[QUOTE=RBM11;31825082]Actually he's both[/QUOTE]
how so?
[QUOTE=nigfops;31825166]how so?[/QUOTE]
Idiot portion of him:
"Because he agrees with Thomas Jefferson that it is “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,” Ron Paul will also protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program. "
* Eliminating the income, capital gains, and death taxes to ensure you keep more of your hard-earned money and are able to pass on your legacy to your family without government interference.
* Opposing all unfunded mandates and unnecessary regulations on small businesses and entrepreneurs.
Insane part of him:
"The power to tax is the power to destroy, which is why Ron Paul will never support higher taxes."
* Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.
He quotes the douchebag of the millenium: Milton fucking Friedman.
I'm still rooting for P[B]a[/B]rry.
@fredrik
So are you trying to say that you can have open borders and a welfare state?
That obviously won't work. It was something the founders made sure they instilled: national sovereignty. The idea of amnesty, unconditional accomodations, etc. is wrong.
I think Ron Paul realizes that immigration problems in the US stem from free trade, and the meddling of the US in Central and South America.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31823866]why does everybody fucking like this guy
he's a creationist anti abortion anti gay marriage libertarian idiot who's only redeeming facet is that he's actually thick enough to believe the shit he spouts[/QUOTE]
Although that's true, when compared to the rest of the people running for office he seems to be the only one that[I] looks sane[/I].
[QUOTE=snuwoods;31825150]This guy embodies reddit. He's a whiny bitch. His argument reduces to using derivatives of "fuck" continuously for 8 min.
Also, he took the evolution thing out of context--you can see the obvious editing.[/QUOTE]
TJ says a lot of people support Ron Paul because he wants to stop the wars, but they ignore the major points Ron is being a retard about.
Ron Paul:
- is against abortion, which isn't progressive
- denies evolution, which can have huge effect on his policy
- doesn't believe in separation between [b]church and state[/b]. Horrible for a president
Sure he has some good ideas, but the ideas stated above nullify the good ones. Vote for Ron and you'll win the war. But your country will be kicked back to the 1950's.
All the info in this post came from Amazingatheist's video. I checked some of the facts online. Ron paul is a retard.
Also did you seriously imply that TJ can't be taken seriously because he likes reddit? In that case I'll use the same argument and say your words can't be trusted because you post on facepunch!
Ad hominem.
Ron Paul is a sack of shit. He may be the best that Republicans have to offer, but that changes absolutely nothing.
The way I see it, the best option would be to re-elect Obama. He's the lesser evil.
It will be another hundred years before an atheist will be president of the US though. That absolutely won't happen soon :v:.
Seriously, a country in which you can choose between three parties (tea party included), and about the same amount of single persons to run the entire fucking country.
You don't have much of a choice, but please just choose the lesser evil.
Fuck the media.
What politician is going to end the war?
Ron Paul says he will, but Obama's plans were to pull out as well. Everyone seems to have forgotten that.
And everyone seems to forget that you can say you're going to do something as much as you want.
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;31825458]Although that's true, when compared to the rest of the people running for office he seems to be the only one that[I] looks sane[/I].[/QUOTE]
That was actually Mitt Romney...until he had to start competing for the insanity that has become a bulk of the voting base for Republicans.
[QUOTE=Falstad007;31824116]Despite his beliefs, he doesnt go overboard by insisting that he believes is right should be the national standard.
If people want gay marriage, abortion, and any of the other controversial social issues, it'd be up to the states.
Also, I would much rather have Ron Paul in office instead of our current president. Ron Paul might actually stick to his promises and get shit done.[/QUOTE]
Are you fucking kidding me? Some of his promises [i]include[/i] banning abortion, mind you. Who's to say he won't put other personal beliefs into the mix? He also doesn't believe in the separation of Church & State, he has said this numerous times already in some of his speeches.
Not only that but so far Obama hasn't been all that bad, but since he's the president it's his job to take all the blame. The only problem I have with Obama is that he's the biggest pussy of a president I've ever seen.
[QUOTE=snuwoods;31823802]Desolategrunt believes that a candidate's party affiliation signifies their beliefs. How naive.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't? Isn't that the point of joining a party, to voice your beliefs that are shared with others?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31823866]why does everybody fucking like this guy
he's a creationist anti abortion anti gay marriage libertarian idiot who's only redeeming facet is that he's actually thick enough to believe the shit he spouts[/QUOTE]
See, this is what happens when the media doesn't do it's job and give fair coverage. There was an interview with John Stossel back a few years ago where he explicitly stated he supports gay's right to marriage. Ron Paul also voted to repeal the "Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy" (HR 5136 & Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010). Also: [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84[/URL]
As for him being a creationist, from all I've seen and heard from Ron Paul, he doesn't explicitly say if he's a creationist. There's a clip that was circulated around on reddit and YouTube ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw[/url]) which most people say is proof that Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution and is thus therefore a Creationist. However, the clip has been edited (note the glitch at 0:30 mark) and they edited out the part where Paul says the Creationists theory is also flawed. What he really said was that both theories are lacking. However, someone sent an an email to his campaign commitee asking for Ron Paul's view on evolution and they said Ron Paul believes in evolution: ([url]http://www.shanktified.com/archives/ron-paul-campaign-on-evolution[/url]) There was also a debate a few years, I think with the last presidential election, and all the Republican candidates where asked to raise their hand if they [B]didn't believe[/B] in evolution. Ron Paul didn't raise his hand.
From all of this, my guess would be that Ron Paul probably does believe in evolution, but it was guided by a creator. IMO, that isn't so bad and Ron Paul does not seem like the authoritarian who would shove down his beliefs on others or "try to pray the gays away" or that other crap. Obama believes in a God, but he doesn't go shoving that down our throats.
But then again here's the main issue, all possible candidates for presidency should be given [b]fair coverage[/b] by the media. It should be up to us, to make our own choices and decide who we think is best to be President. It's the job of the news to report as much fact as they can, not hide them. I find it kind of insulting actually. With the media focusing only on a few candidates, what they're saying in fact is that you, the people are too effing stupid to make up your own mind. They're afraid of the people thinking on their own.
IMO, if the media ([B]which are owned by big corporations[/B] such as GE, News Corp, etc.) are afraid of Ron Paul, he must be doing something right then.
[QUOTE=GoodStuff;31826525]See, this is what happens when the media doesn't do it's job and give fair coverage. There was an interview with John Stossel back a few years ago with he explicitly stated he supports gay's right to marriage. Ron Paul also voted to repeal the "Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy" (HR 5136 & Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010). Also: [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84[/URL]
As for him being a creationist, from all I've seen and heard from Ron Paul, he doesn't explicitly say if he's a creationist. There's a clip that was circulated around on reddit and YouTube ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw[/url]) which most people say is proof that Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution and is thus therefore a creationists. However, the clip has been edited (note the glitch at 0:30 mark) and they edited out the part where Paul says the Creationists theory is also flawed. What he really said was that both theories are lacking. However, someone sent an an email to his campaign commitee asking for Ron Paul's view on evolution and they said Ron Paul believes in evolution: ([url]http://www.shanktified.com/archives/ron-paul-campaign-on-evolution[/url]) There was also a debate a few years, I think with the last presidential election, and all the Republican candidates where asked to raise their hand if they [B]didn't believe[/B] in evolution. Ron Paul didn't raise his hand.
From all of this, my guess would be that Ron Paul probably does believe in evolution, but it was guided by a creator. IMO, that isn't so bad and Ron Paul does not seem like the authoritarian who would shove down his beliefs on others or "try to pray the gays away" or that other crap. Obama believes in a God, he doesn't go shoving that down our throats.
But then again here's the main issue, all possible candidates for presidency should be given [b]fair coverage[/b] by the media. It should be up to us, to make our own choices and decide who we think is best to be President. I find it kind of insulting actually. With the media focusing only on a few candidates, what they're saying in fact is that you, the people are too effing stupid to make up your own mind. They're afraid of the people thinking on their own.
IMO, if the media ([B]which are owned by big corporations[/B] such as GE, News Corp, etc.) are afraid of Ron Paul, he must be doing something right then.[/QUOTE]
And what is your defense of his anti-abortion, climate change denial and the death penalty?
[editline]20th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=GoodStuff;31826525]
But then again here's the main issue, all possible candidates for presidency should be given [b]fair coverage[/b] by the media. It should be up to us, to make our own choices and decide who we think is best to be President. It's the job of the news to report as much fact as they can, not hide them. I find it kind of insulting actually. With the media focusing only on a few candidates, what they're saying in fact is that you, the people are too effing stupid to make up your own mind. They're afraid of the people thinking on their own.[/QUOTE]
Rick Perry only received a few more - is there some kind of media conspiracy to stop people voting for him?
What has Ron Paul done in the last few months that is interesting and unusual?
[QUOTE=FPtje;31825657]Ron Paul says he will, but Obama's plans were to pull out as well. Everyone seems to have forgotten that.[/QUOTE]
The difference between Paul and Obama is Paul plans to withdraw military from EVERYWHERE.
Not just Iraq and Afghanistan.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31826631]The difference between Paul and Obama is Paul plans to withdraw military from EVERYWHERE.
Not just Iraq and Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]
It's a good thing that the United States has no reason to protect its interests outside the country, then.
[QUOTE=Contag;31826714]It's a good thing that the United States has no reason to protect its interests outside the country, then.[/QUOTE]
Because we really need to protect our interests in Germany at the moment :v:
[QUOTE=Contag;31826714]It's a good thing that the United States has no reason to protect its interests outside the country, then.[/QUOTE]
I support removal of the military from other nations, save perhaps a minor few, because I believe a military should be a purely defensive, for ourselves and on occasion our allies, force, and not an offensive one, which the military has been since 1945 in most instances. This is one of the few things I will agree with Ron Paul on. Please don't support a neoconservative value just to oppose a fiscal conservative.
[QUOTE=Contag;31826587]What has Ron Paul done in the last few months that is interesting and unusual?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.unelected.org/audit-of-the-federal-reserve-reveals-16-trillion-in-secret-bailouts[/url]
This is one of the things he did.
[QUOTE=Contag;31826587]And what is your defense of his anti-abortion, climate change denial and the death penalty?
[/QUOTE]
Ron Paul has not denied climate change. According to an interview of him, climate change has happened throughout history ([url]http://www.grist.org/article/paul1[/url]). He want's to stop businesses from emitting pollutions and also want's other countries to do so (like China). From my understanding of what I've read on Ron Paul, he is gambling on the hope that the private sector will come up with solution to alternative energies. And this is why his stance on less control and more emphasis on small businesses correlates with his stance on the environment. What's happening today, small businesses develop new technologies, only to have their technology bought out by big companies to remove competition.
As for abortion, yes Ron Paul is pro life, but he does not believe in the death penalty as he argues it doesn't work since he believes "If you're rich, you get away with it; if you're poor and you're from the inner city you're more likely to be prosecuted and convicted, and today, with the DNA evidence, there've been too many mistakes, and I am now opposed to the federal death penalty." (He said this on the Tavis Smiley show)
This is where I actually disagree with Ron Paul. IMO, if it where up to me, I'd rather have rapists be aborted/killed than a fetus. The rapists committed crime, the fetus didn't. The reason the death penalty exists is to punish those who commit heinous crimes (murder/rape/etc.)
[QUOTE=Contag;31826587]
Rick Perry only received a few more - is there some kind of media conspiracy to stop people voting for him?
What has Ron Paul done in the last few months that is interesting and unusual?[/QUOTE]
What's your point? I wouldn't mind if all the other candidates received equal coverage. So according to you, one has to be unusual to get more media coverage? So the media should go, praise and report nothing else but only Michelle Bachmann? She seems the most unusual and interesting (and I mean in the really bad way interesting). And if a candidate was normal and not interesting at all, he/she shouldn't get media coverage?
I'm saying if Ron Paul huffed petrol and ran about making ludicrous promises and calling Germany the 3rd Reich he'd be getting alot more media attention.
[editline]20th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=danelo;31826871][url]http://www.unelected.org/audit-of-the-federal-reserve-reveals-16-trillion-in-secret-bailouts[/url]
This is one of the things he did.[/QUOTE]
You expect the mainstream media to report about the fed being terrible?
Ahahahah, c'mon.
[editline]20th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31826762]Because we really need to protect our interests in Germany at the moment :v:[/QUOTE]
Ramstein Airbase provides a platform for the United States to project it's power throughout Europe and beyond.
All I want is Obama out of office, plain and simple.
I want jon stewart to be president
Ron Paul is a wingnut that will never come near the presidency, that's why the media (and everyone else) ignores him.
Though I do think the coverage of Trump's "campaign" was irresponsible and stupid.
So this guy wants to leave abortion and gay rights up to the states? Well I live in Texas and I don't mind if he supports that, knowing how people vote here.
@goodstuff
I agree with most of your points, you're well informed. However, you didn't fully articulate Ron Paul's environmental policy. He wants to get rid of the EPA. He believes that the EPA shields environmental offenders. Ron Paul would like to see polluters prosecuted in court.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
