Vote for Ron Paul-----Great idea

chillwills

Well-Known Member
I know he is getting up in years, but he is still plenty sharp.

Everything I have heard from him has been common sense. I like this guy.

[video=youtube;qfWE1T8uTBI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfWE1T8uTBI[/video]
 

chillwills

Well-Known Member
I never realized Baldwin was such a narrow minded douche.

I wonder if he drinks and takes pills. Probably.
 

chillwills

Well-Known Member
Heres something a bit newer.

He was right when he said he didn't think there would be a government shutdown.

[video=youtube;UNRXzVC_E5s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNRXzVC_E5s[/video]
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I know he is getting up in years, but he is still plenty sharp.

Everything I have heard from him has been common sense. I like this guy.
only if you think that letting 'public' businesses keep blacks out (or jews, or any other minority you don't like) is 'common sense'.

This thread will soon fall off the end of the page, I doubt there are many people who can argue with Dr. Paul.
i would have no problem talking to him about why he calls himself libertarian but wants the government to be fist deep in my wife's vagina.

real consistent.
 

Carne Seca

Well-Known Member
I never realized Baldwin was such a narrow minded douche.

I wonder if he drinks and takes pills. Probably.
He was quite the drug user until he entered into rehab and found God. Now he wants to force his ideology on the rest of America because he couldn't handle his shit. It was a gateway drug to him because he was self-medicating due to "emotional issues."

What a fucktard.
 

mame

Well-Known Member
There are obviously a few issues I agree with (drug policy, not returning to a gold standard, environmental awareness), but the guy has a few major flaws IMO.

1) He insists in a non-interventionist, free market approach to dealing with recessions (ignoring proven Keynesian principles and rejecting monetarism).
2) He is pro life. This goes directly against his "states rights" stance that he commonly invokes as his position on many social matters
3) he has said he will never raise taxes, despite the fact that we pretty much HAVE to if you're going to be serious about our debt
4) that whole fiasco over his position on the civil rights act of 1964(he said it did nothing to improve interracial relations)... Are you serious? The younger people in America (25 and under) are quite noticeably less racist/prejudice than the prior two generations (so my generation compared to my parents and grandparents)
5) I believe he also opposes federal involvement in the health industry (medicare, HC reform act) in favor of leaving it up to the states.

Overall, good guy. I'd vote for him to be one of my states two senators or maybe he would do well sitting on the Supreme Court... But I dont believe he is the best option for president.

oh, and he overstates the debt problem to stengthen his position (he has voted no to pretty much every spending bill... ever)
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
i would have no problem talking to him about why he calls himself libertarian but wants the government to be fist deep in my wife's vagina.

real consistent.
I think I can see where you are coming from on this; Its no fun letting another man fist your wife.
 

Boonierat

Well-Known Member
4) that whole fiasco over his position on the civil rights act of 1964(he said it did nothing to improve interracial relations)... Are you serious? The younger people in America (25 and under) are quite noticeably less racist/prejudice than the prior two generations (so my generation compared to my parents and grandparents)
I don't believe this statement at all. Being in the age group you describe, I still see plenty of racism. And it's from all parties, white, black, brown, it's still there.
 

chillwills

Well-Known Member
only if you think that letting 'public' businesses keep blacks out (or jews, or any other minority you don't like) is 'common sense'.



i would have no problem talking to him about why he calls himself libertarian but wants the government to be fist deep in my wife's vagina.

real consistent.
Can you tell me more about the "keeping blacks and Jews out of 'public' businesses" part.

What do you mean by 'public' business? I didn't realize the public owned any businesses. I was under the impression they are ultimately privately owned.


And what does the vagina part mean? He is pro-life?
 

chillwills

Well-Known Member
He was quite the drug user until he entered into rehab and found God. Now he wants to force his ideology on the rest of America because he couldn't handle his shit. It was a gateway drug to him because he was self-medicating due to "emotional issues."

What a fucktard.
Oh, I get it. He wants to use marijuana as a scapegoat and something to blame for his lack of will power, lack of self control and lack of mental fortitude. And his religious beliefs are the cherry on the sundae that seals the deal for him.
 

mame

Well-Known Member
I don't believe this statement at all. Being in the age group you describe, I still see plenty of racism. And it's from all parties, white, black, brown, it's still there.
heh, well my argument was certainly anecdotal but I'm sure I can find something to support the claim (I'll do this in a moment).

To expand on my anecdotal argument it's not uncommon to see interracial relationships in this day and age; Look back 20, 30, 40 years ago and I am sure you'll find it to be much different.

edit: apparently the internet is full of anecdotal arguments... I'm having a hard time finding any statistics on the matter. But you can still look at something like say - the changes in attitude towards public racism now compared to the 60's.

Also, Ron Paul Argues that the changes in attitude happen despite the civil rights act not because of it. I can argue against that pretty easily by contending that if government never stepped in and forced change racist behaviors (like segregation) would have continued to be acceptable from generation to generation - perhaps eventually reaching the point we are at today - but almost surely not as quickly had the change not been forced.
 

chillwills

Well-Known Member
that's exactly what we need, a 77 year old president.
Why not? Reagan was 70 when he was elected and 78 by the time he left office. And he was already partly senile at that point.

Ron Paul is 77 now and is as sharp as a tack. If he is throughly medically examined and found to be in good health without any mental deficiencies then why does it matter if he is 77?
 

deprave

New Member
There are obviously a few issues I agree with (drug policy, not returning to a gold standard, environmental awareness), but the guy has a few major flaws IMO.

1) He insists in a non-interventionist, free market approach to dealing with recessions (ignoring proven Keynesian principles and rejecting monetarism).
2) He is pro life. This goes directly against his "states rights" stance that he commonly invokes as his position on many social matters
3) he has said he will never raise taxes, despite the fact that we pretty much HAVE to if you're going to be serious about our debt
4) that whole fiasco over his position on the civil rights act of 1964(he said it did nothing to improve interracial relations)... Are you serious? The younger people in America (25 and under) are quite noticeably less racist/prejudice than the prior two generations (so my generation compared to my parents and grandparents)
5) I believe he also opposes federal involvement in the health industry (medicare, HC reform act) in favor of leaving it up to the states.

Overall, good guy. I'd vote for him to be one of my states two senators or maybe he would do well sitting on the Supreme Court... But I dont believe he is the best option for president.

oh, and he overstates the debt problem to stengthen his position (he has voted no to pretty much every spending bill... ever)
and what exactly is wrong with a lot of those things? you sure hes pro-life? I'm not sure about that one and #3 is debatable as it can be done given the right scenario.

Ron Paul is one of the few voices the people have left - Personally I won't vote for a puppet again - and this is what we need - Ron Paul - The anti-puppet.

[video=youtube;JM8d_Arjz6g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM8d_Arjz6g[/video]
 

chillwills

Well-Known Member
Even if Ron Paul is pro-life what difference does it make?

Reagan was pro-life. Abortion not outlawed or made illegal.
Bush Sr. was pro-life. Abortion was not outlawed or made illegal.
Bush Jr. was pro-life. Abortion was not made illegal. Abortions in America continued.

Clinton/Obama pro-choice and the laws changed little.
 

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
There are obviously a few issues I agree with (drug policy, not returning to a gold standard, environmental awareness), but the guy has a few major flaws IMO.

1) He insists in a non-interventionist, free market approach to dealing with recessions (ignoring proven Keynesian principles and rejecting monetarism).
2) He is pro life. This goes directly against his "states rights" stance that he commonly invokes as his position on many social matters
3) he has said he will never raise taxes, despite the fact that we pretty much HAVE to if you're going to be serious about our debt
4) that whole fiasco over his position on the civil rights act of 1964(he said it did nothing to improve interracial relations)... Are you serious? The younger people in America (25 and under) are quite noticeably less racist/prejudice than the prior two generations (so my generation compared to my parents and grandparents)
5) I believe he also opposes federal involvement in the health industry (medicare, HC reform act) in favor of leaving it up to the states.

Overall, good guy. I'd vote for him to be one of my states two senators or maybe he would do well sitting on the Supreme Court... But I dont believe he is the best option for president.

oh, and he overstates the debt problem to stengthen his position (he has voted no to pretty much every spending bill... ever)
DRUG POLICY-anybody on this site would be foolish to disagree with his drug policy, end the war on drugs and legalize ALL of them under similar restrictions of legal alcohol, ie. age and public endangerment
NOT RETURNING TO A GOLD STANDARD-that's either a typo or you are misinformed, he advocates backing our money with REAL assets, gold among them
ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS-get the government out of it
1) "Proven Keynesian principles"? puhlease...Sometimes I think if a Republican would say "it's a beautiful day" you would argue that it is night. Ron Paul is of the Austrian economic school. Laissez faire, individualism, sound money and free markets.
2) He is pro life, he's an OBGYN for cryin' out loud BUT his stand is that the federal government has no say in it and it IS a state's right's issue
3) YOUR OPINON
4) again, YOUR OPINION
5) he does oppose federal involvement in health care but prefers a free market approach
"overstates the debt problem to strengthen his case"- again, your opinion

Dr Ron Paul is my Congressman, I am from the 14th district in Texas. He has literally demolished everyone who has run against him and he does it with little or no campaigning. Even the Republican establishment has run other Republicans against him (W. favored another Repub. against him in '06) yet he keeps winning.
I met him at the second tea party in December of 2007 (the original in 1773, of course). The first in our time that preceded all the tea parties we have now and before they got hijacked by Palin, Beck and other neo-cons in libertarian clothing. He has not backtracked, waffled or flip-flopped on any issue that I know of. He is the same today as yesterday, last year, last decade and will be the same tomorrow. That in itself is refreshing in todays politics. It's not hard to find where he comes from in a political sense.
He is a strict Constitutionalist, which means limited government. "Government governs best which governs least." Thomas Jefferson
He is a free market advocate and realizes that most of what is wrong with our economy is a result of government interference. Heck, for that matter, pretty much EVERYTHING that is going wrong is a result of government interference.
I think a lot of people are starting to realize that what has been followed in the past is not working and he brings a new (new to the masses that have been brainwashed) perspective that makes a lot of sense. Yes, we lost our way but it's not too late to get the American Dream back and make our country into the shining beacon of individual freedom and prosperity, once again.
You cannot have freedom without responsibility. That is the other side of the coin that is sometimes left out of the debate. Responsibility is what is lacking today. Too many want the government to be responsible for their health, their security, their retirement, their job and on and on, ad nauseam. Responsibility to pay attention to what is going on and hold those in public office accountable. Responsibility for your security, your welfare, your retirement, your education, your work and for your "pursuit of happiness".
It comes down to two different belief systems: Individualism vs Collectivism. The "Individualist" is an idea that our country was founded on and now, some 200+ yrs later, it's a novel idea because of the onslaught of "Collectivism" being spewed from the classroom, the pulpit, the media and from the seat of government.
Yes, Ron Paul is old, but that means he has wisdom and experience that you young people do not. I know, I just turned 60 and I can remember when I was "young, dumb and full of cum" and I felt like I was 10' tall and bulletproof and I felt like these old farts don't know what they are talking about...
but you know what, they were right!
 

mame

Well-Known Member
DRUG POLICY-anybody on this site would be foolish to disagree with his drug policy, end the war on drugs and legalize ALL of them under similar restrictions of legal alcohol, ie. age and public endangerment
eh, legalizing all drugs is pretty hard to justify but considering the dangers of marijuana compared to legal drugs blah blah blah... we're on the same side here.
NOT RETURNING TO A GOLD STANDARD-that's either a typo or you are misinformed, he advocates backing our money with REAL assets, gold among them
From Wiki:
Paul does not support a "return" to a gold standard, as in what the U.S. government has established in the past, but instead prefers to eliminate legal tender laws and to remove the sales tax gold and silver, so that the market may freely decide what type of type of monetary standard(s) there shall be.
Their source was here (youtube of Rep. Paul).
ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS-get the government out of it
Retarded idea. The fact that many industries would benefit with higher profit margins without needed environmental protections is proof enough government intervention is needed.

1) "Proven Keynesian principles"? puhlease...Sometimes I think if a Republican would say "it's a beautiful day" you would argue that it is night. Ron Paul is of the Austrian economic school. Laissez faire, individualism, sound money and free markets.
Sometimes I wonder how dense you are. Yes, proven. History shows as much and so far on these boards you and everyone else who has tried has failed to prove my assertion incorrect. You've failed to present evidence that Keynesianism is "wrong" just as every other conservative mind before you has failed... If Heyek, Freidman and the like were so sure Keynesianism had failed they would have offered proof of such(they tried). That's not to say they didn't contribute or that elements of Austrian economics have no place - it's just that Keynesianism has shown itself to be the most capable model for dealing with recessions (a lot of this is due to the principle of the liquidity trap - a situation in which investment is low, demand is low, because employment is low, that can only be solved via spending to stimulate demand which then sparks investment and then the free market takes over...)

2) He is pro life, he's an OBGYN for cryin' out loud BUT his stand is that the federal government has no say in it and it IS a state's right's issue
Which is all cool and everything - except that he would likely sign off on defunding PP without batting an eye. I care about that kind of thing... you know, helping poor women get contraceptives, education, medical care and all...
3) YOUR OPINON
That he wont raise taxes? Ron Paul has never voted "yes" for a tax increase. Ever. That's not an opinion.
4) again, YOUR OPINION
He was incorrect when he said the civil rights act of 1964 failed to improve race relations. Now on this one, I failed to find any statistics representing an improvement in race relations but... To look at our desegregated schools and marketplaces and say that changed nothing is idiocy. At least where I live, in Oregon, interracial romantic relationships are pretty fucking common as compared to a few decades ago (hell, I even have a half black cousin, first 'negro' blood in my family... ever)... What about public racism? Can I walk into a supermarket and say nigger without turning heads at the very least? lose some teeth at the worst?

5) he does oppose federal involvement in health care but prefers a free market approach
The problem with "a free market approach" with healthcare is that there really isn't any competition; That's not good for the consumers, I'd be open to your suggestions to increase competition(here in Oregon there are only a few providers - the two biggest represent over 60% of the market). If you're talking privatization (of medicare), adding the profit motive and another layer of middlemen into the mix simply ends up costing more money.
"overstates the debt problem to strengthen his case"- again, your opinion
Okay, you might have gotten me here except that when conservatives say "We've never had debt this high before! We need to get the debt down NOW!" These statements are in fact, misleading and overstating the problem.

Our debt as a percentage of GDP as of right now is ~90%... After WW2, the national debt peaked at over 120%. So we HAVE had more debt (in relation to the size of our economy, which is really the only serious measure here considering forces like inflation fuck up numbers over long periods of time). Conservatives arguing the debt problem needs to be solved now are ignoring the fact that too many cuts too soon can and will damage the recovery - which should have always been priority #1.
It comes down to two different belief systems: Individualism vs Collectivism. The "Individualist" is an idea that our country was founded on and now, some 200+ yrs later, it's a novel idea because of the onslaught of "Collectivism" being spewed from the classroom, the pulpit, the media and from the seat of government.
Now you're getting into the bigger debate. I agree with the core principles of both ideals - it's just a matter of where you draw the line that has really been debated the last 100 years... Considering the fact that wealth has been steadily moving it's way up to the wealthy elite and the middle class has been steadily disapearing over the last 30 years... I'd argue that the government is not involved enough in ensuring that a prosperous middle class can exist like it did in the 50's and 60's (hint: go back and look at the governments actions leading up to this time... Look for the "Great Compression".. Many policies during this time could be considered socialist in a lot of ways but they did contribute towards creating the American dream).

Meanwhile, it seems it cannot be written off as a coincidence that the massive redistribution of wealth upwards began just as Austrian economic principles came into play.
 
Top