Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:30 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2695 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 108  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5745
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
To bring a little balance to the political debates on this forum. Baddy in particular spends an aweful lot of time and energy bashing Obama on war issues, but almost never Bush and definitely never his messiah Ron Paul. So I'm dedicating this thread to Ron Paul's nefarious voting record.

So here it goes......

The first few pro-war votes that I'm posting are directly pro-war. I've already mentioned these two doozies....

*5/28/10 Vote 320: H RES 1391: Congratulating Israel for Its Accession to Membership in the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development

**H.R.5842: A bill to make all Iranian Students in the United States ineligible for any form of federal aid.

In which Baddy says...
baddy wrote:

I’m not going to get all excited about Ron Paul joining a unanimous and benevolent, and customary Congressional vote for the US recognizing Israel’s acceptence into the OECD.

and....
baddy wrote:
So no, I’m not going to get excited about 1979’s HR 5842.


Interesting enough, Baddy left out the fact that HR 5842 was to deny funding to Iranian students. Ron Paul has been jockeying to start a war with Iran for over 30 years now, but he blames Obama who's been in office for a little over 19 months for wanting to start a war in that very same country. So far, Obama isn't close to waging a war against Iran.

Here we go.......


-- Would he pull the U.S. out of the ABM Treaty?

H.J.RES.566: A joint resolution withdrawing the United States of America from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, and the Interim Agreement Protocol, and Agreed Interpretations of the Treaty, signed of May 26, 1972.

-- This "champion of peace" wanted to prohibit the dismantling of ICBM silos in the U.S.:

H.R.1665: To prohibit the destruction during fiscal year 2002 of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States.

H.R.3769: To prohibit the destruction during fiscal year 2001 of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:56 pm
Posts: 4716
You just won an Isaac award!

I know you are but what am I?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5745
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Huck_Phlem wrote:
You just won an Isaac award!

I know you are but what am I?


Thanks but no thanks. Baddy moreso deserves this simply for the "I never said that" factor.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5745
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Another Ron Paul pro-war vote....

-- Would he pull the U.S. out of the ABM Treaty?

H.J.RES.566: A joint resolution withdrawing the United States of America from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, and the Interim Agreement Protocol, and Agreed Interpretations of the Treaty, signed of May 26, 1972.


...I have plenty of these.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ro ... gress.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5745
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/200 ... ainst.html

ONLY 17 EXTREMISTS VOTE AGAINST AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. CAN YOU GUESS THEIR NAMES?

Did you ever want to walk up to a blind man and punch him in the face when no one else was around? You didn't? Neither did I. I'm less certain about 17 members of Congress-- and especially one from New Jersey. Now, nothing against New Jersey-- except for this one maniac, every single New Jersey Democrat and every single New Jersey Republican voted for H R 3195, the Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments, late yesterday. Actually it wasn't only the whole New Jersey delegation (minus one) that voted for this. Every single Democrat in the nation and all but these 17 far right extremist Republicans supported it too. It's beyond veto-proof. It passed 4102-17. The bill slaps down Bush's corporate Supreme Court by making Congress' intention so clear than not even Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas could misunderstand and misinterpret. Here's what it does:

· Specifically rejects the erroneous Supreme Court decisions that have reduced the protections for people with disabilities under the ADA, restoring original Congressional intent.
· Makes it absolutely clear that the ADA is intended to provide broad coverage to protect anyone who faces discrimination on the basis of disability.
· Clarifies the definition of disability, including what it means to be “substantially limited in a major life activity.”
· Prohibits the consideration of mitigating measures such as medication, prosthetics, and assistive technology, in determining whether an individual has a disability.
· Provides coverage to people who experience discrimination based on a perception of impairment regardless of whether the individual experiences disability.
· Is supported by a broad coalition of civil rights groups, disability advocates, and employer trade organizations.

So, who were the skunks at the picnic? Some of the worst of the rubber stamp extremists who love to oppose this kind of positive legislation-- people like Mean Jean Schmidt, Patrick McHenry, Michelle Bachmann, Tim Walberg and David Dreier-- are too scared of facing their constituents in November to pull their regular hate-filled routines. But that doesn't account for this handful of lunatic fringe Republican hate-mongers:

Paul Broun (GA)
John Capmbell (CA)
John Doolittle (CA)
John Duncan (TN)
Jeff Flake (AZ)
Scott Garrett (NJ)
Louie Gohmert (TX)
Jeb Hensarling (TX)
Jack Kingston (GA)
John Linder (GA)
Kenny Marchant (TX)

Ron Paul (TX)
Ted Poe (TX)
Tom Price (GA)
Tom Tancredo (CO)
Dave Weldon (FL)
Lynn Westmoreland (GA)


The Texas and Georgia Republican parties look like more than half the problem. But how do you account for a congressman supposedly representing a moderate district in northern New Jersey, much of it in thoroughly mainstream Bergen County? That would be GOP wildman Scott Garrett. I don't know if he hates all disabled people but I know he's unhappy with one. His opponent for the congressional seat he will likely lose in November is himself a blind man, Dennis Shulman. We asked Dennis for his reaction to Garrett's bizarre vote yesterday.

"I'm not outraged as someone with a disability, I am outraged as someone who fights for the fundamental American value of equal opportunity."

"The Americans with Disabilities Act is a landmark piece of legislation that has provided millions of Americans with equal access in virtually all areas of life, including education, the workforce, and technology. Perhaps without it, I wouldn't be here to offer a sensible alternative to an out of touch career politician like Scott Garrett."

...typical... :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1824
He made a nice speech in Congress today against the war-funding bill.

You calling him a liar?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5745
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
I am because he is....

Despite RPs phoney no votes on war funding, he still voted yes on plenty of other war related votes, like his support of ballistic missles for instance, that he's an absolute and complete fraud, phoney, fake lying sack of crap. If you are going to put full support only into someone who is completely clean-handed of war related votes, Kucinich is your man. Ron Paul? No fucking way. RP's been in support of war against Iran for over 30 years.

This vote, as Baddy has noted as being from 1979 more than proves this fact.....

H.R.5842: A bill to make all Iranian Students in the United States ineligible for any form of federal aid.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 5293
Location: CT coast, USA
Well, I was gonna stay out of the snowstorm, but due to the direct nature of Kucinich's comments in this video, it pretty much puts to bed these latest RP attacks, ...especially interesting because it's from SPACEBROTHER's "man" Kucinich using using his own words, (btw, I support Kucinich too, I support DK, RP, RN and MG in word and $)).

BTW, I recall these comments were in New Hampshire during the Spring 2008 primarys where DK was running for prez (but the DNC gave him only 4 minutes in the debates, and Hillary and Obama 43 minutes..the unresistable razzle dazzle, gets 'em every time).

Kucinich on Ron Paul, 2:50 min video

In contrast, here's SPACEBROTHER's comments...

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
Despite RPs phoney no votes on war funding, {b's note: there's no such thing as a phoney congressional vote, they only have one ballot box} ... he's an absolute and complete fraud, phoney, fake lying sack of crap. If you are going to put full support only into someone who is completely clean-handed of war related votes, Kucinich is your man. Ron Paul? No fucking way.
Interesting these two opinions are so diametrically opposed, SPACEBROTHER says he's a lying piece of crap, but Kucinich says he admires him as an honest man and a man of vision, and a friend...

I wonder who's right about Ron Paul, fellow Congressman Kucinich, or SPACEBROTHER.

Boy, a Kucinich / Paul Presidential ticket, that would kick ass...

Of course the HUMOR side of this is with a Kucinich / Paul ticket, what would the lesser evils do?
A conundrum. :lol: :lol: :lol:

___________________________________

BTW, I wasn't gonna post this either, but it seems yesterday the dynamic duo was at it again...

...stirrin' up trouble for the war pigs... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Dennis Kucinich (D) and Ron Paul (R) force debate over Af-Pak war.

Washington : DC : USA | Jul 28, 2010

FULL STORY HERE

"In a rare show of bipartisan co-operation the liberal Democrat Kucinich together with the libertarian oriented Ron Paul (R) forced a rare debate on the Afghan war and presence of U.S. military advisors and special forces in Pakistan.

The two congressmen offered a resolution ordering President Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. military personnel from Pakistan, saying their presence violates the War Powers Act since it was not approved by Congress. The resolution failed by a very large margin 38-372. The antiwar Democrats are obviously a feeble few. Only 32 Democrats voted for the measure and 6 Republicans as well.

Ron Paul said Congress has been abdicating its responsibility to oversee military activities.

"We just capitulate and give them the money and do whatever," he said. "The American people don't know about it until we get deep into these quagmires."

Image

...and here they were doin' it in 2005...God bless 'em!


(It's a shame we still have people voting for and praising war escalators, while they knock anti-war candidates).





OK...we now resume your regularly scheduled Ron Paul attacks. :lol:

_________________
Lesser-evilism is war.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:32 am
Posts: 1547
no we won't. Just a break for a quick thought at where you should imagine any of those seven billions dwarves would become president, not joking... or parents, partners e t c .

..phink it's time for a change of paradigm.

Not clear YET? ... go on then, prime.


Become a best bos'n (boatswain, spoken boatsn) of the people and they will ...can you swim? me eg haven't come near a shower for the last ..how many years are men on the planet? 5432? lollech.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5745
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
baddy wrote:
Well, I was gonna stay out of the snowstorm, but.....(btw....I support DK, RP, RN and MG in word and $)).
...............
Ron Paul said Congress has been abdicating its responsibility to oversee military activities.
...............


3 points Baddy...

First off, Are you saying you now support corporate money after you said you were against it?

Second off, your numbers are way off again. The final vote was 308-114, nowhere near your 38-372 claim.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38433350/ns/politics/

And third, Baddy, do you actually believe these Ron Paul votes were for peaceful purposes?

-- He voted to pull the U.S. out of the ABM Treaty?

H.J.RES.566: A joint resolution withdrawing the United States of America from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, and the Interim Agreement Protocol, and Agreed Interpretations of the Treaty, signed of May 26, 1972.

-- This "champion of peace" voted to prohibit the dismantling of ICBM silos in the U.S.:

H.R.1665: To prohibit the destruction during fiscal year 2002 of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States.

H.R.3769: To prohibit the destruction during fiscal year 2001 of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States.


Baddy, you should shovel your own snowstorms sometime. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 4:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 8:33 pm
Posts: 49
Location: Detroit MI
Space Bro you are an ass hole.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=v ... 5JIfXVaraA

_________________
Music is the best!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 8:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5745
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
hvacdude wrote:


hvacdude, first off thanks for the compliment.

Seeing as you are also from Michigan, this should be of particular interest to you......

Michigan Oil Spill Among Largest In Midwest History: Kalamazoo Spill SOAKS Wildlife


As the Gulf Coast deals with the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, the Midwest is now facing an oil spill of its own.

A state of emergency has been declared in southwest Michigan's Kalamazoo County as more than 800,000 gallons of oil released into a creek began making its way downstream in the Kalamazoo River, the Kalamazoo Gazette reports.

The trouble began Monday at 9:45 a.m., when an oil pipeline owned by Enbridge Liquids Pipelines sprung a leak in Marshall Township. Enbridge Energy is a subsidiary of Calgary, Canada based Enbridge Inc., the Detroit Free Press reports. According to the company, it is the largest transporter of oil from western Canada.

The cause of the leak is under investigation, and the pipeline has been shut down--but not before it did some serious damage. U.S. Rep. Mark Schauer called the spill the "largest oil spill in the history of the Midwest." Officials are suggesting all water activities in the Kalamazoo River be put on hold until the situation is resolved--and some are fearing contamination of local water supplies:

The Battlecreek Enquirer reports:

Besides the noxious fumes coming from the river, health officials already are worried that the oil spill could have lasting health effects. While he said that the site of the spill was a wetland -- which has a natural clay barrier that prevents water from seeping too far into the ground -- Calhoun County Health Officer Jim Rutherford said there was a concern that the magnitude of the spill could spell trouble for the area's water supply.

"It's not going to show up right now, but over time there is a real possibility that it will leach into the water supply," Rutherford said. "I think it's inevitable that, with as much as has leaked, that it will get into the water supply."


Residents living near Battle Creek and the Kalamazoo River valley have also reported strong odors and oil-soaked wildlife in the area.

Michigan politicians have vowed to hold Enbridge responsible for the spill. Skimmers and booms were deployed at the source of the leak in an effort to contain the spill Tuesday, the Free Press reports.

"I am deeply concerned about the effects of the oil spill near Marshall, including the environmental impact and the disruption to residents and businesses," Michigan Sen. Carl Levin said in a statement. "It is also deeply worrisome that the oil from the spill has made its way into the Kalamazoo River."

Enbridge Energy President Terrance McGill told the Free Press the company would do all it can to minimize the spill's impact on communities.

"The horrific pictures coming in of the oil spill in Calhoun County area underscore just how imperative it is for Michigan to move toward clean, safe energy sources like wind and solar instead of relying on outdated fuels like oil," Clean Water Action Michigan Director Cyndi Roper told the Gazette. "Sticking with outdated fuel will only hurt job growth and continue to harm the health and safety of our communities."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/2 ... 61196.html



.....and how does this relate to Ron Paul?


H.J.RES.104: To disapprove a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to proposed revisions to the national pollutant discharge elimination system program and Federal antidegradation policy and the proposed revisions to the water quality planning and management regulations concerning total maximum daily load.


You can thank Ron Paul when you get evacuated from your home and your ground water becomes too polluted to drink and bath in.

Is the point where I should say...
hvacdude wrote:
Space Bro you are an ass hole.
....whatever?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 5293
Location: CT coast, USA
Here ya go hvacdude, you're gonna need one of these this time :lol:

Image
The way to peace.

Thanks for the great "What If" video.

What if we had a president who spoke like this, instead of how they usually speak.) :lol:

_________________
Lesser-evilism is war.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5745
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
baddy wrote:
The way to peace.

What if we had a president who spoke like this, instead of how they usually speak.


Still no response to these votes huh Baddy? :lol:


-- He voted to pull the U.S. out of the ABM Treaty?

H.J.RES.566: A joint resolution withdrawing the United States of America from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, and the Interim Agreement Protocol, and Agreed Interpretations of the Treaty, signed of May 26, 1972.

-- This "champion of peace" voted to prohibit the dismantling of ICBM silos in the U.S.:

H.R.1665: To prohibit the destruction during fiscal year 2002 of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States.

H.R.3769: To prohibit the destruction during fiscal year 2001 of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States.


Phoney anti-war speeches and phoney anti-war votes that in reality are actually denials of funding for kevlar vests that protect troops don't count when he voted in support of H.J.RES.566, H.R.1665 and H.R.3769. Don't let Ron "the wolf in sheeps clothing" Paul fool ya.....

Image

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 6:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:40 pm
Posts: 6926
Location: South wales
We fuck u you eat um
SPACEBROTHER :roll:

_________________
Arf you out of your fucking mind.Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 5293
Location: CT coast, USA
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
Still no response to these votes huh Baddy? :lol:

I get my ass in a sling answering all your Ron Paul attacks, I get blamed for your snow, (the intention of a distraction attack).

I've responded to 41 counterattacks you've thrown up in distraction to avoid answering the original question that precipitated this snowstorm.

It doesn't do any good to answer your distractions because when you get proved wrong you just ignore it an throw out some new Ron Paul attacks.

It just produces more snow and the forum's tired of it.

But if you'd like to answer the original question:

How do you get off saying you won't vote to escalate wars but you voted for and constinue to support Obama who greatly escalated the Afpak wars?

Care to answer? Why should I answer more of yours if you won't answer the original question that precipitated this mess?

Or this one would could be answered instead if you like:

In that you made the admirable claim that you don't vote to escalate wars and you now know you were mistaken to think Obama only sent 9, 000 more troops to Afghanastan when he really sent 67, 000 more (upping the war from 33, 000 to 100, 000 troops), does that mean you can no longer support Obama because of his huge Afghan war escallation because you say you won't vote to escalate wars?

You said you don't consiously vote to escalate wars, and this is obviously a huge war escalation.

Are you going to be true to your word...or are you not going to be true to your word?

I support (and yes SP, sent money to), them both. I don't support Obama's huge war escalations, that is the opposite of what we need to do...voting for more war gets more war.

__________________________________

And you must have missed this one SPACEBROTHER, you wrote:

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
Despite RPs phoney no votes on war funding, {b's note: there's no such thing as a phoney congressional vote, they only have one ballot box} ... he's an absolute and complete fraud, phoney, fake lying sack of crap. If you are going to put full support only into someone who is completely clean-handed of war related votes, Kucinich is your man. Ron Paul? No fucking way.

And here's the incongruity, your hero says the exact opposite thing about RP:
Dennis Kucinich wrote:
ON RON PAUL AS A RUNNING MATE:
People asked me what kind of person I'd like for a running mate, [Ron Paul].
He has integrity.
He has vision.
He has courage.
He and I agree tremendously on foreign policy.
If you look at the voting records and you see a vote of 235 to 2, you know who the 2 are.
I admire him.
He's my friend.
I want our party to have the widest appeal, Ron Paul is the man who could help us do that.

HERE IS THE VIDEO OF KUCINICH SAYING THESE THINGS ABOUT SELECTING RON PAUL AS A VP RUNNING MATE

So SPACEBROTHER, you say Paul is a phoney lying piece of crap, how do you explain you favorite candidates high praise of Ron Paul, even to the point of selecting him for a vice presidential running mate? Who's right about Ron Paul, you, or your favorite Congressman Kucinich?

You say he's a piece of crap, Kucinich admires him as a man of integirity and vision. Somebody's right, somebody's wrong.

(And Here's the beautiful Elizabeth Kucinich on Ron Paul as a running mate).
"Ron Paul is a great truth teller.
He's voted 100% right on the war."

I suppose Elizabeth is wrong too, huh SPACEBROTHER, she and her husband have been duped into thinking this lying piece of crap is a man of integrity and vision...how could they be so stupid :roll:

_________________
Lesser-evilism is war.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:32 am
Posts: 1547
told you ziilions times ..of why they choose on staying stupid. Ready for more endless ice-ages? am fumin soms


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 9:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5745
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
baddy wrote:
I get my ass in a sling answering all your Ron Paul attacks, I get blamed for your snow, (the intention of a distraction attack).

I've responded to 41 counterattacks you've thrown up in distraction to avoid answering the original question that precipitated this snowstorm.

It doesn't do any good to answer your distractions because when you get proved wrong you just ignore it an throw out some new Ron Paul attacks.


Simply, I answered your question more times than I care to count with a simple "no" and one sentence explanation, but despite that you refused to answer mine for the longest time, then when you finally did, you posted your own blizzard instead of a simple yes or no answer. I asked for a yes or no and you gave me a Trendmongerian Ice Age.


...and despite answering your question, with an answer you couldn't accept, you have the audacity to produce more.....

baddy wrote:
But if you'd like to answer the original question:

Care to answer? Why should I answer more of yours if you won't answer the original question that precipitated this mess?

Are you going to be true to your word...or are you not going to be true to your word?


....snow...

see answer once again below.....

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
Despite RPs phoney no votes on war funding, {b's note: there's no such thing as a phoney congressional vote, they only have one ballot box} {additional note - he has more than enough pro-war votes to more than cancel out his phoney anti-war votes} ... he's an absolute and complete fraud, phoney, fake lying sack of crap. If you are going to put full support only into someone who is completely clean-handed of war related votes {note -as far as I can tell, the jury is still out}, Kucinich is your man. Ron Paul? No fucking way.


which is all true.


baddy wrote:
So SPACEBROTHER, you say Paul is a phoney lying piece of crap, how do you explain you favorite candidates high praise of Ron Paul, even to the point of selecting him for a vice presidential running mate? Who's right about Ron Paul, you, or your favorite Congressman Kucinich?


Who said Kucinich was my favorite candidate? Surely wasn't me, and yes, Ron Paul is a lying sack of crap. See votes below that you keep glossing over......


baddy wrote:
I suppose Elizabeth is wrong too, huh SPACEBROTHER, she and her husband have been duped into thinking this lying piece of crap is a man of integrity and vision...how could they be so stupid :roll:


It's merely a political ploy Baddy. Thats all it is. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't recognise a polititions snowstorm, then you are truly living in tunnelvision.

*As I said. My answer to your question was (and still is) a resounding no, and I didn't consciously vote for an escalation. End of story.

Yet, still no response to these pro-war Ron Paul votes huh? :lol:

-- He voted to pull the U.S. out of the ABM Treaty?

H.J.RES.566: A joint resolution withdrawing the United States of America from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, and the Interim Agreement Protocol, and Agreed Interpretations of the Treaty, signed of May 26, 1972.

-- This "champion of peace" voted to prohibit the dismantling of ICBM silos in the U.S.:

H.R.1665: To prohibit the destruction during fiscal year 2002 of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States.

H.R.3769: To prohibit the destruction during fiscal year 2001 of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States.


:lol:

-a note to anybody who doesn't like this debate......find another thread to read. Nobody's forcing you to read this or Baddy's anti-Obama thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 10:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:32 am
Posts: 1547
my stumbling opinion, all those simpletonnns cannot even be shown what they have done and now should be rushing all over them. Either a few see a new day of splendiferous dawn or there will be no tomorrow. No joke ..until a person senses what me's blinking all the very vvhyle. - Do not heed'em when the first warning .. this pandemonium goes further for more ha! half a century, by then nothing can ...

planet of monster mutant roaches ..if they choose to live. --SF


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5745
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Why Ron Paul is Wrong

In a recent article in Forbes Magazine, former Presidential candidate Ron Paul expounds on why the government has screwed the entire bailout up and that we are heading into a Great Depression even potentially worse than the one that hit in the 1930s.

He's wrong.

Lets take a look, step by step, through his argument.

His first argument is that although the economy seems to be improving, it is a false recovery similar to the false recovery in 1932 and that "the interventionist policies of Hoover and Roosevelt caused the Depression to worsen, and the Dow Jones industrial average did not recover to 1929 levels until 1954."

This is an unfair comparison. Hoover's, and then Roosevelt's, interventions were of a much different flavor than today's stimulus package. In 1930, Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which put tariffs on thousands of imported goods, effectively ending all trade with foreign countries. While Obama has recently put on a small tariff on some Chinese goods, the overall trade situation has not changed much and has had very little intervention that would cause trade to be inhibited. Singlehandedly, Smoot-Hawley made the Depression ten times worse than it could've been, and there is no comparable act now.

In 1931, a full two years after the Depression started, Hoover set up the National Credit Consortium which pushed larger banks to lend to smaller banks. It didn't work. Bernanke and Paulson (and now Geithner), to avoid this pitfall, just directly had the government put money in all the banks (the TARP bill), significantly speeding up the process by which, eventually, money will start to flow through the system.

In 1932, Hoover raised taxes so that the top tax rate went to 63% on personal income and corporate tax went from 12% to 13.75%. While tax hikes might be in our future, so far none have been put in place.

In 1933, Roosevelt signed the National Recovery Act (Hearst referred to the NRA bill as "No Recovery Allowed"), which fixed wages. He did this with good motives: to stop the deflation in people's incomes. But the results of fixing wages produced the opposite effect as employers simply stopped hiring or would hire under the table and wages ultimately fell 21% over the next several years. No such interventionist bill is even being contemplated.

These are just a few of the "interventions" that Bernanke, Paulson, Geithner have avoided in their attempts to fix the current issues without repeating the mistakes of the fast. The comparison is unjust at this point.

Ron Paul states, "Anytime the central bank intervenes to pump trillions of dollars into the financial system, a bubble is created that must eventually deflate."

If a bubble is being created, I'd like to see it. When there's a bubble, everyone will feel flush. Just as they did in 1999 from the internet bubble and in 2006 from the housing bubble. There's no bubble right now. In fact, the M2 money supply is actually decreasing. We are in a deflationary environment that desperately needs to be reflated. Until that happens, there's no worry about bubbles.

Ron Paul further says, "Those banks and financial institutions that took on the largest risks and performed worst were rewarded with billions in taxpayer dollars, allowing them to survive and compete with their better-managed peers."

Well, over 100 banks now have been shut down by the FDIC. And one of the largest broker-dealers, Lehman Brothers, was allowed to fail (with disastrous consequences). It sounds nice in theory to allow the excesses work through the system and I do believe that to a large extent is possible, Paulson and then Geithner have been allowing this to happen. But you don't want the system to collapse. Some institutions can only fail if we're willing to risk the tens of millions of checking accounts that people have with banks and the millions of credit lines that small businesses have with banks to make basic needs like payroll, etc. While it's fine to speak theory about our excesses, the average man, woman, and business can't change the status quo too much without significant personal pain being felt.

Perhaps Ron Paul doesn't mind because a better system would be the result, but I think the consequences in the short-term would be unbelievably painful and would rival the misery of the dustbowl Great Depression.

Ron Paul says, "Even with the massive interventions, unemployment is near 10%".
Most of the stimulus bill is taking effect in 2010. Even the "shovel ready" projects that were supposed to begin in 2009 are getting a slow start thanks to bureaucracy and won't have an effect until sometime next year.

Not only that, companies did exactly what they were supposed to do in the beginning of this recession -- they slashed inventories faster than any other time since 1940, and they fired the people used to make those inventories. Well, the world didn't end, and now they have to rebuild those inventories. And the hiring rate will be the fastest it's been in 50 years, as we need to completely restock the shelves. Paul doesn't take this into account in any of his discussions about the state of the current economy, and yet this is probably the most important statistic out there at the moment.

Paul says, "foreigners are cutting back on purchases of Treasury debt"

Well, that might be true, but interest rates are still near all-time lows because US citizens have been upping their purchases of Treasury debt as our personal savings rate reaches a ten year high.

Paul says, "As the housing market fails to return to any sense of normalcy"

Actually, the Case-Shiller Home Price index has been up the past four months in a row. So lets calm down a little bit and wait and see what happens. But its wrong to say its "failing to return to any sense of normalcy".

Finally, Paul, in a fit of rage about a declining dollar, says, "The Fed has already overseen a 95% loss in the dollar's purchasing power since 1913."

Well, the stock market is up 10,000% since then. And in every way the quality of our lives is better than 1913. I'd much rather live in 2009 than in 1913.

At the end of the day, don't succumb to populist panic. Capitalism works and is on its way to a recovery if we just sit back and let it happen.

.....Typical..... :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 8:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5745
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
10 Reason Not To Vote For Ron Paul part 1

1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities.

Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 5:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:56 pm
Posts: 4716
Are you still going on about this Isaac?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 6:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 2286
You fuckers draw conclusions about your own lives by reading/listening to propaganda put forth by wealthy, power hungry strangers?

You're making my life suck more by being such chumps.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1824
Oboler, Plook, ect...You're saying this downer mydnight person desrves points and I don't...because I'm "caustic"? Insulting is fine, but caustic is not?

Nothing against you, dm. I with you. I've been trying to teach these peoples what is, but they are too stuck in their button-down corporate media world. Yeah, it makes me ill and very disheartened.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 5:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 5293
Location: CT coast, USA
downer mydnyte wrote:
You fuckers draw conclusions about your own lives by reading/listening to propaganda put forth by wealthy, power hungry strangers?

You're making my life suck more by being such chumps.

A rope leash wrote:
Oboler, Plook, ect...You're saying this downer mydnight person desrves points and I don't...because I'm "caustic"? Insulting is fine, but caustic is not?

Nothing against you, dm. I with you. I've been trying to teach these peoples what is, but they are too stuck in their button-down corporate media world. Yeah, it makes me ill and very disheartened.
I'd say both of you "deserve points" so to speak, I agree with you both, kudos.

downer midnyte, there are only about 2 1/2 people here who put fourth the proposition that it's "My Obama right or wrong," the rest of the folks here have varied opinions yes, but they all pretty much know the score: that corruption had largely taken over most of this ugly two headed beast. It's my personal opinion that the Senate is pretty much shot, and the House is something more than 2/3rds shot, and that corruption is in the upper, monied levels of the House. There are a few good ones left in the House, two stand out imo, Dennis Kucinich (who only occasionally capitulates), and Ron Paul who may not be right all the time, but he never capitulates, he simply goes by his strict interpitation of the Constitution.

Do wecome to the forum Mr. Midnyte, we don't always fight like this, but we're having a little flare up now.

_________________________________

And maybe this article would be a good one for SPACEBROTHERS Ron Paul hate thread. Ron Paul oftens writes for this, one of the leading premier anti-war info sites...

Image

The Trouble With Unconstitutional Wars
by Rep. Ron Paul, August 03, 2010

Listen to Ron Paul deliver these remarks here.

"Our foreign policy was in the spotlight last week, which is exactly where it should be. Almost two years ago many voters elected someone they thought would lead us to a more peaceful, rational co-existence with other countries. However, while attention has been focused on the administration’s disastrous economic policies, its equally disastrous foreign policies have exacerbated our problems overseas. Especially in times of economic crisis, we cannot afford to ignore costly foreign policy mistakes. That’s why it is important that U.S. foreign policy receive some much needed attention in the media, as it did last week with the leaked documents scandal.

Many are saying that the WikiLeaks documents tell us nothing new. In some ways this is true. Most Americans knew that we have been fighting losing battles. These documents show just how bad it really is. The revelation that Pakistani intelligence is assisting the people we are bombing in Afghanistan shows the quality of friends we are making with our foreign policy. This kind of thing supports points that Rep. Dennis Kucinich and I tried to make on the House floor last week with a privileged resolution that would have directed the administration to remove troops from Pakistan pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.

We are not at war with Pakistan. Congress has made no declaration of war. (Actually, we made no declaration of war on Iraq or Afghanistan either, but that is another matter.) Yet we have troops in Pakistan engaging in hostile activities, conducting drone attacks and killing people. We sometimes manage to kill someone who has been identified as an enemy, yet we also kill about 10 civilians for every 1 of those. Pakistani civilians are angered by this, yet their leadership is mollified by our billions in bribe money. We just passed an appropriations bill that will send another $7.5 billion to Pakistan. One wonders how much of this money will end up helping the Taliban. This whole operation is clearly counterproductive, inappropriate, and immoral, and every American who values the rule of law should be outraged. Yet these activities are being done so quietly that most Americans, as well as most members of the House, don’t even know about them.

We should follow constitutional protocol when going to war. It is there for a reason. If we are legitimately attacked, it is the job of Congress to declare war. We then fight the war, win it, and come home. War should be efficient, decisive, and rare. However, when Congress shirks its duty and just gives the administration whatever it wants with no real oversight or meaningful debate, wars are never-ending, wasteful, and political. Our so-called wars have become a perpetual drain on our economy and liberty.

The founders knew that heads of state are far too eager to engage in military conflicts. That is why they entrusted the power to go to war with the deliberative body closest to the people – the Congress. Decisions to go to war need to be supported by the people. War should not be covert or casual. We absolutely should not be paying off leaders of a country while killing their civilians without expecting to create a lot of new problems. This is not what America is supposed to be about.
"

_________________
Lesser-evilism is war.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2695 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 108  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: deuce, lapsed maps, Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group