What don't you like about Ron Paul?

[BullpupDFWM]

Originally Posted by PFC_Hudson

What's happening here is a movement of the people to bring freedom to their lives.

I love hearing a middle class white guy from america talk about bringing freedom to his life like it's something he doesn't already have in buckets.

It must be so hard living under such a tyrannical and oppressive dictatorship you poor dear.

[StrangeWill]

Originally Posted by BullpupDFWM

I love hearing a middle class white guy from america talk about bringing freedom to his life like it's something he doesn't already have in buckets.

It must be so hard living under such a tyrannical and oppressive dictatorship you poor dear.

But I can't get high.

[PFC_Hudson]

Originally Posted by BullpupDFWM

I love hearing a middle class white guy from america talk about bringing freedom to his life like it's something he doesn't already have in buckets.

It must be so hard living under such a tyrannical and oppressive dictatorship you poor dear.

Freedom applies to all colors, buddy. And yeah, living in a country that has a tyrannical dictator does suck.

[StrangeWill]

Originally Posted by PFC_Hudson

Freedom applies to all colors, buddy. And yeah, living in a country that has a tyrannical dictator does suck.

You heard it here, white man so oppressed, we have no freedoms at all.

[PFC_Hudson]

That's your interpretation of what I said based off of your limited understanding of what I meant.

[StrangeWill]

Originally Posted by PFC_Hudson

That's your interpretation of what I said based off of your limited understanding of what I meant.

Hold on, let me toke a little, maybe I'll understand.

[PFC_Hudson]

[Conner Macleod]

Originally Posted by PFC_Hudson

Freedom applies to all colors, buddy. And yeah, living in a country that has a tyrannical dictator does suck.

How is Obama a tyrannical dictator?

[PFC_Hudson]

Originally Posted by PFC_Hudson

That's your interpretation of what I said based off of your limited understanding of what I meant.

[StrangeWill]

Originally Posted by Conner Macleod

How is Obama a tyrannical dictator?

Well, he is a Democrat.


^ And this is American politics in a nutshell.

[Cpl._Badass]

PFC why did you come back here anyway? You literally went through all this demented ranting a long time ago and with the same results. That is no one is going to let a really strange egomaniac force his opinions on them.

Seriously if you came in here saying the same shit about any other public figure or politician I'm sure you would get the same reaction. A lot of it has to do with your delivery which is insulting and rediculously extreme mixed with a pinch of hyperbole.

You could atleast preach about something that you haven't already run into the ground.

[Socratis]

i still don't get that picture. i mean, i do. evolution REVOLUTION LOL! but still.. why highlight evol, don't they know that means evil?

@monsieur badass: not obama, or huntsman i suppose. if he went into an obsessive ham-like manic craze over either, he would be rightfully accepted by many in the community

[Merkaal]

I like Ron Paul better than any of the other candidates.

He's openly religious. Sure. Just like all the other candidates.

Anti-abortion? Not according to these idiots. He opposes a national ban and that's good enough for me.

Ending the war on drugs? Excellent.

Stopping foreign interventionism? At this point in time, everyone should be supporting this. Some months ago I was advocating attacking iran but I now see that as misguided. Seems like the wars in the middle east have so far achieved little to nothing at great human waste.

States rights, good. Hugely preferential to the alternative. The bigger the branch of government, the more reason you have to be distrustful. Democracy functions best in smaller states and I can find lesser fault with this position.

Tbh it's hard to discredit the man. Even the naysayers here and elsewhere have to grasp at straws. Which is why he's been so successful so far, despite having next to no media coverage.

[StrangeWill]

Originally Posted by Merkaal

Anti-abortion? Not according to these idiots. He opposes a national ban and that's good enough for me.

Err, allowing the state free reign on controlling it's public isn't pro-choice, it's basically signing off on it being illegal in all but a few states (and even there it may be iffy).

Originally Posted by Merkaal

Ending the war on drugs? Excellent.

I'm always iffy on this, being as he means at the federal level, states are free to oppress as they please.

Originally Posted by Merkaal

Stopping foreign interventionism? At this point in time, everyone should be supporting this. Some months ago I was advocating attacking iran but I now see that as misguided. Seems like the wars in the middle east have so far achieved little to nothing at great human waste.

Everyone should have supported this about a decade ago.

Originally Posted by Merkaal

States rights, good. Hugely preferential to the alternative. The bigger the branch of government, the more reason you have to be distrustful. Democracy functions best in smaller states and I can find lesser fault with this position.

Depends, there is a balancing act that should be played with states rights vs. federal rights, state's rights should never be able to override things that the federal government is protecting the public from. The state doesn't have a right to oppress minorities.

Originally Posted by Merkaal

Tbh it's hard to discredit the man. Even the naysayers here and elsewhere have to grasp at straws. Which is why he's been so successful so far, despite having next to no media coverage.

Not really, JA has pointed out quite well before, it isn't "grasping at straws" simply because you don't like their answers, they're perfectly valid.

[Socratis]

The bigger the branch of government, the more reason you have to be distrustful.

this is an unfounded paranoia that unfortunately many take to be true. it isn't. stopit

@openly religious: many candidates or politicians may say they are religious, but that doesn't mean anything. i'm sure there are quite a number of closet atheists or agnostics among the bunch. obama, for example, likely doesn't believe much of the bible at all. he is, after all, an intelligent person

ron paul? he eats that shit up like a gold standard breakfast

[StrangeWill]

Originally Posted by Socratis

this is an unfounded paranoia that unfortunately many take to be true. it isn't. stopit

If anything it shows me how little people look at their state government. Which people are less active in participation, and it's usually even more fucked.

Though someone at my work made the decent argument that more of a focus on state politics would make people realize and possibly fix (or if they don't, have to live with) their problems at the state level.

[Socratis]

unlikely. look at how many people still vote republican after all

[J A Eyers]

I haven't had to grasp at any straws. I've provided practical examples of how his policies won't work, and instead of receiving a counterpoint have been told repeatedly that I am either full of shit, lack logic, duped by a media conspiracy or will learn how I am wrong when Ron Paul ascends to the White House. None of these would I actually consider convincing counterpoints. Indeed, I feel wholly validated in the success of my argument when my points only garner emotional outbursts and personal attacks in response.

[nVidiot_Whore]

Originally Posted by StrangeWill

But I can't get high.

I can. All legal and twat-not.

[Merkaal]

Originally Posted by StrangeWill

Err, allowing the state free reign on controlling it's public isn't pro-choice, it's basically signing off on it being illegal in all but a few states (and even there it may be iffy).

I'm always iffy on this, being as he means at the federal level, states are free to oppress as they please.

Unfounded assumption.

Everyone should have supported this about a decade ago.

And Paul's foreign policy is second to none in this respect. This ex-CIA high official puts it much better than I could.

Depends, there is a balancing act that should be played with states rights vs. federal rights, state's rights should never be able to override things that the federal government is protecting the public from. The state doesn't have a right to oppress minorities.

Protecting the public from what? And what makes you so sure the states would end up oppressing minorities if given free reign?

Not really, JA has pointed out quite well before, it isn't "grasping at straws" simply because you don't like their answers, they're perfectly valid.

Not from where I'm standing.

Originally Posted by socratis

this is an unfounded paranoia that unfortunately many take to be true. it isn't. stopit

Nothing to do with paranoia. It's a simple principle, that the people most affected by the consequences of administrative decisions should have the most say in them. It follows that the state government can act with more accuracy and responsiveness to the specific desires of their constituents as opposed the federal government, which comprises the multitude of wants.

@openly religious: many candidates or politicians may say they are religious, but that doesn't mean anything. i'm sure there are quite a number of closet atheists or agnostics among the bunch. obama, for example, likely doesn't believe much of the bible at all. he is, after all, an intelligent person

ron paul? he eats that shit up like a gold standard breakfast

You either believe in the fairy tales, or you don't. As long as you believe in the invisible man in the sky, you're a religious person. To single Ron Paul out seems a tad disingenuous.

Second. Is it better to trust someone who sincerely believes in this stuff, or someone who merely presents themselves as such, hiding their true intent? Authenticity is a virtue so much as honesty is considered one, after all.

Thirdly, as long as this kind of magical thinking doesn't influence policy, I couldn't care less. That's the benefit of living in a secular democracy. From what I understand Ron Paul doesn't try to force the crazy on anyone else, despite his personal moral views. His rhetoric is founded on broader political-economic principles.

[Hamz]

voting for a liar or a retard. these options suck.

I think it is better that someone admits to being an atheist.

[Anceh]

@Merkaal When is war ever a good thing? And you actually support it? Should have shipped your ass to Afghanistan or Iraq.

I've been lazy about this thread, but what I don't like about Ron Paul is that I constantly hear about him.

[J A Eyers]

RON PAUL! RON PAUL! Oh wait... I thought he was meant to win Iowa..?

Originally Posted by Merkaal

And Paul's foreign policy is second to none in this respect.

On September 14th 2001 he voted for the joint resolution that gave the President executive authority to wage war on and in any country where he believed their were individuals responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

His foreign policy is a long, long way from coming second in that respect.

Protecting the public from what? And what makes you so sure the states would end up oppressing minorities if given free reign?

Historical precedent. A century after the Civil War, states used unjust legislation to prevent black people from voting (the so-called Jim Crow laws). It took the federal government to make all these little state laws illegal.

Yet we see it happening again today: NAACP warns black and Hispanic Americans could lose right to vote | World news | guardian.co.uk

Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, Florida... all passing legislation that makes it comparatively more difficult for black and hispanic people to vote than white people.

The states have thereby proved what they would do to minorities. The federal government will strike these new Jim Crow laws from the statute book and give freedom and justice back to the people of America.

[Socratis]

Originally Posted by Merkaal

Unfounded assumption.

And Paul's foreign policy is second to none in this respect. This ex-CIA high official puts it much better than I could.

Protecting the public from what? And what makes you so sure the states would end up oppressing minorities if given free reign?

Not from where I'm standing.

Nothing to do with paranoia. It's a simple principle, that the people most affected by the consequences of administrative decisions should have the most say in them. It follows that the state government can act with more accuracy and responsiveness to the specific desires of their constituents as opposed the federal government, which comprises the multitude of wants.

You either believe in the fairy tales, or you don't. As long as you believe in the invisible man in the sky, you're a religious person. To single Ron Paul out seems a tad disingenuous.

Second. Is it better to trust someone who sincerely believes in this stuff, or someone who merely presents themselves as such, hiding their true intent? Authenticity is a virtue so much as honesty is considered one, after all.

Thirdly, as long as this kind of magical thinking doesn't influence policy, I couldn't care less. That's the benefit of living in a secular democracy. From what I understand Ron Paul doesn't try to force the crazy on anyone else, despite his personal moral views. His rhetoric is founded on broader political-economic principles.

"unfounded assumption"? are you .. serious? that's something i'd expect conner to say. do you not realize how strong backwater sentiments are in the deeply conservative states? look at how the tea party unseated quite a few moderate republicans in the last election. if left to their own devices, you don't think we would see many states ban abortion, or bring religion into the public school systems, and so forth?

letting the states decides matters for themselves leads to one result: the minorities get fucked. whether it be the hispanics in the southwest, the colored folk south of the mason-dixon, or political minorities like the liberals in idaho, the dakotas, etc.

hey, merkaal, ya think an article titled "Iowa’s Choice: Dr. Paul or U.S. bankruptcy, more wars, and many more dead soldiers and Marines" is a reliable source from an unbiased perspective? the website is hosted by an isolationist, ffs. do people just think because it worked in the past, when the world was a vastly different place, it will work today?

Protecting the public from what? And what makes you so sure the states would end up oppressing minorities if given free reign?

uh, eyers covered the historical precedent, but how about, say, arizona? they're already doing their best to oppress the mexicans, and that's under federal watch. imagine what they would resort to if allowed to do fuck all

It's a simple principle, that the people most affected by the consequences of administrative decisions should have the most say in them.

lol, wrong

It follows that the state government can act with more accuracy and responsiveness to the specific desires of their constituents as opposed the federal government, which comprises the multitude of wants.

in theory; in practice? not so much

You either believe in the fairy tales, or you don't. As long as you believe in the invisible man in the sky, you're a religious person. To single Ron Paul out seems a tad disingenuous.

Second. Is it better to trust someone who sincerely believes in this stuff, or someone who merely presents themselves as such, hiding their true intent? Authenticity is a virtue so much as honesty is considered one, after all.

Thirdly, as long as this kind of magical thinking doesn't influence policy, I couldn't care less. That's the benefit of living in a secular democracy. From what I understand Ron Paul doesn't try to force the crazy on anyone else, despite his personal moral views. His rhetoric is founded on broader political-economic principles.

"you either believe in fairy tales, or you don't" = wait, did you just lump the widely differing beliefs people have re: religion into a straight up black and white "RELIGIOUS OR NOT RELIGIOUS"? here's a question for you: were you born into atheism, or did you find it yourself?

national politicians in the united states simply do not have the option to publicly be atheist, agnostic, whatever. you're asking that a politician not do what politicians do, and that is get votes. ron paul, for example, hates black people, yet if you ask him in front of a camera whether he does or not, what do you think his response would be?

you see nothing wrong with having a god damn evolution denying creationist in charge of the nation? do you honestly think that puts him on the same pedestal as one who thinks there's a possibility a god of some form might exist, or others with lesser religious beliefs?

[StrangeWill]

Originally Posted by Merkaal

Unfounded assumption.

You mean historically backed fact.

Originally Posted by Merkaal

And Paul's foreign policy is second to none in this respect.

You mean second to at least 11:

H J RES 64 | U.S. Congress Votes Database - The Washington PostThe Washington Post

Originally Posted by Merkaal

Protecting the public from what? And what makes you so sure the states would end up oppressing minorities if given free reign?

History, again, hello, black desegregation had to be done with the federal government deploying the military to escort blacks onto school grounds.

Originally Posted by Merkaal

Not from where I'm standing.

Of course, politics as usual.

Originally Posted by Merkaal

Nothing to do with paranoia. It's a simple principle, that the people most affected by the consequences of administrative decisions should have the most say in them. It follows that the state government can act with more accuracy and responsiveness to the specific desires of their constituents as opposed the federal government, which comprises the multitude of wants.

What things do you think should be handled by the state that is currently handled by the federal government? Especially considering a ton of funding actually goes from the federal government to the state so that the state can use it for state level programs, which means you already have a massive say in stuff such as education and welfare, but for the most part you choose to not be involved.

On top of that, most state level budgets are more fucked than the federal level one, but keep telling me (and yourself) how much better the state handles itself.

[Merkaal]

Originally Posted by J A Eyers

On September 14th 2001 he voted for the joint resolution that gave the President executive authority to wage war on and in any country where he believed their were individuals responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

His foreign policy is a long, long way from coming second in that respect.

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

"I supported going after Al Qaida into Afghanistan – but, lo & behold, the neocons took over. They forgot about Bin Laden. And what they did, they went into nation-building, not only in Afghanistan, they went unjustifiably over into Iraq. And that's why we're in this mess today."

–Ron Paul, Iowa Straw Poll debate

I will concede that it was probably a mistake to vote for this resolution in the first place, considering the vagueness of the language. 9/11 got a lot of people riled up, as we already know. But at the very least, the man's intention should be made clear.

Historical precedent. A century after the Civil War, states used unjust legislation to prevent black people from voting (the so-called Jim Crow laws). It took the federal government to make all these little state laws illegal.

Yet we see it happening again today: NAACP warns black and Hispanic Americans could lose right to vote | World news | guardian.co.uk

Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, Florida... all passing legislation that makes it comparatively more difficult for black and hispanic people to vote than white people.

Jim Crow was overturned by the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. Due to judicial precedent, there is arguably no room for states to make such laws in the current era, so this historical precedent is of little value to our discussion.

And I read the article. So, we have legislation that prevents felons from voting, stricter ID requirements, blocking of voter registration drives (the reasons being unclear). And the NAACP opposes it as discriminatory to black voters. Of course, this is all speculation, the specifics of each measure not alluding to any partiality. It's up the the Supreme Court to decide whether these laws are constitutional or not.

Originally Posted by socratis

"unfounded assumption"? are you .. serious? that's something i'd expect conner to say. do you not realize how strong backwater sentiments are in the deeply conservative states? look at how the tea party unseated quite a few moderate republicans in the last election. if left to their own devices, you don't think we would see many states ban abortion, or bring religion into the public school systems, and so forth?

It's impossible to prove whether they will or not. But considering freedom of, and from religion, is a constitutional right, I don't see your second contention happening any time soon, or lasting for long if it does.

letting the states decides matters for themselves leads to one result: the minorities get fucked. whether it be the hispanics in the southwest, the colored folk south of the mason-dixon, or political minorities like the liberals in idaho, the dakotas, etc.

Hysterical nonsense. You still don't have any hard proof!

hey, merkaal, ya think an article titled "Iowa’s Choice: Dr. Paul or U.S. bankruptcy, more wars, and many more dead soldiers and Marines" is a reliable source from an unbiased perspective? the website is hosted by an isolationist, ffs.

Isolationist? Just my opinion, but the way your country is headed, you won't be able to afford much else.

do people just think because it worked in the past, when the world was a vastly different place, it will work today?

sort of like the states blocking minority rights, amirite?

lol, wrong

in theory; in practice? not so much

No doubt, in practice, is is the overriding tendency of the federal government to accumulate more and more power; the people, less and less. A reversal of any scale would be refreshing. Hence my support of Dr. Paul.

"you either believe in fairy tales, or you don't" = wait, did you just lump the widely differing beliefs people have re: religion into a straight up black and white "RELIGIOUS OR NOT RELIGIOUS"? here's a question for you: were you born into atheism, or did you find it yourself?

national politicians in the united states simply do not have the option to publicly be atheist, agnostic, whatever. you're asking that a politician not do what politicians do, and that is get votes. ron paul, for example, hates black people, yet if you ask him in front of a camera whether he does or not, what do you think his response would be?

you see nothing wrong with having a god damn evolution denying creationist in charge of the nation? do you honestly think that puts him on the same pedestal as one who thinks there's a possibility a god of some form might exist, or others
with lesser religious beliefs?

If you're willing to believe Christ died on the cross and was resurrected, why not believe the Earth was made, what, 5000 years ago? Some beliefs are more stupid and potentially harmful than others, granted, but as I stated already, as long as these don't influence politics, then I don't give a shit what the specifics are. If this were a middle-east style theocracy*, then it would be different and I would favour the religious moderate. As it stands, I care more about issues that stand to effect me directly, like the economy and foreign military involvements.

*Thank Christ that isn't the case.

Originally Posted by StrangeWill

You mean historically backed fact.

H J RES 64 | U.S. Congress Votes Database - The Washington PostThe Washington Post

See above.

History, again, hello, black desegregation had to be done with the federal government deploying the military to escort blacks onto school grounds.

And your point is?

What things do you think should be handled by the state that is currently handled by the federal government? Especially considering a ton of funding actually goes from the federal government to the state so that the state can use it for state level programs, which means you already have a massive say in stuff such as education and welfare, but for the most part you choose to not be involved.

Re: Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution. Also, the Tenth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights.

You see William, the main point of difference between you and me is that you think the government can help solve social problems and be a force of good in the world. I don't. I believe all government is corrupt, so much as all power corrupts absolutely. And the less of it concentrated in the hands of the few, the better.

On top of that, most state level budgets are more fucked than the federal level one, but keep telling me (and yourself) how much better the state handles itself.

So your arguement is: X and Y are both tremendously out of whack. Because most X (plural) are more fucked up than Y (doubtful; singular), entrusting more and more power in Y is preferential to X (plural).

My counter-point being, that if Y (singular), per se, yields a tremendously higher level of national, global influence than X (plural), the failures of X, being smaller in comparison, have unanimously smaller levels of fallout and are therefore preferable to the failures of Y. Hence, Y should be entrusted with less power, or "room to fail", X with more.



Keep it coming boys, I'm enjoying this.

[Socratis]

Originally Posted by Merkaal

Keep it coming boys, I'm enjoying this.

okay. it will likely be a few hours. there's this disbelief and sort of melancholy that i cannot seem to get rid of after reading your "counter-points," which i will have to get over first

[StrangeWill]

Originally Posted by Merkaal

You see William, the main point of difference between you and me is that you think the government can help solve social problems and be a force of good in the world. I don't. I believe all government is corrupt, so much as all power corrupts absolutely. And the less of it concentrated in the hands of the few, the better.

Thanks for trying to tell me what I believe, but I believe the government is the direct result of it's public (well ours anyway), and that any corruption is our fault. We've had government be more corrupt than it has been now in our past, and we've had times where the government bent over backwards to serve it's public. I want to return to the later, but that requires the public put forth a little effort when they talk politics and apply much less drastic knee-jerk measures, but we're very much an instant gratification society right now, so not really surprised at wanting big "fix it now" button candidates.

Originally Posted by Merkaal

So your arguement is: X and Y are both tremendously out of whack. Because most X (plural) are more fucked up than Y (doubtful; singular), entrusting more and more power in Y is preferential to X (plural).

My counter-point being, that if Y (singular), per se, yields a tremendously higher level of national, global influence than X (plural), the failures of X, being smaller in comparison, have unanimously smaller levels of fallout and are therefore preferable to the failures of Y. Hence, Y should be entrusted with less power, or "room to fail", X with more.

My argument is more of: "we should fix our problems, not create 50 sets of problems each unique and worse than the ones we have now", if the public was involved nearly enough to eliminate the problems we have on the federal level, I'd be for it, because hey, that would mean the American mindset has moved back towards being involved with our government and having it bend to our will, not just be constantly resentful and surprised when it runs amok when we don't want to be involved beyond one time every two years, if we're lucky.

My logic is: We can't fix one Y, why do you think we can run 50 X? Y has had a history of stopping many Xs from oppressing it's people, at GUNPOINT.

Let alone, there are lots of complicated financial issues you'd run into: can you trust your state's legislature to triple it's income overnight? If not, you're state is broke, like stupid-broke, and states have a terrible habit of not properly funding themselves on a scale that makes the federal government look like a fucking genius.

[MolBaNdA]

He has two first names.

[StrangeWill]

Wat