Ron Paul in town
atomiclauren
Posts: 689 Member
He's in Houston (at UH) on his continuing campaign for the Republican nomination. That's all. Well, that and I don't really know what to think of him...what do you guys think?
(Oh, anyone follow Bad Lip Reading? It's worth a look
)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=igQlbesF0zA
(Oh, anyone follow Bad Lip Reading? It's worth a look
)http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=igQlbesF0zA
0
Replies
-
He was here just a few nights ago.
Here are my opinions on Ron Paul.
He's a staunch libertarian. He really shouldn't even call himself a republican. He's as libertarian as you'll find outside of Freemen on the Land and Sovereign Citizens (google those loons).
He believes very much in his ideaology. Nothing you can't find outside of an Ayn Rand book. The government should have as small a role as possible, period. No Federal Reserve, no Environmental Protection Agency, no Department of Education. Bring all overseas military personnel home from every base around the world. Do away with foreign aid. He would reduce federal power as much as possible and revert it to the states.
For me it's a mixed bag that just goes too far into ideaology. There'd be zero regulation on business. That'd be left to consumers. If you don't like a company polluting the water it's your responsibility to stop buying their products. There'd be no policies against discriminatory employment. If you own a business you can feel free to not hire any race or sexuality you want, it's up to the consumer to not support your store if they don't want to.
Basically NO GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT.
So, too much ideaology for me. I could keep listing all the things Ron Paul would do away with given the chance. Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Welfare, all of it.
Something young people (Paul's biggest supporters) tout is his stance on social policies. They say he would legalize drugs and allow gay marriage. That's not entirely true. He'd leave that up to the states to decide. If a state decided to throw homosexuals in prison Ron Paul would feel that the federal government had no business stepping in.
He would leave everyone to make their own decisions. There's some romanticism to the idea, but I just don't have that kind of faith in people to be a full on libertarian. I think regulations are important. I don't think business is going to do what's in the best interest of the people based on their own good will. We know they won't. It's naive and childish. All ideaology with no grasp on reality.
I've rambled. I know my good friend Mandy is a Paul supporter. I yield the floor to her.0 -
Sadly my lack of the ability to edit my post means you'll all have to live with my misspelling of "ideology". When I spell a word wrong, I like to do it 8-9 times.0
-
A thorough and well articulated point of view Brett. Mine is not so thought out. There is something about Ron Paul I like, but not enough to vote for him. Personality and affinity are definately not a good enough reason to vote for anyone in my opinion. Some of his ideas I like, but others...waaaayyyy out there. :-)0
-
I've really burnt out on politics, but I like Ron Paul. I might not agree with everything he says, but I do respect that he is one of the only men in D.C. that really sticks to his guns on the issues. It took a lot of balls to stand up in 2008 and say the wars were BS.....at the Republican debates, but he did it, and a lot of Repubs have since moved to his postition. I think his views on reduction of Federal government are extreme, but I think if he were President his type of fiscal conservatism matched with spend crazy congress would produce a moderate budget.
He is a religious man, which doesn't bother me because he never bashes anyone over the head with it, and I tend to agree with him on most social issues like legalizing drugs. The problem is this, he is sort of a philosopher when it comes to the constitution. He does debate the Civil Rights Act, and has said in the past he would not force people to serve customers they didn't want. In his eyes, it's a Private Property rights vs. Civil Rights, and he didn't want to legislate what a person can do with their own property. It's and interesting debate about who has more rights, but his stance has the horrible effect of galvanizing extreme left wingers who love completly over look the free medical services he gave to black people as a Doctor and call him a racist. It also rallies actual racists to his side.
If anything, I just like the fact that he actaully seems honest, doesn't take corporate money as far as I know (the only one on both sides), and the media crapped on his campaign, both left and right. That's enough for me to like anyone.0 -
I'd rather vote for Ru Paul.0
-
I'd rather vote for Ru Paul.
Too be fair, it does take a certain cunning and gravitas for him to tuck his weiner between his legs all those years.0 -
I'd rather vote for Ru Paul.
Me too.
Also, everything Brett said.0 -
haha, thanks Brett. In my opinion. He's the ONLY candidate that is real. He is the only one puts his money where his mouth is and votes like he promises, in the best interest of the people and not big business and lobbyist...and actually has the record to prove it. And to correct Brett, he doesn't just want to completely eliminate the EPA, dept of ed and all. He doesn't believe those are responsiblities of the FEDERAL government, as the constitution allows. Most matters the federal government are into should be handles at the state level. Thus we are the United STATES of America and not the country of America. Also, he actually stands for the things the Republican party was started on, the issue is that "republicans" are no longer really true to their party, they have kind of morphed into this progressive blob of people.
Ron Paul has personal appeal to me, he posts pics on his facebook all the time that make my heart swell... Pics of him swimming with his kids and grandkids, riding a bike, raking his yard...Eating out with his wife at your average chain restaurant for their anniversary.. etc. He wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth and has worked hard and lives a modest life. None of that Romney millionaire
He is the only candidate who agrees with most citizens on the big issues. Legalizing marijuana, legalizing gay marriage, ENDING THE WAR and keeping our military out of other countries: ie having an official declaration to go to war in the first place. I know many people on BOTH sides agree with these things but don't understand why people don't support him. He isn't as nutty and the media makes him out to be.
He has is working on an audit for the Federal reserve. Does everyone realize the Fed is a private bank that controls our entire nations monetary system and has no checks and balance and has never been audited? I think that is a real issue, not sending military troops to Africa to look for a single man or having troops in 130 countries worldwide...
Regardless of if he makes it or not. Bush, Obama, Romney, Clinton.... they are all the same. If it comes down to Romney or Obama, they are going to have the same results. More debt, more intrusion on our lives and rights.0 -
Oh, and I am super jealous. I wish he would come here!!0
-
Very nice post Mandy, and Adrian too.
You are 100% correct. He is a man who sticks by his word. No denying that.
I still do take issue with "He suports gay marriage/legalization". He doesn't. He thinks it should be left to the states. As I said earlier if a state decided that homosexuality was a crime Ron Paul would defend that stance. He will leave people to their own devices, no matter what.
You can't say the doesn't support eliminating the EPA (etc.). He does. He's said it numerous times in public debates. Yes TECHNICALLY he feels it should be left to the states, but please tell me how environmental policy is going to look when it's an individual states rights issue? It'll be a mess/non-existent, that's how. What do you do when West Virginia's pollution blows into Pennsylvania? You have competing environmental departments, no federal regulating authority.. war?
Don't think it's me being ridiculous. We've done it before. In fact my one friend who's a hardcore Ron Paul supporter likes to say that the only U.S. President to have declared war illegally without provocation was Lincoln. As a libertarian/Paul supporter the stance to take on the Civil War is that the south should have seceeded.
So it becomes are we the United STATES Of America, or the UNITED States of America? Federal power vs. state power. There are pros and cons to both. Which is why I favor a mix of the two and not just a complete handing over of all federal authority to the states. I mean have you seen who runs South Carolina??0 -
Fixing our Political system by electing a new President is like trying to fix your car by changing one screw.
I don't care how fabulous the next President may be (whoever it is), they won't be able to overcome the broken system. Republicans and Democrats are like two schoolyard gangs. Never going to get together on any point, because they are too busy pointing out the others' faults and bad decisions. And voting on any other party is just throwing your vote away.
I will vote on the lesser of two evils.0 -
I still do take issue with "He suports gay marriage/legalization". He doesn't. He thinks it should be left to the states. As I said earlier if a state decided that homosexuality was a crime Ron Paul would defend that stance. He will leave people to their own devices, no matter what.
It may not be his cup of tea but he DOES support it. While you are correct in saying that he will leave it up to the states, because that's what the constitution says, he also has stated it it is a religious issue and supports separation of church and state, allowing gay marriage. In the end it is still a matter of states, not the federal government... Which sadly he can't help. It is however the place of the federal government to balance the states decisions, if someone were to sue the state, thanks to the supreme court. I do think in the past century, the Supreme Court has overstepped it's bounds a bit..you know, growing government.
He is a Christian man but doesn't let that interfere with his political beliefs.0 -
In some ways I consider Ron Paul to be the moral equivalent of Ralph Nader. Both are narcissists and general a-holes. Both have created a fictional, cartoon persona that appeals to disaffected individuals who use them as symbolic outlets for their anger at the current system without seemingly caring about knowing who they actually are.
I find the whole "Ron Paul has values" argument both laughable and empty. So what if he has "values"? Hitler had "values". So did John Gacy, Charles Manson and Vlad the Impaler. Saying someone has "values" is a morally empty statement. It's often used to signify that a person has "moral character" because they are "consistent" in their "values". Actually, that "consistency" often means nothing more that a closed, ignorant, rigid ideological frame of mind that is bereft of empathy. "Consistency" can be used to describe a sociopath as well as a saint, and Ron Paul is a lot closer to the former than the latter.
So Ron Paul has "values" and he even "believes in them". BFD. Ron Paul's "values" suck dead bears. He is a narcissist and a racist -- and a hypocrite to boot.
Racist? The documented record is both clear and voluminous. For many years, a large portion of Paul's income came from subscriptions to his various newsletters. The newletters were full of racist comments and rants. Of course, when confronted with the facts, Paul disingenuously weasels out by claiming that they were written by other people and he didn't know anything about them. Yeah, you made over $1 million a year on these newsletters printed in your name, but didn't know what was in them. BS. There's your "moral values" -- just another cowardly racist who lies to save his *kitten* when someone overturns his rock.
What else? Oh yeah, there's the guy who complains about government spending but has spent over 27 years collecting a government paycheck. A man who campaigns for term limits but who has served 12 terms as a congressman. A man who introduced a bill in 2001 to repeal the War Powers Act, but then voted in favor of the Iraq War under the provisions of that same act.
Paul claims to oppose government spending and programs, yet has voted for corporate subsidies, like a $30 billion one for oil companies. Like most "values driven" people, he is selective about where and when he applies those values. He consistently supports corporate interests against those of individuals. Like most faux "libertarians" he supports giving corporations virtually free reign to do whatever they want ("free market", you know), but when workers try to use those same market forces to organize and bargain for compensation for the services they provide, that constitutes "artificial power" which he opposes. Corporations can use their size and leverage to obtain all the "artificial power" they want--just not the workers.
I could go on and on, but I don't really have time. That fact is that Ron Paul is nothing more that your typical right-wing conservative who has shown a penchant for some populist rhetoric to create an artificial persona.
Ron Paul has only one "value" --to do what is best for Ron Paul. While it may be argued that that is a perfectly legitimate moral position, it is hardly unique.0 -
So Ron Paul has "values" and he even "believes in them". BFD. Ron Paul's "values" suck dead bears. He is a narcissist and a racist -- and a hypocrite to boot.
Racist? The documented record is both clear and voluminous. For many years, a large portion of Paul's income came from subscriptions to his various newsletters. The newletters were full of racist comments and rants. Of course, when confronted with the facts, Paul disingenuously weasels out by claiming that they were written by other people and he didn't know anything about them. Yeah, you made over $1 million a year on these newsletters printed in your name, but didn't know what was in them. BS. There's your "moral values" -- just another cowardly racist who lies to save his *kitten* when someone overturns his rock.
What else? Oh yeah, there's the guy who complains about government spending but has spent over 27 years collecting a government paycheck. A man who campaigns for term limits but who has served 12 terms as a congressman. A man who introduced a bill in 2001 to repeal the War Powers Act, but then voted in favor of the Iraq War under the provisions of that same act.
Paul claims to oppose government spending and programs, yet has voted for corporate subsidies, like a $30 billion one for oil companies. Like most "values driven" people, he is selective about where and when he applies those values. He consistently supports corporate interests against those of individuals. Like most faux "libertarians" he supports giving corporations virtually free reign to do whatever they want ("free market", you know), but when workers try to use those same market forces to organize and bargain for compensation for the services they provide, that constitutes "artificial power" which he opposes. Corporations can use their size and leverage to obtain all the "artificial power" they want--just not the workers.
I could go on and on, but I don't really have time. That fact is that Ron Paul is nothing more that your typical right-wing conservative who has shown a penchant for some populist rhetoric to create an artificial persona.
I have to disagree with most of what you said. You called him an awful lot of names but didn't actually point out any legitimate reason why those are correct.
-He's not a hypocryte. In fact, RP donates his U.S. paycheck and refuses to participate in the congressional pension plan. Yep, he refuses a huge perk to being a Congressman, in his words, "because he has a conscious." I'm not aware of any other candidates or government employees who do this.. His voting record backs his claims.
-The racist thing is laughable. I've read the so-called statements. Honestly, I would say some of the same things. I'm offended that MLK Jr has a national holiday, does that make me a racist? Anyways, if merely being asscoiated with the newsletter makes him a racist, then by that logic Obama must be a terrorist for his association with Bill Ayers. :noway: Honestly, this is the ONLY remotely scandalous thing anyone can find on RP and that's why it's brought up all the time.
-Narcissist? What does he do to glorify himself? He's running for President, he makes his case. In the hundreds of interviews, debates and statements I've seen him make, I have never seen him act anything but humble.0 -
I find this site pretty useful and fair on fact checking. Compared to the other candidates AND Obama. Ron Paul fares pretty well...
http://www.politifact.com/texas/article/2012/apr/02/whither-ron-paul-check-his-report-card/
"Over the years, Paul has had more than 30 claims rated, with more than 20 coming out Half True or better. Put another way, his checked claims have skewed toward True, a PolitiFact writer noted in December 2011."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/presidential-candidates/0
