progressivism is a failure, limited gov actually espouses what liberals should believe in, and would do so successfully.


Edited by JJLehto - May 03 2012 at 22:45

Works for me.
Besides Paul is of course doing better than we are told.

"Paul has 0 chance anyway because you need to win 5 state delegations to be represented at Tampa. Naturally that won't happen"
Well if you wanna believe those retarded internet loser 14 year olds.... he has managed that
http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/05/ron-paul-flix-daily-news-may-3-2012-ron-paul-is-on-the-ballot-5-state-delegations-won/
Seems to have left off Minnesota which I know Paul has won


Edited by JJLehto - May 03 2012 at 23:50

Ah I treat Fox as the devil so I never knew

edit: Obviously Paul is the big name who's made the most attention, but I like Gary Johnson a lot myself.
Regardless of what happens this November there's GJ and Rand to continue the movement. Hopefully some more local/state guys will step up as well.


Edited by JJLehto - May 04 2012 at 00:01

I'll be frank, I'm still not completely sold on all that.
Obviously there are super wealthy (who are that wealthy) because they've crated jobs, they've invested in society, made something all that. To deny they exist is just dumb...or maybe a partisan Democrat  ; )

All though? I do think some super wealthy just move money around for themselves and others and don't really help society at all...but I don't believe we should try to siphon all their wealth.
Not that it'd work anyway because the siphoners are just gunna keep it for themselves or f**k it up

I also have to question his point...is he claiming that the banks "made mistakes" but it was really people flocking to take their money that caused it? I mean that's true...but sounds like he's letting mass irresponsibility slide

wait?? He wants more government? He wants a bailout program?

The "exotic" investments didn't cause the problem, people did? 
Soooo it's fine to take a low income family who was denied a bank loan, but have an option for them to buy an insanely expensive house? It's all good, the problem was those pesky people that were scared about their money and didn't behave as usual?

He wants more people to take risk...but he wants the bailout as an option? Well it'll certainly create more risk, and we'll bail them out every time? Is this what he wants?

Rob unless I missed something, why did you post this?


Edited by JJLehto - May 04 2012 at 18:24