He isn't bought, they have no use for him.

cannot upvote you enough.

I mean, look at Cain: just a couple weeks prior to the debate last week, I couldn't understand why he seemed to be praised in the media, then, BAM - the debate happens, and he's suddenly way ahead in the polls. Even the most casual follower knows his rise couldn't have been from his debate performance. It was his media support.

Agreed. It's painfully obvious.

The MSM blackout of Ron Paul continues. He doesn't fit into the Zionist controlled media left right paradigm.

two words - controlled opposition

Controlled since 1987? That's a pretty long con to run.

we have been conned since 1913 when the fed took over its not that surprising. however maybe he started with good intentions but what threatened by TPTB to play ball

I agree that the establishment is terrified of Ron Paul, but HUCKABEE isn't even running for the Republican nomination. I checked this story to see if it was 4 years old before commenting........

Huckabee?

Let's call them TPTB. The Powers That Be. Something I gleaned from the webbot reports

If he were that big of a threat, he wouldn't be alive.

He sould stay away from private aircraft in Alaska.

Assassinate the man's character, then the man. That is a handy trick they use.

GM couldn't kill Ralph Nader, but cable tv and Michael Moore did a pretty good fucking job. People have NO IDEA just how much that man has done.

From what little I understand about Ron Paul I get the feeling that he kind of transcends party politics in that he appeals to both right and left. Consequently it seems hard to pin him down. The political narrative is generally well defined and Paul has no place in such a dichotomy, so they simply choose to ignore him. It's a shame really.

This isn't a conspiracy. This is the truth!

This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's conspiracy truth.

FTFY

Please look up the meaning of the word conspiracy :)

you don't think the establishment is terrified on Ron Paul?

What are you talking about? I was just telling you that your use of the word conspiracy is incorrect.

This isn't a conspiracy. This is the truth!

This statement doesn't make sense if you know what the meaning of the word conspiracy actually is.

Edit - link

Lol I accidentally a word

I take it your didn't bother to look up the meaning of the words you're using as suggested ?

Thank you!

Well, I don't. He doesn't have any more chance than Nader. Maybe if he split off from the party and took a lot of people with him, we'd have something.

No more Federal Reserve, no more IRS.. yup, they're scared to death of him. Pre-1913 again. Wouldn't it be nice?

even if we vote for him its not like he'll get elected

but you act as if your vote counts for something. Think about how many votes actually gets counted

yes I love how important us regular people are to our country. Its hard to believe my country sent me over to that hot ass desert and they cant even let my vote count

Well at least the people learned how to hack the voting machines.

Well that's just poor education in this country.

We are not, and have never been a democracy, we're a republic.

your vote is irrelevant, you might as well pencil in "My fat dick" and vote for that.

your vote was bought and sold.

Or this!

Cthulhu for President: why settle for the lesser evil?

Not like if you vote your vote is actually counted.

Politicians are "the establishment"...

Keep looking outward for change and you'll miss all opportunity for change, because change always starts from within...

Huckabee?

So has r/conspiracy just figured that he's the one good one because the media isn't interested? Of course there is a blackout, but it isn't that surprising considering his viewpoints towards the media and politics in general. I do support a few of this positions, but still I just don't get why this is a Thing after 4 years.

And by the way, this alone doesn't mean that he is a good candidate.

I think it is all a ruse so they can give us "the peoples hero", nope I don't trust him and really the only candidate I could get behind would be Kucinich.

Ah yes, the establishment are against a long time politician who wants to deregulate business & end public education.

good points

he terrifies me too. I don't like libertarians or christian extremists. He's both.

At least he's consistent and honest.

yes, we know exactly where he stands, and I don't like where he stands. I don't think putting an avowed christian extremist into power is a good idea. But that's just me.

Well, even with that said, we don't really have better options do we? Caine, Romney, Perry... all bought and paid for. Extremist? I dunno if I'd go that far. Yes, Paul is very much a Christian, but, unlike most neocons, he isn't shoving it down your throat and forcing you to believe it. We could bring up his stance on abortion, but that also comes from libertarian ideas on personal property and labeling life as one of them. Also, he brought it (on the Piers Morgan show) up as a point from a doctor's perspective on how he looks at it as life, scientifically. But, he isn't gonna take away your pot (assuming you smoke) and he is much more for your liberty than those other tools.

You missed the part where he will deregulate business and end public education...

Except I didn't. I am very aware of what he wants to do. He doesn't want to end public education. He wants to bring an end to the DOE. It hasn't done anything amazing for education since it's inception. You can even ask a lot of teachers that. Though, I'm sure you will come back that you've talked to a lot of teachers who disagree, yadda yadda yadda. He's for privatizing education. Of course, then people will argue that capitalism is bad and privatizing education is bad because of what we've been taught about capitalism. Or that this will make it so that poor kids can't go to school. The state run schools we are conditioned in have taught us that the state must keep watchful eye on the economic developments or else all will crumble. It has taught us that the government must be involved in schools or no one will learn. At least... that's a conspiracy theory going around, right? This is r/conspiracy, so I think I can say that without having to put on a tin foil hat in this area.

Also, regulate all you want. Regulations have made it so that employers have to face so many financial costs when hiring people, aside from pay, that businesses are trying to find ways now to not hire people because they don't want to deal with all the legalities and financial trouble that regulations have brought upon them. It's simply too hard to hire people now. It is way too costly. We've gotten rid of the $2/hr gas pump assistants with the minimum wage. Now gas stations don't want to pay $8.75 (I live in CA) for a guy who simply pumps gas, because... well that isn't a job that produces $8.75/hr. Back then, when they weren't pumping gas, they were learning from the mechanics (older stations that used to be attached to shops) on how to fix cars, etc. They got educated and learned a trade and moved up into a well paying job. Now, because of the minimum wage (a regulation), those jobs don't exist. So, we have to go to costly mechanic schools to learn a trade. The education is ensured by the government, who did things like make banks loan money to students, regardless of credit. We ended up with inflated education costs in colleges and trade schools. Thus, leaving our generation in our own debts that we may never be able to pay off in our lifetime.

People could say that deregulation would raise costs, because businesses won't have anyone telling them not to. Sure, it could happen. Valid point. But if they do that, fewer will buy the product/service, lowering demand, thus hurting profits. The people can vote with their wallets. Because, if they keep their inflated prices for too long, they won't turn over profit, and they'll tank (unless of course... government bailouts...).

Now, on the subject of schools. People could say, if they are privatized, kids who are poor can't get educated. This is assuming that all the privatized schools will charge money. Some schools could, other schools could set up like a non profit and take donations, do fundraising, etc. Others could take on sponsorship money. The beauty is, there is so many ways to do it. If there is a demand, someone will find a way to fulfill it. You also have quality control because it's on a smaller scale. Teachers get paid more, curriculum gets better oversight, etc. If the schools compete, they will have to find ways to get more students, which means innovate. If the school that charges doesn't get students because of say "irresponsible" or "destructive" educational approaches, they don't turn profit, teachers don't get paid, curriculum and departments must get cut, it tanks. For the donation/fundraising school, if they follow the same path, people will see this. Because children like to talk. The community will catch wind and fundraising will plummet. If the sponsored school does this; again, same things. Students talk, students get pulled out. Why would a company sponsor a school that isn't producing what it is meant to produce. Sponsorship lost, bad school goes away.

Now, I know a lot of people believe that this is all so idealist. Well, maybe because all this hasn't really been tried in modern history (modern history... that sounds weird, no?). Government and the Private sector have no real examples of being apart (or maybe they have and I've missed it), education has never really been private (again, missing it), etc. You could say this is all very theoretical because it's never been attempted in true form. Though, the things we've come to now all started out as theories that were essentially put into hypothetical testing, no? With the way things are going we just have to ask ourselves, are we willing to try more stuff that is similar to all that we have tried before with the intention of getting different results?

tl;dr. Read it, because shortening and summarizing will only distort it.

Oh, dammit... I've gone off on a politico-economic discussion on a non-political subreddit. Sorry, everyone. I hope this doesn't raise any anger, emotions, negative response. I just felt like it's something that needed to be discussed since it was brought up. My apologies since this might have a place in a different subreddit.

EDIT: For the record, for what it's worth. I didn't down vote you. You brought up a valid concern.

I would bother reading this rant if not for the fact that within the first paragraph you say "he doesn't want to end public education.... he's for privatizing it". Once you understand that privatizing a public good means the end of that good being public, maybe we can talk.

oh boy, I'm going to put all my trust in corporations! Because they all want what's best for the people! They don't care at all about the bottom line or making more money! That's absurd!

oh wait. I forgot I'm not a libertardian living with my head up my ass.

Corporations have regulations because they don't give a fuck about your or anyone else. When they aren't being closely watched they end up stealing and breaking everything just to make a buck.

Or are the people involved in OWS just fucking deluded?

Please.

Hey! Thanks for the awesome and civilized response. But, even with all the state regulations they still manage to get a hold of your government taken tax dollars! But, hey! You're totally right. I just have my head up my ass. Let's keep growing the government then. Because not giving the power to the corrupt corporations and giving it to elected officials is tons better and its been working great!

Forgive the original and long winded response, but I was trying to be civil. Apparently, we don't do that here. Thanks for the discussion.

Large governments work in a majority of OECD countries. Last I heard, Sweden was doing pretty fine with its 60% tax rates.

Sweden has a population of 9.3 million.

Are you willing to divide the US into 33 countries of equal size?

Also, the tax rate isn't 60% for everyone.

So? Point is that Sweden (and many other, larger countries in Europe) all have very big governments, and they are all doing at least as well as US when it comes the most important benchmarks, i.e. health care, education, welfare, happiness. Show me a large country that has minimal government and is doing well...

I'm not so sure what you're saying is true.

Health Care in these countries is limited and certainly not as good as in the US. The people there might live healthier lives, but that's a cultural thing.

I think your "correlation = causation" with big government doesn't make much sense, because if it were true, North Korea would have the best health care and education and welfare in the world.

I think the stronger link here has to do with the size of the nations themselves - in a country of only 9 million, each vote counts more, and it's much easier to keep tabs on what your government is doing with your tax money.

Health Care:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Notice that USA is #37, most of Europe is in fact above it.

North Korea is not a democracy, so it's a stupid example to bring up. I was talking about OECD countries in West/North Europe.

Size of the nations - Germany has roughly 80 million people. They have an extensive welfare state and most Germans I've met (I've been there and plenty of German friends visited me in the states) are very happy with their social welfare system.

Effectiveness aside, looking at this from a purely ethical standpoint: most people being happy with something is justification to force it on everyone?

How is it forced on everyone.... these policies get voted on? This subreddit really lacks logic.

What about the people that don't vote in favor of them?

Do you get to not pay for the wars? The bailouts? Funding the drug war? Can you marry who you want? What if the majority wanted creationism taught in schools? What if the majority wanted government to fund churches? What if the majority wanted slavery again?

For anyone who doesn't want what the majority wants they live under tyranny of the majority who will dictate what they do and pay for by voting for someone to go force them to do it.

North Korea is not a democracy, so it's a stupid example to bring up.

I'm not sure why. So now you're adding a qualifier to your original argument? It has to be a democracy, also?

Notice that USA is #37, most of Europe is in fact above it.

The WHO ranking is pretty widely understood to be inaccurate, especially when you look at how many people die of curable diseases and easily-treatable cancers in those "top" countries. Do some research on the matter.

Size of the nations - Germany has roughly 80 million people.

Cool! Would you be willing to split up America into 4 independent countries in order to get your "free" healthcare? That sounds rather drastic!

Here's a typical statist response to anarchist/libertarian complaints: "Just leave." I'll recommend that for you. Just leave, and go live in Germany! ;)

1) Qualifier was there already - I Said countries in Europe. But on top of that, let's not be so pedantic here... It's obvious that North Korea is a bad example of a big-government country to use because the populace doesn't have a say in what the government does. This argument is about a presidential candidate, for fuck's sake.

2) Oh ok, so "pretty widely understood" to be a bad statistic is somehow supposed to negate my evidence-based argument?

3) Not sure what your point is.... so because Germany is roughly four times smaller than United States that means any policy we apply that is similar to a German policy must entail splitting up our country? Then by the same logic, Indonesia and Russia must have the same policies as we do, since they have similar populations...

1. So what about Europe makes it magically better for governance? Is it the soil? If so, doesn't that mean America can never be as good as Europe because we're... not in Europe?

2. I just refuted the WHO statistics by pointing out that they're using a flawed metric, and it's commonly known. Do some research on it.

3. Well my thesis here is that smaller democracies are usually more-stable than big ones because they are more responsive to their populations. Also, their populations tend to be more homogenous.

To compare Germany directly to the US is foolish. There are so many factors and variables that are different.

And if it's true that Germany's health care is far superior to the US's, why don't you move to Germany? It seems like a nice place to me. Have you been there? Check it out!

This is the beauty of not having a one-world government. You get to pick and choose! Be happy about that fact.

1. Europe is not without its problems, but as a whole the governments seem to think of their citizens' needs better than ours do.

2. "Commonly known" doesn't count. You should me the proof, instead of telling me to do research.

3. Both Sweden and Germany have stable and responsive systems. Germany has almost 10 times more people than Sweden; US only has 4 times more people than Germany. "Thesis"? Don't joke around here...

• Thank you Captain Obvious. There ARE many factors that are different. I wasn't aware...

• If you actually read what I have said, you would have noticed that I already said that I've been there. Thus, you are an idiot.

• Why don't you move elsewhere then, instead of pushing the agenda of an insane Christian libertarian that is Ron Paul? This shit goes both ways

Europe is not without its problems, but as a whole the governments seem to think of their citizens' needs better than ours do.

Why do you think this is? Do you have any ideas? What's different?

"Commonly known" doesn't count. You should me the proof, instead of telling me to do research.

Okay, lazy bones: http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/13673616

Both Sweden and Germany have stable and responsive systems. Germany has almost 10 times more people than Sweden; US only has 4 times more people than Germany. "Thesis"? Don't joke around here...

Sounds fun! Move there!

And I'm being absolutely serious when I say this. I was just recently in Berlin, a few weeks ago. I loved it. I'd much prefer to live in Berlin than the US.

You are a consumer of government services. If you think a certain government offers better services and a lower price, then go participate in their system! Contribute your tax dollars to that government! Don't blow half your tax dollars on insane national debt interest payments and endless wars in the Middle East.

Thank you Captain Obvious. There ARE many factors that are different. I wasn't aware...

Cool, then you see why your argument for bigger government isn't necessarily a clincher!

If you actually read what I have said, you would have noticed that I already said that I've been there. Thus, you are an idiot.

I feel like you're 14. Are you 14?

Why don't you move elsewhere then, instead of pushing the agenda of an insane Christian libertarian that is Ron Paul? This shit goes both ways

I'm not a Christian, I'm actually a gay atheist man.

I'm really not gonna bother any more... sorry

Giving power to government IS giving power to coprorations, a much worse kind of power: COERCIVE POWER.

ah geez. come on.

Indeed, many of the "regulations" governing markets were lobbied for by big business in the interest of big business, and regulatory agencies are commonly subject to capture by the very firms they regulate.

To borrow a quote, "when we argue about whether or not government should intervene in the economy in order to regiment markets, the question is not whether markets should be made orderly and regular, but rather whether the process of ordering is in the hands of the people making the trade, or by unaccountable third parties; and whether the means of ordering are going to be consensual or coercive."

thanks. you are correct. these other blind sycophantic libertarians can't seem to get their mind around the actual real-life results of turning to libertardianism. It's not a realistic worldview. It's anarchy for everyone but me.

I think it's a psychological thing for most people... most Ron Paul supporters (I've met) are people who feel that Liberals are all "spoiled college brats" and want to base their political beliefs around feeling intellectually superior to them, and Ron Paul is the most prominent "intellectual" conservative politician. I will give him the fact that he is extremely intellectually coherent on his viewpoints, as absurd as some of them are.

yes, I agree.

even smart people can have horribly misguided ideas and beliefs.

Don't bring your logic into this! It clearly has no place here.

Indeed, I don't even know why I am subscribed to this subreddit... It's all chemtrails and Ron Paul threads

I don't know why you're getting mass downvoted for stating that you don't like Ron Paul's ideas.

People need to read the guidelines for up/down voting more closely.

thanks - I think it's pretty funny how people here freak out when you touch their sacred cow.

Ron Paul is apparently this mystical being with magical light shooting from his fingertips, and if we only elected him, all of our troubles would sail right out the window. I should just blindly submit and accept him as America's personal savior, or I am committing sacrilege.

I don't really care either way what up or down votes I get. I just think that pinning all your hopes of fixing the country on one potential president (anybody remember feeling some hope when Obama was elected?) is shortsighted. Especially if they are an extreme Christianist.

This subreddit is so fucking ridiculous.

Here you are getting downvoted into oblivion for expressing an honest opinion that you do not agree with Ron Paul on the issues, and all they're really saying in return is; "Well, he's better than the alternative." Isn't that the problem with the two party system in the first place?

So ridiculously infuriating.

thank you. I agree with you.

If your honest opinion is shit then I don't see the problem

Ah, yes, I forgot that the downvote button in r/conspiracy is for things you don't like. How could I ever forget?

He is a fucking Christian

So were pretty much all the presidents? At least Lincoln didn't try to restrict access to safe abortions and end public education and say we don't need FEMA nor the EPA. Ron Paul is a wack job who hates the separation of church and state. Fuck him.

There really are no "safe" abortions.. someone always dies, but that's being a little pedantic and the fetus=/!=life is a debate I won't get into in this comment.

Regarding public education however, you are dead wrong. Ron Paul isn't doing anything to end public education. His desire there is to close down the Department of Education, which has had a historically negative affect on the quality of education since it started operating on May 16, 1980. Public education will be better without that expensive beaurocratic mess that is the Department of Education, so Ron Paul is trying to improve that, not restrict access to it.

If it can't breathe on its own, it's not alive. It's what we like to call a parasite that wouldn't exist without a host.

And no safe abortions? Go ask your mother if there was widespread legal access to safe, professionally porformed abortions before roe v wade. Anti-choice is anti women.

There are much bigger issues than abortion to consider. Pro-choicer here.

I can't really get down with the idea that Ron Paul would make abortion illegal or whatever the arguments from anti-RPers are anyway. Ron Paul is a libertarian, the very basis of the libertarian belief is that it doesn't matter what he believes, he's not going to take away other people's personal freedom. Bringing up his religion in the context of his politics is just an ad hominem attack. I guess people don't understand non-aggression because it's not even on the table for a majority of politicians.

Well at least the people learned how to hack the voting machines.

Or this!

Large governments work in a majority of OECD countries. Last I heard, Sweden was doing pretty fine with its 60% tax rates.