Poor Ron Paul getting ignored by main stream media

Ron Paul is not the Guy you want as president! He believes in virtually no government involvement and that we should just leave everything to the free market.
 
Last edited:
You are now comparing military policies of the US and Switzerland.

lol

“For seven hundred years, freedom has been the fundamental story of Switzerland, and we are not prepared to give it up now. We want to defend ourselves, which is not the same as fighting abroad. We want peace, but not under someone else’s condition.”

Switzerland

Budget CHF 3.9 billion (~US$3.6 billion FY08)
Percent of GDP GDP 0.9% (2006)

America

Budget $692 billion (FY10)
Percent of GDP 4.7% (2010 est.)

Plus President Obama has proposed a 4% increase in Department of Defence spending

So really American military spending is $719 billion. This is not including additional money injected.

Including injections, its just shy of $1 trillion.
 
Loved that part.

Guessing you didn't like the ending quite so much then:

And there’s another, unspoken reason why the media like to keep their distance from the Paulites: some of them are mad. If I ever write about the Republican primaries and fail to call Ron Paul the New Messiah, my inbox fills with unpleasant emails. Some of them are of the “I have a gun and I know how to use it” variety. I wouldn’t care, but I find it odd given that a) I always cautiously praise him and b) I have said far, far worse things about Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin and no one seems to care. Are Evangelicals just nicer people than libertarians? God only knows, but anchormen and journalists have had many similar bruising encounters with Ron Paul’s people. Of course, the vast majority of his supporters are brilliant patriots. But radicalism attracts crazy, too.

Sometimes the media ignores Ron Paul out of ignorance or spite. Sometimes it’s because they’ve done the math and convinced themselves that he can’t win. Other times, I suspect that they take a look at the people chanting his name in the bleachers and they don’t like what they see. The Paulites are good folk worried about the direction of their country, but their exclusion from the mainstream makes them come off like the vanguard of a Hicksville revolution. Television is a cool medium. Ron Paul and his angry army are too hot for it.
Emphasis is my own.

It's unfortunate for Ron, really. He's probably not that bad a choice for the Republicans to throw into the rat race to get into the White House (certainly a lot better than many of the alternatives). But his fan-club....Jesus H. Christ. Some of them really need locking up, for their safety and the safety of everyone around them. Just way beyond 'ordinary' rabid. Almost on the level of 'ITV F1 broadcast crew fawning over Lewis Hamilton' rabid.
 
Guessing you didn't like the ending quite so much then:

Emphasis is my own.

It's unfortunate for Ron, really. He's probably not that bad a choice for the Republicans to throw into the rat race to get into the White House (certainly a lot better than many of the alternatives). But his fan-club....Jesus H. Christ. Some of them really need locking up, for their safety and the safety of everyone around them. Just way beyond 'ordinary' rabid. Almost on the level of 'ITV F1 broadcast crew fawning over Lewis Hamilton' rabid.

I'm not denying some of his fans are scary, but most are not. Its just a shame that the minority spoil the majority.
 
Switzerland

Budget CHF 3.9 billion (~US$3.6 billion FY08)
Percent of GDP GDP 0.9% (2006)

America

Budget $692 billion (FY10)
Percent of GDP 4.7% (2010 est.)

Plus President Obama has proposed a 4% increase in Department of Defence spending

So really American military spending is $719 billion. This is not including additional money injected.

Including injections, its just shy of $1 trillion.

You are good at missing my point, this is the second time.

You cannot compare the US and Switzerland defensively. The US is much bigger, is not landlocked, has enemies, etc etc.

Ron Paul going in and "changing their foreign policy" however he plans to do that is not going to change any of the above. The US cannot leave themselves as defenceless as Switzerland. Yes, they could definitely spend less on the military and not get involved in so many conflicts, but comparing them to Switzerland is just ridiculous.
 
You are good at missing my point, this is the second time.

You cannot compare the US and Switzerland defensively. The US is much bigger, is not landlocked, has no enemies, etc etc.

No i think your missing my point, i'm saying if they take the ideas from them and used them themselves. So rather then preventative war, they do what Switzerland is doing and not intervening.

The US cannot leave themselves as defenceless as Switzerland.

Why not? Why not have enough money to sustain a army large enough to defend there own country, which is there purpose.

A war to prevent a war is a racket.
 
Are you serious? or trolling?

The worrying thing is he's serious, he has absolutely no idea about how any of this works, he just got caught up in an internet bandwagon and now relentlessly argues Ron Paul's policies with a blissful ignorance.

Amirite?
 
This will lose you loads of jobs

So America should continue increasing it's public sector to reduce unemployment? Have you ever considered why they are broke?

Loss of jobs is a stupid argument when defending public sector job cuts. Why not put this manpower to use on something effective instead of just being a government pen pusher wasting taxes.
 
Why not? Why not have enough money to sustain a army large enough to defend there own country, which is there purpose.

A war to prevent a war is a racket.

For the reasons I said above. The US is much bigger, has a massive coastline, and has many more enemies than Switzerland.

This is the same Switzerland who were neutral in WW2, should everyone have taken that stance? I totally agree that the US get involved with conflicts too much, but so do other parties who are less idiotic with their policies than Ron Paul.
 
Are you serious? or trolling?

Why would a free market be so terrible?

A truly free market would not resemble the modern-day capitalist economy.

A world in which land and property is widely distributed, capital is freely available to laborers through mutual banks, productive technology is freely available in every country without patents, and every person is free to develop locally without colonial robbery...
 
Why would a free market be so terrible?

A truly free market would not resemble the modern-day capitalist economy.

A world in which land and property is widely distributed, capital is freely available to laborers through mutual banks, productive technology is freely available in every country without patents, and every person is free to develop locally without colonial robbery...

Ok, so without a capitalist market, who is going to develop this technology?

It is capitalism that drives our research, services and products. If I work for half my life to produce something and I'm not going to get any reward for it, then I'm not going to do it, am I?
 
Why would a free market be so terrible?

A truly free market would not resemble the modern-day capitalist economy.

A world in which land and property is widely distributed, capital is freely available to laborers through mutual banks, productive technology is freely available in every country without patents, and every person is free to develop locally without colonial robbery...

Because companies are out for one thing... Profit. If there was no regulation and a company can pay £0 for dumping chemicals in the nearby lake or pay millions and millions for proper disposal which do you think they will take?
 
For the reasons I said above. The US is much bigger, has a massive coastline, and has many more enemies than Switzerland.

Right so of course there defence budget would be higher, but if they took the principles of Switzerland defence policy and didnt intervene, they could vastly reduce there spending while protecting there country.

This is the same Switzerland who were neutral in WW2, should everyone have taken that stance?

That's a different topic all together and i do not wish to derail this thread any more then it has already been.
 
He's the future of America. Lets hope so.

The future of the break up of the United States you mean...

No one can be that fiercely constitutional and not realise that if the constitution is taken as literally as he advocates the Union has to be dissolved.

So yeah, probably a good thing he's about as good in front of a camera as Gordon Brown having a seizure.
 
Back
Top Bottom