Ron Paul "Black This Out" Money Bomb Today (Oct 19)!

[DiaperPony]

Don't forget to support the one candidate in the 2012 presidential race that will balance the budget and fight to restore our freedoms (and consistently polls as winning against Obama). The corrupt mainstream media hates him, but his message of liberty and fiscal responsibility will be heard.

http://www.blackthisout.com/

[sarah_ab]

I won't forget to support hte candidate who proves to me he can uphold one of the fundamental principals of the United States... the separation of church and state....

Until an candidate can leave their religion at home, and not consistantly bring it into the campaign, and will make policy for the better of all, not just all in their religion..... then i will not support them.

[Darkfinn]

Ron Paul has zero chance of ever getting the nomination. He won't play for the media, or the banks, or big business, or special interests so he has zero chance of ever being elected.

The election will be Romney vs Obama. Big business vs the Devil you know. Pick whomever, we lose either way.

[Diapered Jason]

I am kind of partial to Ron Paul myself. Trouble is I do not like some of his ideas, but I really like his other ideas. All the other candidates are jokes though, especially when they say I am going to tax you less and some how balance the budget. You know who I am talking about. Then there is Mitt Romney. I did not realize he is in to kinky sex like Rick Santorum, LMFAO, because I have rarely seen someone fucked so hard in the ass that he would do whatever he is told, when he is told to do so.

[Necros]

Obama = Someone with good intentions but with no balls to back it up.

Ron Paul = Cool ideas but a badass when it comes to playing the media game.

Everything else = Shit directly from Satan's damned ass.

'Nuff said.

[sarah_ab]

see separation of church and state.... can't even be kept out here...

all this talk of satan in politics......

geeeshhhh politics are complicated, religion is complicated.. why put two complicated things together like that? it just makes it even MORE complicated!

[redneck diaper boy]

I won't forget to support hte candidate who proves to me he can uphold one of the fundamental principals of the United States... the separation of church and state....

Until an candidate can leave their religion at home, and not consistantly bring it into the campaign, and will make policy for the better of all, not just all in their religion..... then i will not support them.

You will not find anything, in our Constitustion, about separation of church and state! The First Amendment states

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Entities such as the Marxist ACLU have perverted the first part of our Bill of Rights. Theses perveyors of Marxism can't seem to understand the "or prohibiting the free exercise the free exercise thereof" part.

[redneck diaper boy]

I am kind of partial to Ron Paul myself. Trouble is I do not like some of his ideas, but I really like his other ideas. All the other candidates are jokes though, especially when they say I am going to tax you less and some how balance the budget. You know who I am talking about. Then there is Mitt Romney. I did not realize he is in to kinky sex like Rick Santorum, LMFAO, because I have rarely seen someone fucked so hard in the ass that he would do whatever he is told, when he is told to do so.

I like Ron Paul too. Like Sarah Palin, the media is against him.

[redneck diaper boy]

I like Ron Paul too. Like Sarah Palin, the media is against him.

Right now I support Herman Cain but that could change. Ron Paul has no chance of getting elected. The most important thing is to get Obama out. Obama is a Marxist cancer that will kill our republic

[sarah_ab]

i didn't say it was written, i just said it has become a fundamental aspect of our country.... not everything that is fundamental is written as a law. and some things written at law are certainly not funadamental...

the problem is, many of these fundamentalist christians do not respect any other religion except their own, and believe only their religious beliefs are the 'right' ones... and therefore would pass laws that disrespect others religions and favor their own.

[Guest]

I keep it simple, I vote for the guy who wants to legalize weed.

[Diapered Jason]

You will not find anything, in our Constitustion, about separation of church and state! The First Amendment states

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Entities such as the Marxist ACLU have perverted the first part of our Bill of Rights. Theses perveyors of Marxism can't seem to understand the "or prohibiting the free exercise the free exercise thereof" part.

Separation of church and state is in fact the interpretation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. If you look more closely, it not only prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress, but it also prohibits the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. You will see that the Supreme Court agrees with this interpretation in several cases including finding state-sponsored prayer in public schools to be unconstitutional.

Unfortunately for Sarah's argument, you can't change how people think. If there is a candidate whose religion is Christian, and if the majority of the country is Christian, odds are the Christian candidate will win. That is not unconstitutional, because that is a choice by the people, albeit a bad one. Word to the wise though, vote on a candidates merits, not his/her religion.

[diaperliz]

I hate it when people say "Ron Paul will never get elected so I'm not gonna support him". People like that is the reason he will never get elected. Even if he doesn't get elected supporting him shows the world that we are sick of the same old crap, and we'll support a politician who doesn't act like a politician.

I don't agree with everything Ron Paul is pushing, but I know what he is pushing and that is huge.. He has been pushing and voting consistently for a very long time. I know exactly what to expect if he gets elected and that is far more then any other candidate.

Another thing that really impresses me about Ron Paul is that the top 3 contributors to him, the US Air Force, US Navy, US Army. (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php?cycle=2012), while every other candidate has huge contributions from corporations and banks.

Until individuals stop saying "well the candidate I really like won't get elected because the TV says, so i'll vote for the lesser of 2 evils" and start saying "screw what the TV tells me, i'll support whoever the hell I want" we'll be stuck in this rut of dealing with lying politicians who will say whatever they think will get them votes.

[Necros]

Right now I support Herman Cain but that could change. Ron Paul has no chance of getting elected. The most important thing is to get Obama out. Obama is a Marxist cancer that will kill our republic

Whaaaaaat lol, are you on drugs lol. Obama doesn't have the balls to back up his ideas for change in the US but they still would have done great good for the US economy. Herman Cain is a weird flip flopping dude that wants to go hardcore redneck and built an electric fence to kill illegal immigrants ... talk about what the f*ck lol. Ron paul is the only republican at the moment that makes sense, doesn't mean he'll win but he's worlds better than the others.

see separation of church and state.... can't even be kept out here...

all this talk of satan in politics......

geeeshhhh politics are complicated, religion is complicated.. why put two complicated things together like that? it just makes it even MORE complicated!

The statement I made was in no way related to religion, i was merely making a joke and not implying that the devil actually exists or that any god for that matter exist. I used it to make my statement more colorful in a very crude manner. I'm with you on separation of religion and state, I would even go as far as to abolish the stupidities certain states are teaching kids in school about creationism (which is all kinds of wrong).

[Darkfinn]

My problem with Obama is that the only thing he knows how to do is tax and spend. His stimulus programs have failed time and time again and he just wants to do more of them.

We're all human, so I don't mind that he's made mistakes... I just want him to LEARN from those mistakes. If stimulus isn't working, try something else.

What America really needs is a tax holiday... for like a year. Borrow some more, who cares, we're already so far in debt that a few additional trillion won't matter. Drop the Federal gas tax, drop payroll taxes. Give people more money to spend and they'll spend it. Consumer spending is what drives our economy and the lack of it is what's keeping us down.

[Diapered Jason]

My problem with Obama is that the only thing he knows how to do is tax and spend. His stimulus programs have failed time and time again and he just wants to do more of them.

We're all human, so I don't mind that he's made mistakes... I just want him to LEARN from those mistakes. If stimulus isn't working, try something else.

What America really needs is a tax holiday... for like a year. Borrow some more, who cares, we're already so far in debt that a few additional trillion won't matter. Drop the Federal gas tax, drop payroll taxes. Give people more money to spend and they'll spend it. Consumer spending is what drives our economy and the lack of it is what's keeping us down.

Um... The first sentence is all rhetoric and not true at all. Remember the large stimulus bill passed way back at the beginning of his term. The bills two largest provisions, which made up about half the bill, were actually tax breaks and state and local fiscal relief. Though I think the bill did help offset a bad a economy minimally and may have prevented a depression, the biggest flaw in the bill is it was hardly an exercise in Keynesian economics. I think providing funds to balance state budgets and tax breaks may have saved jobs, but I really doubt that it would create any. If this was an exercise in Keynesian economics, there would have been much more infrastructure spending, grants for research, education, and energy. What I am saying is only half of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was actually a stimulus bill.

[Darkfinn]

What I am saying is only half of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was actually a stimulus bill.

Did it work? Did any of it work? Are we any better off than we were in 2009?

In short, NO.

I'll admit things haven't gotten worse, but they haven't gotten better either. Nothing has changed. Obama's legacy will be shoving Obamacare down our throats... which will either be struck down by the Supreme Court or repealed as soon as the GOP gains a majority.

All this government spending has propped up the top portions of our economy. Stimulus money for big business and government programs, none of which have actually created jobs. What it did do was fool Wall St. into thinking everything was OK, which is why we're paying out our noses for gas, food, housing and other necessities.

Before true recovery can begin the economy has to stabilize. Which means Wall St. must reflect what is happening on Main St. Unemployment is at 9%... if you factor in underemployment that jumps to 18%... and that's not counting those who took early retirement packages or have just stopped looking for jobs and are living on welfare. Take a look at the stock market... does it appear as if a quarter of this nation is in need of more employment?

Take a look at the thousands protesting in New York and other cities. Americans in general are dumb enough and passive enough that we'll put up with just about anything. But when people get fed up enough to take to the streets it's a sign that things are bad... really bad... yet the top portions of our economy go along acting like nothing is wrong.

[Diapered Jason]

I'll admit things haven't gotten worse, but they haven't gotten better either. Nothing has changed. Obama's legacy will be shoving Obamacare down our throats... which will either be struck down by the Supreme Court or repealed as soon as the GOP gains a majority.

Yep, it was definitely not the best time to do it, and though it is a start, the bill has some major flaws.

All this government spending has propped up the top portions of our economy. Stimulus money for big business and government programs, none of which have actually created jobs. What it did do was fool Wall St. into thinking everything was OK, which is why we're paying out our noses for gas, food, housing and other necessities.

Unfortunately for us, Wall St. had to be dealt with first. While I do not agree completely with what they did, the bailouts were a necessity in order to restore confidence in the banks and prevent another bank like Lehman Bros from falling. In order for it to work, all the major banks had to accept bailout money, otherwise investors would have known which bank was going to fail next thus allowing the domino effect to propagate. So in order for the all the banks to accept, strings had to be to a minimum. We also bought out all their toxic assets to help get things moving. So you see, the bailouts were not for jobs, but damage control and stabilization of the economy.

[Necros]

Yep, it was definitely not the best time to do it, and though it is a start, the bill has some major flaws.

Unfortunately for us, Wall St. had to be dealt with first. While I do not agree completely with what they did, the bailouts were a necessity in order to restore confidence in the banks and prevent another bank like Lehman Bros from falling. In order for it to work, all the major banks had to accept bailout money, otherwise investors would have known which bank was going to fail next thus allowing the domino effect to propagate. So in order for the all the banks to accept, strings had to be to a minimum. We also bought out all their toxic assets to help get things moving. So you see, the bailouts were not for jobs, but damage control and stabilization of the economy.

You make really good points DiaperedJason, I can see you know more than the average person in economy

[Baby Brian]

I agree with DiaperedJason too. The bailouts were only to stop our economy from bleeding out (not even to make it recover). It's Obama's Stimulus that saved/created somewhere between 1.4 and 3.3 million jobs. Personally I believe he's the only real candidate for the 2012 presidency, it's just a shame Obama is getting the blame for the Clinton deregulations that led to our housing collapse & the Bush tax cuts that led to our defecite problems. Of course his approval rating is way down, a lot of people are hurting because of Clinton and Bush, but when they are not properly informed (or wrongfully miss-directed) they're always going to blame the current guy in charge. True he hasn't been able to back up all his campaign promises because the Generally Opposed Party doesn't want to play nice, but then again what modern president has ever been able to back up ever one of their promises? Re-electing Obama would at least ensure we don't throw out entire economy & government down the drain, electing one of the dozen or so jokers running against him would pretty well ensure everything Obama's accomplished will be undone, including health care for so many more. Do you really want that?

FYI, the jobs numbers are backed up here;

http://factcheck.org/2010/09/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs/

[sarah_ab]

sides everyone already knows i only voted for obama cause he's so friggin hot!

and so is his wife..

i say screw what people are going to do, and vote for the one who looks the best on tv!!!! If we are going to ahve to see them all over the place, lets at least make sure they are pleasant to look at!!!

mmmmmmmm barack....... he can bare back me anytime... hahahahh see what i did there!!!! bar rack.. bare back... god i'm witty.

[diapered_jeff48801]

I think the timing of the Affordable health care bill was poorly thought out. More needed to be done by the administration to boost economic recovery. You can't put all the blame on the president though for not getting alot done, eventThough the Dems held a majority in the house and senate during the first two years, that didn't mean that they could pass anything they wanted. In the years between 2008-2010 before the republicans gained a majority in the house, there were record filibusters by the republican minority. I just think it's sad that both sides are posturing and not working together to solve our problems.

I also have to add that with the exception of Ron Paul and Buddy Roemer, the republican field is filled with people that have some scary ideas, such as 9-9-9. I agree with some of Ron Pauls ideas but he really should just drop the R next to his name and run as an independent, i have a feeling he's had to compromise too much with the hard right Tea Party.

Government needs a balance, no hard right, and no hard left, as most people are in the middle. Both parties are just not representing the bulk of the people. I'd vote for a more fiscal conservative but socially liberal candidate any day of the week. It's all about balance.

[DiaperPony]

Ron Paul on stimulus:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul642.html

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/14434

[Darkfinn]

But the bailouts didn't save our economy... they put us in a situation where the banking and investment sector is now completely detached from the rest of the economy. For the banks the recession never happened. They made bad decisions and when time came to be held accountable for them they got a free pass. That's not how capitalism works. Bad businesses are supposed to fail so better businesses can replace them.

I will agree that a banking crash would have been detrimental to our economy. BUT if the ship had been allowed to sink back in 2008 we would already be 3 years into recovery. Instead the government has literally gone broke trying to plug all the leaks. The ship is barely above water, but now the engines have stalled and the people who are baling are getting tired. There is no relief in sight, and hope for the future is dim.

Instead of one big crash we get several small ones... instead of a depression lasting 5 or 6 years we get a recession that will take decades to recover from.

The economy must achieve balance before any real progress can be made... and the more the government fiddles with things the longer that will take.

[Diapered Jason]

Well, yes and no. You can argue all day about whether or not capitalism works, but we do not have a true capitalistic economy. Only time well tell though how long it will take the economy to recover. Again, unfortunately for us, if we had not bailed those banks out, it would have been much worse and much more costly for everyone. There would have been no food on the table for example. I would agree that bad businesses should be allowed to fail, but when they are allowed to grow to the size they are now where they play such a huge role in the economy, what would you want to do when they fail? I think in the end, the only thing that the government can really do is prevent such a scenario from occurring again. Reducing the size of each bank would help so if one fails, we do not have to bail them out. Then again, all the banks had a stake in the sub-prime mortgages, so size may not have mattered. I do not know really know what the best thing to do there is.