The Ron Paul appreciation thread!
- Thread starter AD Chaos
- Start date
John_C
formerly Skeksis268
Whoa whoa! ... settle down there and think about what you're saying man!
Sorry to offend your grand vikingness! (which, to clarify, is what I was referring to. IIRC they were quite big on those 2 things in the British isles)
I agree, I was taking it too personal. I am, however, very familiar with the UK's horrific back catalogue of genocide, destruction and oppression. It would be really just peachy if people didn't copy the worst parts of our history, recent or distant. Hence why I agree that Ron Paul is a good candidate from the perspective of the outside world.
MarcusGHedwig
Member
:Smokin:
Cyanide_Anima
yooveesevenbeekay
\m/
Combine those and you have the greatest thing man has ever concocted. Chicken pot-pie!
Ok. I re-read some of this thread. Aaron is really gunning for Mr Paul! I find it interesting how he has dodged all of Jeff's hard points and gone for the soft, easy, oversimplified "solutions" which Ron Paul proposes. Because everything is just that simple, right? I've also noticed an attempt to twist what Jeff was saying. Not cool, man. You totally took that out of context. That kind of shit isn't going to win you any points. Do you believe government is by design fucking us all over? That's how it seems. To so easily disconnect people's roles in/from government? It sure makes it easier to demonize it as a whole. But, I digress...
Ron Paul has theocratic values. Do you really believe he isn't going to act on them? That's like asking a Christian to only be a Christian sometimes. Ron Paul is a Baptist. I was a baptist. Baptists want Jesus everywhere, plain and simple. It's largely a fundamentalist sect.
-"Paul believes that prayer in public schools should not be prohibited at the federal or state level, nor should it be made compulsory to engage in.[91][92] He rejects the notion of "separation of Church and state", instead seeing the issue as "free exercise of religion" and "no establishment of religion". Importantly he views the latter as specific government endorsement of one particular religion, and does not see it as a mandate to ban all policies that would benefit religion in general. He argues that churches give people a moral base that government cannot provide. He views churches as more effective and more established providers of social welfare than the government. He also argues this leads to a more orderly people who have less need for the government to actively seek to control them. He opposes efforts to force religion out of the public sphere.[93]"
The seperation of Church and State DOES ensure that EVERYONE gets to worship whatever imaginary being they wish. It simply denies wholesale endorsement of a state religion. Nothing more! There is no law that says kids can't pray in schools. What can't be done is this: Prayer led by a school Principle, teacher, or counselor. If kids want to pray before they eat there is absolutely nothing stopping them. This whole "Don't infringe on my religious freedom!" game is total BS. Christianity has been VERY PRIVILEGED for the last 50 or 60 years. Now that many people realize that this is a secular nation, which by definition is inclusive, it includes everyone. Not just the religious. They're really playing on that card and Ron Paul is half-in on that one. That "In god we trust" thing has not always been on our currency, for example. That's a recent addition. religious people need to stop playing the persecution card. A secular nation is simply trying to undo the mistake that has been made: Taking back a given privilege which is unconstitutional. We aren't telling them they can't have a church, you just can't teach that shit on government time, on the tax payer's dime.
It is not the governments duty to provide a moral base! It isn't! The government's roles reflect societies values, they do not direct or create them. Churches do lot's of good stuff, sure, I'm not saying they don't. But secular organizations do as well! Red Cross? Boys and Girls Club? The ACA? But you know, there are 100,000's of churches and faith-based organizations simply because more of the population is religious. Durrr.
-"In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion" from the jurisdiction of federal courts.[94] If made law, this provision would purportedly permit state, county, and local governments to decide whether to allow displays of religious text and imagery, but would not interfere with the application of relevant federal law.[citation needed]"
What!?!?!?!?
It's not like the states even follow this law in the first place. Look Aaron & my state, Washington. For years we've had the ten commandments on display at the capital. Around christmas time we even have a cute little manger setup there. Lately, people have been trying to get other religious imagery in there, which I am ALL FOR. I would personally like to see a Happy Buddha there, not because I am a buddhist, I am not, but because he was a great philosopher! Not likely to happen. Muslims want to create a display? Sorry! Humanists want to display the FSM? Sorry! Jews want a minora? Sorry! There have even been death threats against people over this, mostly against athiests who have asked to remove the displays or to allow imagery from all religions. What
"Paul has sponsored a constitutional amendment which would allow students to pray privately in public schools, but would not allow anyone to be forced to pray against their will or allow the state to compose any type of prayer or officially sanction any prayer to be said in schools.[95]"
This is completely unnecessary. They are already allowed to do this! The only purpose of such an amendment is to ensure Christians can do what ever kind of organized prayer in public, and when asked to do so in private they will claim they are being persecuted. I love how religious people love to talk about the honesty of god, jesus, and compelling power of the holy spirit will make you a better person. Does that include lying? Lying or being misleading when it suits your particular purpose? Liars for Jesus! Look at the Tea Party and most of the GOP. It's perfectly OK for them to be dishonest if it's for faith.
Wow, not that I'm really digging into his stuff, I see more things I disagree with that I didn't before. Immunity for whistleblowers? That would be a VERY stupid move. Then it says he voted against the last whistleblower protection act.
Ron Paul also downplays the racism in America, which is still a huge fucking problem. I for one, know for a fact that many people even in WA's metal community are racist fuckwits. I was in bands with two faced assholes who talked cool when our black drummer was there but were fast to crack jokes at his racial expense when he was absent. This may be the "bluest" state but it is still for of dumbass rednecks.
“Biblically and historically, the government was very uninvolved in marriage. I like that. I don't know why we should register our marriage to the federal government. I think it's a sacrament.”
Again, Mr. Paul showing his ignorance. Marriage has more than just a religious connotation. It's for legal reasons as well. Uninvolved in marriage? Wow.
The more I read about this guy the more irritated I grow. He's very slick with words, I'll give him that. He sometimes uses weasel words (special qualifiers) so he can back his way out of just about any argument or appear to be playing fairly. He thinks he can save America with outdated personal beliefs, policies, and platform. What an egotistical thing to believe in.
I'll leave you with some of Ron Paul's wisdom... (from 9 years ago, but still viable)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
Aaron Smith
Envisage Audio
I love how you try to make it sound as though the sum of all my reading, studying, and thinking over the last four years amounts to...soft, easy, oversimplifications. You make it sound as though I just don't have any understanding at all in regards to the issues that I've taken the time to type about on here, but that's a soft, easy oversimplification of my positions.
Are you talking about the Obama thing with Jeff? I made fun of my real-life friend for admitting that he'll probably be voting for Obama (because he's only willing to cast his vote for an establishment candidate, because he apparently believes that by voting for the better of the two establishment candidates in every election, in the long term he will have done the country a favor), and all of a sudden I'm accused of maliciously taking his words out of context? Come on.
Also, I haven't been purposefully skipping the hard questions. I've been answering the questions I've felt the most interested in talking about, but I'm not out to try to break apart and bury every single point that is raised against Ron Paul. Online debating is somewhat fun, but for the most part, I would rather just state my case and leave it all out there for everyone to read and consider on their own. I don't need to spend hours here just to appear that I'm the superior intellectual, because I don't care about that. You can wear that crown if you'd like, and maybe everyone on the forums will think you're super cool for it!
Pose for me those hard questions that I've been purposefully skipping, maybe I'll answer them
Yes, I really do believe that although Ron Paul is a Christian, he doesn't believe in using the government to legislate his own particular moral code onto other people.
Aaron Smith
Envisage Audio
I just reread this—one glaring thing that you're completely overlooking is that the money supply is controlled by those who have the wealth and power. You're making it sound like when the wealthy and powerful get too wealthy and powerful, the common man can simply print some more money to equalize the situation.
Those who get the new money first are the ones who primarily benefit from it, but by the time that new money has circulated out into the economy into the hands of the average American, prices have already risen. Bankers and financial institutions are the primary beneficiaries of the Federal Reserve system...this is why nearly all the richest individuals in the country are executives at financial institutions.
It blows my mind that you are literally trying to defend fiat money and/or the Federal Reserve system as being good for the common man.
Cyanide_Anima
yooveesevenbeekay
I am not saying everything you've read amounts to complete nonsense. You are projecting, I never talked about your reading. I believe you have some understanding but it is incomplete. What I am saying is that Ron Paul oversimplifies things and his solutions don't actually address the roots of problems. He just wants America to be like it was "in the good ol' days" which is the wrong way to go. He's not a forward thinker, especially socially where it counts the most.
The Jeff thing wasn't just about Obama. You were projecting, using jargony loaded language which you might not even be aware of. You criticize him about being critical. If a candidate can't stand up to scrutiny they do not deserve the presidency. When Jeff explained why we currently still need flexible money you just returned with the same ol' tired "The Fed are evil money changin' bastards!" and missed the point, he wasn't specifically referring to the fed. Here you are again, not really paying attention to what someone is saying to you. I am not trying to personally dog on you at all! I would never do that. I actually look up to you a lot! I, like Jeff, am just trying to help you see some things without the rose-tinted (or demonizing) glasses on.
I personally would like to see the ultimate communist state! Like The Federation in Star Trek (not including tech and stuff, don't be silly). Not the Moa, Stalin, or Jong-il kind. Those are corruptions of communism, not actual communism. I don't think that would ever happen though as it would require an extremely high standard for education. Not exactly a priority here. Which is another thing about Ron Paul I do not like, his views on education. He does not think it is a right for everyone to have the opportunity to get a higher education. Nonsense.
Think of how many great minds are going to waste simply because they cannot afford the cost, or haven't been exposed to science and all the potential ideas they could contribute to society. The opportunities already missed are many. He thinks it's OK for people to borrow money to buy a house, a car, or whatever else to stimulate the economy, but not for education or health care because it will jack up the cost...hmmm... Isn't that happening everywhere else already? Cars and car parts are so expensive because they can be, everybody "needs" them because our cities are laid out in an inefficient manner. Backwards thinking. We have a huge segment of the population which is poor, uneducated, and unhealthy. How are they supposed to stimulate an economy? By purchasing a $500 clunker from a neighbor?
Why don't sociologists get into politics? I think their knowledge in how a society functions would be invaluable. We do after all, live in a society run by people.
I do not entirely endorse fiat money. I do not particularly like the fed. I think the people who have been in charge of the fed have been there too long and need to replaced. But they are what we currently have and fiat currency has helped our society out a lot in the last 100 years. If the wealth of the world remained tied up in a fixed amount there wouldn't be enough to go around. Simple fact. I think money is something humans will eventually outgrow but not in a world were we view everything as a commodity.
People act like things were peachy before fiat money. Couldn't be further from the truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banking_crises
Things have actually been more stable since the advent of fiat money. Of couse, most would probably just blame that on banking itself, right? Of course, blame the system not the players...
The Jeff thing wasn't just about Obama. You were projecting, using jargony loaded language which you might not even be aware of. You criticize him about being critical. If a candidate can't stand up to scrutiny they do not deserve the presidency. When Jeff explained why we currently still need flexible money you just returned with the same ol' tired "The Fed are evil money changin' bastards!" and missed the point, he wasn't specifically referring to the fed. Here you are again, not really paying attention to what someone is saying to you. I am not trying to personally dog on you at all! I would never do that. I actually look up to you a lot! I, like Jeff, am just trying to help you see some things without the rose-tinted (or demonizing) glasses on.
I personally would like to see the ultimate communist state! Like The Federation in Star Trek (not including tech and stuff, don't be silly). Not the Moa, Stalin, or Jong-il kind. Those are corruptions of communism, not actual communism. I don't think that would ever happen though as it would require an extremely high standard for education. Not exactly a priority here. Which is another thing about Ron Paul I do not like, his views on education. He does not think it is a right for everyone to have the opportunity to get a higher education. Nonsense.
Think of how many great minds are going to waste simply because they cannot afford the cost, or haven't been exposed to science and all the potential ideas they could contribute to society. The opportunities already missed are many. He thinks it's OK for people to borrow money to buy a house, a car, or whatever else to stimulate the economy, but not for education or health care because it will jack up the cost...hmmm... Isn't that happening everywhere else already? Cars and car parts are so expensive because they can be, everybody "needs" them because our cities are laid out in an inefficient manner. Backwards thinking. We have a huge segment of the population which is poor, uneducated, and unhealthy. How are they supposed to stimulate an economy? By purchasing a $500 clunker from a neighbor?
Why don't sociologists get into politics? I think their knowledge in how a society functions would be invaluable. We do after all, live in a society run by people.
I do not entirely endorse fiat money. I do not particularly like the fed. I think the people who have been in charge of the fed have been there too long and need to replaced. But they are what we currently have and fiat currency has helped our society out a lot in the last 100 years. If the wealth of the world remained tied up in a fixed amount there wouldn't be enough to go around. Simple fact. I think money is something humans will eventually outgrow but not in a world were we view everything as a commodity.
People act like things were peachy before fiat money. Couldn't be further from the truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banking_crises
Things have actually been more stable since the advent of fiat money. Of couse, most would probably just blame that on banking itself, right? Of course, blame the system not the players...
- Aug 3, 2009
- 1,602
- 14
- 38
+1. It's always interesting to debate someone with a solid argument and proof of point, or at least with a somewhat reasonable concern (or even a couple of them).
Having to endure rambling trolls, though..
--
On a positive note- great shot Aaron!
Wish I'd be on one of those, must be awesome!
@ ''a very good idea''
Cyanide_Anima
yooveesevenbeekay
Also, I haven't been purposefully skipping the hard questions. I've been answering the questions I've felt the most interested in talking about, but I'm not out to try to break apart and bury every single point that is raised against Ron Paul. Online debating is somewhat fun, but for the most part, I would rather just state my case and leave it all out there for everyone to read and consider on their own. I don't need to spend hours here just to appear that I'm the superior intellectual, because I don't care about that. You can wear that crown if you'd like, and maybe everyone on the forums will think you're super cool for it!
Pose for me those hard questions that I've been purposefully skipping, maybe I'll answer them
Yes, I really do believe that although Ron Paul is a Christian, he doesn't believe in using the government to legislate his own particular moral code onto other people.
I missed this before. You think I want people to think I'm cool? If I wanted people to think I'm cool I'd go along with what everyone else here thinks. Isn't that what cool is, what a group deems 'cool?'
You're statement is belittling and serves to detract from the arguments. The purpose of debating is not winning some sort of crown. (thinking is not a sport) It about the exchange of ideas in an open forum. I am a philosophy student and debates are something I enjoy, but this is more of a loose discussion than an actual debate. In debates people aren't allowed to walk past another's arguments. I am well aware that I am not likely going to change your or anyone else's mind. Debating is more so for the people on the sidelines who haven't fully made up their minds (The reason I engage in them online). Anybody else can step in for you, you just presented some points so I addressed them. Saying that I have not posed any valid arguments against Paul's policies are wrong, and dismissive. I have directly addressed them. This thread was full of too much Ron Paul fluff so I came in here to try to even things out, that's all.
You nor anybody else have not addressed the main issue with so-called sound money which is Ron Paul's main gig. It is inherently deflationary. More capital is needed for an economy to grow. A fixed amount of capital is a burden on an economy and stunts it's growth because historically people tend to hold onto that money rather than investing it. It can't go around when it's so thin, especially with a population as huge as it is now. The money itself would be worth less than what fiat is "worth." What else is going to be backing this money if not gold and silver? Hope? Gold (sorta kinda) worked 200 years ago but there are too many people now. Fiat may not be perfect but at least it is fairly predictable and adjustments can me made when needed. You can't effectively adjust a fixed amount of some thing without simply diluting it, which would be inflationary anyways.
---"I just reread thisone glaring thing that you're completely overlooking is that the money supply is controlled by those who have the wealth and power. You're making it sound like when the wealthy and powerful get too wealthy and powerful, the common man can simply print some more money to equalize the situation."
More loaded statements. These are all over this thread. Who exactly controls the money? Ben Bernanke himself? It's led by a board of members who all console with the government, not a single evil entity. Sure, you can say "But the Gov't is in cahoots with The Fed!" But that doesn't adress anything. The current money system has it ups and downs. If it were completely stable there would be no potential for growth in the economy. When we discover something better we will likely institutionalize that. But, for now we have to work with what we have. Just deleting these important institutions will cause far more problems what what they are supposedly creating.
The government and market need more regulation than ever. Corporations hold too much power, deregulating things will only make them stronger. They have a number of things they'd love to sell you without having be scrutinized, or be proven to be safe, or prove that they actually work, or will last a reasonable amount of time, or that they will not cause irreversible damage to the environment. You and I both know they don't really care. Many of the problems we have now are because of the systematic deregulation of key areas over the years to further business interest and the market. The market created by people cares for itself more so than the creators it's supposed to serve. We need measures in place to keep the slippery fuckers who go back and forth between government and business out, not give them incentives to do just that much more damage. Don't just cut the DOEducation, DOEnergy, DOJ, and Department of Interiors. Taking more power from the federal government and giving it to the states isn't always a good idea. The federal government is there to keep the United States united. If the states are allowed to run rampantly on their own than we lose consistency of law. You don't just amputate your hand if you have a wound. You go to the doctor and have it repaired. (If it needs to be amputated you replace it with prosthetics which have similar function, but never as good as the original...) [I see a Ron Paul joke in there somewhere...]
It's pretty funny. I also used to be a Ron Paul fan, taking in all the internet hype surrounding him. Now I stand against his outdated political strategies. Some look cool on paper when when you think about it and extrapolate they often don't work and/or are absurd. Ron Paul's support of alternative medicines and that concerns me. There are hundreds of thousands of anecdotes about the healing power of magnetic bracelets, kangen water, TT, candling, and homeopathy. But clinical trials show all of those to be ineffective and often dangerous. Those results mean nothing to him? People don't know enough to decide things of that nature. Most people don't have enough scientific understanding to make a rational decision in that regard. Should the government not be involved there as well?
I do, however, commend him on the statements which say that he saw many patients for free. Back in the day some doctors actually ascribed to the part of their doctoral oath which states that a certain percentage of their services are to be performed for free. I have only seen that on TV these days (free publicity! haha). I find it odd that he refuses to accept any federal funding of any kind. Nothing medical, nothing for his campaign. He just wholly apposes federal intervention of any sort, doesn't he? haha.
GeertSamuel
Member
Just saw this vid of Santorum, please DO NOT VOTE that dumbass.
Yes we have legalized euthenasia, but it's not how he puts it.
Euthenasia is only available for the terminally ill, and when they are predicted to be in their last stage (stuck in bed, not being able to communicate properly anymore).
Still I'm not pro-euthenasia, but he's straight out telling lie's on our country.
Yes we have legalized euthenasia, but it's not how he puts it.
Euthenasia is only available for the terminally ill, and when they are predicted to be in their last stage (stuck in bed, not being able to communicate properly anymore).
Still I'm not pro-euthenasia, but he's straight out telling lie's on our country.
Last edited by a moderator:
midget donkeys
Member
- Jan 11, 2007
- 938
- 0
- 16
Funky Animal that video does not surprise me at all. Just the other day one of my wife's math students came to here office for help and told her that Obamacare was going to force Catholic charities to perform abortions.
You can't reason with the religious right in America, facts are useless. The people Santorum is speaking too only vaguely now that Netherlands exist. All they know is that it is in Europe and therefore a bunch of God hating socialist bastards that want to destroy freedom.
Lots of religious right wing people are very nice people, but as you can see from the video they are being whipped up into a state of fear and paranoia.
You can't reason with the religious right in America, facts are useless. The people Santorum is speaking too only vaguely now that Netherlands exist. All they know is that it is in Europe and therefore a bunch of God hating socialist bastards that want to destroy freedom.
Lots of religious right wing people are very nice people, but as you can see from the video they are being whipped up into a state of fear and paranoia.
SocialNumb
Damn Christians!
Christians are like play-doh. Very malleable. it's not a far stretch from magical beings in the sky. When you hold such fantasies as truth, nothing becomes impossible.
honestly i dunno why you guys are even arguing about this...there's not a chance in hell that the corporate establishment that bankrolls the republican party will ever let ron paul get so much as a sniff of the white house
SocialNumb
Damn Christians!
- Aug 3, 2009
- 1,602
- 14
- 38
What's fucked up is why people feel the urge to repeat that over and over again. Yes of course it's an epic battle uphill, everyone knows that. What's the objective of stating the obvious?
It's amazing to see how so many millions get subdued by just a handful of people with A LOT of money. Yes money talks, but people can talk louder. Fuck.
If you make an effort and STILL get fucked over.. respect.
People who do absolutely nothing at all, mock the ones that do, and then are the first in line to bitch about the obvious outcome..
Last edited by a moderator:
Trevoire520
Member
+1 I fucking hate this attitude that so many people have and I see it all the time.
"There's no point, it'll never happen"
I've heard this said about a whole bunch of things, some small, some big. And guess what. ALOT of those things DID happen, because enough people got behind it.
Some people just seem to get a kick out of putting others down I think. It's much easier to sit and call everyone stupid for trying than it is to actually put in some effort yourself.
SocialNumb
Damn Christians!
You probably missed this Aaron, but I too would like to hear your views about this.
