Jump to content


Ron Paul Grassroots Gets a Blimp


RudyTHEGANGSTER
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y6WtEQfyM0 (the blimp on CNN)

 

This has been the most interesting presidential primary I ever followed. Ron Paul's supporters, not the campaign, raised their own money to buy their own blimp to begin flying around the country and it will fly.

 

 

As an all around fan of the Hindenburg, Led Zeppelin, and Fuji Film, I anticipate a new trend in presidential politics--semi-rigid airships galore!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, so his supporters are still predominantly rich kids who have no responsibilities and can waste their money on crap like this.

Over 35000 individual donors, with average donations of around $100. I'm a public school teacher supporting my wife currently in law school, not a rich kid with money to burn. And yes, I have donated before, and will again on the 16th.

 

Believe it or not, some of us working folks actually do believe in our candidate enough to put some of our own money into it. We're not picking the lesser evil, which actually think we're picking something good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just pop the blimp, no one has to be on it.

 

Honestly though, IF Ron Paul was president, this country would be in a lot of trouble.

So you're one of those in favor of staying in Iraq till (at least) 2013 are you? Or you're happy that every new dollar that enters our economy (after being created out of thin air for congress to waste) is then owed with interest to the shareholders of a private bank?

 

This country is already in a lot of trouble. Ron Paul is the only one suggesting we address the causes (insane foreign and monetary policies along with the overgrown federal government.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, so his supporters are still predominantly rich kids who have no responsibilities and can waste their money on crap like this.

Over 35000 individual donors, with average donations of around $100. I'm a public school teacher supporting my wife currently in law school, not a rich kid with money to burn. And yes, I have donated before, and will again on the 16th.

 

Believe it or not, some of us working folks actually do believe in our candidate enough to put some of our own money into it. We're not picking the lesser evil, which actually think we're picking something good.

 

Well, can you tell your fellow "revolters" to stop f***ing spray painting bulls*** all over our campus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just pop the blimp, no one has to be on it.

 

Honestly though, IF Ron Paul was president, this country would be in a lot of trouble.

So you're one of those in favor of staying in Iraq till (at least) 2013 are you? Or you're happy that every new dollar that enters our economy (after being created out of thin air for congress to waste) is then owed with interest to the shareholders of a private bank?

 

This country is already in a lot of trouble. Ron Paul is the only one suggesting we address the causes (insane foreign and monetary policies along with the overgrown federal government.)

He wants to rip the government apart and remove most of the services that the nation provides to the people. That would cause boatloads of problems.

 

I think the main draw of him to people is that he wants to abolish income taxes. That would be my guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just pop the blimp, no one has to be on it.

 

Honestly though, IF Ron Paul was president, this country would be in a lot of trouble.

So you're one of those in favor of staying in Iraq till (at least) 2013 are you? Or you're happy that every new dollar that enters our economy (after being created out of thin air for congress to waste) is then owed with interest to the shareholders of a private bank?

 

This country is already in a lot of trouble. Ron Paul is the only one suggesting we address the causes (insane foreign and monetary policies along with the overgrown federal government.)

He wants to rip the government apart and remove most of the services that the nation provides to the people. That would cause boatloads of problems.

 

I think the main draw of him to people is that he wants to abolish income taxes. That would be my guess.

Those boatload of services are killing our economy and perpetuating a cycle of poverty. We are not going to be able to afford our entitlements and foreign policy for much longer.

 

At least Ron Paul supporters are not advocating the vandalism of one of our country's most valuable resources: blimps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those boatload of services are killing our economy and perpetuating a cycle of poverty. We are not going to be able to afford our entitlements and foreign policy for much longer.

 

At least Ron Paul supporters are not advocating the vandalism of one of our country's most valuable resources: blimps.

 

bulls***.

 

Explain to me how, if Ron Paul's policies are enacted, anyone but the rich will benefit. And I need more than just a "taxes are teh ghey" response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those boatload of services are killing our economy and perpetuating a cycle of poverty. We are not going to be able to afford our entitlements and foreign policy for much longer.

 

At least Ron Paul supporters are not advocating the vandalism of one of our country's most valuable resources: blimps.

 

bulls***.

 

Explain to me how, if Ron Paul's policies are enacted, anyone but the rich will benefit. And I need more than just a "taxes are teh ghey" response.

First, taxation takes money out of the economy creating massive economic inefficiences called "dead weight losses." Second, it makes it more expensive to do business in America (being that corporate income taxes in America are much higher than in other countries, this too puts us at an absolute disadvantage.)

 

 

Now, if you actually cared about poor people, you would want them to have jobs. However, dead weight losses and the loss of job overseas generally do not put the rich out of work. They hurt the working class the most. Thus, if you want to maximize the amount of good paying jobs in this country, you want low taxes. If you bothered taking a class in economics, you would know this.

 

 

Now, low taxes means we all make more money and have more jobs, BUT there must be a smaller social safety net. So yes, there are tradeoffs to having low taxes (such as having a tough break and being sh*t out of luck), but no one with any understanding of economics whatsoever doubts the fact that low taxes are good for everyone in the aggregate economically. Only idealogues will lie to people with nonesense about how if we only taxed people more we would have more jobs. That is quite simply not a feasible proposition.

 

Ibn Khaldun had all of this figured out in the 14th century. Yet, we still live in relative economic ignorance all these years later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just pop the blimp, no one has to be on it.

 

Honestly though, IF Ron Paul was president, this country would be in a lot of trouble.

So you're one of those in favor of staying in Iraq till (at least) 2013 are you? Or you're happy that every new dollar that enters our economy (after being created out of thin air for congress to waste) is then owed with interest to the shareholders of a private bank?

 

This country is already in a lot of trouble. Ron Paul is the only one suggesting we address the causes (insane foreign and monetary policies along with the overgrown federal government.)

He wants to rip the government apart and remove most of the services that the nation provides to the people. That would cause boatloads of problems.

 

I think the main draw of him to people is that he wants to abolish income taxes. That would be my guess.

Yes to the first, no to the second. Yes, get rid of the services. The role of the federal government is to protect our freedoms, not provide a multitude of services. Services, like goods, are best providede through the free market, not government beauracracy. That system reduces quality and makes the services more scarce. Seriously, look at the current administration and the rubber stamp congress. Do you really trust these people with power over the health care you receive and the education your kids get? Are you naive enough to think that there aren't people as bad or worse who will be elected in the future? The only way to keep it from happening is to limit their authority.The constitution was written the way it was to restrain government taking control of people's lives (besides the financial unsustainability of our current system). If nothing else, go look at the 10th Amendment and then find me where the Constitution grants the federal government the power to provide or regulate health care, education, drugs, or marriage. We should at least obey the Constitution, what with it being the law and all, right?

 

The main draw is actually addressing the reason we have an income tax, which is a congress that cannot control its spending and a monetary policy (and more recently foreign policy) that creates perpetual debt that we are taxed to pay off, except that with the current policy it will be impossible. When the Congress spends more money than they have and more than they can borrow from countries like China, they call the Federal Reserve to CREATE new money and then LOAN IT WITH INTEREST to the Congress so they can waste it on government contractors and pork. The result is that every new dollar introduced into our system (which also consequently devalues the dollars you already have) is owed back to the Fed before you ever see it. The end result is us being taxed to pay off this debt (with interest) owed to the shareholders of private banks, who created the money from nowhere.

 

Oh yeah, and there's that whole Iraq war thing. You know, how every "top tier" candidate either openly supports the war or has supported it with their votes to authorize and fund the war. I think that one gets people excited, a seemingly realistic candidate who has demonstrably opposed the war all throughout and isn't suggesting we then plunge headlong into another (maybe in Sudan?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those boatload of services are killing our economy and perpetuating a cycle of poverty. We are not going to be able to afford our entitlements and foreign policy for much longer.

 

At least Ron Paul supporters are not advocating the vandalism of one of our country's most valuable resources: blimps.

 

bulls***.

 

Explain to me how, if Ron Paul's policies are enacted, anyone but the rich will benefit. And I need more than just a "taxes are teh ghey" response.

We are all taxed to pay off interest on the loans taken out by Congress from the Federal Reserve (who in turn, simply created the money from nothing also causing inflation). This system (as opposed to the slightly more preferable method of inflating our currency specified by the Constitution, which is for Congress to issue our currency) creates perpetual debt which justifies these taxes which only serves to re-route wealth back to the banking interests that own the shares of the Federal Reserve, and also makes government subsidized businesses (Drug companies, military contractors) extremely rich at the expense of those of us on the outside.

Ron Paul's policies would reduce federal spending minimizing the need to both borrow more and increase the debt as well as inflating the currency so that maybe, just maybe, if we can stave of inflation long enough, then salaries might *gasp* be able to catch up with inflation and we could actually see middle class folks able to support their families on one income again. Wouldn't that benefit those of us that aren't rich too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that we have a massive problem with the federal trade deficit. However, that doesn't mean that we need to take a wrecking ball to the government.

 

You guys claim that you want to create jobs, but have you considered the thousands of people who would be out of work because the government closed all of these various departments? I can't even imagine the shock from that.

 

The primary reason that Medicare and Medicaid were established was to help elderly retired people on fixed incomes that just can't pay the insane prices for some of the drugs they need to survive. Yes, like anything, it has likely gone far beyond that, but it shouldn't be scrapped completely just because it doesn't work 100% efficiently. In a situation like that, you need to do an internal review of some kind and determine the best ways to make things work better.

 

If I was to eliminate any department, it would be DHS. They are an unnecessary new bureaucracy created in the aftermath of 9/11 that has done nothing at all to increase our security. Instead, it looks like it has made it even harder for government security agencies to communicate with each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that we have a massive problem with the federal trade deficit. However, that doesn't mean that we need to take a wrecking ball to the government.

 

You guys claim that you want to create jobs, but have you considered the thousands of people who would be out of work because the government closed all of these various departments? I can't even imagine the shock from that.

 

The primary reason that Medicare and Medicaid were established was to help elderly retired people on fixed incomes that just can't pay the insane prices for some of the drugs they need to survive. Yes, like anything, it has likely gone far beyond that, but it shouldn't be scrapped completely just because it doesn't work 100% efficiently. In a situation like that, you need to do an internal review of some kind and determine the best ways to make things work better.

 

If I was to eliminate any department, it would be DHS. They are an unnecessary new bureaucracy created in the aftermath of 9/11 that has done nothing at all to increase our security. Instead, it looks like it has made it even harder for government security agencies to communicate with each other.

1. Ron Paul is the only advocate pledging to get rid of the DHS.

 

2. The government does not "create" jobs. If taxpayers kept more of their money, they would spend it somewhere else other than the government and new jobs would exist. However, because taxation leads to dead weight losses, the economy will simply have less jobs than if it had no such economic inefficiencies created by the

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...