Thread: Ron Paul 2012

Here's from Don Fedor of American Thinker:

To "get" Ron Paul you have to understand libertarianism -- an ism every bit as delusional as Marxism. The National Libertarian Party, which first ran a presidential candidate in 1972, hasn't had many wins -- electing 4 state legislators in as many decades, as well as a planning commissioner here and an alderman there. Ron Paul is its greatest success.

The Texas congressman is far and away the most prominent proponent of what I like to call rightwing utopianism. Libertarianism is to authentic conservatism what Barack Obama is to 19th century liberalism.

Inspired by Ayn Rand (Ron named his son, the future senator, Rand Paul), Libertarianism was an outgrowth of 1960s campus conservatism. Like ideologues of the left, libertarians of the day were on a never-ending quest for ideological purity and the foolish consistency Emerson derided. (They still are.) Unlike traditional conservatives, libertarians came to oppose the Vietnam War and what they called "prohibitionist" drug policies. You must be consistent, libertarians lectured us. If you support economic liberty, then you must support "personal liberty" (legalized abortion, freedom to use soul-destroying drugs) and the libertarian principle applied to foreign policy -- isolationism.

Originally Posted by roswell

Here's from Don Fedor of American Thinker:

To "get" Ron Paul you have to understand libertarianism -- an ism every bit as delusional as Marxism. The National Libertarian Party, which first ran a presidential candidate in 1972, hasn't had many wins -- electing 4 state legislators in as many decades, as well as a planning commissioner here and an alderman there. Ron Paul is its greatest success.

The Texas congressman is far and away the most prominent proponent of what I like to call rightwing utopianism. Libertarianism is to authentic conservatism what Barack Obama is to 19th century liberalism.

Inspired by Ayn Rand (Ron named his son, the future senator, Rand Paul), Libertarianism was an outgrowth of 1960s campus conservatism. Like ideologues of the left, libertarians of the day were on a never-ending quest for ideological purity and the foolish consistency Emerson derided. (They still are.) Unlike traditional conservatives, libertarians came to oppose the Vietnam War and what they called "prohibitionist" drug policies. You must be consistent, libertarians lectured us. If you support economic liberty, then you must support "personal liberty" (legalized abortion, freedom to use soul-destroying drugs) and the libertarian principle applied to foreign policy -- isolationism.

As noted before, Ron Paul named his son Randall, not Rand and he is not really an Objectivist. He is more an anarcho-capitalist.

Originally Posted by roswell

You must be consistent, libertarians lectured us. If you support economic liberty, then you must support "personal liberty" (legalized abortion, freedom to use soul-destroying drugs) and the libertarian principle applied to foreign policy -- isolationism.

I haven't heard of these 'soul-destroying drugs' before but they sound awesome, where can I get some..?

I'm seconding that he named his son Randall. They called him "Randy" and when he got married, his wife nicknamed him "Rand."

I'm glad that finally we have a serious candidate who isn't a left/right winger. He's a "north" (Libertarianism). Anti-war, pro-liberty, anti-Drug War, anti-Fed, anti-PATRIOT Act, anti-SOPA, anti-NDAA 2012... (Plus he's the only American who seems to admit that Israel was created out of thin air after World War II...)

What's not to like? The only excuses to NOT vote for this guy are uncovered through nit-picking, which gives tiny little reasons to NOT support him. (Unless that person is a statist, which then they have a legitimate excuse to not support him.)

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

As noted before, Ron Paul named his son Randall, not Rand and he is not really an Objectivist. He is more an anarcho-capitalist.

Meh, not really. If he was actually an anarcho capitalist I'd still be voting for him

VERMIN SUPREME 2012!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by roswell

Here's from Don Fedor of American Thinker:

To "get" Ron Paul you have to understand libertarianism -- an ism every bit as delusional as Marxism. The National Libertarian Party, which first ran a presidential candidate in 1972, hasn't had many wins -- electing 4 state legislators in as many decades, as well as a planning commissioner here and an alderman there. Ron Paul is its greatest success.

The Texas congressman is far and away the most prominent proponent of what I like to call rightwing utopianism. Libertarianism is to authentic conservatism what Barack Obama is to 19th century liberalism.

Nothing of substance here. Shocking.

Inspired by Ayn Rand (Ron named his son, the future senator, Rand Paul),

I'd say influenced, not inspired. And again, Rand's name is Randal. His nickname was Randy. His wife gave him the nickname Rand.

Libertarianism was an outgrowth of 1960s campus conservatism.

No, it's the modern version of 18th and 19th century liberalism.

Like ideologues of the left, libertarians of the day were on a never-ending quest for ideological purity and the foolish consistency Emerson derided. (They still are.) Unlike traditional conservatives, libertarians came to oppose the Vietnam War and what they called "prohibitionist" drug policies. You must be consistent, libertarians lectured us. If you support economic liberty, then you must support "personal liberty" (legalized abortion, freedom to use soul-destroying drugs) and the libertarian principle applied to foreign policy -- isolationism.

Alright so most of this is just...I don't even know, verbal diarrhea. Maybe some santorum mixed in. But the bit about isolationism being a libertarian's foreign policy is incorrect and doesn't apply to Ron Paul.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

As noted before, Ron Paul named his son Randall, not Rand and he is not really an Objectivist. He is more an anarcho-capitalist.

No, I don't think that's completely true. He's associated with ancaps, specifically Rothbard and I'd say a majority of the members of the Mises Institute, but given most of the things he's said over the years and the fact that he's a congressman running for Prez., I don't think we can make a solid claim that he's an ancap.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

VERMIN SUPREME 2012!!!!!!!!!!!

Lol that guy is trying so hard not to laugh.

Ron Paul is out of his mind. He talks about "big labor" unions but seeks to deregulate corporations (he wants to repeal Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-frank), he thinks the US is and should be above the United Nations, also asserting that the US should leave the "anti-gun United Nations" under the pretense that things like the "small arms treaty", intended to reduce the flow of weapons to terrorists and other such organizations, are a threat to gun ownership in the US, he gives not one single fuck about our environment (wants to encourage our continued addiction to oil with further offshore drilling, wants to remove restrictions on drilling, wants to "lift government roadblocks" on the use of coal and nuclear power, wants to eliminate the EPA claiming that polluters should answer directly to property owners in court (because that has worked great before, right?)), he states that "The free market – not government – is the solution to America’s energy needs.", an idea which is entirely contradicted by past experience, his statements seem to indicate a disbelief in human-caused global warming as he states that federal regulation is designed by "environmental alarmists" to "punish traditional energy production" in order to "make energy sources they favor more 'economical'". In one paragraph he urges people to fight for "limited government and personal freedom", and in the next he explains that he thinks abortions should be illegal. He states "We must follow the Biblical mandate of using honest weights and measures", suggesting that his public policy is directly influenced by religion, which quite contradicts the constitution he raves about defending.

All of this is right from his platform as it is found at the time of this posting at Ron Paul 2012 Official Campaign Website.

People have got to start looking at the big picture in these kinds of matters. As they say, it's the bus you don't see that kills you.

There, feels good to get that out of my system. Ok, proceed to flame.

Let's look at the big picture on the alternatives:

Obama didn't close Gitmo, he supports DOMA, he signed NDAA-2012, he has neglected to do anything about the Drug War, he started two more wars, he continues to support large corporations and is bought by Goldman Sachs (who is ALSO the top contributor of Mitt Romney.), and extended the PATRIOT Act.

That's reason enough to support a candidate who is the complete opposite on ALL of those issues. If you can settle a vote for any other candidate with your own conscience, kudos to you. I, on the other hand, refuse to vote for a lying politician who cares nothing about my privacy, my rights to use whatever fucking substances I want, and waste my tax money murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Afghans, (and soon enough Iranians).

Everyone knows the UN is corrupt. Don't hate on Paul for pointing out the facts. Also he doesn't think the US is above the UN as in we are superior to everyone in the UN. He thinks all countries, not just the US, have a right to sovereignty and so it is wrong for the UN to push people around, regardless of who it is dealing with.

Unlike many who are hypocrites and says the UN is needed when it benefits them, then ignores them when it is a disadvantage, Paul is consistent and says all countries should have freedom from UN, even the countries he doesn't like.

Also he is right about the UN and their gun record. They are always trying to push for global bans on guns and stuff, and of course any US citizen should be totally against such things. If you believe in something, like the US constitution, there is no reason we should be abandoning our laws for what other people think is better.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

he supports DOMA

Obama: Defense Of Marriage Act Should Be Repealed

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

he started two more wars

Which are...

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

and is bought by Goldman Sachs

Read it:
Goldman Sachs was top Obama donor - CNN

Originally Posted by Supernova

Obama: Defense Of Marriage Act Should Be Repealed

He had a democratic majority in the Senate AND Congress... yet this didn't happen...

Originally Posted by Supernova

Which are...

Pakistan and Libya. Unconstitutional wars, May I add. There are troops there, (and likely Syria soon). We've killed many people in Yemen with drones, too. I can't wait for a serious military action in Iran in the next 4 years! Declared war number 3, here we come!

Originally Posted by Supernova

Read it:
Goldman Sachs was top Obama donor - CNN

Well at least you know that part!

I'm not going to convince any random people on the internet, but I can assert my own reasoning for voting for an honest candidate! The wonderful thing about democracy is, those of us who aren't in the 50%+1 get to suffer through the terrible decisions made by that 50%+1! Our tax money goes to all of the things that we voted against! Such a wonderful system.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

He had a democratic majority in the Senate AND Congress... yet this didn't happen...


Pakistan and Libya. Unconstitutional wars, May I add. There are troops there, (and likely Syria soon). We've killed many people in Yemen with drones, too. I can't wait for a serious military action in Iran in the next 4 years! Declared war number 3, here we come!



Well at least you know that part!

I'm not going to convince any random people on the internet, but I can assert my own reasoning for voting for an honest candidate! The wonderful thing about democracy is, those of us who aren't in the 50%+1 get to suffer through the terrible decisions made by that 50%+1! Our tax money goes to all of the things that we voted against! Such a wonderful system.

The president does not own congress. Obama supported a bill to repeal DOMA and announced that his administration would no longer defend DOMA in court. Also, I find it hard to call Lybia a war.

Originally Posted by Supernova

The president does not own congress. Obama supported a bill to repeal DOMA and announced that his administration would no longer defend DOMA in court. Also, I find it hard to call Lybia a war.

Fair enough (In relation to DOMA).

Technically Libya isn't a war; it's an illegal military intervention since it was never declared a war by Congress. It's a regime change assistance... like in Iraq but to a lesser degree, or Iran in 1953. And so we install another dictator that we will eventually have to uninstall!

I really don't think America, as a nation, is ready for Ron Paul yet, I think we need to ease ourselves slowly back from the center-left position we are in now- go from a leftist like Obama to a centrist/semiconservative like Romney to a hardcore conservative like Perry and either stop there or take it a step further to a man like Ron Paul. Skipping from a sissy, nanny state to a militaristic nation with a government that people will sometimes forget exists will cause a culture shock that will reverberate through all of the civilized world.
Also, sidestep policy for a moment. Considering Dr. Paul's age, will he be physically able to serve as President, if elected, from 2013-2017 or perhaps 2013-2021?

Libertarianism isn't left or right.

Originally Posted by Neoquestmoo

I really don't think America, as a nation, is ready for Ron Paul yet, I think we need to ease ourselves slowly back from the center-left position we are in now- go from a leftist like Obama to a centrist/semiconservative like Romney to a hardcore conservative like Perry and either stop there or take it a step further to a man like Ron Paul. Skipping from a sissy, nanny state to a militaristic nation with a government that people will sometimes forget exists will cause a culture shock that will reverberate through all of the civilized world.
Also, sidestep policy for a moment. Considering Dr. Paul's age, will he be physically able to serve as President, if elected, from 2013-2017 or perhaps 2013-2021?

Given that he's 76, albeit in very good health, and given that he will not be running for Congress again, I think once this year's elections are done his political career will be over.

if you dont support ron paul then you support killing hundreds of thousand of human beings, therefore, you are yourself evil. if you dont support ron paul then you support keeping people in cages for consuming vegetation, therefore, you are yourself evil. if you dont support ron paul then you support a "quasi" (private) governmental agency that has the power to inflate (does inflate) the currency. an "agency" that privatizes profits and socializes losses. you are yourself an evil, lazy, brainwashed person. you deserve what you get when you support obama, bush, romney or anyone else the mainstream media shoves down your stupid throat.

You know, Ron Paul seems like a pretty honest, sane politician compared to anyone else running for the GOP candidacy, but I don't get all the religious worshipping and fellatio given to Ron Paul in many circles, and irrational bullying of anyone who doesn't align to their strange, cult-like chantings. As if Ron Paul is perfect and godlike... give me a break. Am I supposed to believe that they're acting logical and sane?

Also, if Obama has done nothing but extend Bush's policies, then why is the Iraq war officially ending? Or am I wrong about that?

a/s/l deery

Whatever a/s/l is (I assume it means age/sex/location), it has nothing whatsoever to do with discussing Ron Paul.

Also, there's this, to start with:

Paul Campaign Touts Endorsement Of Preacher Who Advocates Death Penalty For Gays | ThinkProgress

you're a bore deery.

And clearly you're a troll with nothing of substance to contribute to a non-troll thread. Go away.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

And clearly you're a troll with nothing of substance to contribute to a non-troll thread. Go away.

and clearly your an ugly lesbian with no sense of humor. ron paul rocks and its pretty obvious you turd.