>>""He could shove to make them more popular...but being a leader of a group is not the Ron Paul brand..."

That Republicrats like you want more government and more promises financed on the backs our children is not an argument against Rep. Paul. Try harder. That half of this country supports socialists is not an argument against Rep. Paul. Try harder.<<

Maybe Ron Paul could try harder to find an alternative to the Republican Party -- but as I have said, he does not want to lead a coalition of like-minded people in Congress towards enacting laws.  He wants to spend his life being the little underdog repeatedly defeated by the System.  It pays so much better than obstetrics. 

>>"You don't want Ron Paul building cooperation with the warmongers and bedroom police."
So what? They're not willing to cooperate, so whether he should or should not give in to unconstitutional practices is a moot point.<<

So you'd rather root for a deliberate failure.

>>You're being a dipshit. I've explained that $1 trillion is more than $17 million, but this is over your head.<<

$1 trillion of hypothetical cuts that WILL NOT HAPPEN and you have said as much yourself, the idea that Ron Paul is going to influence the budget is "silly", the value of a failed proposal is: $0.

Ron Paul has cost America $17 million in real money.  That's actual dollars, not talk.

>>I've explained repeatedly how Paul is far, far, far more fiscally conservative than Tancredo. It's beyond debate. It's a fact.<<

It's bullshit.  He proposes cuts that won't happen and doesn't make effort to bring them about. Ron Paul is about TALKING about cuts, not enacting cuts.

>>If you want to pretend to be too stupid to understand basic math, that's on you. But literally anybody reading this thread already knows why Tancredo is not more fiscally conservative than Paul and you're just embarrassing yourself.<<

$0 of bullshit, accumulating interest over 30 years, = $0.   
$17 million of pork paid out cost us $17 million plus interest.

>>"I then personally called for $3.5 trillion in annual cuts, demonstrating that I, not Ron Paul, am most serious about deficit reduction.  Do the math: I've called for more than 3x the cuts as Ron Paul.  The fact that neither I nor Ron Paul am seriously working towards that goal, you have said, is irrelevant to the luster we earn by calling for it."
And I was kind enough to grace this juvenile nonsense with a response and I even went so far as to name the fallacy which you were spamming me with.<<

And you got it totally wrong, accusing me of trying to label Paul as an "anarchist".  I'm just making my own impracticable, worthless offer of cuts that won't happen.  And because I used bigger numbers in my phony scheme than other people, by your same logic you use to praise Ron Paul, -I- am more conservative than Ron Paul.  That's the reasoning you used to dismiss Tom Tancredo: he didn't offer a doomed scheme as grandiose as Ron Paul.

And you're supporting a con man because he opposes the bedroom and body police and irritates Republicrats.

I support gender based abortion as well. It's about liberty.

"

omfg abortion. What pork! What big spending!

I agree the Fed must be audited by Congress btw since they take secret orders from the Treasury based on deals the President makes with other govts

I understand our "national interest" requires there be some banks loaning money.

This has nothing to do with the personal interests of the existing banks or their customers

If all those banks went down the federal government could help replace them fairly quickly. 

I compare it to FEMA.  FEMA does not go in to a town DURING the hurricane to stop shit from blowing down.

FEMA comes in after the storm and rebuilds.

This horrifies the existing banks and they are manipulating the system to pervert national resources to keep them on top.

You see this at JP Morgan for instance.   How can JP Morgan lose $2 billion of its own money trading? A: Why not? If it gets bad the USA is committed to propping them up.

And Bush and Obama allowed the Treasury to do the same for UBS, a Swiss bank, to "preserve the system"

Newsflash:  A bank goes down, the bankers aren't hit with a neuralizer.  They still are there with all their expertise.

No reason we couldn't invite credit unions or foriegn banks to open branches here with federal loans if they hire some other bankers.  No reason. 

And that would be a sounder investment than giving $100 billion to the same outfit that failed and went blooie.

THAT is preserving the "system" not propping up stupid rich people.