[gmku]

Originally Posted by floatingslowly

I mean it. Shit's about to go Fallout 4 - San Fran.

For real.

I don't know what that means but that may be only because I'm an unhip citizen borderline senior citizen.

[gmku]

Originally Posted by floatingslowly

Me? Look to the nightsky!

gmku hearts floatingslowly. and halfeatengermanchocolatecake.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by floatingslowly

I mean it. Shit's about to go Fallout 4 - San Fran.

For real.

 

[gmku]

Jagger sang at the White House recently, and Obama joined him on stage with Jeff Beck for "Sweet Home Chicago." And I'm thinking, "YES! The Rolling Stones 2012 Tour of the Americas to Reelect the President (TOTATRTP)."

It would work, don't you think!

P.S., I mean, can you imagine Ron fucking old man white boy Paul ever doing something like that. People, think! Think about what kind of White House you want!

[gmku]

Yeah... fuck it. Forgot all you kids have an early bed.

[tesla69]

Originally Posted by gmku

P.S., I mean, can you imagine Ron fucking old man white boy Paul ever doing something like that. People, think! Think about what kind of White House you want!

You're obviously very taken with celebrity culture if that is how you would choose a candidate.

Paul is the only candidate who is talking about Liberty and Freedom.

[kicksexoutthevan]

Originally Posted by tesla69

You're obviously very taken with celebrity culture if that is how you would choose a candidate.

Paul is the only candidate who is talking about Liberty and Freedom.

agreed. I guess what I would say to anyone who is not supporting ron paul is, "who do you support for president?" Ron Paul is not perfect and he is not a saviour but he is the best candidate for president and he is the only one who would not rule the U.S like a totalitarian dictator. Obama, Bush, Clinton and all the recent presidents have all kept us involved in foreign wars that were never approved by Congress and were un-just and morally wrong. Paul will take us out of all the violent foreign entanglements. All the recent presidents have thought that the solution to our problems lies in the machinations of government. This philosophy of government has led us no where and has kept us reliant on the government instead of being self-sufficient as we should be. By getting us out of these foreign entanglements, ending the federal reserve, abolishing the IRS, and ending the war on drugs (among other things), we will be taking many of the necessary steps to make this nation better. I also think that, even if you dont agree with everything Ron Paul says, I think he is the most open to listening to others opinions. Peace, leej

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

In politics, there can be a fine line between a phony and radical. Make NO doubt about it, Ron Paul has done a fantastic job representing Texas's 14th district (South of Houston including Lake Jackson / Galveston). He has done a far better job than Tom Delay ever did! Ron Paul has some radical ideas and some of them would be fantastic for our country......but four years of Ron Paul with Presidential power would probably be too much!

The TRUTH that many don't know about: http://youtu.be/OC3dspydnes

what i wonder is if he would actually have the power to do the things he promises.

single-handedly recall all the troops, shut down the departments of commerce, energy, interior, HUD, and education? single-handedly dismantle the federal reserve? i seriously doubt it can be accomplished by a single radical. we don't live in a monarchy, and republicrats have 99% of votes in the house and senate. i say this because paul is actually a libertarian, not a republican, and mainstream republicans want american bases *everywhere*.

[evollove]

Okay Kicks. You seem passionate, so here's my honest reply to the "eliminate the government" ideologies.

--I can hardly defend every element of the US foreign policy, and the military is way too big. That said, not every US soldier across the globe is standing around waiting to shoot someone. Any number of missions are more humanitarian than violent. Further, the whole, "Let the rest of the world take care of itself," makes me extremely uncomfortable. I'm glad we intervened in Bosnia. I wish we had intervened in Rwanda. Y'know what I mean?

--I can hardly defend every cent spent by the government. Still, every Saturday, I walk down paved, public roads to my public library to browse and research and whatnot. The public library is a stone's throw from the public school. You can see where I'm going with this, so I'll stop.

--I've been getting a bunch of unsolicited calls. Too many. It's harassment. So I wrote to my state's attorney general. The lengthy reply was informative, and directed me to the appropriate federal department where I could register my complaint. In Ron Paul's world, I'd have to hunt down the company making the calls myself and kill everyone working there. I simply don't have the time.

--There are some more fairly obvious points which I might as well repeat:
--we need a strong federal government to protect us from corporate scumbags. The problem in Washington is corporate control of the legislature; the problem is NOT too much government interference in business.
--the system's rigged. People suffer. They need help now and then. Welfare programs are required.


Yeah, legalizing pot would be nice, but at what cost? Yeah, no more wars would be nice, but what world are you living in? Yeah, Ron Paul has firm convictions and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, and it would be nice if all policians had as much intergrity, but his ideology is simply unnacceptable to me.

[!@#$%!]

the price of gas is determined by the market, not the government though. increased consumption in developing countries and diminished supply from iran is driving the prices up.

about spending: 'merica is addicted to war! i think the biggest way to save money would be to pull out troops from around the world. then the economy would take a hit cuz defense is BIG busness and it's one of the areas where production is actually not outsourced to china. ooops!

[gmku]

If Ron Paul were President (ha ha ha, as if), what musicians do you think he'd have perform in the White House? Is he a classic rock kind of president, or more of an 80s alternative rock guy?

[evollove]

^ Because Obama wants to drive the economy into the ground. His advisors told him it would be a surefire way to win a re-election. Plus, he hates America.

dumbfuck

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

The price of gas is determined by the Government at hand. Not only has our current President halted off shore drilling, he won't even entertain the thought of dipping into our own reserves. In past years, the President just putting the subject on the agenda for discussion has made prices drop. Those in the know say the price of gas would drop below $2 per gallon if the reserve was tapped.

The Government allowing full off shore drilling and ANY discussion about the reserve would have a dramatic effect!
Remember, the United States has more oil in reserve now than when Regan was President.

okay, let's lok at things:

first, the u.s. has more oil in reserve now precisely because prices are high, making sources like tar sands and oil shales economically viable. high prices = high reserves, low prices = low reserves. funny, innit? but it's true. prices have a way of automagically change supply levels. i can explain this in greater detail in another post if you want.

second, oil drilled in the us is not u-s-only. it goes into a world market where prices are determined by supply and demand. high supply = lower prices, low demand = lower prices; low supply = higher prices, high demand = higher prices. sure, we can artificially lower the prices temporarily by flooding the market with our reserves, but that's not a sustainable answer.

third: strategic oil reserve means just that: strategic. in other words, if israel bombs iran or iran gets nukes first and a global clusterfuck ensues around the gulf of ormuz, we would still have oil to run the country for a while in spite of massive global shutdown. yes, we could dip into it to manipulate world prices and satisfy the whim of voters, but that would be like getting a 2nd mortgage to buy milkshakes for everyone in your town--not very prudent.

so yeah, the government doesn't control the price of oil, the market does; and the government could manipulate the market temporarily, or it could provide subsidies to lower the price, but that would have bad consequences-- depleting the strategic reserve would leave us vulnerable to the zombie apocalypse, and subsidies would increase demand and deplete other sectors of the economy that would need to be taxed to pay for them, so no.

[kicksexoutthevan]

Originally Posted by evollove

Okay Kicks. You seem passionate, so here's my honest reply to the "eliminate the government" ideologies.

--I can hardly defend every element of the US foreign policy, and the military is way too big. That said, not every US soldier across the globe is standing around waiting to shoot someone. Any number of missions are more humanitarian than violent. Further, the whole, "Let the rest of the world take care of itself," makes me extremely uncomfortable. I'm glad we intervened in Bosnia. I wish we had intervened in Rwanda. Y'know what I mean?

--I can hardly defend every cent spent by the government. Still, every Saturday, I walk down paved, public roads to my public library to browse and research and whatnot. The public library is a stone's throw from the public school. You can see where I'm going with this, so I'll stop.

--I've been getting a bunch of unsolicited calls. Too many. It's harassment. So I wrote to my state's attorney general. The lengthy reply was informative, and directed me to the appropriate federal department where I could register my complaint. In Ron Paul's world, I'd have to hunt down the company making the calls myself and kill everyone working there. I simply don't have the time.

--There are some more fairly obvious points which I might as well repeat:
--we need a strong federal government to protect us from corporate scumbags. The problem in Washington is corporate control of the legislature; the problem is NOT too much government interference in business.
--the system's rigged. People suffer. They need help now and then. Welfare programs are required.


Yeah, legalizing pot would be nice, but at what cost? Yeah, no more wars would be nice, but what world are you living in? Yeah, Ron Paul has firm convictions and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, and it would be nice if all policians had as much intergrity, but his ideology is simply unnacceptable to me.

as far as in know ron paul is not taking awat public libraries and paved roads. I think there may be a case to help other countries out but until we get our own affairs in order I think it is ridiculous and short sighted for us to try to "help" other countries. Even tho, our "help" is usually just a ploy to take over the country by fomenting revolution. what world am i living in? a world that is too violent. if you think any of the wars of the last hundred years (other than maybe ww2) were justified, that any of the killing was anything other than senselenss I sugges that maybe you have been listening to propaganda too much. welfare is only required because our govt bail's out the companys that they have financial interests in which leads to a non-free-market economy which subverts the whole system of supply and demand which makes us more reliant on the govt and less reliant upon ourselves. And lastly, who is a better candidate for president than ron paul?

[kicksexoutthevan]

Originally Posted by gmku

If Ron Paul were President (ha ha ha, as if), what musicians do you think he'd have perform in the White House? Is he a classic rock kind of president, or more of an 80s alternative rock guy?

thats actually an interesting question. I dont know. Someone should look into that....

[evollove]

You're such a dumbfuck that when you walk down the street, dumbfucks say, "Wow, what a dumbfuck."

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

I have no doubt you can explain all of this in greater detail......right now, the United States is exporting oil because our (United States) demand is so low. Because of this, I wouldn't mind if our government temporarily manipulated the price......just for two years or so. Enough time for the new administration to try and change things. The biggest part of the price we pay at the pump is a Federal tax. Doing away with some of the Government branches mentioned earlier in this thread and then using that money to cut the gas tax in half would be a step in the right direction......lowering the price without using any extra. Opening up off shore drilling and allowing a few companies to drill on United States soil would also help.

world demand for oil is high and growing. it's good for the economy that we're a net exporter-- for a change we're not just consumers. this is money coming IN from abroad instead of going out!

"the biggest part of the price we pay at the pump is a federal tax"

you mean 18 cents a gallon? really? how much does gas cost in your area? cuz here it's a little over $3... actually lowest today is $3.18. so those 18 cents are about what, 6% of the total cost?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

Where I live, the average is $3.50. I was under the impression the Federal tax was closer to 38-42% per gallon......guess that must be Federal and State combined?

total taxes in texas is 38 *cents* per gallon, not 38 percent.

list here:

http://www.commonsensejunction.com/n...-tax-rate.html

so in your $3.50 you're paying $3.12 in gas proper and 38 cents in taxes.

[tesla69]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

The price of gas is determined by the Government at hand. Not only has our current President halted off shore drilling,

You mean this halting to the drilling?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/sc...-drilling.html

Bytor, you really believe the government determines the price of gas? I'm sorry but I have to say no, that's not correct. At least not in the USA. Sure the govt adds to the cost with taxes. Oil pumped in the US is sold on the free market at the prevailing rate. The gas companies determine how much an area can pay, it has nothing to do with cost. That's why I find the cheapest gas in the middle of Vermont - but its 10-20% more the closer I get to Manhattan. Logic would suggest that with 1. economies of scale and 2. NYC being so close to the depots prices would be less than in the middle of nowhere where the gas has to be trucked in.

[tesla69]

“I mean, but they’re almost like they live in a different world. The military is down, the morale is down, the money isn’t there, and they’re going looking for a couple more wars to fight. It makes no sense whatsoever. . . There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military. They’re the ones who are over there lobbing missiles and bombs on these countries. It’s not even the military that does that. The CIA runs this. And of course the CIA is every bit as secret as the Federal Reserve. And yet think of the harm that they have done since they were established, since World War II. They are a government unto themselves. They’re in businesses, in drug businesses, and they take out dictators. We need to take out the CIA.” - Ron Paul in 2010.