New Ron Paul Campaign Ad

VIDEO

I think he stole Pawlenty's ad maker. What do you guys think?

I think he needs to be someone's VP.

He already has my vote, but I like the ad. It emphasizes what should be most important to voters: consistent principles.

It really angers me that there is practically a media blackout in effect against Ron Paul. He represents a challenge to many powerful people on both the right and the left, precisely because he challenges the traditional right vs left false dichotomy that has made a mess of American politics.

He already has my vote, but I like the ad. It emphasizes what should be most important to voters: consistent principles.

It really angers me that there is practically a media blackout in effect against Ron Paul. He represents a challenge to many powerful people on both the right and the left, precisely because he challenges the traditional right vs left false dichotomy that has made a mess of American politics.

dkrustyklown

Oh yeah, they're not paying attention to him AT ALL. Which sucks because I'd love to support a libertarian who could win.

It's a shame the media are trying to ignore him.

It's a shame the media are trying to

mrmusicman247

:lol: Ads like this are so ridiculous. "Stood up the the Washington machine" like he is some sort of superhero. And yes, I do realize its the point, but it's really silly.

:lol: Ads like this are so ridiculous. "Stood up the the Washington machine" like he is some sort of superhero. And yes, I do realize its the point, but it's really silly.

majoras_wrath

If you know your history, then you know that in American politics a machine is a perfectly normal term used to refer to the various groups and cabals that can take over a political system and run it for their own interests.

The term machine has been used in this context since the 19th century. That you don't understand the terminology and it's historical context is not the fault of the ad-makers.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]

:lol: Ads like this are so ridiculous. "Stood up the the Washington machine" like he is some sort of superhero. And yes, I do realize its the point, but it's really silly.

dkrustyklown

If you know your history, then you know that in American politics a machine is a perfectly normal term used to refer to the various groups and cabals that can take over a political system and run it for their own interests.

The term machine has been used in this context since the 19th century. That you don't understand the terminology and it's historical context is not the fault of the ad-makers.

I'd vote for Obama before him....he has some good ideas but a lot of his policies would be a disaster if he some how manage to get them implemented.

Oh you sure showed me. Yes. I do know what the term machine means in political terms. I've just never heard it used in such an comical manner.majoras_wrath

It's obvious from your previous post that you didn't understand the terminology. You even bolded the word machine as if it were some sort of aberration. What exactly is comical about a candidate claiming to stand up to a political machine?

It is a common theme in American political campaigns.

Hah, no.

I'd vote for Obama before him....he has some good ideas but a lot of his policies would be a disaster if he some how manage to get them implemented.

UnknownSniper65

Which ones? Ending the war on drugs? Ending the random middle eastern wars this country is involved in? Ending the printing of unbacked currency?

I don't see where the disaster is. Is it a disaster to expect the dollar bill in my wallet to represent a real value?

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"] Oh you sure showed me. Yes. I do know what the term machine means in political terms. I've just never heard it used in such an comical manner.dkrustyklown

It's obvious from your previous post that you didn't understand the terminology. You even bolded the word machine as if it were some sort of aberration. What exactly is comical about a candidate claiming to stand up to a political machine?

It is a common theme in American political campaigns.

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

He already has my vote, but I like the ad. It emphasizes what should be most important to voters: consistent principles.

It really angers me that there is practically a media blackout in effect against Ron Paul. He represents a challenge to many powerful people on both the right and the left, precisely because he challenges the traditional right vs left false dichotomy that has made a mess of American politics.

airshocker

Oh yeah, they're not paying attention to him AT ALL. Which sucks because I'd love to support a libertarian who could win.

He can't win. He's a terrible speaker and with his extreme positions, Obama would do to him what LBJ did to Goldwater.

I won't have an issue with Palin if she takes the Republican nomination from Bachmann. People need to get their priorities straight.
EDIT: Oops, wrong thread.

I'd vote for Obama again before I voted for Ron Paul. I don't disagree with him on every issue, in fact, I find several of them quite appealing. However, when it comes to his social issues he loses me completely.

At first glance he seems like an appealing alternative for me, but delving deeper into his odd stances that seem seem to be at odds with his overall message just makes me long for a better alternative all the more.

As it stands right now, Obama has my vote. We will see if that changes when we get deeper into the campaigns.

Outdated policies aside, the guy will be 77 on Election Day. Who's going to vote for someone at that age?

Outdated policies aside, the guy will be 77 on Election Day. Who's going to vote for someone at that age?

Oleg_Huzwog

America as always is just going to vote in someone promising a better path, whose sole purpose will be to maintain the status quo.

America's slow motion death spiral.

What differentiates Ron Paul from the others is he's the only candidate who wants a gold standard. Which means he has no chance in hell of getting in, because all the banking interests that benefit from the unsustainable debt based system will supply unlimited funding to make sure of that.

Outdated policies aside, the guy will be 77 on Election Day. Who's going to vote for someone at that age?

Oleg_Huzwog

America as always is just going to vote in someone promising a better path, whose sole purpose will be to maintain the status quo.

America's slow motion death spiral.

What differentiates Ron Paul from the others is he's the only candidate who wants a gold standard. Which means he has no chance in hell of getting in, because all the banking interests that benefit from the unsustainable debt based system will supply unlimited funding to make sure of that.

AnnoyedDragon

I don't understand why people continue to say this. He does have a legitimate shot at winning. Look at the reaction from the people in the polls and the debates. The problem is that most media outlets are saying this as well, which gets this idea out there. I don't buy that for a second. If Ron Paul had the media coverage of say Sarah Palin, or Michelle Bachman, he would be way ahead of the other candidates, at least thats how I view it.

Needs more shots of Ron Paul in front of American flags, cities being destroyed by natural disasters and then being resurrected by the godlike powers of the Paul, and if at all possible to work out a deal with Marvel, Captain America.

America as always is just going to vote in someone promising a better path, whose sole purpose will be to maintain the status quo.

America's slow motion death spiral.

What differentiates Ron Paul from the others is he's the only candidate who wants a gold standard. Which means he has no chance in hell of getting in, because all the banking interests that benefit from the unsustainable debt based system will supply unlimited funding to make sure of that.

AnnoyedDragon

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

America as always is just going to vote in someone promising a better path, whose sole purpose will be to maintain the status quo.

America's slow motion death spiral.

What differentiates Ron Paul from the others is he's the only candidate who wants a gold standard. Which means he has no chance in hell of getting in, because all the banking interests that benefit from the unsustainable debt based system will supply unlimited funding to make sure of that.

majoras_wrath

You mean other then the fact that a gold standard would cause catastropic deflation?majoras_wrath

Deflation is only catastrophic if you build an economy around debt, consumption, and spending.

It is not the only type of free-market economy that is possible. If you aim for a completely debt-free (and therefore, bank-free) economy, then deflation is not catastrophic. It hasn't been tried in the modern era, but failure cannot be assumed.

I question the necessity of having bankers playing money games.

Today, we value spending over saving, which is a highly irrational position. People are encouraged to spend rather than save. Look at the ridiculous spectacle that Christmas in the US has become. The sight of Americans stumbling over each other to see who can spend their cash the fastest during the annual sell-out of faith makes me want to vomit.

If there was one arbitrary thing that I could unilaterally abolish, it would be the tradition of gift-giving on Christmas.

We really need to stop spending...both our government and we need to stop spending as if wealth were limitless. As for those that lose their jobs in a more spendthrift society...they will adapt or die.

He already has my vote, but I like the ad. It emphasizes what should be most important to voters: consistent principles.

It really angers me that there is practically a media blackout in effect against Ron Paul. He represents a challenge to many powerful people on both the right and the left, precisely because he challenges the traditional right vs left false dichotomy that has made a mess of American politics.

dkrustyklown

He also represents a positive change against the corruption that exists within the traditional 2 party system. People don't like changing the status quo and since the media is mostly liberal, they can't stand that. Typical Republicans can't stand it either because he's not as right wing and represents good change. And also he doesn't look the traditional part of a president so they don't want to show that either. I'm voting for him next year too.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"] You mean other then the fact that a gold standard would cause catastropic deflation?dkrustyklown

Deflation is only catastrophic if you build an economy around debt, consumption, and spending.

It is not the only type of free-market economy that is possible. If you aim for a completely debt-free (and therefore, bank-free) economy, then deflation is not catastrophic. It hasn't been tried in the modern era, but failure cannot be assumed.

I question the necessity of having bankers playing money games.

Today, we value spending over saving, which is a highly irrational position. People are encouraged to spend rather than save. Look at the ridiculous spectacle that Christmas in the US has become. The sight of Americans stumbling over each other to see who can spend their cash the fastest during the annual sell-out of faith makes me want to vomit.

If there was one arbitrary thing that I could unilaterally abolish, it would be the tradition of gift-giving on Christmas.

We really need to stop spending...both our government and we need to stop spending as if wealth were limitless. As for those that lose their jobs in a more spendthrift society...they will adapt or die.

I agree with the first half of what you stated, but for consumers to stop spending is a bad idea. Yes, spending until you are deep in debt is a really poor idea, but the economy depends on consumer confidence and consumer spending. If everyone just decided to stop going out to eat or buy things, then businesses would close stores and layoffs would be inevitable. Money made has to go back into the economy or things will stagnate. Job creation is going to depend on one of two things. Either businesses stop outsourcing and actually cut into their profits and create positions or consumers are going to have to spend enough to require the businesses to create jobs to keep up. At least this, in the retail sector.

He's against tax raises, I feel we need them right now, or we at least need to get rid of the bush tax cuts and corporate loopholes.

I do like his character however.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"] You mean other then the fact that a gold standard would cause catastropic deflation?dkrustyklown

Deflation is only catastrophic if you build an economy around debt, consumption, and spending.

It is not the only type of free-market economy that is possible. If you aim for a completely debt-free (and therefore, bank-free) economy, then deflation is not catastrophic. It hasn't been tried in the modern era, but failure cannot be assumed.

I question the necessity of having bankers playing money games.

Today, we value spending over saving, which is a highly irrational position. People are encouraged to spend rather than save. Look at the ridiculous spectacle that Christmas in the US has become. The sight of Americans stumbling over each other to see who can spend their cash the fastest during the annual sell-out of faith makes me want to vomit.

If there was one arbitrary thing that I could unilaterally abolish, it would be the tradition of gift-giving on Christmas.

We really need to stop spending...both our government and we need to stop spending as if wealth were limitless. As for those that lose their jobs in a more spendthrift society...they will adapt or die.

I don't understand why people continue to say this. He does have a legitimate shot at winning. Look at the reaction from the people in the polls and the debates. The problem is that most media outlets are saying this as well, which gets this idea out there. I don't buy that for a second. If Ron Paul had the media coverage of say Sarah Palin, or Michelle Bachman, he would be way ahead of the other candidates, at least thats how I view it.

microsoft4life

Anyone with any chance of actually changing/improving things will not get in, the people with the real power will never allow it to happen.

Take my own country, England, for example. The capital held by the banks if FOUR TIMES the value of the entire surrounding economy put together. Would these banking elites really just sit by and allow someone to enter government that would hurt their cash cow? You cannot fight that sort of financial power.

They are going to keep the bandwagon rolling until the whole thing crashes, and then say the solution to it all is more power to the banks. That is what they did in the first major banking crisis, when the banks failed; they established central banks to stop them from failing. Now when the central banks fail, they will establish a world bank.

You mean other then the fact that a gold standard would cause catastropic deflation?majoras_wrath

Here's a nice long video debunking myths on a gold standard.

Quite frankly I don't know how anyone can defend the current debt based currency system, as it's idiotically insane. I can only assume people don't understand what it is that they are defending.

Gold has been a successful currency for thousands of years, it is still the safe haven used by investors today. Were as every fiat currency has failed, a 100% death rate. We have only been on a fiat currency for 40+ years, and we have already seen a 90%+ devaluation of buying power. It's indefensible.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"][QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

America as always is just going to vote in someone promising a better path, whose sole purpose will be to maintain the status quo.

America's slow motion death spiral.

What differentiates Ron Paul from the others is he's the only candidate who wants a gold standard. Which means he has no chance in hell of getting in, because all the banking interests that benefit from the unsustainable debt based system will supply unlimited funding to make sure of that.

KC_Hokie

Looks cool, when does it release? I like films about politics.

It also doesn't give you very much flexibility during a recession. You'll find that the only people really advocating for a switch are Austrian Econ supporters and libertarians. HoolaHoopMan

If you are referring to government spending during a recession, we would probably be better off if the government refrained from spending.

Government spending can only be fueled by taking money out of the economy, which is hardly what businesses need during a recession. To offer one quote. Government stimulus is like treating a patient by taking blood out of one arm, spilling some of it as you move it around, and then injecting what is left into the other arm.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]It also doesn't give you very much flexibility during a recession. You'll find that the only people really advocating for a switch are Austrian Econ supporters and libertarians. AnnoyedDragon

If you are referring to government spending during a recession, we would probably be better off if the government refrained from spending.

Government spending can only be fueled by taking money out of the economy, which is hardly what businesses need during a recession.

"Never voted to raise taxes"

I see this as a bad thing; it means that he is unwilling to adapt to different situations. There will be a time when taxes should be raised and he won't even think about it.

Well I think that you'll find main stream economists, or the large majority, would disagree with you on that. HoolaHoopMan

Because mainstream economists have been so reliable as of late?

They failed to spot the dot com bubble, they failed to spot sub prime; despite the likes of Peter Schiff screaming about it from roof tops. Now they think they can stimulate growth by taking money away from businesses, wasting a great deal of it in government bureaucracy and inefficiency, and giving back what's left as stimulus? They think quantitative easing is going to make things better?

There have been a variety of incidents as of late that bring into question the wisdom of these people. I'm not claiming to know better than them, but you don't need to be a fruit grower to spot a bad apple.

Look at this idiot Alan Greenspan that news channels love to reference as being this go to guy for economic information. This is the guy that argued he would buy US treasury bonds even if they paid zero. What investor puts their money into something that pays zero? Plus never mind his recent bombshell were he argued there is no risk of the US failing to make debt repayments, and that they are a AAA credit rating country, because they can just print dollars to pay their debts.

Sure, if you think Zimbabwe is a good economic route.

As long as the Republican canidate isn't Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann (much more likely and almost as bad) I'm happy. Will still probably go for Obama, though.

This whole ignoring Ron Paul thing is pretty creepy.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Well I think that you'll find main stream economists, or the large majority, would disagree with you on that. AnnoyedDragon

Because mainstream economists have been so reliable as of late?

They failed to spot the dot com bubble, they failed to spot sub prime; despite the likes of Peter Schiff screaming about it from roof tops. Now they think they can stimulate growth by taking money away from businesses, wasting a great deal of it in government bureaucracy and inefficiency, and giving back what's left as stimulus? They think quantitative easing is going to make things better?

There have been a variety of incidents as of late that bring into question the wisdom of these people. I'm not claiming to know better than them, but you don't need to be a fruit grower to spot a bad apple.

Look at this idiot Alan Greenspan that news channels love to reference as being this go to guy for economic information. This is the guy that argued he would buy US treasury bonds even if they paid zero. What investor puts their money into something that pays zero? Plus never mind his recent bombshell were he argued there is no risk of the US failing to make debt repayments, and that they are a AAA credit rating country, because they can just print dollars to pay their debts.

Sure, if you think Zimbabwe is a good economic route.

That's a lot of rhetoric you're throwing around there. I'll just say that I'm no economist and my knowledge on the subject doesn't go beyond a few classes and books. The one thing I do know however is that most academic and historic economists wouldn't advocate for switching back to the gold standard for a plethora of reasons.

Another red flag is that the loudest supporters are usually economic libertarians and Austrian Econ advocates, two groups I don't see eye to eye with on many things. But hey that's just me.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Well I think that you'll find main stream economists, or the large majority, would disagree with you on that. HoolaHoopMan

Because mainstream economists have been so reliable as of late?

They failed to spot the dot com bubble, they failed to spot sub prime; despite the likes of Peter Schiff screaming about it from roof tops. Now they think they can stimulate growth by taking money away from businesses, wasting a great deal of it in government bureaucracy and inefficiency, and giving back what's left as stimulus? They think quantitative easing is going to make things better?

There have been a variety of incidents as of late that bring into question the wisdom of these people. I'm not claiming to know better than them, but you don't need to be a fruit grower to spot a bad apple.

Look at this idiot Alan Greenspan that news channels love to reference as being this go to guy for economic information. This is the guy that argued he would buy US treasury bonds even if they paid zero. What investor puts their money into something that pays zero? Plus never mind his recent bombshell were he argued there is no risk of the US failing to make debt repayments, and that they are a AAA credit rating country, because they can just print dollars to pay their debts.

Sure, if you think Zimbabwe is a good economic route.

That's a lot of rhetoric you're throwing around there. I'll just say that I'm no economist and my knowledge on the subject doesn't go beyond a few classes and books. The one thing I do know however is that most academic and historic economists wouldn't advocate for switching back to the gold standard for a plethora of reasons.

Another red flag is that the loudest supporters are usually economic libertarians and Austrian Econ advocates, two groups I don't see eye to eye with on many things. But hey that's just me.

That's a lot of rhetoric you're throwing around there. I'll just say that I'm no economist and my knowledge on the subject doesn't go beyond a few classes and books. The one thing I do know however is that most academic and historic economists wouldn't advocate for switching back to the gold standard for a plethora of reasons.

Another red flag is that the loudest supporters are usually economic libertarians and Austrian Econ advocates, two groups I don't see eye to eye with on many things. But hey that's just me.

HoolaHoopMan

What's arrogant is thinking a fiat currency experiment that has only been running for 40 years, which historically has a 100% death rate, is better than using a gold standard that has been successful throughout history. Civilizations have risen and fallen, and where they no longer exist; the gold they put into their coins still has significant value today. What do you think a paper note from hundreds of years ago will buy? What's a continental worth these days?

I recommend you watch the documentary "Money as Debt", see what you're defending.

Look at this idiot Alan Greenspan that news channels love to reference as being this go to guy for economic information. This is the guy that argued he would buy US treasury bonds even if they paid zero. What investor puts their money into something that pays zero? Plus never mind his recent bombshell were he argued there is no risk of the US failing to make debt repayments, and that they are a AAA credit rating country, because they can just print dollars to pay their debts.

Sure, if you think Zimbabwe is a good economic route.

AnnoyedDragon

There is a lot to criticize Greenspan for, but you can't criticize him for these statements, because they are both true. People are willing to buy treasury assets not just at a zero interest rate, but at a real negative interest rate. In other words, people are paying us to take their money. As for the chances of the US defaulting, we can only default for political reasons; from a financial perspective default is an impossibility. It simply just can't happen. Now, it is possible for the US to turn into Zimbabwe, but the path from the US to Zimbabwe is a lot more complex than just printing money. -Sun_Tzu-

Both his statements are idiotic, there is no excuse from someone that so many people hold in such high regard.

If someone is a investor, they put their money into things that will offer a return. Putting your money into something that will offer no, to negative, return defeats the whole purpose of investing. That isn't investing, that's charity.

The argument that the US can just print money to pay their debts is also a highly dangerous one. If the US was to follow Greenspan's recommendation, the results speak for themselves. Just the suggestion itself is dangerous, as it's a confidence game.

I'm pretty sure we heard the same garbage from Obama.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]There is a lot to criticize Greenspan for, but you can't criticize him for these statements, because they are both true. People are willing to buy treasury assets not just at a zero interest rate, but at a real negative interest rate. In other words, people are paying us to take their money. As for the chances of the US defaulting, we can only default for political reasons; from a financial perspective default is an impossibility. It simply just can't happen. Now, it is possible for the US to turn into Zimbabwe, but the path from the US to Zimbabwe is a lot more complex than just printing money. AnnoyedDragon

Both his statements are idiotic, there is no excuse from someone that so many people hold in such high regard.

If someone is a investor, they put their money into things that will offer a return. Putting your money into something that will offer no, to negative, return defeats the whole purpose of investing. That isn't investing, that's charity.

The argument that the US can just print money to pay their debts is also a highly dangerous one. If the US was to follow Greenspan's recommendation, the results speak for themselves.