From over here in Australia I see Ron Paul as the best of a bad batch. This is a very scary thought. From what I've seen his brand of libertarianism is all about the rights of the state, not the rights of the individual, to the point of advocating that states be allowed to be as oppressive as they damn well please. This is not my brand of libertarianism. I don't see the evil in the federal government laying down the law (over state government) if doing so gives more people more freedom (Though I do see the dangers in giving the federal government all that power, any decision can be changed by the Bachman's or Santorums should they be swept to power, then, rather than having to flee your state, you'll have to flee your country).

For me in terms of priorities social liberalism comes first, fiscal conservatism comes second. Now obviously in a financial crisis the fiscal becomes more important than it previously was, but what was his focus all these years, fiscal or social issues?

The state's rights? That's just a convenient way to pass the buck on hot button issues so as to have an if-by-whiskey available to you on any given issue.

(February 8, 2012 at 9:37 am)Stue Denim Wrote: From over here in Australia I see Ron Paul as the best of a bad batch. This is a very scary thought. From what I've seen his brand of libertarianism is all about the rights of the state, not the rights of the individual, to the point of advocating that states be allowed to be as oppressive as they damn well please. This is not my brand of libertarianism. I don't see the evil in the federal government laying down the law (over state government) if doing so gives more people more freedom (Though I do see the dangers in giving the federal government all that power, any decision can be changed by the Bachman's or Santorums should they be swept to power, then, rather than having to flee your state, you'll have to flee your country).

For me in terms of priorities social liberalism comes first, fiscal conservatism comes second. Now obviously in a financial crisis the fiscal becomes more important than it previously was, but what was his focus all these years, fiscal or social issues?

To me, social liberalism is all that is needed. Fiscal policies will fall right into place as the free people see fit to apply, as long as social liberalism reigns supreme in the minds of the majority of a nation.

Sadly, we arent anywhere near this. Of course if you compare us to other nations (like Saudi Arabia) we look MASSIVELY social liberal, but compared to otherwestern nations we are on the bottom end.

---

Quote:Of course everything is obvious.. NOW!.... 10 YEARS LATER, YOU TOOL !!!

Are you suggesting that none of this was common knowledge before Paul "predicted" it? Are you suggesting that Paul is some kind of prophet? When has America NOT supplied WEAPONS to our enemies through corrupt deals between corporations and government? When has America ever NOT kept troops at the countries they invaded? When has America ever NOT unilaterally supported Israel over all other neighboring mid east states? When has the UN ever NOT complained about Americas unilaterally support of Israel? America has almost always, since the inception of the UN, ignored the wishes of its councils. This was all common knowledge before Ron predicted it, yet you wish me to ignore everything I remember reading, seeing, and learning about the world and Government in the 80's and to instead think that Ron just "predicted" this?

Quote:You also have alot of distorted interpretations in your line by line dissection of Paul's speech.

I did no such thing. I shortened his words in my post to save space on the forum, yet I answered every single "prediction" he made in context.

Quote:You admit the U.S government supplies weapons to our enemies! (which is true, but not obvious) Yet you think it is utterly impossible for 911 to be an inside job?!! You completely contradict yourself. Why?

corporations going into corrupt deals with politicians to sell weapons to our enemies for profit is NOT the same as the government going into a deal with our enemies to attack us on our own soil. Please note the difference of what I said now, and then scan back on my previous posts with better clarity please.

Quote:Why wouldn't 911 be an inside job if our government is corrupt enough to sell weapons to terrorists who use them against our own troops and innocent civilians??? Umm, do you see perhaps ANY direct correlation there??

extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence. We have ample evidence of American corporations inline with the government to sell weapons to those we consider our enemies. We have little to no proof that 9-11 was an inside job. Please note the difference that I am basing my answers on evidence, and not conspiracy theories.

Now, since you made the claim that 9-11 was an inside job, and have used such a conspiracy theory to try to discredit me, I insist that you present all of the credible evidence that you have to prove that 9-11 was an inside job.

Quote:You simply just don't like Ron Paul no matter what he says.

Thats not true either. A few of his predictions were not as obviously based in historical precedence, and they were duly noted by me in the previous list. There are some things that I like about Ron. Sadly they are few and far between all the right wing theocratic nonsense that generally makes up his agenda.

Quote:You probably don't like anybody.

That was a personal attack. You have used a conspiracy theory to slander my credability, presented no proof or reference to back up any of your claims, and now you are susing straw man tactics to attack what youthink is my personal character which has nothing to do with this discussion. To be honest I even like you Bgood. Even though we dont agree on things, I can see some qualities in you that I can relate to. There are also many people on this board whom I consider pretty good friends to chat with and only wished they lived close (or vice versa) so that I could introduce them to my family, and my food covered grill, and my cooler filled with ice cold beer.

Quote:You are a nihilist and a backward thinker.

Incorrect. I have made plenty of opinion posts on this site about nihilism. Although I do agree with many things in its concept, I do not agree that personal purpose is useless and wrong. I am in actuality an Absurdist. I will not get into that discussion right now as I have ample times discussed it on this forum and this topic is supposed to be about Ron Paul...not if I am a nihilist.

Quote:Thx for posting the video clip and your commentary though. I think you just helped support my much stronger argument.

Someone would have to help you, because you hardly presented any proof or references to the claims you have made on this topic.

---

Noam Chomsky (a left libertarian) explains it exactly the way I see it about Ron Paul (a right libertarian)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAt1ySNF6...re=related

He rags Ron for suggesting that the church will take care of people in need.

(February 7, 2012 at 5:02 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

paintpooper Wrote:It is being honest, one can hope, and try to change things, if everyone just thought that shit couldn't change and being naive was stupid, nothing would change.

No is saying things can't change, but if you honestly think that all a racist needs is a good education on race, you apparently haven't met many racists in your life. I know a lot of people think that because they don't see racism anymore, it doesn't exist, but I can tell you there are parts of the country that it is very much alive. Laws like the Civil Rights Act are very necessary in these places.

The idea that you could change a racist's mind by simply educating people is both idealistic and naive.

Don't assume you think you know me. My uncle was racist, and he did change his mind, after being fucking educated, by befriending a black man and realizing the stereotypes the media and others throw out is bullshit, they became great friends. From a guy who would give ni**er rants and raves for years.

Not saying that is the case with everyone. There will always be some racism it will be a fact of human kind for a long time. Those people will slowly become outcasts of society, and if they want to live a racist bigoted life, go for it, if they can survive, and don't mess with the rest.

In certain places perhaps, local populations, states, not the entire US, but they should be able to craft their own laws to fit their populations.

---

(February 7, 2012 at 4:51 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:

Quote:Paul is not the enemy. You tell me who is the good guy then?

I expect responses like this from his supporters. Paul is everything and anything else is nothing. The entire system itself was CREATED to be this way. From its very inception American Government was about empowering the rich, white, slave owning, land owning masters. Everyone else had no say so in the system.

You cant FIX this system. It is working EXACTLY how it was intended to work.

Quote:Who is your candidate? How are you going to fix the country?

I dont have a candidate yet, but Im surely not going to blindly stick with the same candidate year after year after year like Paul worshippers do. not that it is even going to matter. My vote doesnt mean jack shit, and now the Koch brothers have promises to raise 100 million for Romney to run against Paul to get their taxes halved. Obama more than likely doesnt have half a chance in Hell to run against this. I hope you like mud slinging political ads, because we are going to be seeing a SHIT STORM of shit slinging all over the place here in America.
You didnt even try to show me one single reference or proof for anything you spoke of even after I presented MOUNDS of evidence on my side, yet you STILL insisted that I was asleep

Suggest that I am asleep about Ron Paul one more time and I will put you on ignore.

You have presented jack shit other than your word for Paul, which I have utterly and painstakingly destroyed in several past posts with several references and facts.

I have given ample proof that Ron Paul is either a liar or ignorant about how the system works, yet you present no facts to counter it other than your emotional word.

If he DOESNT want to shut down the EPA, like you keep saying over and over again, then you need to present proof that he will not shut it down. I have presented ample proof that Ron Paul wants to shut down damn near everything and anything that helps the little man in this government we have.

Time for you to put up or shut up.

(and I wouldnt be posting like this if you hadnt suggested I was sleeping again. If you are going to insult me over and over again, then dont expect me to play nice or jump at your beck and call)

This is my first year supporting Paul. I was unaware of the truths.

I have posted several times that he only proposes shutting down 30% of the EPA. You are not clicking on my links then if you have not seen the proof.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ro...e-america/

Click on the above link. Scroll down to where is says Discretionary spending. You will then see Environmental Protection Agency 30% reduction from 2006

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html

Also that link above he talks about Health care and history of it in America.

His anti-war stance should be enough for anyone to vote for him. The US is built on wars. All the others support wars in middle east, and foreign intervention, continuation of sanctions and trade embargo. That is exactly what we need less of, and it would help the current economic environment.
Ron Paul does not support that. In turn all those actions could bring money back to the states.

An anti-war stance should be enough? I might want a little more out of the POTUS, personally.

(February 8, 2012 at 6:55 pm)Rhythm Wrote: An anti-war stance should be enough? I might want a little more out of the POTUS, personally.

It shows a person who feels compassion and empathy who cant just go around bombing other countries killing people and taking over sovereign nations. For no good reason.
In my mind, that means something, and shows something about character. Killing another human is the most immoral act a human can do, yet all our most recent presidents have been murderers.

Murderers...quite the stretch on that one amigo. Pointing out what you feel are flaws in other candidates (or past presidents) does not make Ron Paul a better candidate. Personally, I do not feel that he is suitable for office (not even the one he currently holds). I don't think this because of some misconception I have about the man, I think this because in several very important areas he is literally the polar opposite of what I would consider a good candidate. It's not something someone is going to be able to "clear up" for me or anything like that. His positions, in his own words...are very often at odds with my own. Watching or reading an interview with Ron Paul is like watching someone try to nail jello to the wall. I, personally, cannot stand it.

(February 8, 2012 at 7:27 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Murderers...quite the stretch on that one amigo. Pointing out what you feel are flaws in other candidates (or past presidents) does not make Ron Paul a better candidate. Personally, I do not feel that he is suitable for office (not even the one he currently holds). I don't think this because of some misconception I have about the man, I think this because in several very important areas he is literally the polar opposite of what I would consider a good candidate. It's not something someone is going to be able to "clear up" for me or anything like that. His positions, in his own words...are very often at odds with my own. Watching or reading an interview with Ron Paul is like watching someone try to nail jello to the wall. I, personally, cannot stand it.

Explain how murderers is a stretch.
Obama... Afgahs, Iraquis, Lybians.
W. Bush... Same
Clinton... Kosovo, Bosnia, Sudan, Croatia, Iran, Somalia
Bush... Panama, Libya, Iraq
Reagan.. Lebanon, Grenada, Libya, Nicaragua, El Salvador

Vietnam....Korea, Peru, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, Indonesia, Chile

All have been bombed/attacked/infiltrated by the United States at some point.

And? Somehow this makes a president a murderer? Last I checked, you actually had to murder somebody to be granted such a title...
(you realize that I can very easily explain why you're a murderer if we allow such a permissive definition of the term yes?)

(February 8, 2012 at 8:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: And? Somehow this makes a president a murderer? Last I checked, you actually had to murder somebody to be granted such a title...
(you realize that I can very easily explain why you're a murderer if we allow such a permissive definition of the term yes?)

I thought you were also charged with murder(1) if you ordered the death of someone.