-
-
The reason you can't explain it, is because it doesn't exist.
Please re-read this quote from the OP-ED piece you linked to:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-ron-paul.html
Do you understand what, "Unless major changes are made today" means? Let me try re-phrasing it for you: It means that we DON'T have to default...IF we make major changes now. He says the same thing in the video, so there is no flip flop.Unless major changes are made today, the U.S. will default on its debt sooner or later, and it is certainly preferable that it be sooner rather than later.
The reason you never heard back from me, is because you never asked me the question. I don't believe anyone can know 100% what the consequences of a default will be. Where did I make such a ridiculous statement?
I never said the video was an op-ed piece. I assumed you would understand I was referring to the Bloomberg OP-ED piece. I then proceeded to post a quote from it where he also states that there is no need to default. Remember that quote? Did you even read it?
Last edited by acrylix; 07-29-2011, 09:08 AM.Comment
-
no.The reason you can't explain it, is because it doesn't exist.
Please re-read this quote from the OP-ED piece you linked to:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-ron-paul.html
Do you understand what, "Unless major changes are made" means? Let me try re-phrasing it for you: It means that we DON'T have to default. He says the same thing in the video, so there is no flip flop.
The reason you never heard back from me, is because you never asked me the question. I don't believe anyone can know 100% what the consequences of a default will be. Where did I make such a ridiculous statement?
I never said the video was an op-ed piece. I assumed you would understand I was referring to the Bloomberg OP-ED piece. I then proceeded to post a quote from it where he also states that there is no need to default. Remember that quote? Did you even read it?
let's start at the beginning since that's where you lack understanding. the op-ed piece is written by ron paul. that includes the title, which is verbatim:
moreover, your quoting his *it's not too late* shenanigans simply reinforces my point that ron paul is clueless. yeah, let's do the following by midnight monday.Default Now, or Suffer a More Expensive Crisis Later: Ron Paul
By Ron Paul
from the "op-ed" piece.It isn?t too late to return to fiscal sanity. We could start by canceling out the debt held by the Federal Reserve, which would clear $1.6 trillion under the debt ceiling. Or we could cut trillions of dollars in spending by bringing our troops home from overseas, making gradual reforms to Social Security and Medicare, and bringing the federal government back within the limits envisioned by the Constitution. Yet no one is willing to step up to the plate and make the hard decisions that are necessary. Everyone wants to kick the can down the road and believe that deficit spending can continue unabated.Comment
-
i know there are several people reading this thread laughing their asses off at this ridiculous comment
keep dancing, shitstain. although i've already gotten bored rubbing your shitstained nose in your own shit time and again every time all the time any timeComment
-
"look at me in dyna homo!
i use more smilies! it makes me seem funnier!
look at me go!
check out my abs!
hey guys take off your shirts!
hey female affiliate reps i own no sites but im going to hit on you anyway
did someone mention nutrition? dont worry fellas dyna homo has arrived!
more smilies:
"Comment
-
keep dancing shitstain. all the time, every time.Comment
-
I'm afraid the one lacking understanding is you. In fact, I think you've just proven that you hadn't even bothered to read past the title of the op-ed piece before starting this thread and making a fool out of yourself.
He clearly states in the piece that we don't have to default. But, if we can't change today, we will have no choice but to do just that. He then goes on to state that it would be better to default now than later...which he states in the title as well.
Whether you agree with what he says or not, there was no flip flop between that piece and the video interview.
Get your facts straight next time.Comment
-
typical ron paul attitude, make it about the messenger or anything other than the actual facts that are presented.I'm afraid the one lacking understanding is you. In fact, I think you've just proven that you hadn't even bothered to read past the title of the op-ed piece before starting this thread and making a fool out of yourself.
He clearly states in the piece that we don't have to default. But, if we can't change today, we will have no choice but to do just that. He then goes on to state that it would be better to default now than later...which he states in the title as well.
Whether you agree with what he says or not, there was no flip flop between that piece and the video interview.
Get your facts straight next time.
fact is, he wrote that op-ed piece, then when he was challenged on it in the interview and backed down.
as i said earlier, you ron paulies can believe what you want, i'm confident enough in my own views that i don't feel the need to denigrate someone else simply because they view things different than i do.
the fact that you feel the need to do so says much more about you than it does me.Comment
-
ron paul, a member of congress, states that "they" (the congress) will just keep printing money so no need to default.
gotta love the double-speak.Comment
-
So you're choosing to ignore the FACT that he clearly states there is no need to default in the op-ed piece?
You know, the fact which you yourself presented in a link?
Sadly, it appears that you are. If you will go so far as to blatantly ignore such an obvious fact, then it's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you. Can't say it surprises me though, as you seem to resort to name calling and rambling on a frequent basis:
"hahahah....ron paul disciples...conspiracy theorists....bullshit...ron paulies....i couldn't care less...piece of shit politician...hahahahahahahahah......hahahahahahaha ....you ron paulies"
It's clear you've got a bee in your bonnet over Ron Paul. While far from being a "disciple," I and a number of other webmasters on this forum happen to agree with a lot of things he has to say. He's looking like the best choice for me in 2012 so far, but I'm always open to alternatives.
That's why I asked you earlier in this thread who you are interested in: http://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=18316122&postcount=12
Maybe you missed it, cause I never got an answer.Comment
-
So you're choosing to ignore the FACT that he clearly states there is no need to default in the op-ed piece?
You know, the fact which you yourself presented in a link?
Sadly, it appears that you are. If you will go so far as to blatantly ignore such an obvious fact, then it's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you. Can't say it surprises me though, as you seem to resort to name calling and rambling on a frequent basis:
It's clear you've got a bee in your bonnet over Ron Paul. While far from being a "disciple," I and a number of other webmasters on this forum happen to agree with a lot of things he has to say. He's looking like the best choice for me in 2012 so far, but I'm always open to alternatives.
That's why I asked you earlier in this thread who you are interested in: http://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=18316122&postcount=12
Maybe you missed it, cause I never got an answer.
look, just like it is ok and inconsequential that ron paulies can post ron paul videos around here espousing the wonder of ron paul, i can post my view and corresponding youtube videos showing what a retarded, obstructionist, hypocritical career politician he is.
and as for who i back for prez 2012, i didn't reply because i could not give 2 shits which side of the same coin is in charge of the white house- absolutely ZERO will change.Comment
-
the truly astonishing fact of this thread is that instead of even being the slightest bit open to an alternative interpretation of the blog post and consequential question posed in the video (and you ron paulies would be suspect if you can't see that the question @ .40 in the video was a direct consequence of the *op-ed*/blog posting), you choose to instead defend a career politician with a voting record that puts him in the bottom 10% of congressmenm, who is a legislator in charge that points his finger at the body of law he works within (and his colleagues) with contempt who furthermore professes wild ass plans based on ZERO data.
////Last edited by dyna mo; 07-29-2011, 07:28 PM.Comment
-
ron paulies- please explain to me the value of having a leader in charge of the united states of america who claims on july 28 2011 that we are already bankrupt.
what is the value in that? claiming to the entire world- the u.s.a. is bankrupt and it's just a matter now of how we default.Comment
-
it's funny to me how several of y'all point your finger at me and call me names and imply i can't digest what is going on, yet y'all are the ones staunchly standing by your career politician with a complete inability to admit your guy is fallible in any way shape or form
ron paul 2012 pfft.Comment
-
as a lifetime democrat it pains me to say i will vote republican in 2012, assuming ron paul can get nomination ( which i dont think he can), otherwise i will probably not vote... sorry obama, you got one vote out of me, i think that will do it unless some shit really changes over the next 12 monthsComment
-
Whoa Dyna... you seem to have an ax to grind with people who support Paul.
Here are some things to think about~
He has been in congress for 23 years not 35. He took time off to work in his medical practice in the 80's and 90's. He doesn't participate in the congressional pension and returns a large portion of his congressional office budget every year. He is not the prototypical career politician.
I believe he is right about default. As painful as it certainly will be, in all good consciousness the government cant keep going the way it has been. It's not fair to future generations to keep passing this burden on. Spending must be cut back and government must be held accountable for their actions. The government's job is NOT to take care of everybody.
Ron Paul has been consistent. He has maintained that government must adhere to the Constitution... since day 1. If he were just some power hungry "cook", he would have left the republican party last election cycle and run as an independent. He didn't, because as he has maintained throughout his "career", he want to fix the system, not break it.
I do not agree with everything he is about. But he is closer to anyone else and I happen to believe he has a good chance to change the way Washington works.
AlanAgus1 at gmail dot com-------------------------------Comment
-
Whoa Dyna... you seem to have an ax to grind with people who support Paul.
Here are some things to think about~
He has been in congress for 23 years not 35. He took time off to work in his medical practice in the 80's and 90's. He doesn't participate in the congressional pension and returns a large portion of his congressional office budget every year. He is not the prototypical career politician.
I believe he is right about default. As painful as it certainly will be, in all good consciousness the government cant keep going the way it has been. It's not fair to future generations to keep passing this burden on. Spending must be cut back and government must be held accountable for their actions. The government's job is NOT to take care of everybody.
Ron Paul has been consistent. He has maintained that government must adhere to the Constitution... since day 1. If he were just some power hungry "cook", he would have left the republican party last election cycle and run as an independent. He didn't, because as he has maintained throughout his "career", he want to fix the system, not break it.
I do not agree with everything he is about. But he is closer to anyone else and I happen to believe he has a good chance to change the way Washington works.
i could not care less who people back, so i have no axe to grind in that regard. but when people attack MY opinion and who i chose not to back, i will engage those sorts as they engaged me. call me obtuse for having an opinion and posting it here and i will make sure i address you back in a similar fashion. if you are not confident in your choices, then you attack those who view things differently as has been done in this thread and another anti-ron paul thread i started.
i am quite familiar with ron paul and am more than confident with my view of him being a career politician with an abysmal voting record that puts him in the bottom 10% of congressman. not to mention his flip-flopping and hypocritical stances.Comment
-
Ron Paul is to the Republican Party what Lyndon LaRouche was to the Democrat Party ? something they wish would go away ...Comment
-
It's not open to interpretation. He either said there's no option but to default, or he didn't.
What do these 6 words mean to you?
You can ramble all you want about being a victim, but it won't distract anyone from the fact that you made a blunder by not bothering to read your own supposed proof posted in this thread.Unless major changes are made todayComment
-
You didn't reply because you have no better alternative. So I guess anyone interested in the guy still has no reason not to vote for him.
That is, unless your groundbreaking advice is to stay at home and let others decide who'll be president for them.
It's certainly your right to educate us on anything shady the guy is up to. I appreciate any facts I can get. But if you continue posting bogus information like this whole flip-flop allegation, don't keep crying like a baby when you get called out on it.Comment
-
JESUS BE PRAISED
NOW LET US BOW OUR HEADS IN PRAYER.
Comment
-
Comment
-
again, i could not give 2 shits who you vote for or who wins the election. any election.You didn't reply because you have no better alternative. So I guess anyone interested in the guy still has no reason not to vote for him.
That is, unless your groundbreaking advice is to stay at home and let others decide who'll be president for them.
It's certainly your right to educate us on anything shady the guy is up to. I appreciate any facts I can get. But if you continue posting bogus information like this whole flip-flop allegation, don't keep crying like a baby when you get called out on it.
i haven't given 1 iota of advices in this thread.
i'm not educating you.
i'm pointing my finger at ron paul and stating for the record he is a piece of shit, flip-flopping career politician that could not legislate his way out of paper bag and has historically been considered in the lower 10% of congresshitheads.
ron paul 2012Comment
-
More proof of a flip-flop? Didn't think so.
It's still a somewhat free country, so the man is entitled to his own personal beliefs. He could be an atheist, Hindu, or Wiccan for all I care. I'm not religious, and when it comes to the President my belief is simple: No one has the right to use the power of Federal government to force their religious beliefs on anyone else.
Show me a quote or a video where he advocates doing this, and you may have me worried.Comment
-
Coup, is that a Noam Chomsky avatar you're flying?
Probably one the biggest hypocrites out there:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/h...t/article/6222
Noam Chumpsky, what a guy.One of the most persistent themes in Noam Chomsky?s work has been class warfare. He has frequently lashed out against the ?massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich? and criticized the concentration of wealth in ?trusts? by the wealthiest 1 percent.
But trusts can?t be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of $2,000,000, decided to create one for himself.
-------------------
When I challenged Chomsky about his trust, he suddenly started to sound very bourgeois: ?I don?t apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren,? he wrote in one e-mail. Chomsky offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam.
-------------------
Putting his name on a book should not be confused with writing a book because his most recent volumes are mainly transcriptions of speeches, or interviews that he has conducted over the years, put between covers and sold to the general public. You might call it multi-level marketing for radicals. Chomsky has admitted as much: ?If you look at the things I write?articles for Z Magazine, or books for South End Press, or whatever?they are mostly based on talks and meetings and that kind of thing. But I?m kind of a parasite. I mean, I?m living off the activism of others. I?m happy to do it.?
Chomsky?s marketing efforts shortly after September 11 give new meaning to the term war profiteer. In the days after the tragedy, he raised his speaking fee from $9,000 to $12,000 because he was suddenly in greater demand.
Comment
-
i couldn't give 2 shits.
i posted the thread for my own reasons, if you think i am trying to fool people, you are drinking your own kool-aid.
but please continue, i am lolling my fucking ass off as you shuck & jive trying to defend a career politician who has consistently ranked in the lower 10% of congressmen. wow, what a candidate for prez!
ron paul 2012Comment
-
of course ron paul is extra special politician who is the singularly different from all the others.
he must wear a cape at night!Comment
Comment