• Ron Paul says he'll push through to convention no matter what
    213 replies, posted
Right, that's valid shitty points. Too bad everything turns shitty once you focus exclusively on the disadvantages while completely ignoring the advantages. (btw, the racism "story" wasn't even anything more than a media smear)
[QUOTE=Isuzu;35712905]Right, that's valid shitty points. Too bad everything turns shitty once you focus exclusively on the disadvantages while completely ignoring the advantages. (btw, the racism "story" wasn't even anything more than a media smear)[/QUOTE]dude there's a certain point where disadvantages (being an awful bigoted person) outweigh any advantages that he could bring "i know this guy is really terrible and holds views that went out of date a 100 years ago and is seemingly senile but the advantages........."
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;35712423]Possibly. Have you ever heard of Monsanto, GE, GM, etc? They are monopolies that lobby the government and with GM are partially owned by the government, Government intruded by preventing them from failing, altho they had made several risky endeavors and in true capitalism would've failed, allowing for small car companies to fill the niche. Government took partial ownership, they came out with the Volt, which was supposed to put em back on their feet, and instituted Cash for Clunkers, in which MANY great older cars( old cars were better made) were traded in for a new car... The Volt failed, and Cash for clunkers didnt exactly do as well as it was claimed. To me personally the government has no rights in business, especially since its already proven, they get lobbied from said businesses that they are involved with. back in the 90's the FDA and EPA simply ignored the facts from Monsantos own scientists who said the GMO food was harmful... Why? Monsanto was Lobbying... and we were taking bribes, etc. Also, check out the Austrian school of economics. On Education. [url]http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-failure-of-american-public-education/[/url][/QUOTE] Here's the problem with taking Ron Paul's arguments 100% to the tee... 1. He puts way too much trust in the free market/corporations. Corporations more than ever have been exposed to just how corrupt they run and how much power they hold. To give them all the power in a "free market" way would never work, much in the same way that direct democracy would never work. "Vote with your wallets" isn't much of a vote when someone dominates the ad chanells, money flow, and monoplizes markets. Ron Paul basically advocates that the government isn't responsable to protect the people from that. 2. Believes that government services are bad, because they cost money. If we had Ron Paul around back in the 60's or so, we'd not of seen the Interstate Highway System, a key public works project that has done nothing but accellerate our economies, lessen the segregation effect between the rich and the poor, and allow free travel/tourism easily to any part of the US. And that's the problem. Someone who thinks like Ron Paul would never approve a national health service, despite healthcare being as essential of a right to have as having policemen or firemen, and despite the fact that the worlds best healthcare systems are all socialized and have a tax rate to support it. Someone like ron paul would never approve of essential government services that enhance the lives of its citizens, and protects them. Yes, there's a lot of government stuff that should be cut and there's a lot of bullshit involved too. But that's the real issue - Ron Paul's solutions are to basically give the government no power because "it can't be trusted" and "its too corrupt"... instead of actually fixing the corruption and the issues it has as a system. He's non-interventionist not only internationally, but nationally on our own homeland as well. That's the problem. We've got problems that need solved, many of them government related, and he'd rather just stop the ability for the government to solve them, so the blame can be passed elsewhere instead of actually *manning up* and solving some issues.
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;35712589]Ron Paul wants to [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597:]define life as starting at conception[/url], [url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll446.xml]build a fence along the US-Mexico border[/url], [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:]prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced)[/url], [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:]pull out of the UN[/url], [url=http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr033004.htm]disband NATO[/url], [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46:]end birthright citizenship[/url], [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:]deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,[/url], [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:]and abolish the Federal Reserve[/url] in order to [url=http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm]put America back on the gold standard[/url]. He was also [url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-764]the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.[/url] Oh, and he [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html]believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas[/url], he's [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html]against gay marriage[/url], [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html]is against the popular vote[/url], [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html]opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964[/url], [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul328.html]wants the estate tax repealed[/url], [url=http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/]is STILL making racist remarks[/url], [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.con.res.231:]believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States[/url], and [url=http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/ron_paul_first_bush_was_working_towards_nwo.htm]believes in New World Order conspiracy theories[/url], not to mention [url=http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007:]his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control.[/url] faaaaaaaaaaart beep boop faaaaaart[/QUOTE] I won't go through all of those one by one, I don't even support Dr.Paul's campaign but I want to call out some outstanding things on that list. The popular vote/direct democracy thing has been addressed in earlier posts here. Problem with disbanding NATO? Problem with the fence? He is against giving citizenship to someone who is born in the US to non-citizen parents. He has valid reasons for putting this argument forward, one of the main ones being that it encourages illegal immigration, something he can't possibly support. His problem with the civil rights act is the power it gives to the federal gov. to intervene in business He was probably against the bill about Sudan because he didn't want the US to get involved with another nation's affairs, specifically this part of the bill [quote]"C) urges the Administration to seriously consider multilateral intervention to stop genocide in Darfur should the United Nations Security Council fail to act ; and[/quote] I won't defend his religious/homosexuality/abortion bullshit (which is why I don't support him as a candidate) but it seems like you're just gish galloping, even though he puts forward arguments for nearly all of those points you mentioned, you've disputed none of his arguments. [QUOTE=KorJax;35712986]1. He puts way too much trust in the free market/corporations. Corporations more than ever have been exposed to just how corrupt they run and how much power they hold. To give them all the power in a "free market" way would never work, much in the same way that direct democracy would never work. "Vote with your wallets" isn't much of a vote when someone dominates the ad chanells, money flow, and monoplizes markets. Ron Paul basically advocates that the government isn't responsable to protect the people from that.[/quote] To be fair he would probably just say that someone dominates the ad channels, money flow, and is a monopoly because of government intervention in the market in the first place.
How can anyone even make they argument when monopolies were strongest in the laissez-faire era?
[QUOTE=thisispain;35708148]yeah who cares about the rights of women[/QUOTE] You act like he is campaigning to win and make all of his personal thoughts reality. He is campaigning to spread a message about the federal government spending. Not saying his federal message is right or not, just saying. But your logic we should be mad at MLK for his anti-gay beliefs. Even though he didn't push them.
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;35712952]dude there's a certain point where disadvantages (being an awful bigoted person) outweigh any advantages that he could bring "i know this guy is really terrible and holds views that went out of date a 100 years ago and is seemingly senile but the advantages........."[/QUOTE] So sorry that paul isn't your super duper candidate riding a unicorn into the sunset with chocolate sprinkles but in a time where the alternative is losing your country to a forming authoritarian surveillance state and foreign policies that not only ran your economy in the ground but also completely destroyed what little good standing you had with most nations on this planet not to speak of the human catastrophes they have caused and the nations they have left torn up socially and politically it's not that hard to weigh out the advantages to the disadvantages. So the advantage of finally stopping a 40 year endeavour of engaging in war in pretty much every part of the globe is... dunno? Kinda big?
[QUOTE=NorseTech;35708434]I'd rather have a good politician than a moral crusader [/QUOTE] that's fucking great for you, but saying shit like "who cares about abortion" is really stupid considering you should know that a lot of people care about abortion regardless of whatever you'd "rather have". and obviously he seeks to affect the access to abortion or else it wouldn't be his platform. he wouldn't be seeking the votes of anti-abortion people.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;35713274]How can anyone even make they argument when monopolies were strongest in the laissez-faire era?[/QUOTE] I don't think this country was ever operating under true free market conditions.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35713453]that's fucking great for you, but saying shit like "who cares about abortion" is really stupid considering you should know that a lot of people care about abortion regardless of whatever you'd "rather have". and obviously he seeks to affect the access to abortion or else it wouldn't be his platform. he wouldn't be seeking the votes of anti-abortion people.[/QUOTE] Well the point is he knows he won't win so he is trying to use the campaign to persuade some [I]very specific[/I] points he finds important, none of which involved abortion. So it is irrelevant. Think of this as a persuasion speech in a speech class where the student must pick a very specific topic. I do not even agree with Ron Paul on nearly nearly anything but I will give credit where credit is due, and I acknowledge Ron Paul's only thing he is trying to accomplish at this point and moment is some economic federal issues which I don't even necessarily agree with. His stance on abortion is not relevant atm considering what he is trying to persuade people of.
[QUOTE=Noble;35713484]I don't think this country was ever operating under true free market conditions.[/QUOTE] Industrial revolution was extremely close.
[QUOTE=Isuzu;35713446]So sorry that paul isn't your super duper candidate riding a unicorn into the sunset with chocolate sprinkles but in a time where the alternative is losing your country to a forming authoritarian surveillance state and foreign policies that not only ran your economy in the ground but also completely destroyed what little good standing you had with most nations on this planet not to speak of the human catastrophes they have caused and the nations they have left torn up socially and politically it's not that hard to weigh out the advantages to the disadvantages. So the advantage of finally stopping a 40 year endeavour of engaging in war in pretty much every part of the globe is... dunno? Kinda big?[/QUOTE]you really think it would be easy to stop americas war mongering that easily? and i don't really think would make me want someone who doesn't give a shit about womens or minorities rights in a position of power, him wanting to stop a war doesn't make him not an awful person
[quote=Pilot1215 on the last page]<On iPod, can't quote exact post>[/quote] Individual rights, huh? I guess gay people aren't individuals in Paul's eyes.
You guys realize leaving gay marriage up to the states is what we already do right? Obama said he won't defend DOMA if someone takes it up to the supreme court but other than that doesn't look like that's going to change anytime soon even with democrats in charge
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;35713534]Industrial revolution was extremely close.[/QUOTE] Industrial revolution hit europe/england harder than it hit the US - the US was kind of "delayed" in that sense. It was still here, and the problems with it, but it wasn't as rampant as it was in UK and such. Hell, during industrial revolution times, a ferry sank in the Thames river in London (I think?) and EVERYONE DIED within minutes, not because of drowning, but because of how toxic the waters were. I don't think anything like that ever happened in the US, the biggest industrial push that the US went through was World War II and to a lesser extent World War I, after the majority of rampant industrialization started to become regulated. Funilly enough, when we did that we became a superpower and the largest creditor nation in the world.
[QUOTE=Isuzu;35712905]Right, that's valid shitty points. Too bad everything turns shitty once you focus exclusively on the disadvantages while completely ignoring the advantages. (btw, the racism "story" wasn't even anything more than a media smear)[/QUOTE] "The gold standard is the way to go man! We have enough gold for it, right?! Yeah!" Seriously [editline]25th April 2012[/editline] I respect Ron Paul in that he is staying in to prove a point, but he has 0 chance and his policies and beliefs are crazy.
He's determined, but I don't like him. His policies will just leave those already in power, and that's not what we need right now.
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;35712589]and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard[/QUOTE] So you want to allow the Federal Reserve to establish artificial price controls under the idea that it will create economic stimulus? Ok, let's say interest rates are at an all time low. I can take out a loan and start up a business and turn a profit after paying back my loan. Now this sounds like a great idea right? Problem: everyone wants to follow this course of action since it's assumed that the risk of going bankrupt is minimal. Now you're faced with tons of other competitors in your region and you are unable to generate enough income to make a profit. Thus, many businesses collapse and the economy is fucked. So, what's wrong with letting the market decide interest rates? You idiots also seem to claim the gold standard is horrible because gold has "no intrinsic value". The problem with this conclusion is gold is a valuable natural resource with [URL="http://geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-of-gold.shtml"]uses in manufacturing, electronics, space, and so on.[/URL] To anyone with a brain, it would make sense to include gold in a basket of other resources that represents what our country produces in order to reinforce the value of our currency. The most idiotic point however is that gold is radically fluctuating in price, but that is adjusted for [B]inflation[/B]; it's relative to the worth of our dollar and coincides with the fact that it is constantly being devalued, which is exactly what the gold standard aims to eliminate. Still crazy about your shit fiat money? That's okay, I don't expect a bunch of kids on this forum with [B]assburgers[/B] to use common sense. [editline]25th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=benzi2k7;35713635]and i don't really think would make me want someone who doesn't give a shit about womens or minorities rights in a position of power[/QUOTE] That's so horribly racist and sexist that you should be ashamed. Rights go to [B]individuals[/B], not [B]groups.[/B] The mere fact that you are separating people into groups perpetuates discrimination; [B]FACT.[/B]
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;35711416]Yeah, like Rwanda.[/quote] I said this: "Peacekeeping has been a success when the UN countries actually pay attention to it." And Rwanda is testament to this fact. [quote]Or the Guatemalan Civil War (we put the bad guys in charge). Or the Bangladesh atrocities (we supported the perpetrators)? Or the Sabra and Shatila massacre? Then of course there was the massacre of Kurds in Iraq which you seem to imply we were going to stop, but it stopped about 14 years prior? And how about recently in Darfur? Sorry boy-o, but other American presidents have a worse history than Paul would -- actively establishing dictatorships and largely ignoring atrocities.[/QUOTE] That's nice, good thing I'm not arguing for that. Do you people actively not read my point, or do you just purposely do it? Like fuck, you're doing the exact same thing yawmwen is doing, arguing against a point that i haven't made. I have made it clear, fucking abundantly clear, that when you do interventionism for resource gain or political reasons (like contras), it's dangerous. And blowback can occur. I said this, and here you are, providing evidence against the point I SPECIFICALLY said I was against. I don't know if you just missed it, or you have reading comprehension issues, or maybe you're just incredibly stupid, I don't know, whatever the reason, learn to argue someone's point.
[QUOTE=Hayburner;35715006] That's so horribly racist and sexist that you should be ashamed. Rights go to [B]individuals[/B], not [B]groups.[/B] The mere fact that you are separating people into groups perpetuates discrimination; [B]FACT.[/B][/QUOTE] hahah what the fuck
[QUOTE=thisispain;35715140]hahah what the fuck[/QUOTE] Context from the man himself: [quote]All rights are individuals. We do not get our rights because we belong to a group, whether it's homosexual, women, minorities - it leads us astray. So it's much more important to understand that all individuals have the right to their life, if they do no harm you don't try to do a whole lot about it. If you want to change people, you change them through persuasion, through family values and church values. But you can't do it through legislation because force doesn't work... A group can't force themselves on anybody else. So there should be no affirmative action for any group, so if a homosexual group wanted to enforce their way on us, there's no right to do that either.[/quote] It's not how I would've put it, but you have to agree that classifying people with labels and groups is essentially equivalent to race discrimination.
[QUOTE=lotusking;35707867]holy shit newsletters from 1990s that he didnt even write it's clear he's a white supremicist nigger lynching, what a horrible human being![/QUOTE] So if he did write the newsletters he's a terrible racist. If he didn't he's a liar and can't even manager a newsletter published in his name.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;35712016]Im pro-choice, but i support Paul because he said its not the Federal governments right to tell people if they can or cant. It is the States right. Its the States right for Gay Marriage as well.[/quote] The fact he has in the past supported federal legislation in the past points out the contrary. He's a fucking liar. [quote]States right for education, etc.[/quote] They already have it and it's not working very well. [quote]I will not sit here all day to discuss this, but when mentioning Ron Paul, the guy is the best chance we got.[/quote] Yeah okay, gold standard, extreme privatisation, and going back to the articles of confederation is absolutely going to save us*. *no it's not. [quote]i tried 4 years of Obama, I disliked him more than i disliked Bush...[/quote] For the blind and ignorant, okay, I can understand. But you can't possibly say a war criminal who put the country INTO the fucking mess it is, somehow is better than Obama. [quote]Under Paul the US wouldn't turn into a huge corporatist entity...he believes in True Capitalism, which doesn't believe in Monopolies,[/quote] Well guess what, capitalism is a failure of an idea. Everything it supports, will eventually collapse. Without regulation, capitalism will form monopolies. This is an inevitable fact. It happened all the time during the advent of capitalism. [quote] it believes that everyone should work for what they want, Some make it better than others... [/quote] No it doesn't. Now it may seem all well and nice that if you work you get what you want, but capitalism will never work like that. Because money is too powerful, and when the money makers have absolute power, you get fucked. [quote]The guys changed his mind somewhat since DOMA... he hasn't lied in 30 years though.[/quote] No he hasn't. He hasn't changed his mind, he's just running for president. And when you run for president, you bullshit. [editline]25th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Hayburner;35715172]Context from the man himself: It's not how I would've put it, but you have to agree that classifying people with labels and groups is essentially equivalent to race discrimination.[/QUOTE] True fact, there is no such thing as women
[QUOTE=Hayburner;35715172]Context from the man himself: It's not how I would've put it, but you have to agree that classifying people with labels and groups is essentially equivalent to race discrimination.[/QUOTE] sounds more like rhetoric that doesn't mean anything, sorry i'm a die-hard marxie we don't believe in pointless rhetoric. being against abortion is being against the right of a woman to have control over her body, it doesn't matter where you think rights come from or who it applies to. and what the fuck no that isn't the same as race discrimination, race discrimination is something that actively hurts people.
[QUOTE=Hayburner;35715006]So you want to allow the Federal Reserve to establish artificial price controls under the idea that it will create economic stimulus? Ok, let's say interest rates are at an all time low. I can take out a loan and start up a business and turn a profit after paying back my loan. Now this sounds like a great idea right? Problem: everyone wants to follow this course of action since it's assumed that the risk of going bankrupt is minimal. Now you're faced with tons of other competitors in your region and you are unable to generate enough income to make a profit. Thus, many businesses collapse and the economy is fucked. So, what's wrong with letting the market decide interest rates? You idiots also seem to claim the gold standard is horrible because gold has "no intrinsic value". The problem with this conclusion is gold is a valuable natural resource with [URL="http://geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-of-gold.shtml"]uses in manufacturing, electronics, space, and so on.[/URL] To anyone with a brain, it would make sense to include gold in a basket of other resources that represents what our country produces in order to reinforce the value of our currency. The most idiotic point however is that gold is radically fluctuating in price, but that is adjusted for [B]inflation[/B]; it's relative to the worth of our dollar and coincides with the fact that it is constantly being devalued, which is exactly what the gold standard aims to eliminate. Still crazy about your shit fiat money? That's okay, I don't expect a bunch of kids on this forum with [B]assburgers[/B] to use common sense. [editline]25th April 2012[/editline] That's so horribly racist and sexist that you should be ashamed. Rights go to [B]individuals[/B], not [B]groups.[/B] The mere fact that you are separating people into groups perpetuates discrimination; [B]FACT.[/B][/QUOTE] And if you used common sense and not be a kid with assburgers you would know that the value of gold changes according to how common it is. Say if someone found out a extremely large deposit of gold anywhere. The net worth of gold would plummet completely, thus destroying our economy. Thats why gold prices go up and down constantly.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35715232]sounds more like rhetoric that doesn't mean anything, sorry i'm a die-hard marxie we don't believe in pointless rhetoric. being against abortion is being against the right of a woman to have control over her body, it doesn't matter where you think rights come from or who it applies to. and what the fuck no that isn't the same as race discrimination, race discrimination is something that actively hurts people.[/QUOTE] That is a totally different argument from the point I'm trying to make to you. It's not "pointless", and I assume you used a thesaurus to learn a new word ("rhetoric", though it's a poor application for this situation). What I am telling you is common sense; what alcoholics refer to as "a moment of clarity" (thanks, Tarantino). Not to mention plenty of "Marxies" rely on "pointless rhetoric" to reach out to disenfranchised youth; it's been seen way too many times for you to deny it bro.
Hayburner, I've seen some really bizarre attempts by conservatives to pin racism and sexism on something, but that really took the top. Let me recap, so he's sexist and racist because he generalised the rights of a group, to that group. oookay.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;35715267]And if you used common sense and not be a kid with assburgers you would know that the value of gold changes according to how common it is. Say if someone found out a extremely large deposit of gold anywhere. The net worth of gold would plummet completely, thus destroying our economy. Thats why gold prices go up and down constantly.[/QUOTE] Your argument would make sense if it weren't for the fact that 90% of the gold in the world has already been discovered. Besides, why not take my other point into consideration; that not only gold should be used?
[QUOTE=Hayburner;35715284]That is a totally different argument from the point I'm trying to make to you. It's not "pointless", and I assume you used a thesaurus to learn a new word ("rhetoric", though it's a poor application for this situation). What I am telling you is common sense; what alcoholics refer to as "a moment of clarity" (thanks, Tarantino). Not to mention plenty of "Marxies" rely on "pointless rhetoric" to reach out to disenfranchised youth; it's been seen way too many times for you to deny it bro.[/QUOTE] Oh no, it's fucking pointless.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35715097]I said this: "Peacekeeping has been a success when the UN countries actually pay attention to it." And Rwanda is testament to this fact. That's nice, good thing I'm not arguing for that. Do you people actively not read my point, or do you just purposely do it? Like fuck, you're doing the exact same thing yawmwen is doing, arguing against a point that i haven't made. I have made it clear, fucking abundantly clear, that when you do interventionism for resource gain or political reasons (like contras), it's dangerous. And blowback can occur. I said this, and here you are, providing evidence against the point I SPECIFICALLY said I was against. I don't know if you just missed it, or you have reading comprehension issues, or maybe you're just incredibly stupid, I don't know, whatever the reason, learn to argue someone's point.[/QUOTE] has any president ever been neither non-interventionist or interventionist for resource gain?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.