The Ron Paul appreciation thread!

[Aaron Smith]

My frustration is more borne out of the way you phrased it - in the context of that quote, me voting for Obama wouldn't be for him as "my boy" or "big government," but as an anti-GOP candidate. If we're talking about the possibility of Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich becoming president then I absolutely would have to use my vote to try to prevent that from happening, and casting a blank ballot or voting for a third-party candidate won't do that; only voting for Obama will at that point.

See, and now I think we're getting to the definitive core difference on how you and I see our political system—you're still enamored with this idea that that big establishment candidate on the left is significantly different from the big establishment candidate on the right, enough so that you're willing to vote for someone like Obama in order to simply block the GOP candidate. I would never vote for Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich either (unless the whole total long-shot Ron Paul VP thing played out favorably, as I described in my post to Egan). Sure, you can talk all about how Obama is in favor of gay rights, is pro-abortion, isn't one who "feels largely guided by his/her religion" (Obama claims otherwise about himself), etc, and talk up those issues to be as big as you want them to be, but doesn't that just represent the same tired-as-hell set of social issue arguments that has sculpted the political narrative in the US for far too long? That's how the party lines have been drawn for a long time, but all the while, the issues that Ron Paul talks about have been cooperatively ignored by both parties; both parties represent big government, overspending, bailouts, endless undeclared warfare, and the erosion of our personal liberties. Aren't those issues infinitely more important than social-policy issues? Furthermore, you act as if Ron would outrightly ban abortion and ban gay rights at a federal level, which you already know he most certainly would not...Ron wants to remove federal jurisdiction from those issues and leave it up to the states! I don't see how that's a cop-out at all...Ron, as the President, isn't going to interfere with your rights, but if your state leaders try to, then you can take it up with them. I just don't see how you can possibly argue that shrinking federal power and influence can be construed as a bad thing or as a cop-out.

 

[Cyanide_Anima]

Ron Paul has a couple of decent ideas. But his ideas on health, economics, war, and foreign policy are a fucking JOKE. His mindset is stuck in the 1840's. End the fed? Really? Replace it with what? Gold? hahaha. There is a finite amount of gold on the planet. People have this tendency to hord what is rare and perceived to be valuable. We've have kings and rulers since the dawn of economics because of that archaic tendency.

In a modern world we need an expandable, flexible money supply. Fiat currency provides just this. It keeps things at a fairer level for everyone to play. Sure people can still hord it, but they cannot control all of it, (No, I don't give a fuck what Mr. Jones says...) because more can be made to dilute the wealth and power. Ron Paul is the pinnacle of sensationalist candidates. He is the conspiracy theorist's favorite face to point at for support. I can't believe he's convinced so many young people that his ideas would actually work!

The libertarian mindset of "leave me the fuck alone, along with everyone else" is old. There is no such thing as true independence anymore! This is a world economy, not just whatever the USA wants-onomy. The USA is more dependent than ever, and we, the USA, are not the center of the universe. Just like the other republicans, he can't face the fact that 'merica is past its prime. (Don't take that as I hate america, now...) Ron Paul makes references to such scary non-governmental organizations as "New World Order", "World government", "Big Pharma", "they" (as in the insidious entity), "Trilateral Commision", "Bilderberg", "Globalists", "CFR", etc. At one point we was even a 9/11 truther. He later handily changed parties and his platform once he was called out on that particular issue. Which makes me suspect he really doesn't know what he is doing. He's just another idealist who wants to see his own personal vision for america come true. America will be much stronger when we realize we aren't the greatest thing in the world. We're largely a group of passive, idealistic, and naive consumers.

Sure he has a few good ideas, like ending the war, no more bailouts, etc. But that doesn't warrant his anti-abortion stance, or his wacked views on healthcare. More alternative medicine? Give people the choice? People can't decide shit for themselves, or even know how to distinguish what is real science from what is bunk. My parents didn't believe in science or science-based medicine either. Now I have a gamut of health problems that I suffer from thanks to their personal beliefs. I'm sorry, but the world needs less bullshido and more science, which seeing that he was/is a doctor and science doesn't seem to be something he understands. A former OB/GYN who is anti-abortion? Women should have the right to chose, not you. Funny how that part of his (and many others') libertarian ideology contradicts itself. That's fucking wacky.

You may all call me names now. =P


EDIT: Let me be a bit more clear about the 9/11 shiz before people call me a liar...


I was going to post a video from youtube to support this but it has been removed since I posted it on ss.org some time ago.

Mr Paul at one point did not confirm nor deny his affiliation with 9/11 truthers. He wanted their support, obviously. So he half-heartily went along with it for a long time. Likely in order to gain support. He never told those people who always, ALWAYS use his name and 9/11 nonsense as talking points to not do this. People who's shows he would be a guest on. He is a frequent guest on Alex Jone's show. Captain Crazy! Jones with fire off with tons of scary sounding shit and Ron will not disagree with him, but will skillfully dodge confirming or denying his stance on such matters. Disingenuous much Mr. Paul?

 

[Aaron Smith]

Can the Paul-naysayers on abortion finally just give it up? You are wrong. You don't know Ron Paul as well as you think you do, period.

"My argument is that the abortion problem is more of a social and moral issue than it is a legal one. If we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change. The law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that the states shouldn't be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion. Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her moral choice."

 

[Aaron Smith]

In a modern world we need an expandable, flexible money supply. Fiat currency provides just this. It keeps things at a fairer level for everyone to play. Sure people can still hord it, but they cannot control all of it, (No, I don't give a fuck what Mr. Jones says...) because more can be made to dilute the wealth and power.

You are totally wrong on this. Have you ever actually read thoroughly into the concept of sound money? What have you read? Give me some titles. You are talking about a tremendously important topic that I don't believe you have thoroughly investigated. There is nothing fair about a flexible money supply. Fairness is not having your purchasing power stolen out from under you by central bankers and spendthrift governments.

 

[JeffTD]

See, and now I think we're getting to the definitive core difference on how you and I see our political system—you're still enamored with this idea that that big establishment candidate on the left is significantly different from the big establishment candidate on the right, enough so that you're willing to vote for someone like Obama in order to simply block the GOP candidate. I would never vote for Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich either (unless the whole total long-shot Ron Paul VP thing played out favorably, as I described in my post to Egan). Sure, you can talk all about how Obama is in favor of gay rights, is pro-abortion, isn't one who "feels largely guided by his/her religion" (Obama claims otherwise about himself), etc, and talk up those issues to be as big as you want them to be, but doesn't that just represent the same tired-as-hell set of social issue arguments that has sculpted the political narrative in the US for far too long? That's how the party lines have been drawn for a long time, but all the while, the issues that Ron Paul talks about have been cooperatively ignored by both parties; both parties represent big government, overspending, bailouts, endless undeclared warfare, and the erosion of our personal liberties. Aren't those issues infinitely more important than social-policy issues? Furthermore, you act as if Ron would outrightly ban abortion and ban gay rights at a federal level, which you already know he most certainly would not...Ron wants to remove federal jurisdiction from those issues and leave it up to the states! I don't see how that's a cop-out at all...Ron, as the President, isn't going to interfere with your rights, but if your state leaders try to, then you can take it up with them. I just don't see how you can possibly argue that shrinking federal power and influence can be construed as a bad thing or as a cop-out.

I know what the median voter theory is and I'm a total Hegelian when it comes to dialectics and 2-party cynicism. I know that Obama on the left is going to be more or less the same exact thing as what we're getting on the right but it's just like you said - he's got the social issues I favor in his corner. If I'm going to be get the same song and dance as always, it better not be from a self-contradictory cult member, chronic adulterer/hypocrite extraordinare, or Bible-thumping homophobic dumbass.

The bottom line is that I don't realistically think Ron Paul is viable as a candidate and I'm not going to throw my vote away in protest if it means a GOP candidate would benefit from it.

As far as RP banning rights at a federal level, he's the one who's re-introduced the "Sanctity of Life Act" twice so far.

Again - the state deferment is a total cop-out when it has to do with civil rights and liberties. It's inefficient at best to let states differ in laws regarding them and it lets him skate by without giving a personal stance. Again, if you're not in favor of the 14th Amendment being applied to things like sexual orientation, then you're an opponent of civil rights as far as I'm concerned.

 

[JeffTD]

Can the Paul-naysayers on abortion finally just give it up? You are wrong. You don't know Ron Paul as well as you think you do, period.

"My argument is that the abortion problem is more of a social and moral issue than it is a legal one. If we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change. The law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that the states shouldn't be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion. Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her moral choice."

Aside from the fact that the Sanctity of Life Act pretty much negating the states being allowed to write laws on abortion (it would automatically qualify as murder or manslaughter if it wasn't an emergency-type case), the fact of the matter is that abortions are going to happen whether they're legal or not, and I'd rather have them happen in an operating room than a back alley. Because each circumstance needs to be dealt with on an individual basis, you can't make a blanket law regarding it.


And honestly, who cares? Abortion is more or less a good thing. It's been linked to lowered crime rates and the people using abortion as birth control are undoubtedly going to be shitty parents anyway. I'm not saying great people can't be raised by shitty parents, but the statistics don't give much hope.

 

[Cyanide_Anima]

Exactly! He is personally against it because he believes it to be a moral issue. We base our laws on what a collectives society deems moral! Presidents have a history of changing their minds. How many have you known who stick to their word? Things changes, societal values change, economic climate changes. Derp. He at one point was going to vote against, I'm guessing he has since changed his mind. It was even on his wikipedia and official page at one point.

I'm not going to vote for a man who doesn't even have a clear understanding of what is going on around him. As a matter of fact, there seem to be NO publicized candidates (Obama included) who seem to know their asses from their elbows. Why are we so passive about this? Because they hold a few shared opinions or beliefs? Why are they always the same ideals, which are clearly divided amongst the populous? Think about it. I understand that no one at all is perfect, but the people who have run for office for the past 30 years have all been incompetent. Ron Paul doesn't have what it takes to be president. He's the underdog, people like that. The media does pick on him, but because he's an easy target. All sides pick on him, not just dems and repubs. That's all he really has going for him other than his ability to double back on something faster than anyone else. He's quick at defending himself without actually explaining himself, no matter the theatre. Well, maybe he should be president. He'll be the biggest disappointment of them all. Then, maybe we'll actually fight for our rights which were fought for to be given to us. We don't even use them, we just wait for the next election cycle because we're content with our shit.

 

[AD Chaos]

What I find scary the most about Obama or any of the other 3 GOP candidates is the possibility that any given day they can start up the next conflict in order to keep the war industry going, and force Americans to keep on giving up their resources in doing so. Provoking the other side enough into a confrontation or fabricating some excuse for going into war has been proven quite easy for the US government. And if the American public strongly opposes, then they can simply go bigger- international or nuclear if need be. In light of that, worrying excessively about any kind of civil liberties or healthcare issue etc seems secondary and beyond the point to me.

How Obama stationed troops in Australia and starts verbal provocations against China for instance, seems to me like utterly irresponsible -and ridiculous- behavior.
Santorum seems the most eager of the bunch wanting to evaporate Iran, which arguably makes him the worst possible choice.
Gingrich is not much less explosive, along with Romney who goes on with his 'becoming the strongest military power ever' and 'fighting all radical jihad and their plan to make the world a single Islamic caliphate' bits.
Why would it be relevant at all which of those four ends up getting into office, when all and any of them seem so willing to start up more wars and keep on driving America towards bankrupcy?

Those are not suppositions or misquotations I'm making, but declarations that they have actually made themselves.

 

[Aaron Smith]

Saw Ron in person a few hours ago, loved it. Over 1,500 people in the room, many people standing, and several hundred others in the lobby who weren't allowed in because the room was so full.

 

[Trevoire520]

What I find scary the most about Obama or any of the other 3 GOP candidates is the possibility that any given day they can start up the next conflict in order to keep the war industry going, and force Americans to keep on giving up their resources in doing so. Provoking the other side enough into a confrontation or fabricating some excuse for going into war has been proven quite easy for the US government. And if the American public strongly opposes, then they can simply go bigger- international or nuclear if need be. In light of that, worrying excessively about any kind of civil liberties or healthcare issue etc seems secondary and beyond the point to me.

How Obama stationed troops in Australia and starts verbal provocations against China for instance, seems to me like utterly irresponsible -and ridiculous- behavior.
Santorum seems the most eager of the bunch wanting to evaporate Iran, which arguably makes him the worst possible choice.
Gingrich is not much less explosive, along with Romney who goes on with his 'becoming the strongest military power ever' and 'fighting all radical jihad and their plan to make the world a single Islamic caliphate' bits.
Why would it be relevant at all which of those four ends up getting into office, when all and any of them seem so willing to start up more wars and keep on driving America towards bankrupcy?

Those are not suppositions or misquotations I'm making, but declarations that they have actually made themselves.

This.

Every other issue is basically irrelevant imo when you consider that all the major candidates other than RP wan't to continue on America's World War Tour.
At some point one, or several of these countries are going to decide they've had enough of America throwing their weight around shouting "Amerikuh! FUCK YEAH!" and blowing up whoever they feel like, at that point your country is going to be in serious shit.

America spends more on warfare than the rest of the world combined and there's no real reason for it. It costs you guys trillions of dollars a year, see some sense and vote for the guy who say's he's going to stop running around starting fights with everyone just because they have oil/aren't a democracy/talk funny.

 

[John_C]

This.

Every other issue is basically irrelevant imo when you consider that all the major candidates other than RP wan't to continue on America's World War Tour.
At some point one, or several of these countries are going to decide they've had enough of America throwing their weight around shouting "Amerikuh! FUCK YEAH!" and blowing up whoever they feel like, at that point your country is going to be in serious shit.

America spends more on warfare than the rest of the world combined and there's no real reason for it. It costs you guys trillions of dollars a year, see some sense and vote for the guy who say's he's going to stop running around starting fights with everyone just because they have oil/aren't a democracy/talk funny.

As a non-american, I agree completely. I disagree with Ron Paul on many social and economic issues, but stopping stomping around the world shooting people is paramount.

 

[midget donkeys]

Ron paul blah blah blah good. Ron Paul blah blah bad.

Folks it doesn't matter and never did. Ron Paul has always had zero chance of getting the GOP nomination and even less chance of winning a presidential election.

If you think otherwise your delusional.

As for America going around the world and treating people like crap... I agree with some of the things you two British guys are saying. But I find it hilarious that it is coming from British people. Were do you think America learned how to behave so badly? From watching your empire.

 

[John_C]

I find it hilarious that it is coming from British people. Were do you think America learned how to behave so badly? From watching your empire.

Yup. We were complete assholes. I'm not sure why that makes what I say on the subject funny? That's like saying it's hilarious that the son of a serial killer denounces murder....

 

[midget donkeys]

Yup. We were complete assholes. I'm not sure why that makes what I say on the subject funny? That's like saying it's hilarious that the son of a serial killer denounces murder....

It is much more like a serial killer complaining that his son is a serial killer.

 

[Skinny Viking]

...America throwing their weight around shouting "Amerikuh! FUCK YEAH!"

Would just like to point out that the only people I EVER hear saying this (or writing this) are non-americans

you guys have latched onto this phrase so hard I think you actually believe its something we came up with or say

It is much more like a serial killer complaining that his son is a serial killer.

oh SNAP!

 

[midget donkeys]

Actually Skinny Viking my wife sent me the Team America soundtrack when I was in Iraq and we would listen to it on the stereo in our Hum-v when driving around.

So the radio would actually be blasting "America Fuck Yeah!" on our way to do some retarded mission. We all found this very amusing.

And while on the subject I was also known to say such things to the citizens of Iraq during searches as "Hello I am an imperialistic American oppressor here to destroy your way of life" or simply scream "chicken pot pie" at them while I drag them out of their house during the middle of the night with a gun to their heads.

The good old days. Sigh

Anyway I didn't mean to derail this thread. Back to Ron Paul people.

 

[Skinny Viking]

"Chicken Pot PIE Muthafucka!!!!"

but aside from that, keep in mind that you are a vet and therefore you don't really qualify as an american

so my point still stands



there's some good 'ole irony in there .... you'll see it

 

[John_C]

It is much more like a serial killer complaining that his son is a serial killer.

Yup, that's right. I am personally responsible for the actions of imperial britain.

in all seriousness, is it in some way ridiculous for Germans to denounce genocide? Russians to denounce dictatorial communism? Japanese to denounce isolationism and torture? Scandinavians to denounce raping and pillaging? Of course not!

 

[Skinny Viking]

Scandinavians to denounce raping and pillaging? Of course not!

Whoa whoa! ... settle down there and think about what you're saying man!

 

[midget donkeys]

John your taking this too personal.

My original point was simply before your point the finger at my country take a look at your own first. Not just ancient history either.

I am not going get into anymore about it in the Ron Paul thread. Ron Paul should be discussed. Even though he has no chance to win I still like the old guy.

And to Skinny Viking: No explanation is needed for vet's not being real Americans. I know what mean.