Ron Paul will visit Detroit and Dearborn

[BrushStart]

[313WX]

So did anyone attend the speech in Highland Park?

How did it go?

[oladub]

noise: And I disagree with that idea. I like the idea of a free country, not a bunch of individual mini-countries called "states". Whites in these borders, blacks in those borders, liberals over there...

Ron Paul wouldn't make anything better, and would likely make it worse, but since he will NEVER come close to the presidency, the point is moot.

I think it odd that you choose to think in terms of race. Oregon voted to allow planned suicides. California voted to allow medical marijuana and do stem cell research. Vermont is attempting to set up a single payer health care plan like any Canadian province although Obamacare people are interfering. Minnesota chooses to have college reprocicity agreements with four other states and a province. North Dakota has a State owned bank which used to hand out zero interest student loans until Obama nationalized student loans. What does race have to do with any such things?

People in those states have used their freedom to legislate what they want. How about getting out of the way of their freedom so Vermonters can have a single payer plan and N. Dakotans can go back to handing out interest free student loans if that is what they want? If it works out, maybe our respective states will want to follow suit.

noise: So Ron Paul is the status quo? It sounds to me like you have the problem, not me. My America has made these a national issue. You don't see Ron Paul winning anything, do you?

As mentioned earlier, the Ron Paul supporters are an amusing bunch, if not slightly scary. That was quite a rant defending a lone politician as the only one with an accurate [[in your opinion, only) view of the Constitution. I suppose for the rest of us, it's comforting to know such a small percentage agree.

Ron Paul isn't the status quo. He is a constitutionalist. They don't mix well. The status quo is arrogantly amused at something of a modern day prophet [[see video post#32). Your Amerika of neocons and status quo liberals are turning this into a corporatist, interventionist, police state while destroying working people and the middle class in the process. It isn't Ron Paul doing those things. As you suggested, he isn't in power. I wouldn't take pride in being a herd member when the collective herd is headed for a cliff's edge.

[antongast]

The money is not real.

I went to Honey Bee today and bought some delicious guac and corn chips, and I paid in US dollars. They accepted my US dollars as payment without question. Seems pretty real to me.

The government taxed Americans until they squealed.

Wait, what? No. We had a relatively high-tax equilibrium in the postwar era and that pretty much worked, and then since Ronald Reagan we've had this weird dynamic where everybody wants to cut taxes all the time. Republicans want to mostly cut rich people's taxes, and Democrats want to cut mostly middle-class people's taxes, but nobody is suggesting that tax rates are fine where they are, or that they're [[gasp!) too low across the board. Conservatives won this argument a long time ago--taxes are at historically low levels--but they don't have the sense to recognize it and move on. They just keep pushing for lower and lower and lower taxes until there's nothing left. Fucking Grover Norquist up in our political system throwing monkey wrenches into everything.

When the government could tax no more, it borrowed to the hilt.

Actually, W borrowed to finance a tax cut, in addition to the wars. Bad policy, to be sure, but hardly evidence that the government "could tax no more."

When the world's banks refused to lend the government money, the government turned to lending it to themselves [[printing money).

Okay, here's where I'm starting to question whether you have any relationship to reality at all. Nobody is refusing to lend the US government money. Nobody. People are lining up to lend us money! They want to lend us money so badly that they're willing to accept negative real interest rates! US debt is an extremely safe investment, one of the last extremely safe investments left, and in this uncertain world, that looks pretty good to a lot of folks.

[BrushStart]

I went to Honey Bee today and bought some delicious guac and corn chips, and I paid in US dollars. They accepted my US dollars as payment without question. Seems pretty real to me.

Of course merchants accept the dollar, it is by law the only legal tender that is allowed to be used as a means for exchange! If the government allowed other types of monies to be used for legal tender like gold and silver, do you think anyone would want that dollar bill? Of course not! It's worthless paper! If competing currencies were introduced to the system, the weaker ones would be cast aside by society. This is exactly why the government and world banks forbid gold and silver as tender- they would lose control over everyone's money! Don't you get it?? Just as a point for you to consider, the US Constitution actually provides that gold and silver are to be our only currency, or at least the benchmark by some interpretations. Our founders were hip to the King coining his own money and forcing everyone to use it...

Wait, what? No. We had a relatively high-tax equilibrium in the postwar era and that pretty much worked, and then since Ronald Reagan we've had this weird dynamic where everybody wants to cut taxes all the time. Republicans want to mostly cut rich people's taxes, and Democrats want to cut mostly middle-class people's taxes, but nobody is suggesting that tax rates are fine where they are, or that they're [[gasp!) too low across the board. Conservatives won this argument a long time ago--taxes are at historically low levels--but they don't have the sense to recognize it and move on. They just keep pushing for lower and lower and lower taxes until there's nothing left. Fucking Grover Norquist up in our political system throwing monkey wrenches into everything.

Tax policy is a political red herring. Politicians on both sides give it way more importance that it really is. That said, the level of taxes should be tied to the level of government. We obviously disagree on the level of government that should exist, but no matter how much government you have, the government should be forced to live within its means. If you want to live in a society where the government controls everything, then that's fine, but then we must accept the fact that 50%+ of our income should be paid in taxes. If we can't afford big government, then we can't have it. Personally, I'd rather keep the fruits of my labor and fund only the minimal amount of government necessary to maintain order and protect us from invaders.

Actually, W borrowed to finance a tax cut, in addition to the wars. Bad policy, to be sure, but hardly evidence that the government "could tax no more."

W was an idiot.

Okay, here's where I'm starting to question whether you have any relationship to reality at all. Nobody is refusing to lend the US government money. Nobody. People are lining up to lend us money! They want to lend us money so badly that they're willing to accept negative real interest rates! US debt is an extremely safe investment, one of the last extremely safe investments left, and in this uncertain world, that looks pretty good to a lot of folks.

You are simply wrong. The only reason foreign banks/funds are buying T-bills is because the rest of the fiat currencies around the world are collapsing. The Euro is in serious distress because of the crises in socialist Greece, Italy, Spain, etc. The Germans are going to get left holding the bag and President Obama just sent the Greeks a few billion, which he borrowed on the backs of US citizens.

The US dollar has been in trouble for some time. However, it was only recently exposed for how bad the situation actually is when Wall Street almost imploded. The bailout and America's shaky financial footing caused our national credit rating to drop, which hurts our leverage in the world. International politics is driven by money and when your money is no good anymore, people stop letting you dictate their actions.

Foreign banks have been fleeing US Treasury Bonds for more secure stores of value. Precious metals and commodities have become a safer harbor. This is the beginning of the US currency being debased as the world's reserve. Right now, our purchasing power is diminishing, so every dollar you have stashed away in your safe is worth less and less and buys you less goods. Soon, it may take $15 to get some chips at guac at Honeybee. Major inflation is coming, trust me. The major banks know it, which is why they are hoarding money and not lending, If they lend money out, they will get paid back in dollars that worth less than the original loan. Take a look at the balance sheets of the major banks, where did all the bailout money actually go? The banks are storing it like fat for a coming winter.

The only solution is to liquidate the bad debt, balance the budget, and begin the slow and painful process of paying off our creditors [[think the Chinese). It will probably take decades, but once we are free of those obligations, we can start rebuilding a prosperous society with a more sensible budget where you keep what you earn the government doesn't spend money on wars and entitlements like a crack addict at a coke party.

I have to ask you this because I am curious: At what point do you see an end to our deficit financing? Our debt is now over 15 trillion dollars. At what point exactly do you see our nation getting solvent again? This year? Next year? In 10 years? And, how do you think that money will be repaid? Right now, Obama and the Congress have us running enormous budget deficits for at least 10 years out. Do you believe that such behavior is sustainable?

[Dexlin]

Just because I see you guys still didn't get the hint and went on with over-winded spam posts: Congratulations to Ron Paul on his pulling in 11.6% and 0 delegates in a state where they are even divided proportionally thus giving lowerinng polling candidates a chance.

[noise]

Last I checked, our deficit is still increasing at a significant rate. How is that "getting better" in your opinion?

Who said anything about "getting better"? I only said Ron Paul wouldn't improve America.

[noise]

What is your counter argument?

Please explain how what he said was off base, epically his cited example of Wickard v. Filburn.

Please read the whole thread. The counter argument is clear: Ron Paul is not the status quo, thankfully. The majority disagree.

[noise]

Haha. The current "status quo" is a gross deviation from the principles America was founded on. A vast majority of people have a poor understanding of history and the media establishment has done an excellent job masking this nation's decline.

When you examine the real numbers, i.e. the national debt, deficit spending increases, the debasing of the dollar as the world's reserve currency, and other economic fundamentals, we are screwed. Seriously, even if the sheeple would wake up, it is probably already too late. Might as well elect Robomney because I cannot imagine a way out of what we have done.

My advice to you, is to enjoy this fleeting moment of relative prosperity, because it is based on a lie. The money is not real. The government taxed Americans until they squealed. When the government could tax no more, it borrowed to the hilt. When the world's banks refused to lend the government money, the government turned to lending it to themselves [[printing money). When money has no anchor to preserve its value, it becomes worthless in the eyes of the marketplace. When money becomes worthless in the eyes of the marketplace, hyperinflation occurs. When hyperinflation occurs, the fiat monetary system collapses. When the fiat monetary system collapses, the world economy implodes and the rule of law becomes overridden by opportunistic tyranny.

The folks who believe that this course we are on is sustainable are sorely mistaken. We are Pompeii before Vesuvius. We are the Titanic before the iceberg. Keep celebrating. Keep shuffling the deck chairs. Hell, at this point there may be no way out.

I agree with a lot of you premise, but certainly not your solution.

[noise]

I think it odd that you choose to think in terms of race. Oregon voted to allow planned suicides. California voted to allow medical marijuana and do stem cell research. Vermont is attempting to set up a single payer health care plan like any Canadian province although Obamacare people are interfering. Minnesota chooses to have college reprocicity agreements with four other states and a province. North Dakota has a State owned bank which used to hand out zero interest student loans until Obama nationalized student loans. What does race have to do with any such things?

People in those states have used their freedom to legislate what they want. How about getting out of the way of their freedom so Vermonters can have a single payer plan and N. Dakotans can go back to handing out interest free student loans if that is what they want? If it works out, maybe our respective states will want to follow suit.



Ron Paul isn't the status quo. He is a constitutionalist. They don't mix well. The status quo is arrogantly amused at something of a modern day prophet [[see video post#32). Your Amerika of neocons and status quo liberals are turning this into a corporatist, interventionist, police state while destroying working people and the middle class in the process. It isn't Ron Paul doing those things. As you suggested, he isn't in power. I wouldn't take pride in being a herd member when the collective herd is headed for a cliff's edge.

I think it's odd I continue to respond to Ron Paul fans, which amounts to responding to 9/11 truthers, birthers, and other wingnut conspiracy theorists.

Race and race separation exists, whether you fancy yourself "colorblind" or not.

Again, it doesn't matter. This anti-evolution, anti-gay marriage, anti-global warming, and anti-abortion won't win anything.

[oladub]

Just because I see you guys still didn't get the hint and went on with over-winded spam posts: Congratulations to Ron Paul on his pulling in 11.6% and 0 delegates in a state where they are even divided proportionally thus giving lowerinng polling candidates a chance.

What can I say? Given a clear choice, the people who voted yesterday chose war, the expansion of the corporatist police state, and more deficits. We collectively deserve what we vote for. The good news is that Ron Paul polled 6% in Michigan in 2008 and almost twice that this time around in line with his results in most other states. Come 2016, and a Rand Paul or DeMint/Paul ticket will have a strong chance of toppling the neocon base of the Republican Party. On the other end of the demographic spectrum, the neocons are dying off anyway.

[313WX]

What can I say? Given a clear choice, the people who voted yesterday chose war, the expansion of the corporatist police state, and more deficits. We collectively deserve what we vote for. The good news is that Ron Paul polled 6% in Michigan in 2008 and almost twice that this time around in line with his results in most other states. Come 2016, and a Rand Paul or DeMint/Paul ticket will have a strong chance of toppling the neocon base of the Republican Party. On the other end of the demographic spectrum, the neocons are dying off anyway.

And furthermore, the reason people really dislike you Ron Paul supporters and the platform Ron Paul stands for, is because you baseless demonize anyone who doesn't support the guy.

You'll be surprised ot find many Americans do agree with Paul on his Foreign Policy/Defense policies. And you'll also be surprised to know that many people hate the corporatist policies we have as well.

However, many Americans don't choose a candidate just because they strongly agree with one or two of their positions. It's his alternative to the status quo that scares us. You can't solve a problem by encouraging it to grow and fester. We WANT to END corporate welfare, not encourage more raping and pilaging from those at the bottom to the top by corporations [[which corporations will still do, just not through the government, and they can get away with it much easier too because the few laws that's there to prosecute them will be history). We WANT to END Social Injustice, not encourage individuals to conduct in Social Injustice [[which those individuals will most certainly do if there's no reprecussions for their actions). We WANT EVERY US CITIZENS to share the same rights equally. We don't want children in Texas only being taught Creationism in schools while schools in MAsssachusetts only teach Evolution, and we don't want gay being denied their individual and collective rights to marry in Mississippi while they're not in Washington.

History is not on the side of Ron Paul and his supporters. The things he wants to abolish were put in place for a GOOD reason. There's absolutely no reason why things won't go back to the way they were if those things were abolished. Most of us would prefer not to live in the 21st Century equivalent of the Confederate states. We've come too far to get away from that sad, sad era and we refuse to let a few far right, if not out-right anarchist loons who don't have a good grasp on history take us back.

[oladub]

I think it's odd I continue to respond to Ron Paul fans, which amounts to responding to 9/11 truthers, birthers, and other wingnut conspiracy theorists.

Race and race separation exists, whether you fancy yourself "colorblind" or not.

Again, it doesn't matter. This anti-evolution, anti-gay marriage, anti-global warming, and anti-abortion won't win anything.

Ah, i thought you brought up race. I'm not sure which "anti-evolution, anti-gay marriage, anti-global warming, and anti-abortion" legislation Ron Paul supported, if any, as those things are State issues and he is insted running for a federal office. That is why I am more concerned about candidates policies about wars, deficits, supporting or opposing the bill of rights, etc.. as more important than what their favorite color is or where they go to church on Sunday.

"9/11 truthers, birthers, and other wingnut conspiracy theorists."
Name calling is sometimes viewed as a weak substitute for rational argument.

Getting back to your equating centralized government with freedom as expressed in you post #53, "I like the idea of a free country, not a bunch of individual mini-countries called "states". " Yesterday was your day as the House slightly expanded your idea of freedom by passing HR 347 which expands federal police powers within states.

[oladub]

313wx, But you vote for wars and corporatist policies anyway. I'll stick to what I wrote before.

Talk - Naomi Wolf - The End of America

a warning

[maxx]

Brushstart:1. Your work boss is an abusive jerk? Quit, form a union, or go on strike. Libertarians have no problems with unions unless they are forced membership, which is wrong. You should be free to do as you like, which includes the freedom to form associations, assemble, and protest, i.e. form a union. Ron Paul would protect those rights.

Yes, it's sooo useful to belong to a union that has no power behind it because it has no money, just a lot of freeloaders ready to take the bennies but not put their money where their mouths are. Your other two arguments are trivial.

Over the past century, federal power [[and influence into state affairs) has grown enormously. This has occurred through federal legislation and a doctrine known as "preemption," whereby the federal government passes a law to either usurp or prevent state laws dealing with the same issue. However, the federal government's power could not have expanded in such leaps and bounds without the assistance of the US Supreme Court.

And without that preemption, there would still be Jim Crow laws in many states and all that goes along with that like lousy education for the poor and consequently lousy job opportunites for them. And in the Jim Crow south that cut across racial lines.

We fought a civil war against the idea that the states are supreme in areas affecting the general welfare of all citizens. Your approach would divide the states more than they already are and especially at a time when a lot of people have trouble getting proper info about important issues.

As for the present healthcare law, blame the conservatives who turn every attempt to improve the lot of the average citizen into a step towards communism. The answer is to get big money out of our elections so politicians aren't beholden to corporate interests. Incidentally, Ron Paul would eliminate the minimum wage thereby ensuring that a lot people would be spending all their waking hours scrounging for their meals instead of becoming informed voters.

[BrushStart]

Yes, it's sooo useful to belong to a union that has no power behind it because it has no money, just a lot of freeloaders ready to take the bennies but not put their money where their mouths are. Your other two arguments are trivial.

You don't think a voluntary union has power behind it? I think Walter Reuther would disagree. Forcing someone to join a union is as wrong as it is to prevent people from joining one. Why should a company, much less a union, be allowed to force itself upon people. If there is a need for union, i.e. poor working conditions, low pay, or abusive environments, workers will and should unite and fight back. The unions of today are too often "local bullies" who force their politics onto everyone else whether they like it or not. How would you like it if I formed a group and made you pay me dues even if you didn't want to be a member? That is what is going on.

And without that preemption, there would still be Jim Crow laws in many states and all that goes along with that like lousy education for the poor and consequently lousy job opportunites for them. And in the Jim Crow south that cut across racial lines.

I hate to break it to you, but there is still lousy education for the poor and still lousy job opportunities for them. The government doesn't make things better, it systematically makes them worse. Consider racial busing. Did that help anyone? No, of course not. Forced integration by the government caused an entire generation of minorities to suffer trauma early in life.

I staunchly agree with you about ending Jim Crow laws. The 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause dealt with eliminating segregation laws. That said, the government cannot force people to cohabitate. When they try to do so, it causes more trauma than good. A perfect example is the racial busing that occurred post Brown v Board of Education. Below is the legacy of that policy:

Since the 1980s desegregation busing has been in decline. Even though school districts provided zero-fare bus transportation to and from students' assigned schools, those schools were in some cases many miles away from students' homes, which often presented problems to them and their families. In addition, many families were angry about having to send their children miles to another school in an unfamiliar neighborhood when there was an available school a short distance away. The movement of large numbers of white families to suburbs of large cities, so-called white flight, reduced the effectiveness of the policy.^[3] Many whites who stayed moved their children into private or parochial schools; these effects combined to make many urban school districts predominantly nonwhite, reducing any effectiveness mandatory busing may have had.^[3]

In a Gallup poll taken in the early 1970s, very low percentages of whites [[4%) and blacks [[9%) supported busing outside of local neighborhoods.^[3] A 1978 study by the RAND Corporation set out to find why whites were opposed to busing and concluded that it was not because they held racist attitudes, but because they believed it destroyed neighborhood schools and camaraderie and increased discipline problems.^[3] It is said that busing eroded the community pride and support that neighborhoods had for their local schools.^[3] After busing, 60% of Boston parents, both black and white, reported more discipline problems in schools.^[3] In the 1968, 1972, and 1976 presidential elections, candidates opposed to busing were elected each time, and Congress voted repeatedly to end court-mandated busing.^[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegre..._United_States

I am not a racist, but you cannot legislate people to not be racists. It simply doesn't work. If you want to change society, you must change the morality of the people through persuasion of what is good versus what is evil. The government will always fail in its attempt to cure social ills no matter how well-intentioned their means.

We fought a civil war against the idea that the states are supreme in areas affecting the general welfare of all citizens. Your approach would divide the states more than they already are and especially at a time when a lot of people have trouble getting proper info about important issues.

We fought a civil war because the South succeeded from the United States in rebellion and armed insurrection. The North was unquestionably more noble in its cause as lead by Abraham Lincoln and so the North won. Shortly thereafter, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves and soon the Constitution codified their right to vote. People have a hard time getting good information because the mainstream media is in bed with our corrupt government. If good information were available, I might not have to educate you on this website.

As for the present healthcare law, blame the conservatives who turn every attempt to improve the lot of the average citizen into a step towards communism. The answer is to get big money out of our elections so politicians aren't beholden to corporate interests. Incidentally, Ron Paul would eliminate the minimum wage thereby ensuring that a lot people would be spending all their waking hours scrounging for their meals instead of becoming informed voters.

I DO BLAME THE CONSERVATIVES. They are 50% of the problem. But, it was President Obama who signed into law the disgusting piece of garbage healthcare law. I'm not sure how anyone can find anything good about this new law, unless they happen to be the Chairman of the Board at a major insurance company. It does nothing positive for the people, only further enslaves them to corporate interests.

I never use fear mongering of communism to detract from good policy. I even respect Ralph Nader, who I believe is an honest and sincere man who believes in the people. In fact, Nader and Paul agree on many things, even though they are diametrically opposed on how to get there. Have you seen this video?



Finally, the minimum wage is nothing more than an illusion. It is a political trick to make people think they are getting something. In truth, the amount you get paid is all relative- ultimately, you are worth what you are worth as a laborer and nothing more. Skill and ability will dictate your wage. Let me explain... If the minimum wage is raised from $7 to $10, companies must pay their lowest paid employees $3 more/hour. The workers who already make $10/hr because they have more skill will quickly demand to be paid $13/hr, as they feel cheated when they are only paid the same amount as someone else with less skill. Ultimately, the company will end up paying everyone $3 more per hour. In microeconomics, it is a fundamental fact that there exists only a marginal profit on the sale of goods and services in any competitive marketplace. In short, this means that the company passes that added $3/hour cost of doing business onto the consumers. Because most consumers are also workers, they both make $3 more/hour at work and pay $3 more/hour for goods and services that they receive. As you can see, the minimum wage means nothing. As proof of this, please consider that no matter how many times the minimum wages gets raised, the people that only make minimum wage are always in the bottom rung, usually at or below the poverty line. The government could raise the minimum wage to $20/hour tomorrow, and the only thing anyone would get is more expensive goods. The people who work for that minimum wage would still be poor as shit, but they would think that their government really cares.

Don't be a sheep.

[oladub]

Although Detroit votes overwhelmingly Democratic for all the good that does, Ron Paul won in the City of Detroit on the Republican side.

Republican votes cast in Detroit:
5525 Ron Paul
4047 Santorum
1338 Romney
no mention of Gingrich in the article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1309836.html

Detroit News map of Michigan voting districts. The metropolitan Detroit map can be blown up. Now that's some gerrymandering!

[noise]

Ah, i thought you brought up race. I'm not sure which "anti-evolution, anti-gay marriage, anti-global warming, and anti-abortion" legislation Ron Paul supported, if any, as those things are State issues and he is insted running for a federal office. That is why I am more concerned about candidates policies about wars, deficits, supporting or opposing the bill of rights, etc.. as more important than what their favorite color is or where they go to church on Sunday.

"9/11 truthers, birthers, and other wingnut conspiracy theorists."
Name calling is sometimes viewed as a weak substitute for rational argument.

Getting back to your equating centralized government with freedom as expressed in you post #53, "I like the idea of a free country, not a bunch of individual mini-countries called "states". " Yesterday was your day as the House slightly expanded your idea of freedom by passing HR 347 which expands federal police powers within states.

Politics to me are about the greater good. With that in mind, I am always disappointed with all of my choices. I am certainly not a Democrat and I'm not a fan of President Obama, but I will almost always vote Democrat over Republican.

As far as "state issues" are concerned...they've become national issues. Whether or not you agree with the legality or constitutionality of any of these is really besides the point. The reality of the situation is that these things have become national or federal issues.