PDA

View Full Version : RidleyReport: "Just Say No to Dr. No's bad idea"




DadaOrwell
03-03-2008, 07:03 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sJ0trLrItAQ

Me got to oppose Dr. Paul on one thing he suggested in his February netcast...even if it's only the second bad idea he's ever had...

rockandrollsouls
03-03-2008, 07:17 AM
Oh shutup he's not talking about welfare...you're blowing that way out of proportion. And now this guy is saying Doctor Paul doesn't take about wasteful spending? That's all he talks about! Good lord, delete this thread. Completely innacurate.

Andrew76
03-03-2008, 07:57 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sJ0trLrItAQ

Me got to oppose Dr. Paul on one thing he suggested in his February netcast...even if it's only the second bad idea he's ever had...

..."Me got to oppose Dr. Paul?" Who wrote this... Cookie Monster? Jesus...
Total misunderstanding of Ron Paul's message. The quote that is being complained about, is something that Ron Paul has been saying throughout his candidacy. The Federal money that is being spent overseas to "spread democracy" and build bridges after we blow them up, could be better spent at home, ensuring freedom and liberty here as opposed to sacrifcing the American taxpayer at the alter of altruism abroad.

Agreed. Bad thread.

Cinderella
03-03-2008, 08:33 AM
lol @ the cookie monster comment!!! hahahaha me hungry me want cookies!!!! mmmm grrrr

brandon
03-03-2008, 08:34 AM
Me got to oppose Dr. Paul


lol, gb2 1st grade

me3
03-03-2008, 08:55 AM
Me got to oppose DadaOrwell!!!

Sentient Void
03-03-2008, 08:59 AM
I wish forums would allow you to BURY threads. Mods?

Screw these bastards spreading disinformation.

FSP-Rebel
03-03-2008, 11:45 AM
What yall are failing to understand is most LIbertarians will differ with the concept of 'spending' that money here at home, as it is still theft on the gov's behalf. RP has repeatedly said that it isn't politically expedient to cut people off here who are dependent on the gov. While I understand his sentiments and have always supported him despite that, Real Libertarians will shy away from such talk based on principle. The same goes for his hardass talk about illegal immigrants. While libertarians will support cutting off funding for them, they don't want to pay to send them back home. Not to mention the slippery slope that's created when the Feds are out going door-door looking for aliens. This issue is closely tied into new id cards as well as roving checkpoints inside our borders for illegals. While Dada might have been nit-picking a little, this will always happen between libertarians/constitutionalists and Libertarians, just like there are differences between Libertarians and Free Marketeer/Anarchists. The more you agree with the gov being involved in something the more of a small 'l' libertarian you are. The less you agree, the more big 'L' one is--all the way down to no government which free marketeers support. Too many people here have been too emotional over the man himself at the expense of certain areas of liberty. You have to protect everyone's rights, all the time, every issue, in order to consistently keep the gov from encroaching on any right in particular. If not, consider the Huckabee people who may like guns and hate taxes, but are anti-freedom in most other areas. We can't be like that... Sorry, that's the way it is...

Enzo
03-03-2008, 12:02 PM
That video is way retarded. The guy is trying to dissect a general statement about not wasting US tax dollars on foreign military occupations.... and instead keep the money here.... and he's speculating on all the possible ways it could be misused.

There's not even a clear position or plan that he's taking issue with or disagreeing with.

Just pure speculation.

DadaOrwell
03-13-2008, 06:45 PM
I got so many angry responses...
that I eventually made a video response to try and answer some of them

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Vdu2lVzI7xk


Me got to oppose DadaOrwell!!!

LOL me

yongrel
03-13-2008, 06:47 PM
Me write book. It Bigfoot Memoir.

Kludge
03-13-2008, 06:50 PM
I got so many angry responses...
that I eventually made a video response to try and answer some of them

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Vdu2lVzI7xk

Wasn't he talking about the collapse of a bridge (from a previous debate) that required funding it wasn't given?

We spend money on wars, but can't even fund basic infrastructure at home. Somewhat unfair, but meh... Dr. Paul still kicks ass ;)

nate895
03-13-2008, 06:56 PM
What yall are failing to understand is most LIbertarians will differ with the concept of 'spending' that money here at home, as it is still theft on the gov's behalf. RP has repeatedly said that it isn't politically expedient to cut people off here who are dependent on the gov. While I understand his sentiments and have always supported him despite that, Real Libertarians will shy away from such talk based on principle. The same goes for his hardass talk about illegal immigrants. While libertarians will support cutting off funding for them, they don't want to pay to send them back home. Not to mention the slippery slope that's created when the Feds are out going door-door looking for aliens. This issue is closely tied into new id cards as well as roving checkpoints inside our borders for illegals. While Dada might have been nit-picking a little, this will always happen between libertarians/constitutionalists and Libertarians, just like there are differences between Libertarians and Free Marketeer/Anarchists. The more you agree with the gov being involved in something the more of a small 'l' libertarian you are. The less you agree, the more big 'L' one is--all the way down to no government which free marketeers support. Too many people here have been too emotional over the man himself at the expense of certain areas of liberty. You have to protect everyone's rights, all the time, every issue, in order to consistently keep the gov from encroaching on any right in particular. If not, consider the Huckabee people who may like guns and hate taxes, but are anti-freedom in most other areas. We can't be like that... Sorry, that's the way it is...

I would spend money to send the illegals back home. My personal opinion is a slow phase out of taxes and spending. Immediately cut overall spending and taxes by 50% and 25%, respectively. We then secure our border and try to force out as many illegals as possible and work to pay off the debt. Once the debt is paid, the illegals have been forced out by one means or another, cut taxes to 0. Use other forms of revenue to finance the military and a secure border.

manny229
03-13-2008, 07:01 PM
Me write book. It Bigfoot Memoir.

Me gots to read this book! It interesting me think....

libertarian4321
03-13-2008, 07:02 PM
I got so many angry responses...
that I eventually made a video response to try and answer some of them

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Vdu2lVzI7xk



LOL me

Ron isn't a fool. He knows that the money is going to be spent one way or the other, whether he likes it or not.

He is simply saying that if its going to be spent, better to spend it on a bridge in Brooklyn than a bridge in Baghdad.

Kludge
03-13-2008, 07:05 PM
Ron isn't a fool. He knows that the money is going to be spent one way or the other, whether he likes it or not.

He is simply saying that if its going to be spent, better to spend it on a bridge in Brooklyn than a bridge in Baghdad.


Hmmm... Wouldn't it be best spent paying off our $55 trillion dollar debt (includes promised money)?

Carole
03-13-2008, 07:52 PM
Are you daft?

Ridley Report is taking Dr. Paul's comments much too literally. He is over-reacting entirely to his remarks. If he knew Dr. Paul's philosophy, he would never have bothered to make this ridiculous video.

Get rid of this totally ridiculous thread please.

Carole
03-13-2008, 08:03 PM
Yet another person who simply does not get it nor understand Dr. Paul's philosophy.

You cannot cut the cord overnight. You cannot throw dependent people under the bus overnight. You do not get rid of the Fed overnight. You do not go looking for all the illegals.

He has explained these things many times and how a transition period will be required. Just as it took a hundred years to create our mess, it will require a few years to correct the mess.

Illegals would no longer be subsidized. If they show up at hospitals or are arrested or happened upon in other ways, only then will they be deported. Most will go home on their own once the gravy train stops. We won't need thousands of border guards as we do now. They won't be used as scapegoats either as America actually will need some immigrants, but legal ones.

Dr. Paul is opposed to RFID.

It is going to require some time for Americans to readjust to freedom. It is not going to happen overnight. Not even a "L"ibertarian could expect that.

Are you a troll or what?

Carole
03-13-2008, 08:16 PM
This video is no better than the first. Only an immature mind could take Dr. Paul's message so literally. If you are that naive that you cannot think through his message without analyzing and dissecting each word and phrase to read "more big governmnet" you need to go back and review his voting record over the life of his career, review his issue and policy statements. No where can you find anything in his philosophy that supports your ridiculous argument.

Kludge
03-13-2008, 08:23 PM
You could have merged those threads into one >.>

I think he definitely twisted Dr. Paul's words in a gross manner. He "basically" just said we're spending money in the wrong place. No one's perfect, and Dr. Paul's word choice was of an inferior quality to that of which he usually gives.

amy31416
03-13-2008, 08:38 PM
Me got to oppose Dr. Paul on one thing he suggested in his February netcast...even if it's only the second bad idea he's ever had...

I had no idea Tarzan was even interested in Dr. Paul!

Cool, can we get an endorsement video?

http://www.morethings.com/fan/saturday_night_live/phil_hartman/losing_it1a.jpg

RonPaulalways
03-14-2008, 09:12 AM
Ron Paul would NEVER support more domestic spending on social welfare. NEVER.