RE: RNC nut throwing racism.
September 4, 2012 at 12:25 pm
(This post was last modified: September 4, 2012 at 1:23 pm by Darth.)
Outside resources rock, but please quote everything you've copied and pasted =).
That's all taken directly from that website you linked, in fact you could have just linked the website, or quoted the whole thing. I don't think you typed anything in that entire post of yours...
The ones about his personal beliefs. If true, these speak poorly of him, though we have in this thread watched him denounce racism as a particularly repugnant form of collectivism (or something along those lines). I have on the other hand seen the video of him call evolution "just a theory". But it's largely irrelevant, as because in the other points that you (that that website makes) make, he's against the federal government being involved in public education (and most government spending). Ron Paul: Has his own personal beliefs, doesn't want to forcibly take your hard earned money and use it to try to indoctrinate your children into believing as he believes.
The ones about him being against x department or the government doing x. Yup, he's against taking your money for nearly everything. He's against creating a bureaucracy, and wasting most of the money, if not all of it (if not actually end up making things worse). He's against forcing people to do things, even the right thing. Against foreign aid? I think not. He would be against government foreign aid (and how much ends up helping the poor and hungry, and how much ends up in the hands of despots?), and even then, is he against all government aid or just the federal government doing it?
The private sector doesn't do some of those things at the moment because there is already a government monopoly there, it doesn't mean that the private sector is incapable of doing those things, or offering those services. The airlines will pay to not have their planes collide, and if that increases the cost of flying then it means that all the people who dont fly/don't often fly (and I'm guessing that there will probably be a positive correlation between wealth and amount of time spent in the air) were likely subsidising the jet-setters.
Federalism/states rights, it's an interesting topic which I could talk about for hours. On the one hand, give Gary Johnson a ton of power and he'll have everything sorted out in next to no time, on the other hand those powers are very dangerous, what if people like George Bush get that power (and lets not kid ourselves that Obama is any better), they would use it to strip everyone of their rights. At least with 50 states that have more leeway in what they can do you end up with 50 choices, and different levels of freedom. Sure you could have a uniform amount of freedom if the federal government has the power to fix everything, but that amount might end up being 'none'. It's something that can be debated, sure.
15 and 17, one he no longer supports, the other, really? I'd love to see the source for 17, it would be a surprise, though I don't really know your history with that place.
8 Yup. Done to death (gettit?) in libertarian circles though, it's a weird issue in that there are libertarian arguments on both sides. If you believed that that bundle of cells was a human being, and that it had a soul, and that abortion was therefore murder, then I don't know how you'd sleep at night (I of course have no time for the theists who are against it because they think their god is against it (bible verses notwithstanding), bunch of theocratic fascists).
Quote:Let's Be Clear, Ron Paul Fucking Sucks. Here Are 20 Reasons Why
Every single one of the candidates currently running for the Republican nomination is a walking disaster. But one of them, Texas congressman Ron Paul, seems to be getting a disturbing amount of support from liberals. Mostly that's because his nut-job libertarian views happen to not sound so nutty on a handful of issues. He wants to end the War on Drugs. He is against the death penalty. He would not support a constitutional ban on gay marriage. He was opposed to the War in Iraq and wants to end all American military intervention abroad. All of that sounds pretty good to us left-wing types — downright refreshing coming from a Republican. Some progressives have claimed they'd rather vote for him than for Obama. Even Occupiers have sung his praises.
But if you're a liberal who supports Ron Paul, you either haven't been paying enough attention or you're out of your fucking mind.
That's all taken directly from that website you linked, in fact you could have just linked the website, or quoted the whole thing. I don't think you typed anything in that entire post of yours...
The ones about his personal beliefs. If true, these speak poorly of him, though we have in this thread watched him denounce racism as a particularly repugnant form of collectivism (or something along those lines). I have on the other hand seen the video of him call evolution "just a theory". But it's largely irrelevant, as because in the other points that you (that that website makes) make, he's against the federal government being involved in public education (and most government spending). Ron Paul: Has his own personal beliefs, doesn't want to forcibly take your hard earned money and use it to try to indoctrinate your children into believing as he believes.
The ones about him being against x department or the government doing x. Yup, he's against taking your money for nearly everything. He's against creating a bureaucracy, and wasting most of the money, if not all of it (if not actually end up making things worse). He's against forcing people to do things, even the right thing. Against foreign aid? I think not. He would be against government foreign aid (and how much ends up helping the poor and hungry, and how much ends up in the hands of despots?), and even then, is he against all government aid or just the federal government doing it?
The private sector doesn't do some of those things at the moment because there is already a government monopoly there, it doesn't mean that the private sector is incapable of doing those things, or offering those services. The airlines will pay to not have their planes collide, and if that increases the cost of flying then it means that all the people who dont fly/don't often fly (and I'm guessing that there will probably be a positive correlation between wealth and amount of time spent in the air) were likely subsidising the jet-setters.
Federalism/states rights, it's an interesting topic which I could talk about for hours. On the one hand, give Gary Johnson a ton of power and he'll have everything sorted out in next to no time, on the other hand those powers are very dangerous, what if people like George Bush get that power (and lets not kid ourselves that Obama is any better), they would use it to strip everyone of their rights. At least with 50 states that have more leeway in what they can do you end up with 50 choices, and different levels of freedom. Sure you could have a uniform amount of freedom if the federal government has the power to fix everything, but that amount might end up being 'none'. It's something that can be debated, sure.
15 and 17, one he no longer supports, the other, really? I'd love to see the source for 17, it would be a surprise, though I don't really know your history with that place.
8 Yup. Done to death (gettit?) in libertarian circles though, it's a weird issue in that there are libertarian arguments on both sides. If you believed that that bundle of cells was a human being, and that it had a soul, and that abortion was therefore murder, then I don't know how you'd sleep at night (I of course have no time for the theists who are against it because they think their god is against it (bible verses notwithstanding), bunch of theocratic fascists).
Nemo me impune lacessit.
