In response to:

Ron Paul Says Goodbye

The_Elite_Elite Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 10:28 AM
There goes one of the few freedom lovers in politics. I wonder if anyone will replace him as a voice for following the Constitution and advocating for limited government?
Fuzzy2 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 10:36 AM
I haven't seen one since Reagan. I doubt I will live long enough to see another. Even if I did, knowing republicans would reject him is too painful to think about.
king10 - formerly king Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 10:48 AM
Patently false, conservatives fawn over Reagan. It is libertarians who'd reject Reagan for not being pure enough.
Becca in TX Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 10:51 AM
Pretty ironic, Fuzzy, considering the unfriendly relationship Reagan and Ron Paul had.
Fuzzy2 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 11:01 AM
It's really hared to have meaningful dialogue with people still stuck in neutral with the race half over.

During the time Reagan was president, he was by no means a pure libertarian, and as you can see, I loved Reagan. So your criticism is inane. Reagan turned the tide and the mood of the country back toward freedom and liberty. Reagan worked with what he had and did a lot of good. Ron Paul was right about him though. The law is the law. Presidents who swear an oath to it one day, and break it the next, are guilty. I personally forgive Reagan for his faults and his failures to stand up to lawlessness.

Now I perceive we are in far more precarious times. Times in which even Reagan's way of governing would not be enough.
OldMexicanblog Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 11:03 AM
Re: king10,

-- It is libertarians who'd reject Reagan for not being pure enough. --

It's not because of that. but because he promised to lower taxes when in fact he raised the tax burden by eliminating "loopholes". He did not cut spending but increased it and he did not get rid of the Dept of Education like he promised. He also gave us ex-CIA and Big Government Progressive George Bush pere.
king10 - formerly king Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 11:17 AM
You have a faulty lense OM......
OldMexicanblog Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 11:30 AM
Re: king10,

-- You have a faulty lense OM.... --

Really? What did I say that was wrong? Reagan DID increase the tax burden on a lot of people, even if he was bamboozled by Tip O'Neall - but that was his own fault. He DID increase the deficit; he did NOT close the Dept of Education and his successor was George "Progressive" Bush pere. Bush oversaw the greatest tax increase since Hoover and placed the US in a war that was never paid for, turning an economic slump into a full fledged recession.
OldMexicanblog Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 10:43 AM
Re: king10,

-- Enter the Tea Party --

This is a jest. Right? You're being sarcastic, right?

Because most Tea Parties, while they did want the government to rein in spending, they're all for military spending and keeping their Medicare/Social Security. Which translates to: They're not really serious about spending.
king10 - formerly king Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 10:47 AM
Poppycock....military spend is less than 4% GDP. Listening to you, you'd make someone think it was 40%.
Becca in TX Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 10:50 AM
OldMex-Do you think that people who have been forced to pay into Social Security and Medicare for the last 40 years should be willing to give it up? What about all the money they've paid in?
OldMexicanblog Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 11:01 AM
Re: Becca TX,

-- Do you think that people who have been forced to pay into Social Security and Medicare for the last 40 years should be willing to give it up? --

If they were honest people, YES.

-- What about all the money they've paid in? --

It's gone. Bye bye, no more. The Congress spent it all. Social Security is in the RED, the country has to BORROW in order to pay a portion of today's "benefits."

What is it about "it's a Ponzi scheme" don't you understand?
OldMexicanblog Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 11:12 AM
Re: king10,
-- military spend is less than 4% GDP --

Not "is" 4%. It was 4% back in 2007 but right now it's up to 4.7%, according to the World Bank. But you're the one that assumes I am saying or implying it is 40% of GDP. I never mentioned numbers. Defense spending is right now 20% of the total budget, the biggest chunk next to Social Security and Medicare. Again, the Tea Party members are not being serious about cutting spending.
king10 - formerly king Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 11:20 AM
OM, I know you don't like facts that don't suit your argument, but your WRONG AGAIN:

"As a percentage of our gross domestic product, the defense budget remains just 3.6 percent. This figure is low by all historical standards."

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/aug/05/randy-forbes/forbes-says-us-defense-spending-measured-against-g/

Seriously, you need to STOP disseminating falsehoods to justify your positions. And stop calling other people "wrong" when they are in fact RIGHT.

And once again, I'll let the reader decide.
king10 - formerly king Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 11:22 AM
btw, OM, anyone can copy and paste wrong information from Wikipedia....you know that Wikipedia is sometimes wrong, don't you?
Becca in TX Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 11:57 AM
OldMex-I guess that's easy to say when you haven't paid it. They've been collecting from my parents for 40 years. They had no choice. Now that they're retired and it's too late for them to do anything different, they should either give them their money back or give them what they paid for.
bbtruth Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 1:46 PM
So.....you're saying it's okay to steal from others because the government pis sed away what they (your parents) paid in? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Presidential candidate and long time Representative Ron Paul said goodbye yesterday on the House floor as he prepares to make his exit from Congress after 23 years. He explained his consistent views throughout the past two decades and berated Washington for refusing to change or make hard decisions when it comes to the future. 

As the father of what many characterize as the buoyant, bi-partisan New Liberty Movement, Paul shared “the plain truth” about Washington, America’s current national crisis and the greatest threats to the future.

Paul began by explaining his goals in 1976:...