EPTRepublican nominations - Page 276
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Zalithian
520 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On January 16 2012 09:07 gold_ wrote: Yea he's rolling in the dough he made from them. Ron Paul such a horrible person for the one time he trusted other people to run his newsletter, what a bad person he is! http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/homes-of-the-gop-candidates.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/election-2012--how-rich-are-these-guys.html You'll notice his house and net worth are one of the lowest of all the candidates. Cool. So it's okay because his company "only" made a few million? No, it's not the amount that matters, but the act itself. It would neither be worse if he made more money, nor better if he made less. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On January 16 2012 09:32 Mindcrime wrote: So it's okay because his company "only" made a few million? No, it's not the amount that matters, but the act itself. It would neither be worse if he made more money, nor better if he made less. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wmpeN.png) See the difference now? | ||
Falling
Canada11573 Posts
On January 16 2012 09:19 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: It wasn't even a magazine...It was NEWSLETTERS which some were made by him. I'd say only the economics one talking about monetary policies etc. All the rest were created from free lance writers who Lee Rockwell hired. So, 246/255 isn't bad when it comes to management. I'd say he did a good job of managing it if he fired those people afterwards. Well see that's the something he needs to come out and say. I don't particularly like Ron Paul's libertarianism, but I do like how he hasn't been bought off by the legal corruption and might even clean some of that up. I think his understanding of why terrorist groups target America is sound, but while I think the US Middle East foreign policy needs a major overhaul, I'm not sure US should abandon all their bases. But they could abandon quite a few that were specific to Cold War grand strategy. And in regards to racism, I don't think he is racist, but he has to throw that original writer under the bus. I've gotten annoyed at how the media has covered Paul in the past, but I think there are legitimate questions that despite being 20 years old he has never satisfactorily answered. He disavows them. Good. He says he didn't write them, even better. He says he doesn't know who wrote them, that's gross negilence or incompetence that he still to this day doesn't know. The fastest way to have quashed this a decade ago, was to say: 1) this is the man that wrote the articles, 2) these are the particular offending articles in question, 3) this is when I found out about them, 4) and this is when I fired him. Done. (Assuming all that happened in timely manner- particularly 4 following 3, and the guy isn't still hired by Paul.) After that, the media can drag it up all they want, but it really is a dead issue. But as long as those four points are unclear or obscured, it's a live issue and a legitimate line of inquiry. I do think Jon Stewart noted this well that he generally like Paul as a straight shooter, but over the newletters he suddenly turned into a politician. | ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
On January 16 2012 09:30 frogrubdown wrote: I really didn't mean to create a debate about what the correct foreign policy is. I was just taking as a starting point the fact that most progressives are very unhappy with how much of an interventionist Obama has turned out to be and with how much he has been willing to curtail civil liberties in doing so. My only point is that people who think like this ought to at least consider the possibility that the typical powers of a president make Paul a better one by their lights than Obama rather than thinking: "Pro-life libertarian? Fuck that." As a progressive myself, I absolutely agree regarding the issue of civil liberties. That said, RP does have quite a few things I disagree with other than his pro-life views. Let's be realistic here -- almost all of his fiscal ideas are the opposite of what progressives stand for and they generally aim for "fairness" in the sense that each individual is treat the same, even if society is what allowed certain individuals to gain their status at the top rather than their own personal merits. In other words, it ends up hurting the poor. | ||
|
gold_
Canada312 Posts
On January 16 2012 09:32 Mindcrime wrote: So it's okay because his company "only" made a few million? No, it's not the amount that matters, but the act itself. It would neither be worse if he made more money, nor better if he made less. You clearly hate Ron Paul. I understand this is the only thing you can bring up against him to smear him, its OK. | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On January 16 2012 09:37 hmunkey wrote: As a progressive myself, I absolutely agree regarding the issue of civil liberties. That said, RP does have quite a few things I disagree with other than his pro-life views. Let's be realistic here -- almost all of his fiscal ideas are the opposite of what progressives stand for and they generally aim for "fairness" in the sense that each individual is treat the same, even if society is what allowed certain individuals to gain their status at the top rather than their own personal merits. In other words, it ends up hurting the poor. Yes, progressives justifiably disagree with many of the things Paul says, especially on fiscal matters. He might be able to get some of his views here through a conservative congress. Maybe not the most troubling views though, and maybe not enough overall to counterbalance the good he could do elsewhere. I'm just saying that I'd have to actually think really hard if it came down to Paul against Obama. Too many trade-offs. | ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
So concerned citizen have given more money than all of Romney's top contributors? I find that hard to believe. And neither of Obama and Romney have that category at all in that image. Maybe their contributors just aren't concerned... | ||
|
gold_
Canada312 Posts
This image is really good, except for the fact that I wish they added up all the individual citizen donations and labelled it for Obama and Romney. Even if it isn't high enough to make that chart amount. Also good to see Romney and Obama in the pockets of Goldman Sachs, they are sure for the working class... | ||
|
Zalithian
520 Posts
But I found this funny: Calling Ron Paul an Isolationist is like calling your neighbor a hermit because he doesn't come onto your property and break your windows. | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
Also it is quite confusing that the military is listed on that chart, as the military is not allowed to donate money to political campaigns, as their budget comes from the federal budget. Does that mean that the groups listed are in fact not necessarily accurate? | ||
|
gold_
Canada312 Posts
On January 16 2012 09:52 Saryph wrote: That picture has been posted before, and as was said in the past, Obama receives a similar percentage of his money from 'concerned citizens' as Paul, only it is several times larger. I suppose a lot more 'concerned citizens' support Obama than Paul. Also it is quite confusing that the military is listed on that chart, as the military is not allowed to donate money to political campaigns, as their budget comes from the federal budget. Does that mean that the groups listed are in fact not necessarily accurate? Can you provide evidence to back up your statement? | ||
|
Falling
Canada11573 Posts
On January 16 2012 09:36 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Image Spoilered to save space. + Show Spoiler + See the difference now? While agree there is way too much money being flooded into the system, wasn't this posted before and shown to be completely biased? As in Obama has an equal number of individual small donations aka Concerned Citizens? | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
On January 16 2012 09:53 gold_ wrote: Can you provide evidence to back up your statement? I'll look it up again, but you know, you could always try reading THIS THREAD before posting in it. | ||
|
Zalithian
520 Posts
On January 16 2012 09:52 Saryph wrote: That picture has been posted before, and as was said in the past, Obama receives a similar percentage of his money from 'concerned citizens' as Paul, only it is several times larger. I suppose a lot more 'concerned citizens' support Obama than Paul. Also it is quite confusing that the military is listed on that chart, as the military is not allowed to donate money to political campaigns, as their budget comes from the federal budget. Does that mean that the groups listed are in fact not necessarily accurate? I'm pretty sure those "military donations" are from people in the military. (soldiers) | ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
On January 16 2012 09:53 gold_ wrote: Can you provide evidence to back up your statement? Care to provide a source for an obviously biased pr image? | ||
|
gold_
Canada312 Posts
On January 16 2012 09:55 Saryph wrote: I'll look it up again, but you know, you could always try reading THIS THREAD before posting in it. Keep in mind though, that Obama has had 4 years to acquire donations. As well the point that Goldman Sachs gave Obama over 1$ million is extremely unsettling to me. That doesn't bother you?  PS: Thanks if you find the info for me, I do appreciate the info in this thread. Just too many pages to go through for my lazy ass. :D | ||
|
gold_
Canada312 Posts
On January 16 2012 09:56 gruff wrote: Care to provide a source for an obviously biased pr image? Wasn't backing up said image, just asking for one that listed Obama's individual citizen donations totalled. Is this unacceptable to you? | ||
|
Zalithian
520 Posts
| ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
Oh, and that image isn't even accurate. Someone added their own fake donations in to make it look better for Paul. Like the poster above me posted, here are the real amounts: Note the following quote from the page: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php?cycle=2012 These tables list the top donors to these candidates in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates | ||
| ||
