Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Chippy

Ron Paul

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure what to think about Ron Paul. Just, so you know my back ground, I'm a liberal-leaning person mostly.

 

I see all these people on the internet, (especially 4chan) with this huge boner for Ron Paul. I'm not sure why. It's seems all the liberals like him because of his stance on drugs and the war, and they just ignore everything else he says; and it seems all the Tea Party folks like him because of the usual Tea Party reasons. ( Lower taxes, guns, etc...)

 

I was interested to see his stance on stuff. I went to his website a few days ago I went to his website and the first thing I see is an article talking about how "every American should arm themselves with a gun for protection," which I things is utterly stupid.

 

So tell me Sal's, What's your stance on Ron Paul, and Why? I'd like to be able to make an informed decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a liberal.

 

"Liberal" only really means that you are in favor of personal freedom which he is. But his approach to economics is conservative. He is a supporter of the free market and doesn't believe that the government should be involved in the economy. Likewise he also believes the government shouldn't be involved in people's lives.

 

He is a right-wing liberal.

 

Ron Paul is more of a Democrat at heart than Obama is.

That's very incorrect because Democrats are in support of government spending and government meddling in economics.

 

In fact, he's better than Democrats at personal freedom. Dozens of democrats voted in support of the PATRIOT act. He didn't.

Edited by theking1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know he's a libertarian and all that jazz. Please stop telling me political definitions. I'm trying to get a discussion going about the issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An armed society is a polite society. I don't see much wrong with his stance on guns. Just my personal views on that.

 

I think that overall, Ron Paul isn't all that bad. We could do worse than him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know he's a libertarian and all that jazz. Please stop telling me political definitions. I'm trying to get a discussion going about the issues.

Well then.

 

I support his social policies as some government controls are plain stupid. The War on Drugs is an expensive, self-damaging endeavor that we haven't benefited from at all. Supporters of the War on Drugs talk about how there are many drug-related arrests, but that fact is pure bullshizzle. Many of these "dangerous drug dealers" that get taken off the streets are just losers who smoke pot. Ron Paul is against it.

 

He is in favor of cutting back on federal spending overall and reducing America's involvement overseas. I'm a support of maintaining strong armed forces (I'm also in favor of nuclear weapons) but at this point in time, the United States does not need to have 2 million armed personnel around the globe. Ron Paul wants to reduce that and concentrate it in the Continental US.

 

On the contrary, his approach to corporations is a little worrying considering most corporations are not very ethical and are generally run by greedy goosedowns.

 

He is simply in favor of going back to the core beliefs of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An armed society is a polite society. I don't see much wrong with his stance on guns. Just my personal views on that.

 

I think that overall, Ron Paul isn't all that bad. We could do worse than him.

I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that everyone is carrying a gun. Remember that everyone also includes people that may not be mentally fit to own a gun, and those scary ethnic types as well. :(

 

I also don't think Ron Paul is all that bad either. I'd pick him over any of the GOP candidates.

Edited by Chippy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An armed society is a polite society. I don't see much wrong with his stance on guns. Just my personal views on that.

 

I think that overall, Ron Paul isn't all that bad. We could do worse than him.

I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that everyone is carrying a gun. Remember that everyone also includes people that may not be mentally fit to own a gun, and those scary ethnic types as well. :(

 

I also don't think Ron Paul is all that bad either. I'd pick him over any of the GOP candidates.

 

Well constitutionally many laws restricting gun ownership would be thrown out by the supreme court. The only way to fix that would be nullify that part of the constitution which would be about as easy as serving snow cones in hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An armed society is a polite society. I don't see much wrong with his stance on guns. Just my personal views on that.

 

I think that overall, Ron Paul isn't all that bad. We could do worse than him.

I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that everyone is carrying a gun. Remember that everyone also includes people that may not be mentally fit to own a gun, and those scary ethnic types as well. :(

 

I also don't think Ron Paul is all that bad either. I'd pick him over any of the GOP candidates.

 

Well constitutionally many laws restricting gun ownership would be thrown out by the supreme court. The only way to fix that would be nullify that part of the constitution which would be about as easy as serving snow cones in hell.

What's there to fix if nothing's broken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An armed society is a polite society. I don't see much wrong with his stance on guns. Just my personal views on that.

 

I think that overall, Ron Paul isn't all that bad. We could do worse than him.

I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that everyone is carrying a gun. Remember that everyone also includes people that may not be mentally fit to own a gun, and those scary ethnic types as well. :(

 

I also don't think Ron Paul is all that bad either. I'd pick him over any of the GOP candidates.

 

Well constitutionally many laws restricting gun ownership would be thrown out by the supreme court. The only way to fix that would be nullify that part of the constitution which would be about as easy as serving snow cones in hell.

What's there to fix if nothing's broken?

 

I'm all for allowing gun ownership to a point.

 

A handgun is more than enough to defend yourself. An M4 or a Ak-47? Not so much.

 

A weapon should be used to protect oneself not turn enemies into swiss cheese.

Edited by Emo Nemo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An armed society is a polite society. I don't see much wrong with his stance on guns. Just my personal views on that.

 

I think that overall, Ron Paul isn't all that bad. We could do worse than him.

I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that everyone is carrying a gun. Remember that everyone also includes people that may not be mentally fit to own a gun, and those scary ethnic types as well. :(

 

I also don't think Ron Paul is all that bad either. I'd pick him over any of the GOP candidates.

 

Well constitutionally many laws restricting gun ownership would be thrown out by the supreme court. The only way to fix that would be nullify that part of the constitution which would be about as easy as serving snow cones in hell.

I don't think we should totally ban guns. I'm not really anti-gun. But I'm also not pro-gun. I know people have guns for sport and collecting, but I don't like how accessible guns are for people that go on these big killing sprees. like with Columbine, and the two bank robber dudes. It's kind of tough because people "need to protect themselves from the government," but you can't separate the Patriots protecting their rights from the crazies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a liberal.

 

"Liberal" only really means that you are in favor of personal freedom which he is. But his approach to economics is conservative. He is a supporter of the free market and doesn't believe that the government should be involved in the economy. Likewise he also believes the government shouldn't be involved in people's lives.

 

He is a right-wing liberal.

 

Ron Paul is more of a Democrat at heart than Obama is.

That's very incorrect because Democrats are in support of government spending and government meddling in economics.

 

In fact, he's better than Democrats at personal freedom. Dozens of democrats voted in support of the PATRIOT act. He didn't.

 

Russ Feingold, man what a guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...and those scary ethnic types as well. :(

 

 

Elaborate?

 

Ron Paul is interesting - he appeals to many people, yet he doesn't really capture either party completely. He's sort of...there.

As I said, interesting, but of little/no consequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the entire Ron Paul against government intervention... that makes a lot of sense to me in personal life and overall economic policy. If memory serves, he's come on record before saying how government regulation is a necessary thing--just that its implementation can be quite unfair. The vibe I got from that was that he doesn't want to favor anyone with regulation--just write it fair, write it equal, write it competitively. Ron Paul is basically a facsimile of myself: I want government to be small, efficient, and having a strong objective yet limited scope.

 

Now then, both establishment Republicans and establishment Democrats are seemingly against small government. Tea Party is kind of whacky; the major issue uniting that caucus is to be fiscally conservative: balanced budgets and all. The problem is that its social issues too closely reflect right-wing Republicans--it's all religion. I can't wait for Rick Santorum to drop out of the race: that man is a nut. Rick Perry uses religion like a dish rag (which says to me he's manipulative). Almost everyone (except maybe Gary Johnson--who has no organization at all compared to Ron Paul... I think he'd make an excellent VP though) has been copying Ron Paul's talking points. In all likelihood, Rick Perry will get the nomination. I'd vote for Mitt Romney long before I'd vote for Rick Perry.

Edited by Bob-sama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a liberal.

 

"Liberal" only really means that you are in favor of personal freedom which he is. But his approach to economics is conservative. He is a supporter of the free market and doesn't believe that the government should be involved in the economy. Likewise he also believes the government shouldn't be involved in people's lives.

 

He is a right-wing liberal.

 

Ron Paul is more of a Democrat at heart than Obama is.

That's very incorrect because Democrats are in support of government spending and government meddling in economics.

 

In fact, he's better than Democrats at personal freedom. Dozens of democrats voted in support of the PATRIOT act. He didn't.

 

Russ Feingold, man what a guy.

You had me confused for a second there until I remembered that Ron Paul is not a senator.

Edited by theking1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rofl ron paul is bat shizzle insane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rofl ron paul is bat shizzle insane

Why? For wanting to decrease the federal government, which is costing taxpayers trillions of unnecessary dollars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'He doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state.

 

He believes abortion should be illegal.

 

He doesn’t support the repeal of DoMA and didn’t support the repeal of DADT.

 

He doesn’t support putting more money into inner-city schools, but does support vouchers for religious schools.

 

He believes creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

 

He doesn’t believe HIV causes AIDS.

 

While he doesn’t support a federal ban on gay marriage, he also doesn’t support a federal law legalizing gay marriage. Some see this as a states’ rights issue, and this is how he frames it, but he does support other federal legalization movements (drugs, for example).

 

His newsletter spouted horrible racist content for twenty years. He denies writing any of it, but if he allowed this content to go out under his name, he either approved it or was so ignorant of both the type of people he associates with and the type of content going under his name that he shouldn’t be trusted to run anything.

 

He believes in reinstating the gold standard, which most economists believe was one of the major causes of several financial crises during the early part of the 20th Century, including the Great Depression.

 

He wants to get rid of Affirmative Action.

 

He is a frequent guest on the Alex Jones radio show. Alex Jones is a government-hating conspiracy theorist nutter. If you don’t know who Alex Jones is, then Google him.

 

Any of these items should keep a sane liberal from voting for Ron Paul.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hes a libertarian and libertarians focus on small government :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'He doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state.

Where'd you read that? Small government tasked to enforce liberties doesn't equal theocracy. Preferring charity programs to welfare programs also doesn't equal theocracy.

 

He believes abortion should be illegal.

Though wants states to make their own distinctions and rules. He won't move to allow or ban it at the federal level.

 

He doesn’t support the repeal of DoMA and didn’t support the repeal of DADT.

If memory serves, because he considered the alternatives more lacking or unbalanced.

 

He doesn’t support putting more money into inner-city schools, but does support vouchers for religious schools.

He wants states to make their own decisions. Just sayin'. That means they can move money around to schools in need and wants it to be more competitive--seemingly where the funding follows the child.

 

He believes creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

Again, wants states to make the decision on whether to teach those alternative theories or not.

 

He doesn’t believe HIV causes AIDS.

From the functional standpoint, his membership in AAPS means he won't accept government medical insurance. I don't think he's a pathologist and I doubt he thinks himself qualified in that area. Maybe he does.

 

While he doesn’t support a federal ban on gay marriage, he also doesn’t support a federal law legalizing gay marriage. Some see this as a states’ rights issue, and this is how he frames it, but he does support other federal legalization movements (drugs, for example).

State's rights issue. One-size-fits-all is a disaster in and of itself.

 

His newsletter spouted horrible racist content for twenty years. He denies writing any of it, but if he allowed this content to go out under his name, he either approved it or was so ignorant of both the type of people he associates with and the type of content going under his name that he shouldn’t be trusted to run anything.

A myth that was debunked many years ago.

 

He believes in reinstating the gold standard, which most economists believe was one of the major causes of several financial crises during the early part of the 20th Century, including the Great Depression.

Wants to reinstate some type of monetary standard, so to prevent the devaluation of our currently fiat currency. Also, you're ignoring the impact of the bank failures. It was a bubble like no other. Having a fiat currency hasn't helped ease a similar bubble. It may prevent future crises and help to more adequately define our credit worthiness.

 

He wants to get rid of Affirmative Action.

For giving unfair and unequal advantage. It's an social intervention that he (and many others) wants gone. Affirmative Action IS inequality.

 

He is a frequent guest on the Alex Jones radio show. Alex Jones is a government-hating conspiracy theorist nutter. If you don’t know who Alex Jones is, then Google him.

Which is somehow worse? Do remember he's been quite ignored. I was watching broadcasts the morning after the Ames Straw Poll. The headlines basically went like this... "Michele Bachmann wins! Tim Pawlenty gets third and drops out! Rick Perry gets more write-in votes than Romney gets votes! Don't count out Rick Santorum or even Jon Huntsman!" That sounds a bit like a conspiracy to me. The only time mainstream media mentions Ron Paul is to remind themselves that there's no need to mention Ron Paul. "If you can get a sound bite out of Sarah Palin, please bring it back! We don't care about anything Ron Paul." It was pretty much like that before but now? It's in hyperdrive. The Ames Straw Poll is to gauge organizational strength and support in Iowa. Ron Paul's organization all but matched Bachmann and made the other candidates into a joke. Yet somehow, the three frontrunners are Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Michele Bachmann? Ron Paul out-polls Michele Bachmann and stands relatively even against Sarah Palin (in an expanded ballot)

 

Any of these items should keep a sane liberal from voting for Ron Paul.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think alot of people get a boner off him for his economic policy and his predictions in the past that were wildly ignored then came off to be pretty damn accurate.

 

But looking at alot of what Doddsy says I still find him very scary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He believes in reinstating the gold standard, which most economists believe was one of the major causes of several financial crises during the early part of the 20th Century, including the Great Depression.

Wants to reinstate some type of monetary standard, so to prevent the devaluation of our currently fiat currency. Also, you're ignoring the impact of the bank failures. It was a bubble like no other. Having a fiat currency hasn't helped ease a similar bubble. It may prevent future crises and help to more adequately define our credit worthiness.

 

The gold standard is a terrible economic policy and any economist will tell you this.

 

It would cause massive inflation. There is not nearly enough gold to back the trillions and trillions of US dollars in circulation today.

 

This is his main flaw actually.

Edited by Emo Nemo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny that Ron Paul is so against federal subsidies and government handouts, yet in 2007 voted against ending subsidies for oil exploration: http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_2007-040.htm

 

Also, how have claims about his newsletter already been debunked? How is an editor of a ~10 page newsletter not responsible when it publishes stuff like this?

 

Full text of article: http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp...2%2Fgannon.0793 (scroll down past the gibberish to read)

 

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
QUOTE

The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible.

 

The fact that he has appeared on the Alex Jones show gives evidence that he isn't concerned about associating himself with Birthers, Truthers, New World Order conspiracy theorists, Science Deniers, and people who believe that the government is putting fluoride in the water to turn everyone gay. It would be a strawman to say that this is evidence that he agrees with them, as he may simply be trying to get his message out to as many people as possible, but his science-denying positions make me uncomfortable when I consider this.

Edited by heb0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But looking at alot of what Doddsy says I still find him very scary.

Too bad it was factually incorrect and full of liberal bias.

Edited by theking1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But looking at alot of what Doddsy says I still find him very scary.

Too bad it was factually incorrect and full of liberal bias.

'He doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state.

 

He believes abortion should be illegal. Paul voted 'Yea' in favor on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000, proving that he doesn't oppose abortion simply because he thinks it should be a state issue. It was a Federal ban, after all.

 

He doesn’t support the repeal of DoMA and didn’t support the repeal of DADT. He voted in favor of the bill that lay the groundwork for repealing DADT, the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 and in favor of a related amendment.

 

He doesn’t support putting more money into inner-city schools, but does support vouchers for religious schools. He supports tax credits for families who home school or send their kids to other schools, and sponsored a bill that would basically give families money to donate to a school of their choosing.

 

He believes creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools. I found one piece of evidence for this. The question was loaded as hell, and I suppose he could just be uninformed, but his answer is pretty indicative of a "teach the controversy" standpoint.

Q: Academic freedom is threatened when questioning the theory of evolution. An Iowa State astronomer was denied tenure because of his work in intelligent design in May 2007. Censoring alternative theories--dogmatic indoctrination--has replaced scientific inquiry. Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?
PAUL: Yes.

 

He doesn’t believe HIV causes AIDS.His son, Rand Paul, is a member of a group that questions the link between HIV and AIDS. However, I haven't seen anything that says either of them have explicitly stated this belief. Paul has apparently published articles in his newsletter concerning AIDS that were homophobic and racist, but he seem to be more guilty of overstating the link rather than denying it.

 

His newsletter spouted horrible racist content for twenty years. He denies writing any of it, but if he allowed this content to go out under his name, he either approved it or was so ignorant of both the type of people he associates with and the type of content going under his name that he shouldn’t be trusted to run anything. Scarily enough, this is completely true

 

It all seems pretty factually correct to me,for the most part. Certainly nothing to be dismissed with a wave of the hand.

Edited by heb0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.