NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey everybody, I see there is a strong hatred towards Ron Paul. I was just wondering if you could give me a list (please in list form so it's easy for everyone to read/understand) of things you don't like. If possible also include a list of some things you do like. Here is what comes off the top of my head:

What I like:
stance on civil liberties
foreign policy
policy on drugs
anti-WTO and ant-NAFTA

What I don't like:
his overly strong religious beliefs
his pro-gun beliefs

There's more for each column, but that's all I can brainstorm now, I'm beat.

He's either a racist bastard or he hired racist ghost writing elves.

Want a catalogue?

He's either a racist bastard or he hired racist ghost writing elves.

...and was too incompetant to stop them from writing such racist tripe.

My dislike can be summed up pretty easily in four words:

We the People Act

Because he's racist, sexist, and homophobic?

Because the only reason he became popular was because he refused to let the terrorists take responsibilities for their actions on 9/11 and instead looked to blame other people. I hate that line of thinking in domestic or foreign policy.

Don't forget that whole him being a big racist thing.


And I find it odd that you like his stance on civil rights. As I understood it, his stance was that the federal government can't violate your civil rights, but there's nothing stopping the state government violating them.
He's either a racist bastard or he hired racist ghost writing elves.
Or both. I mean, a racist bastard is far more likely to hire racist ghost writing elves.

Things I like

I hardly know who he is

Things I don't like

Politician
Everyone either seems to love or hate him

What I like:
stance on civil liberties

So you're fond of the idea that your individual rights should be stripped from you and handed over to state authorities?

- I dislike Ron Paul because he is far too authoritarian.
He seeks to remove my right to religious freedom, to privacy, and to equal protection under the law. Instead of allowing me to live my own life, he would hand authority over to my state government to control it for me.

See the "We the People Act" and his votes/proposals to restrict the rights of specific groups of people (ie. Iranians, homosexuals)

- I also don't like his lies (or those of the propaganda he puts out). One cannot point-blank state that one is voting for an unconstitutional bill and then claim that one has never or would never vote for anything that was not directly authorized in the Constitution.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html
Also, one doesn't get to use the name "defender of the Constitution" when one wishes to ignore the 1st, 9th, and 14th Amendments.

- His association with racists, secessionists, homophobes, etc. does not speak well of him. His newsletters either reveal racist, homophobic, pro-violence, and inaccurate views of his own or they show him to be so incompetent that he let such trash go out in his name for over 10 years.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

- I don't think isolationism is a good idea.

- His economic polices are complete garbage. He's tried bills more than once now that would have bankrupted most Americans by immediately rendering their money worthless.

- I think getting rid of the FDA, OSHA protections, etc. would be disastrous.

- I don't think we should annex portions of other countries - particularly when we have promised otherwise. (see his bills regarding the Panama Canal)


http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

Because he isn't a libertarian but insists that he is

His supporters are obnoxious, many of his views are disagreeable to me, and I don't want to see him in the White House. (No. Not even as a guest or as part of a tour group).
These are not reasons to hate a man, however. Nor is the racism and general craziness espoused by his newsletter (Charles Dickens' Household Words is no reason not to read Oliver Twist).
I hate Ron Paul because he has a blimp and I do not. Goddamn him and all his smug, blimp-funding minions.

His supporters are obnoxious, many of his views are disagreeable to me, and I don't want to see him in the White House. (No. Not even as a guest or as part of a tour group).
These are not reasons to hate a man, however. Nor is the racism and general craziness espoused by his newsletter (Charles Dickens' Household Words is no reason not to read Oliver Twist).
I hate Ron Paul because he has a blimp and I do not. Goddamn him and all his smug, blimp-funding minions.

Occasionally, blimps crash into stadiums you know. *nod*

isn't he dead yet?

I don't like him because hes nothing short of a vile hick and happens to prove the Internet is a load of shit that shouldn't be trusted :(

I suppose a good thing about him is he doesn't eat children...

His supporters are obnoxious

This too. I hate that he figured out how the internet works, because now his slaves are spamming up everything before I get a chance to.

he looks like a fucking goon.

Because someone joined our SOUTHERN HOSTILITY region with the name: The Republic of Ron Paul is my bitch. That's why!:sniper::sniper::mp5::mp5::mp5::sniper::sniper::mp5::mp5::sniper:

I don't hate him, but I won't vote for him either. He is extremely far-left on all but a few issues.

He wants to put the US back on the gold standard.

I mean come on now.

It's not him that I dislike, but the Paulbots.

I don't hate him, but I won't vote for him either. He is extremely far-left on all but a few issues.

You mean "far-right", don't you? His economics are the furthest right of any candidate, and his civil rights stances are far from liberal.

It's not him that I dislike, but the Paulbots.

I'd like to know where they come from myself

He's either a racist bastard or he hired racist ghost writing elves....and was too incompetant to stop them from writing such racist tripe.

...and didn't bother telling anyone about said elves and his disapproval of their words until years later.

Hey everybody, I see there is a strong hatred towards Ron Paul. I was just wondering if you could give me a list (please in list form so it's easy for everyone to read/understand) of things you don't like. If possible also include a list of some things you do like. Here is what comes off the top of my head:

What I like:
stance on civil liberties
foreign policy
policy on drugs
anti-WTO and ant-NAFTA

What I don't like:
his overly strong religious beliefs
his pro-gun beliefs

There's more for each column, but that's all I can brainstorm now, I'm beat.
But his racism and homophobia don't bother you? Interesting.

he looks like a fucking goon.

lolz. Reason enough:D

I hate his shitty foreign policy and immigration ideas.

...and didn't bother telling anyone about said elves and his disapproval of their words until years later.

Ah, but he loves MLK, and, anyway, libertarians can't be racist. So we should just trust him, obviously.

Because he thinks its 1918 with two giant oceans to protect us. When Ron starts living in 2007 maybe I'll change my mind.

Ah, but he loves MLK, and, anyway, libertarians can't be racist. So we should just trust him, obviously.

In that case, he's got my vote. I should send him some donations, too.

I dont hate him.

He represents change. and change is what we need

I dont hate him.

He represents change. and change is what we need

He represents change. and change is what we need

Surely that depends on the kind of change?

I dont hate him, i strongly dislike him because he is a racist and a social conservative. I agree, Obama represents the greatest change

I dont hate him.

He represents change. and change is what we need

That's what every damn candidate says. And Obama better represents change than Ron Paul.

Because he calls himself libertarian and pro-freedom, but he isn't.

It's one of many peculiarities about American politics that there seems to be a strain of "libertarians" who only care about the federal government, but not the states. As far as I can tell, they'd be fine with Louisianna turning into a theocracy, Michigan into a Soviet republic and Texas into a war zone as long as Washington doesn't have anything to do with it.

And that's besides his nuts ideas (like abolishing the Fed), his isolationism and those issues with the racist and survivalist newsletters.

You don't turn the world libertarian by being the only one in Washington. You just make a mess.

What I like:
stance on civil liberties
his pro-gun beliefs
policy on drugs
anti-WTO and ant-NAFTA

What I don't like:
his overly strong religious beliefs
foreign policy

anti-WTO and ant-NAFTA
Why would people have a problem with these?

There are basically only two reasons I can think of:

1. You don't like free trade, in which case support for a libertarian candidate would be deliciously ironic.

2. You take Paul's position, which I gather is something along the lines of them representing state involvement, which is bad. Unfortunately they're also the only way to make free trade happen, because the other governments aren't quite as principled.

Ah, but he loves MLK, and, anyway, libertarians can't be racist. So we should just trust him, obviously.

i like the "libertarians can't be racist" line. it's like defining your racism away.

I dont hate him.

He represents change. and change is what we need

Being set on fire would change things too. :p

Being set on fire would change things too. :p

vote arson party - the party of change!

Because nobody will shut up about the bastard. He's a bigot, racist, homophobic asswipe who is so damn crazy he thinks there's a jewish banking conspiracy. Come on, why WOULD you vote for him? This is the same slime who supported and/or made the We The People act. Sickening...

Answer: His fans are both really really devoted and commonly annoying. I don't think it has that much to do with just him.

vote arson party - the party of change!

Though they do produce a lot of CO2. :p

I dont hate him.

He represents change. and change is what we need

there's a political cartoon i stumpled upon recently that would be perfect in reply to this. fucked if i can find it though. i must have forgot to click "i like it!". bugger

Though they do produce a lot of CO2. :p

vote arson party, we're in favor of climate change too?

He would not give individual rights to the states to decide. They are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights which applies to all states, just saying.

i dont hate ron paul. but i would never vote for him

today the thing i dislike most about him is how in the debates he seemed to be the only candidate willing to say what he really thought but the truth was that he was being no more frank than the rest. he was unwilling to come out and say his truly nutty beliefs and stuck with the mostly palatable ones.

for example he wants us out of iraq (yay!) but thats because he wants us to become isolationists (boo!)

he wants to focus on the constitution and states rights (yay!) but thats so that individual states can be as discriminatory as they might like to be (boo!)

and i dont like the way he flirts with 9/11 truthers and other nutcases so they will send him money. its taking advantage of the mentally weak.

I hated Ron Paul before hating Ron Paul was cool.

Because he wants to abolish the space program, and anybody who wants that is too stupid to live.

Because he's a rascist, or at least a racist-lover.

Because he's anti-choice.

Because he apparently appeals to a loud, annoying, politically naive, and otherwise useless segment of our society.

He has a first name as a last name....I CAN'T STAND THAT!!!!!

He has a first name as a last name....I CAN'T STAND THAT!!!!!

could be worse, i knew a kid that had a first name for a last name and a last name for a first name

vote arson party - the party of change!

They can have a kick ass power metal anthem too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Znt-2ByYko

Surely that depends on the kind of change?

Not really. My relationship with America has lost the passion that it used to, and we're both doing everything we can to bring it back.

So it's not really important what it is specifically, I'll try anything once.

I don't really know much about him.

Here's something I don't like, though:
He's become the next internet fad. Like Snakes on a Plane and 300. Have you been over to YouTube at all lately? People who normally don't give a shit about politics are suddenly voting, because Ron Paul is cool.
People of voting age who regularly post on YouTube scare me. Especially this guy: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=gbeckerswetzel

Not really. My relationship with America has lost the passion that it used to, and we're both doing everything we can to bring it back.

So it's not really important what it is specifically, I'll try anything once.

Then you should vote for me for Dictator. I'll give you all the change you can handle. Once we get all of Congress up against the wall, I'll even let you give the order to fire.

Then you should vote for me for Dictator. I'll give you all the change you can handle. Once we get all of Congress up against the wall, I'll even let you give the order to fire.

Like I said, I'll try anything once.

But that said, I'd like to avoid BDSM if I can help it.

So it's not really important what it is specifically, I'll try anything once.

Then vote for me, not Ron Paul. ;)

Like I said, I'll try anything once.

But that said, I'd like to avoid BDSM if I can help it.

Are you paying taxes?

You may have the blindfold on already. ;)

But that said, I'd like to avoid BDSM if I can help it.

Pft, you have no idea what you're missing.

could be worse, i knew a kid that had a first name for a last name and a last name for a first name

I knew a Kevin James Duncan. *nod*

He's from the same state as the current US president who will remain nameless!

Hey everybody, I see there is a strong hatred towards Ron Paul. I was just wondering if you could give me a list (please in list form so it's easy for everyone to read/understand) of things you don't like. If possible also include a list of some things you do like. Here is what comes off the top of my head:

What I like:
stance on civil liberties
foreign policy
policy on drugs
anti-WTO and ant-NAFTA

What I don't like:
his overly strong religious beliefs
his pro-gun beliefs

There's more for each column, but that's all I can brainstorm now, I'm beat.

Gun ownership is a fundamental civil liberty.

He has disastrous plans for the economy and military because he doesn't understand the way the world works.

For example, he thinks there is a coming 'race war,' and has less than friendly ideas towards people who aren't white christians.

He also attracts and inspires (and bilks) an alarmingly annoying and stupid mob of loudmouths as supporters.

He couches his social conservatism in libertarianism.

Why would people have a problem with these?

There are basically only two reasons I can think of:

1. You don't like free trade, in which case support for a libertarian candidate would be deliciously ironic.

2. You take Paul's position, which I gather is something along the lines of them representing state involvement, which is bad. Unfortunately they're also the only way to make free trade happen, because the other governments aren't quite as principled.

I have no idea given that NAFTA and the the WTO, and its predecessor the GATT, have helped free trade. Apparently they dont realize how prone to protectionism most nations are and how reciprical lowering of trade barriers helps make it politically viable.

He wants to combine leaving these organizations with the Gold Standard. Given that when gold starts leaving the vaults the only options, if one wants to stay on the standard, are deflationary interest rates hikes and protectionism its a shitty system. Combine the two and hello depression.

And doesn't he understand how inflation prone currencies are without a Central Bank? Austerity is not a popular choice.

So basically he's against organizations that provide some manner of discipline on governments. What a nutty libertarian.

I'll be voting for Ron Paul tomorrow in the Michigan primary. I agree with him on virtually every issue aside from that of abortion. Sorry, I am neither a bigot nor a redneck.

I'll be voting for Ron Paul tomorrow in the Michigan primary. I agree with him on virtually every issue aside from that of abortion. Sorry, I am neither a bigot nor a redneck.

do you agree with his position that ron paul should write (or pay someone else to ghostwrite for him) ridiculously racist, sexist, and homophobic rants, and paranoid bircher and/or nazi conspiracy theories?

I'll be voting for Ron Paul tomorrow in the Michigan primary. I agree with him on virtually every issue aside from that of abortion. Sorry, I am neither a bigot nor a redneck.

You're voting for one. You're also voting for a person who goes against their convictions after announcing a bill does as such, then votes for it anyway. You are voting for a racist, a bigot who wants homosexuals and anyone who isn't a white christian as second class citizens, wants women not have the right to their own damn bodies and wants the state to have it instead, and wants to destabilize America militarily and economically. I'll spare you from going into his crazy nazi conspiracy theories.


But hey, you're not a bigot nor a redneck, so it's all good.

It is all good, actually. I am neither a racist nor a bigot, I'm not even a goddamn Christian. I don't care if he is, I'm not a bigot, and neither is he. I haven't the slightest idea what the fuck you're talking about when you mention the second class citizen idea. He has never voted for anything other than civil liberties, small government, a free and prosperous market, non interventionist foreign policy, and strict constitutionalism. Please give me an example of his racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, or sexism. If you're referring to those ghost written papers from the 1980s that he didn't verify, go ahead. Please explain to me these Nazi conspiracies, I'd like to know what you're babbling about.

You're voting for one. You're also voting for a person who goes against their convictions after announcing a bill does as such, then votes for it anyway. You are voting for a racist, a bigot who wants homosexuals and anyone who isn't a white christian as second class citizens, wants women not have the right to their own damn bodies and wants the state to have it instead, and wants to destabilize America militarily and economically. I'll spare you from going into his crazy nazi conspiracy theories.


But hey, you're not a bigot nor a redneck, so it's all good.

Please offer specific citations. Furthermore, Ron Paul being unable to control his supporters is not a good argument for being against him.

Paul voted against partial-birth abortions, which I agree with (the rights of kid have to be recognized sometime), and from what I've seen has no problem with homosexuals. He has publicly stated he would not want openly homosexual individuals discharged for the military unless their behavior was disruptive, the same as he said of heterosexuals. However simultaneously he feels that states somehow should be able to rule over sex practices because the right to things such as sodomy are not specifically mentioned in our original starting document. Yeah, that's a bit much on the literal interpretation of the constitution when the acts of consenting individuals are subject to state control.

The only problem I have with him is that he might be too strict of a constructionist for my taste, i.e., it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, so "oh well!" like mentioned above. For me, it's either him or FT.

What I like about Ron Paul

He's the only candidate to my knowledge that has openly acknowledged the fact that current issues regarding terrorism stem, in whole or in part, from U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War.

What I don't like about Ron Paul

Everything else.

I'll be voting for Ron Paul tomorrow in the Michigan primary. I agree with him on virtually every issue aside from that of abortion. Sorry, I am neither a bigot nor a redneck.

*buzzer sound*

I'm sorry but we need clarification on that last bit. Which part of Michigan do you live?

Hey everybody, I see there is a strong hatred towards Ron Paul. I was just wondering if you could give me a list (please in list form so it's easy for everyone to read/understand) of things you don't like. If possible also include a list of some things you do like. Here is what comes off the top of my head:

What I like:
stance on civil liberties
foreign policy
policy on drugs
anti-WTO and ant-NAFTA

What I don't like:
his overly strong religious beliefs
his pro-gun beliefs

There's more for each column, but that's all I can brainstorm now, I'm beat.

You forgot his solid support against the Freemason conspiracy to control the Federal Reserve, the UFO conspiracy to manipulate the tax payer money for social security, and his support for the White cause in the upcoming 'race war'. Yeah I like him, he's my hero, hail Ron Paul, I would gladly lay down my life and soul for his everlasting greatness.

HEIL PAUL.

Honestly, if I could be reasonably sure there would be a Democratic Congress, I'd vote for him; if his wackier positions are kept in line, a lot of good could be achieved by some of his other policy positions. A move towards a freer market, lower taxes, lower government spending, more civil liberties and a shift towards non-interventionism would all be very good for this country.

He would not give individual rights to the states to decide. They are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights which applies to all states, just saying.

...not according to Ron Paul.

According to Ron Paul, the Bill of Rights (particularly the 1st and 9th Amendments) should not be applied to the states. Hence the reason that he has sought to remove an individual's ability to seek legal redress against a state that infringes upon them and impeach any judge who upholds individual rights.

Like I said, look up the "We the People Act".

I know I'm not going to vote for him, so I never really bothered researching his platform in detail.

I hated Ron Paul before hating Ron Paul was cool.

Because he wants to abolish the space program, and anybody who wants that is too stupid to live.

He votes to fund private research into space tourism, though.

I'll be voting for Ron Paul tomorrow in the Michigan primary. I agree with him on virtually every issue aside from that of abortion. Sorry, I am neither a bigot nor a redneck.

So, you're not a bigot, but you believe that homosexuals should be treated as second class citizens?

You believe that your state government should be able to tell you who to sleep with, how to do it, and what contraceptives you can and cannot use? You think that same state government should be able to infringe upon your freedom of religion with impunity?

Do you believe that the US should annex the Panama Canal?

Do you believe that a proper course of action is to single out Iranian students and deny them scholarships when the Iranian government does something we don't like?

It is all good, actually. I am neither a racist nor a bigot, I'm not even a goddamn Christian. I don't care if he is, I'm not a bigot, and neither is he. I haven't the slightest idea what the fuck you're talking about when you mention the second class citizen idea. He has never voted for anything other than civil liberties, small government, a free and prosperous market, non interventionist foreign policy, and strict constitutionalism. Please give me an example of his racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, or sexism.

I already did - in this very thread. Why did you ignore it?

Here's a good place to start:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

This one's really easy:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

Oh, and this one's fun:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html

You can see how Ron Paul proposed a bill to single out Iranian students. You can see how he has repeatedly proposed a bill in hopes of allowing state governments to infringe upon the freedom of religion, the right to privacy, and equal protection under the law. You can see how he voted for a law specifically designed to deny homosexual couples the ability to adopt children. You can see how Paul point-blank stated that he was voting for an unconstitutional bill.

And so on...

If you think Ron Paul "has never voted for anything other than civil liberties, small government, a free and prosperous market, non interventionist foreign policy, and strict constitutionalism", you haven't bothered to look into his record. Like so many other Paulbots, you've bought into the propaganda without actually doing the research.

If you're referring to those ghost written papers from the 1980s that he didn't verify, go ahead. Please explain to me these Nazi conspiracies, I'd like to know what you're babbling about.

I always love this one. The idea that a politician had that sort of writing going out in his name - published by his own organizations - for over 10 years and didn't notice is preposterous. You guys are really fond of trying to convince us that your candidate is incredibly incompetent, aren't you?


Paul voted against partial-birth abortions, which I agree with (the rights of kid have to be recognized sometime),

The only thing that said bill does is endanger the lives of women. That's it. It doesn't stop a single abortion from occurring, because the abortions we're talking about are medically indicated in the first place. All it does is remove an option that might be the best in her case - and encourage doctors to introduce unnecessary risk because of fear of breaking the law.

and from what I've seen has no problem with homosexuals.

Then you haven't been looking.

However simultaneously he feels that states somehow should be able to rule over sex practices because the right to things such as sodomy are not specifically mentioned in our original starting document.

Woohoo for ignoring the 9th Amendment!

What I like about Ron Paul

He's the only candidate to my knowledge that has openly acknowledged the fact that current issues regarding terrorism stem, in whole or in part, from U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War.

I can't say much about most of the candidates on this subject, but Obama has said this as well.

Honestly, if I could be reasonably sure there would be a Democratic Congress, I'd vote for him; if his wackier positions are kept in line, a lot of good could be achieved by some of his other policy positions. A move towards a freer market, lower taxes, lower government spending, more civil liberties and a shift towards non-interventionism would all be very good for this country.

Of course, packing the court with even more anti-liberty judges would screw this country over for generations to come...

I don't hate Ron Paul, but I think he would make an exceptionally poor president of the United States.

First of all, either he himself is racist, paranoid, and homophobic; or he is incapable of preventing others who are racist, paranoid, and homophobic from publically expressing their views under his name. Therefore, if he were to become President, he would either advocate racist, paranoid, and homophobic legislation, and actively appoint justices or cabinet officials who hold these views; or he would not prevent such legislation, and allow such justices and cabinet officials to take power.

Second, his foreign policy (isolationism?) is not particularly workable; nor are his economic policies. I do not see them as being successful were he to become President.

Third, while he claims to stand for increased civil liberties, he is merely taking the power to limit those liberties away from the federal government and handing it to state governments. I don't see any particular improvement.

Fourth, his supporters irritate the hell out of me.

Fifth, I make a point of not trusting anybody named Ron. Experience has proven them to be nutters.

He votes to fund private research into space tourism, though.

So, you're not a bigot, but you believe that homosexuals should be treated as second class citizens?

That's what you get for killing Jesus.

You believe that your state government should be able to tell you who to sleep with, how to do it, and what contraceptives you can and cannot use? You think that same state government should be able to infringe upon your freedom of religion with impunity?

Yeah. That's what libertarianism is all about, after all.

Do you believe that the US should annex the Panama Canal?

Well we did build the damn thing....

Do you believe that a proper course of action is to single out Iranian students and deny them scholarships when the Iranian government does something we don't like?

Save your bleeding heart rhetoric for someone who isn't American. It's obvious that these "students" are sleeper cells for the Iranian government. Otherwise their skin would be a lighter shade. White, specifically.

If you think Ron Paul "as never voted for anything other than civil liberties, small government, a free and prosperous market, non interventionist foreign policy, and strict constitutionalism", you haven't bothered to look into his record. Like so many other Paulbots, you've bought into the propaganda without actually doing the research.

Dirty commie!

I always love this one. The idea that a politician had that sort of writing going out in his name - published by his own organizations - for over 10 years and didn't notice is preposterous. You guys are really fond of trying to convince us that your candidate is incredibly incompetent, aren't you?

Only when it's convenient for him. This was clearly part of an elaborate conspiracy to smoke out the heretics and destroy them. With freedom.

The only thing that said bill does is endanger the lives of women. That's it. It doesn't stop a single abortion from occurring, because the abortions we're talking about are medically indicated in the first place. All it does is remove an option that might be the best in her case - and encourage doctors to introduce unnecessary risk because of fear of breaking the law.

Seriously though, for a second, is it usually allowed anyway? I mean, save for medical emergencies which I can understand entirely, isn't abortion at that late in the pregnancy just a little much?

Moving on.

Woohoo for ignoring the 9th Amendment!

Oh please, everyone knows that's like the red-headed stepchild of amendments. It's just there so that the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights can beat up on it during recess.

Well we did build the damn thing....The Army Corps of Engineers built the pool near the summer camp I used to work in. Should the US annex that as well? Conversely, should the French annex Liberty Island?

Seriously though, for a second, is it usually allowed anyway? I mean, save for medical emergencies which I can understand entirely, isn't abortion at that late in the pregnancy just a little much?

That's what I meant. Late-term abortion is already heavily restricted. We aren't talking about elective abortions, here - we are talking about medical abortions. And that is precisely the reason that banning one procedure won't stop a single abortion from happening. It simply forces doctors to use other, potentially less safe, procedures.

The Army Corps of Engineers built the pool near the summer camp I used to work in. Should the US annex that as well? Conversely, should the French annex Liberty Island?

They'd have to pry it from our cold, dead hands. Conversely, this is not an issue for the US when it comes to Panama. It'll take, what? 10 minutes, tops.

Hey everybody, I see there is a strong hatred towards Ron Paul. I was just wondering if you could give me a list (please in list form so it's easy for everyone to read/understand) of things you don't like. If possible also include a list of some things you do like. Here is what comes off the top of my head:

What I like:
stance on civil liberties
foreign policy
policy on drugs
anti-WTO and ant-NAFTA

What I don't like:
his overly strong religious beliefs
his pro-gun beliefs

There's more for each column, but that's all I can brainstorm now, I'm beat.

Stance on civil liberties? You like the fact that he will actually do away with the 14th Amendment and thus these civil liberties will be restricted?

They'd have to pry it from our cold, dead hands. Conversely, this is not an issue for the US when it comes to Panama. It'll take, what? 10 minutes, tops."We have a stronger military" is not an argument on whether we should annex the Panama Canal.

I don't like his stances, his voting record, his news letters and I really don't like his followers, but I don't hate him, I'm quite apathetic towards him.

"We have a stronger military" is not an argument on whether we should annex the Panama Canal.

I take it the facetious nature of my posts in this thread is a little less than clear?

I take it the facetious nature of my posts in this thread is a little less than clear?Probably. Blame your low postcount :p

Why would people have a problem with these?
The WTO, effectively controlled by the EU, the US, Canada and Japan through the Green Room talks, establishes trade protections that only benefit Western nations and corporations, then force poorer nations to remove trade protections. Again, this only benefits Western nations and corporations, not the nations it supposedly tries to help.

I have serious misgivings about NAFTA because, while it frees up markets and loosens protectionism, it fails in any way to let labour freely move about.

Indeed, it actively opposes such measures.

And that’s why I, and many others, don’t support the WTO or NAFTA. That’s not to say I, in any way, support Ron Paul.

could be worse, i knew a kid that had a first name for a last name and a last name for a first name
It could be worse. There was a guy in the year above me with the name, and I swear this is 100% true:

Jay Scott Nobles.

Try saying it out loud.

They’d have to pry it from our cold, dead hands.
Caveman much?

could someone link me where Ron Paul predicted a "race war" oncoming? Or somewhere where Ron Paul expressly showed he was a racist? I hear a lot of people saying it, but nobody has anything to point to. I'd really appreciate it.

could someone link me where Ron Paul predicted a "race war" oncoming? Or somewhere where Ron Paul expressly showed he was a racist? I hear a lot of people saying it, but nobody has anything to point to. I'd really appreciate it.

It's in those newsletters published under his name. I'm sure someone can dig up a link to them.

Even if he didn't write them, which I suspect he did, then to review them and let someone write such racist tripe under his name is almost as bad.

It's in those newsletters published under his name. I'm sure someone can dig up a link to them.

Even if he didn't write them, which I suspect he did, then to review them and let someone write such racist tripe under his name is almost as bad.

Here's some excerpts:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129

Here's to Ron Paul, fighting for the rights of America's forgotten minority, the upper-middle class, white man.

Here's to Ron Paul, fighting for the rights of America's forgotten minority, the upper-middle class, white man.

Don't forget straight and Christian.

I think his anti-UN/anti-NATO beliefs are slightly worrying

I think his anti-UN/anti-NATO beliefs are slightly worrying

Just the tip of the iceberg (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html), my friend.

Martin Luther King is a gay pedophile Homosexuals were better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities His Newsletter in the 90'sIf you own a house outside a major city, move there because a race war will break out and every white person will be in danger

His foreign policy is... abnormal, to say the least. But I would like to see American UN involvement done away with. And his drug policies don't go far enough.

He's okay, I suppose. Better than Huckabee, for damn sure.

EDIT: The "No Random Testing" for federal employees I can go without though.

I love Ron Paul and not in a platonic sense I want to have sex with him.

Ron Paul: he has policies so varied and boldly-stated that everyone's got to love one thing he says and hate another.

I shall settle for 'sure, he'd produce a fucked-up government. But it would be a small fucked-up government, and that's better than a big fucked-up government'.

Ron Paul: he has policies so varied and boldly-stated that everyone's got to love one thing he says and hate another.

Most people like what he says. It's what he does that is scary.

I want to have sex with him.

No point in stating the obvious. We all want to have sex with Ron Paul.

just two things for the Ron Paul is a racist/homophobe people:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm

http://www.redpills.org/?p=741

are they slightly biased? more than likely, but so are all the anti-Paul articles. Take it as you will, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

just two things for the Ron Paul is a racist/homophobe people

shorter ron paul:

wudn't me. musta been the magical elves what dun it.

just two things for the Ron Paul is a racist/homophobe people:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm

http://www.redpills.org/?p=741

are they slightly biased? more than likely, but so are all the anti-Paul articles. Take it as you will, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

yes but

if ron paul ISNT a racist then why has be been pandering to racists for the past 30 years?

wouldnt that make him worse? "im not a racist but i dont mind pretending to be to get support"

just two things for the Ron Paul is a racist/homophobe people:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm

http://www.redpills.org/?p=741

are they slightly biased? more than likely, but so are all the anti-Paul articles. Take it as you will, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

You know an article is biased when the title includes "go Ron Paul".

Also, I don't think the leader of the NAACP has the power to judge who is racist and who isn't. Unless he is appointed by the racist magnitude board of racism otherwise known as the RMBR.

Click Stand;13374616']You know an article is biased when the title includes "go Ron Paul".

Also, I don't think the leader of the NAACP has the power to judge who is racist and who isn't. Unless he is appointed by the racist magnitude board of racism otherwise known as the RMBR.

then who does have the power to declare he is racist? A bunch of people typing in a forum? Just saying...

then who does have the power to declare he is racist?

the evidence.

I like him, I like his 2nd amendment (Gun) Beliefs, his immigration policy and foreign policy and such, only think i don't like is he does not support stem cell research :\

And you realize that people are saying now that the ron paul racist thing was a hoax? considering he was never there at the time.

The liberals are at it again, heh.

And you realize that people are saying now that the ron paul racist thing was a hoax? considering he was never there at the time.

what idiots are saying that?

what idiots are saying that?


Ron Paul has been accused of racism and bigotry based on a number of documents (most likely forged. I'm smelling another Rathergate) that made hideous remarks about Martin Luther King, Jr., among other people.

These terrible accusations are based upon a very false image of the libertarian mindset. Libertarians are often considered racists by liberals for their clear lack of willingness to do anything in support of minorities. How, they say, can you consider yourself the "antithesis of racism" when you refuse to support systems such as affirmative action? The answer is quite simple. Affirmative action is racism. Just because, say, a fire department is predominantly white and Irish doesn't mean that blacks are being rejected from jobs. It means that the people getting jobs so happened to be white. When affirmative action came about, tests were altered in favor of blacks, and they still had difficulty passing these exams. All this means is that the extensive experience of Irishman as firemen in New York City just so happens to beat out that limited experience of the blacks in the same area. That's tough. If I'm in a burning building, I want to be saved by someone who can do their job right, not someone who passed the test because the standards were lowered for his or her group's benefit.

I like him, I like his 2nd amendment (Gun) Beliefs, his immigration policy and foreign policy and such, only think i don't like is he does not support stem cell research :\

And you realize that people are saying now that the ron paul racist thing was a hoax? considering he was never there at the time.

The liberals are at it again, heh.

I'm not a liberal and I think he's a racist prick who wants to destroy the Constitution of the United States.

what idiots are saying that?

Ron Paul has been accused of racism and bigotry based on a number of documents (most likely forged. I'm smelling another Rathergate) that made hideous remarks about Martin Luther King, Jr., among other people.

These terrible accusations are based upon a very false image of the libertarian mindset. Libertarians are often considered racists by liberals for their clear lack of willingness to do anything in support of minorities. How, they say, can you consider yourself the "antithesis of racism" when you refuse to support systems such as affirmative action? The answer is quite simple. Affirmative action is racism. Just because, say, a fire department is predominantly white and Irish doesn't mean that blacks are being rejected from jobs. It means that the people getting jobs so happened to be white. When affirmative action came about, tests were altered in favor of blacks, and they still had difficulty passing these exams. All this means is that the extensive experience of Irishman as firemen in New York City just so happens to beat out that limited experience of the blacks in the same area. That's tough. If I'm in a burning building, I want to be saved by someone who can do their job right, not someone who passed the test because the standards were lowered for his or her group's benefit.

What I like about Ron Paul...

He hasn't killed anyone yet?

What I hate about Ron Paul.

His moronic Supporters.
His Theocratic ideas.
The fact that his 'dream' is to divide us basicly into 50 seperate nations, a quarter that will almost instantly roll back to the 19th century legal wise.
"Truthers" love him.
Closet Racist.
Closet Homophobe
Closet Absolute Capitalist
Seriously believes that the All powerful "Market" can fix everything.
Part of a Rightwing nutjob gathering of Doctors who shouldn't be allowed near the operating table because of their beliefs.
And he looks stupid.

If he's not a racist, then he's merely stupid enough to attatch his name to a whole lot of crap published in his name, and not actively disavow it.

Which would make him stupider than anyone in government, even Bush and Kucinich (who is slightly more crazy than stupid.).

He has the unmoving support of /b/ on 4chan. Hence why he's still got his name out there at all. Because of his extreme right wing sexism, racism, religious intolerance, and homophobia, he's the ideal candidate for a /b/tard.

I want mccain to win, myself. =(

Because he's the only candidate who seems to have actually read the US Constitution, without a thesaurus and a legal consultant from the Federalist Society to tell him why he didn't have to obey it. And his stance on terrorism...neanderthal. He wants the American people armed and self-sufficient, free and confident enough that they can't be terrorized by brown boogeymen from Arabia. Oh wait, that's why I LIKE Ron Paul!

Well, as a lurk moar, i still see nothing but Ron Paul /b/ at the start of near every thread. =/

He has the unmoving support of /b/ on 4chan. Hence why he's still got his name out there at all. Because of his extreme right wing sexism, racism, religious intolerance, and homophobia, he's the ideal candidate for a /b/tard.

I want mccain to win, myself. =(

Actually he's losing support there as well. All his "Christian" talk turned them off. Obama is the man now. (They spent too much time pretending to be Black online, I think it rubbed off on them)

I love his anti-war stance. his fascist immigration policy pisses me off, though.

What's left to be said? The main thing is he's either improbably incompetent and unaware (and his staff!), or he's a bigoted racist asshole.

That 9/11 "Truth Movement" and conspiracy nuts love him to death is a red flag to me as well.

And he supports the border 'fence' idea, so fuck him. Everyone claims he's capitalist, even pure capitalist, free market enthusiast - BULLSHIT! If thats the case, why does he want the border so ridiculously protected? To protect "our" jobs, to limit the supply of labor. Oh, and because of the darkies.

There is nothing capitalistic about that, and in all probability, everything he claims is for the sole purpose of getting him elected.

Ron Paul has been accused of racism and bigotry based on a number of documents (most likely forged. I'm smelling another Rathergate) that made hideous remarks about Martin Luther King, Jr., among other people.

oh, i see...

honestly, are there any ronnie fans that know anything at all about their guy? this is just silly. dude, ron paul himself acknowledges the existence of years and years of racist, sexist, and homophobic rants along with the usual right-wing paranoid conspiracy theories published in his name in his paper. he just claims that it wasn't him what done it.

his defense is "i'm not racist, i'm just monumentally incompetent and gladly paid nazis to write in my voice and publish in my name and only now have gotten around to claiming that its not my fault." so you can either believe the wildly implausible claim that ron paul personally chose to spend good money to have his good name besmirched by being directly associated with everything that is wrong with the right, or you can believe that ron paul is a racist.

I'd like to know where they come from myself

Paulbots? Probably from whatever viral marketing campaign he could hire. And bot makers.

I can't say much about most of the candidates on this subject, but Obama has said this as well.

He's certainly outlined an intended foreign policy which is a big step in the right direction...but I haven't seen anything from him stating that our prior foreign policy (prior as in before Bush II) is one of the reasons for current terrorism issues.

Unless you have a source?

I never cared about the guy and never knew who he was until his obnoxious supporters decided to spam the entire internet. Every forum I went to, I saw all these threads on the guy, and this wasnt just because he is a major presidential candidate, its because we have 10,000 or so die hard Ron followers spamming the internet forcing people to look at "Rons political standing". Even on threads about things totally unrelated you get these spammers on and on about Ron Paul.

Now, I dont have anything against those who are trying to promote Ron Paul as a presidential candidate, what am against are people flooding major forums with spam and Ron paul BS, tellling us this and that, I dont really care about.

The guy also makes me uneasy at the fact that he was one of the few democrats who decided to change to the Republican party in the early 2000's and the height of republican party support.

I dont believe Ron Paul is a racist, heck im black myself and I dont think he is. I believe the media, especially fox news,is playing the race card again (typical). I dont like him as a candidate because I dont believe he is strong enough to lead the country.

I love the fact that he rallys against those pro Bush supporters but its takes more to become president than to point fingers at whos fault it is in this mess and how my way of economy, government, be it whatever will work.

If it was between Ron Paul and Romney, well, Ron Paul obviously.

Im just curious, where do you Ron Paul supporters meet up to discuss your spamming/marketing techniques? There must be some forum or blog where you all discuss how you will spam and which forums each of you will take. Do you discuss these things on MSN? because the way you Paul supporters went about getting this guys name out there on the internet is impressive other that irritating.

Funny thing, before late 2007 most of us barely heard about this guy and barely spoke about him so it shows this sudden hype.

I love what everyone hates about him, but I hate what everyone loves about him. :( It's never easy, primary season.

No, there's no forum to discuss marketing Ron Paul. His campaign is just like the Borg. All of his 'net supporters have a collective consciousness thing going.

Ron Paul has been accused of racism and bigotry based on a number of documents (most likely forged. I'm smelling another Rathergate) that made hideous remarks about Martin Luther King, Jr., among other people.

These terrible accusations are based upon a very false image of the libertarian mindset. Libertarians are often considered racists by liberals for their clear lack of willingness to do anything in support of minorities. How, they say, can you consider yourself the "antithesis of racism" when you refuse to support systems such as affirmative action? The answer is quite simple. Affirmative action is racism. Just because, say, a fire department is predominantly white and Irish doesn't mean that blacks are being rejected from jobs. It means that the people getting jobs so happened to be white. When affirmative action came about, tests were altered in favor of blacks, and they still had difficulty passing these exams. All this means is that the extensive experience of Irishman as firemen in New York City just so happens to beat out that limited experience of the blacks in the same area. That's tough. If I'm in a burning building, I want to be saved by someone who can do their job right, not someone who passed the test because the standards were lowered for his or her group's benefit.The incredible irony of this is that you have used the German name of Chelmno, where an extermination camp was located, as your countries capital, something clearly visible in your location. It really weakens your case.

Ron Paul has been accused of racism and bigotry based on a number of documents (most likely forged. I'm smelling another Rathergate) that made hideous remarks about Martin Luther King, Jr., among other people.

Even Paul doesn't make ridiculous claims like that. He freely admits that he allowed them to use his name. It is a matter of public record that he started or helped set up the organizations that published the newsletters.

What he wants us to believe is that, over a period of more than 10 years, he never noticed what was going out in his name...

These terrible accusations are based upon a very false image of the libertarian mindset.

Ron Paul is not a libertarian.


Because he's the only candidate who seems to have actually read the US Constitution, without a thesaurus and a legal consultant from the Federalist Society to tell him why he didn't have to obey it.

Is that why he wants to completely ignore the 1st, 9th, and 14th Amendments?


He's certainly outlined an intended foreign policy which is a big step in the right direction...but I haven't seen anything from him stating that our prior foreign policy (prior as in before Bush II) is one of the reasons for current terrorism issues.

Unless you have a source?

Pick up a copy of The Audacity of Hope. Obama is very critical of our Cold War era foreign policy and of its results.

he is a little guy trying to act tough, running on a republican ticket opposing most republican stand points. i still don't understand his reasoning behind that. he would of had a much better chance as independent.

up until it was pointed out he made/published racist remarks. then his popularity crashed.

Is "because hes an idiot" an acceptable answer?

Is "because hes an idiot" an acceptable answer?No. You have to support that claim.

Well, we'll start with the idea of getting rid of almost every government agency and his desire to get rid of income taxes. The former is just not practical and the latter is just bad for the economy (I live with an Econ major/teacher)

Occasionally, blimps crash into stadiums you know. *nod*
A man can always dream, I guess.

A man can always dream, I guess.Does that mean you no longer desire a blimp, or that you want a blimp, so you can crash it into a stadium? :confused:

I dont hate him.

He represents change.
That's right, America! "Change" is a straight white conservative Christian male who wants to lower taxes, strip civil rights from women, homosexuals, and non-whites, roll back all social policy to pre-FDR status, and drown the federal government in a bathtub.

That's right, America! "Change" is a straight white conservative Christian male who wants to lower taxes, strip civil rights from women, homosexuals, and non-whites, roll back all social policy to pre-FDR status, and drown the federal government in a bathtub.

Well, you have to admit, it is change. Just unilaterally bad change.

That's right, America! "Change" is a straight white conservative Christian male


Exactly! Its not like the US has ever had a straight white Christian male president right?

Well, you have to admit, it is change.
Um, no?

Granted, I've been aware of politics for less than a quarter of a century, but in my entire conscious lifetime I cannot remember any point at which the US government wasn't DOMINATED by exactly the sort of fellow I described in my post.

Ron Paul annoys me because he's more of the same, yet he markets himself as "change." He's no different from any of the other right-wing religious hacks running for office. Booooooorrrrring.

Um, no?

Granted, I've been aware of politics for less than a quarter of a century, but in my entire conscious lifetime I cannot remember any point at which the US government wasn't DOMINATED by exactly the sort of fellow I described in my post.

Ron Paul annoys me because he's more of the same, yet he markets himself as "change." He's no different from any of the other right-wing religious hacks running for office. Booooooorrrrring.

I suppose you're right. Other than the drowning the federal government in a bathtub part. I'm pretty sure just about every political move by the right in the past quarter of a century has been geared towards strengthening the power of the federal government (or at least the President).

Granted, my grasp of history has never been the best. Or even passable.

Edit: This being the central reason why I have, thus far, avoided the History of Physics class like the plague.

That and being an isolationist in this day and age doesnt work and/or isnt a good idea.


THAT is why hes an idiot.

I suppose you're right. Other than the drowning the federal government in a bathtub part. I'm pretty sure just about every political move by the right in the past quarter of a century has been geared towards strengthening the power of the federal government (or at least the President).

Well, I suppose they only SAY they're after reducing federal government. You're right that their actions frequently do not match their words (**SHOCK**).

Well, I suppose they only SAY they're after reducing federal government. You're right that their actions frequently do not match their words (**SHOCK**).

:(

That's right, America! "Change" is a straight white conservative Christian male who wants to lower taxes, strip civil rights from women, homosexuals, and non-whites, roll back all social policy to pre-FDR status, and drown the federal government in a bathtub.

I'm a straight white conservative that does not want to strip civil rights from women, homosexuals and non-whites.

I'm a straight white conservative that does not want to strip civil rights from women, homosexuals and non-whites.But you're not running for president, so that point is rather moot.

I'm a straight white conservative that does not want to strip civil rights from women, homosexuals and non-whites.

Are you Ron Paul? Otherwise, your comment is completely irrelevant.

Well, I suppose they only SAY they're after reducing federal government. You're right that their actions frequently do not match their words (**SHOCK**).

To bad this has been going on since George Washington was President.

I love how everyone must trash you unless you are for free health-care, more social welfare, pro-gay civil union, eco-friendly and all the other ultra-liberal crap. Collectivism and other socialist policies haven`t worked elsewhere.


Not being a complete bigot and all-around incompetant helps as well.

I love how everyone must trash you unless you are for free health-care, more social welfare, pro-gay civil union, eco-friendly and all the other ultra-liberal crap. Collectivism and other socialist policies haven`t worked elsewhere.

I`m not keen on some of his views, but I support keeping the illegals out, interpreting the constitution as written and a staunch defense of the second ammendment.
Anyone who truly understands that the 2nd ammendment is the linchpin to the entire Bill of Rights can`t be all bad.

I love how everyone must trash you unless you are for free health-care, more social welfare, pro-gay civil union, eco-friendly and all the other ultra-liberal crap. Collectivism and other socialist policies haven`t worked elsewhere.

I love how you Ron Paul supporters consistently fail to comprehend what the criticism of Ron Paul is. (For example, the racism thing you conveniently ignore)

And it's fun too that you try to turn it into some libertarian martyrdom. "You just hate him because he's capitalist!"

1, he's not capitalistic or free market. The fact that he is so in favor of "keeping the illegals out," as you say, is by definition a regulation imposed upon the free market. A regulation imposed for reasons of nationalism and racism.

2, your strawmen about "pro-gay civil union," (apparently that's a bad thing, and apparently if I criticize Ron Paul I must hold that stance), about "eco-friendly" (apparently that's a bad thing too. let's all shit where we eat!), about "collectivism." Dismissed.

Really, your racist boy hero is about as collectivist as they come. And the fact that every one of his supporters seems to be completely out of touch with reality in the same ways tells me that Ronbots are nothing but collectivists themselves. At least, they don't seem to THINK on an individual basis.

Anyone who truly understands that the 2nd ammendment is the linchpin to the entire Bill of Rights can`t be all bad.

Ha! Yeah. So a man could kill, rape, torture.... but if he understands the 2nd amendment, he's a decent guy.

Like I said. Out of touch with reality.

I love how everyone must trash you unless you are for free health-care, more social welfare, pro-gay civil union, eco-friendly and all the other ultra-liberal crap. Collectivism and other socialist policies haven`t worked elsewhere.

I'm against free health-care and more social welfare and I despise Ron Paul

I`m not keen on some of his views, but I support keeping the illegals out, interpreting the constitution as written and a staunch defense of the second ammendment.

So you support a dimwit who supports abolishing the 1st, 9th, and 14th amendments?

Anyone who truly understands that the 2nd ammendment is the linchpin to the entire Bill of Rights can`t be all bad.

And this is not even relevent to what is being said about Ron Paul.

Anyone who truly understands that the 2nd ammendment is the linchpin to the entire Bill of Rights can`t be all bad.

Anyone who says that is the posterboy for all crackpot gun nuts.

I love how everyone must trash you unless you are for free health-care, more social welfare, pro-gay civil union, eco-friendly and all the other ultra-liberal crap. Collectivism and other socialist policies haven`t worked elsewhere.
Actually, civil unions aren't 'pro-gay' (:rolleyes:) in the same way allowing African-Americans public education but only in second rate segregated schools isn't 'pro-black'.

But then, it's still a part of the socialist homosexual agenda, so it doesn't really matter. Your Nazi socialised medicine doctor (who also eats babies) will brainwash you to be gay and have either a civil union or marriage. It doesn't really matter which, you still get ass-raped in the end.

Or perhaps not.

I`m not keen on some of his views, but I support keeping the illegals out, interpreting the constitution as written and a staunch defense of the second ammendment.
Pity your own courts disagree with you.

Anyone who truly understands that the 2nd ammendment is the linchpin to the entire Bill of Rights can`t be all bad.
Well, probably only the second half.

Anyone who truly understands that the 2nd ammendment is the linchpin to the entire Bill of Rights can`t be all bad.





..........

:headbang:

I love how everyone must trash you unless you are for free health-care, more social welfare, pro-gay civil union, eco-friendly and all the other ultra-liberal crap. Collectivism and other socialist policies haven`t worked elsewhere.

I`m not keen on some of his views, but I support keeping the illegals out, interpreting the constitution as written and a staunch defense of the second ammendment.
Anyone who truly understands that the 2nd ammendment is the linchpin to the entire Bill of Rights can`t be all bad.
I swear, Ron Paul's "supporters" provide some of the best reasons to oppose him...

After all, do you really want to live in a country run by somebody that THIS kind of person supports?

Because he isn't a libertarian but insists that he is

He says "I've always been a Republican."


Also, it seems that the general population needs to look at some of his speeches on youtube or any other media. I see very strong misconceptions about him.

He says "I've always been a Republican."

He also says that he can't be racist because he's a libertarian and ran for president as a libertarian at one point.

Also, it seems that the general population needs to look at some of his speeches on youtube or any other media. I see very strong misconceptions about him.

Ah, the standard appeal of the RP supporter. "Look at his propaganda, not at his record."

Ah, the standard appeal of the RP supporter. "Look at his propaganda, not at his record."

"but don't look at his other propaganda. look only at the propaganda approved for distribution to non-fringe right extremist paranoids."

"but don't look at his other propaganda. look only at the propaganda approved for distribution to non-fringe right extremist paranoids."

Ah yes, well....obviously!

because he's an idiot. :headbang:

because he's an idiot. :headbang:



That was my reasoning too, but apperantly you have to back it up.

Love him or hate him, Ron Paul sure does get a lot of attention. Everyone is talking about him.

Aye, then I will. He has retarded UN conspiracy theories, he's an isolationist, and he's never read the Constitution in his life.

That pretty much sums it up.

Aye, then I will. He has retarded UN conspiracy theories, he's an isolationist, and he's never read the Constitution in his life.

man, I love seeing how everyone here preaches how Ron Paul is a biggot and prejudiced. Look at yourselves. You jump on ANYONE who disagrees with you. Where is the tolerance for other views that makes liberalism such a wonderful thing? You don't need to attack people if you disagree with them. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs for better or worse.

man, I love seeing how everyone here preaches how Ron Paul is a biggot and prejudiced. Look at yourselves. You jump on ANYONE who disagrees with you. Where is the tolerance for other views that makes liberalism such a wonderful thing? You don't need to attack people if you disagree with them. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs for better or worse.

That's true except for one thing! We can slam him because of what he has said, support, wrote, co-sponsored, etc. He maybe entitled to his opinion but when they conflict with the ideals of the Constitution and of America as a whole? He leaves himself open to said attacks.

man, I love seeing how everyone here preaches how Ron Paul is a biggot and prejudiced. Look at yourselves. You jump on ANYONE who disagrees with you. Where is the tolerance for other views that makes liberalism such a wonderful thing? You don't need to attack people if you disagree with them. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs for better or worse.

wait, libertarianism is about tolerating racism? Typical fucking ron paul supporter, don't even know what the ideology you supposedly support is actually about.

Libertarian philosophy means each person has a right to their own beliefs, own words, own actions, own thoughts. Ron Paul has every right to believe, speak, write, and think whatever the fuck he wants.

And I have the right to vote for whomever I want to be president.

Ron Paul holds racists beliefs. He has written racits words. He has advocated racist policies. That makes him a racist.

Now, yes, he can certainly be a racist if he wants to be. He absolutly has that right. Just as he has the right to be a racist, and espouse racism, I have the right to point out that he's a racist. Yes, he has the right to be a racist. He does not, however, have the right to stop me from calling him a racist, and he does not have the right to my vote.

My freedom of speech is my right, and I use it to call out racists when I see them. My vote is my right, and I don't vote for racists.

And any real libertarian would understand that.

man, I love seeing how everyone here preaches how Ron Paul is a biggot and prejudiced. Look at yourselves. You jump on ANYONE who disagrees with you. Where is the tolerance for other views that makes liberalism such a wonderful thing? You don't need to attack people if you disagree with them. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs for better or worse.

He is entitled to his beliefs. He's not entitled to put them into my government.

He is entitled to his beliefs. He's not entitled to put them into my government.

Well...

unless he wins, which he probably won't.

I don't know who I support anymore...

yeah, remember the words of jeebus - "let he who is without decades of racist/sexist/homophobic right-wing extremist newsletters to his name cast the first stone".

*chucks rock*

man, I love seeing how everyone here preaches how Ron Paul is a biggot and prejudiced. Look at yourselves. You jump on ANYONE who disagrees with you.

yeah, remember the words of jeebus - "let he who is without decades of racist/sexist/homophobic right-wing extremist newsletters to his name cast the first stone".

Well...

unless he wins, which he probably won't.

I don't know who I support anymore...

Even if he wins, his views don't belong in my government. My individual rights are my own - and they are protected by the US Constitution. He can't have them, nor can he give them away to my state government.

man, I love seeing how everyone here preaches how Ron Paul is a biggot and prejudiced. Look at yourselves. You jump on ANYONE who disagrees with you. Where is the tolerance for other views that makes liberalism such a wonderful thing? You don't need to attack people if you disagree with them. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs for better or worse.

I can tolerate other views while expressing my belief that said views are utterly retarded.

Even if he wins, his views don't belong in my government. My individual rights are my own - and they are protected by the US Constitution. He can't have them, nor can he give them away to my state government.

Indeed since his policies still have to go through the US Congress and there is no way they will vote for those policies.

Indeed since his policies still have to go through the US Congress and there is no way they will vote for those policies.

My biggest fear with someone like him would be that he would stuff the courts with like-minded judges. For better or worse, it is the judicial system that stands as the greatest check on state government power. Ron Paul wants the states to have much more power over my individual rights and he would likely stuff the court with judges willing to give it to them.

Luckily, he doesn't have a chance of winning.

My biggest fear with someone like him would be that he would stuff the courts with like-minded judges. For better or worse, it is the judicial system that stands as the greatest check on state government power. Ron Paul wants the states to have much more power over my individual rights and he would likely stuff the court with judges willing to give it to them.

Luckily, he doesn't have a chance of winning.


Apperantly hes got a better chance than Thompson and Guilani:D

My biggest fear with someone like him would be that he would stuff the courts with like-minded judges. For better or worse, it is the judicial system that stands as the greatest check on state government power. Ron Paul wants the states to have much more power over my individual rights and he would likely stuff the court with judges willing to give it to them.

Luckily, he doesn't have a chance of winning.

The problem is though he will still have to get those judges through the Confirmation Process.

The problem is though he will still have to get those judges through the Confirmation Process.

Bush got most of his through - even some of the really radical ones.

All he would really have to do is nominate at least one who was so crazy that even RP wouldn't like him. The Senate would block that one guy, and let in all the others because they would be seen as being "less scary."

b/c he wanats to take our troops out immediately:upyours::headbang:

Anyone who says that is the posterboy for all crackpot gun nuts.

Thank you. This is the greatest compliment I`ve ever gotten here.:D

So you're fond of the idea that your individual rights should be stripped from you and handed over to state authorities?

- I dislike Ron Paul because he is far too authoritarian.
He seeks to remove my right to religious freedom, to privacy, and to equal protection under the law. Instead of allowing me to live my own life, he would hand authority over to my state government to control it for me.

See the "We the People Act" and his votes/proposals to restrict the rights of specific groups of people (ie. Iranians, homosexuals)

- I also don't like his lies (or those of the propaganda he puts out). One cannot point-blank state that one is voting for an unconstitutional bill and then claim that one has never or would never vote for anything that was not directly authorized in the Constitution.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html
Also, one doesn't get to use the name "defender of the Constitution" when one wishes to ignore the 1st, 9th, and 14th Amendments.

- His association with racists, secessionists, homophobes, etc. does not speak well of him. His newsletters either reveal racist, homophobic, pro-violence, and inaccurate views of his own or they show him to be so incompetent that he let such trash go out in his name for over 10 years.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

- I don't think isolationism is a good idea.

- His economic polices are complete garbage. He's tried bills more than once now that would have bankrupted most Americans by immediately rendering their money worthless.

- I think getting rid of the FDA, OSHA protections, etc. would be disastrous.

- I don't think we should annex portions of other countries - particularly when we have promised otherwise. (see his bills regarding the Panama Canal)


http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

With the addition of the fact that he couldn't give two shits about the environment, this is why I have such a strong dislike of Ron Paul.

His pamplet proclaimed, "I will end the IRS." My dad would lose his job if that happended so no thank you Ron Paul.

His pamplet proclaimed, "I will end the IRS." My dad would lose his job if that happended so no thank you Ron Paul.

that is a terrible argument

With the addition of the fact that he couldn't give two shits about the environment, this is why I have such a strong dislike of Ron Paul.

Actually he has openly said that he believes in global warming and would make policies that would negatively effect business owners that pollute. Go to ronpaul2008.com for more details.

Hey everybody, I see there is a strong hatred towards Ron Paul. I was just wondering if you could give me a list (please in list form so it's easy for everyone to read/understand) of things you don't like. If possible also include a list of some things you do like. Here is what comes off the top of my head:

What I like:
stance on civil liberties
foreign policy
policy on drugs
anti-WTO and ant-NAFTA

What I don't like:
his overly strong religious beliefs
his pro-gun beliefs

There's more for each column, but that's all I can brainstorm now, I'm beat.

Hmmm, if you reversed what you like and do not like but kept the civil liberties in the "what I like" section, that would sum up my likes and dislikes of him.

that is a terrible argument

Meh. Seems ok to me. Why would you want to vote for somebody that will put you out of work?

Meh. Seems ok to me. Why would you want to vote for somebody that will put you out of work?

If you're doing something useless, it's an inefficient allocation of resources to continue paying you for it. It takes money and labor away from producing things of actual social utility. The simple fact that something provides you with a job doesn't make it worth keeping.

Not that the IRS is useless. But its role as a provider of jobs is not in and of itself a reason to keep it. We can provide jobs and do something useful in the process.

If you're doing something useless, it's an inefficient allocation of resources to continue paying you for it. It takes money and labor away from producing things of actual social utility. The simple fact that something provides you with a job doesn't make it worth keeping.

Not that the IRS is useless. But its role as a provider of jobs is not in and of itself a reason to keep it. We can provide jobs and do something useful in the process.

I guess that depends on your perspective. On a board such as this we're atypically likely to be voting based on our ideology. I don't think that user was arguing the IRS should be kept because on an ideological level his dad's job was worth the cost of the IRS existing but simply saying that he was going to use his vote as a form of protecting his self-interest.

If you're doing something useless, it's an inefficient allocation of resources to continue paying you for it. It takes money and labor away from producing things of actual social utility. The simple fact that something provides you with a job doesn't make it worth keeping.

Not that the IRS is useless. But its role as a provider of jobs is not in and of itself a reason to keep it. We can provide jobs and do something useful in the process.

Well the point remains. How many people do you know that will vote for somebody that will end their job?

Some would argue that society doesn't care about you so why should you care about it?

How many people do you know that will vote for somebody that will end their job?

What people do and what people have good arguments for doing are separate categories.

Some would argue that society doesn't care about you so why should you care about it?

Would those people accept other people thinking that way?

I don't think that user was arguing the IRS should be kept because on an ideological level his dad's job was worth the cost of the IRS existing but simply saying that he was going to use his vote as a form of protecting his self-interest.

Self-interest is a pretty bad reason to support or oppose anything, at least standing alone.

[QUOTE=Soheran;13395272
Self-interest is a pretty bad reason to support or oppose anything, at least standing alone.[/QUOTE]

It might well be, but it's not an argument.

It might well be, but it's not an argument.

"I should support the IRS because it benefits me" is certainly an argument.

(Am I misunderstanding your point here?)

Meh. Seems ok to me. Why would you want to vote for somebody that will put you out of work?

maybe you wouldn't want to, but it doesn't make for much of an argument. to highlight the flaw, try it with a different sort of job. say, apprentice fingernail puller and genital electrode placer.

"candidate X will put me out of a job", says i - "don't vote candidate X!"

"I should support the IRS because it benefits me" is certainly an argument.

(Am I misunderstanding your point here?)

That wasn't the original statement. His position was simply that he didn't like Ron Paul because Ron Paul would put his dad out of work. Contrary to Free Soviet's last post he didn't say Ron Paul was a bad candidate because of this or that other people shouldn't vote for Ron Paul.

Maybe you could say that if one is going to do something than one must think that said action is right or that they "should" do it but I don't think we always do what we think we ought to.

His position was simply that he didn't like Ron Paul because Ron Paul would put his dad out of work.

"His pamplet proclaimed, "I will end the IRS." My dad would lose his job if that happended so no thank you Ron Paul."

The implication here ("no thank you") seems to be one of support or opposition... which involves judgment, and thus standards and arguments.

Maybe you could say that if one is going to do something than one must think that said action is right or that they "should" do it but I don't think we always do what we think we ought to.

True. But we may do something that we have a horrible argument for too. No one's claimed that nobody ever supports or opposes something to preserve their job--simply that, standing alone, that isn't a very good reason for action.

"His pamplet proclaimed, "I will end the IRS." My dad would lose his job if that happended so no thank you Ron Paul."

The implication here ("no thank you") seems to be one of support or opposition... which involves judgment, and thus standards and arguments.


We may be diving head-first into the dark depths of pedantry but I'd make a distinction between an argument and a reason. I think "my dad would lose his job if that happened" is a reason rather than an argument for "no thankyou Ron Paul".

I think "my dad would lose his job if that happened" is a reason rather than an argument for "no thankyou Ron Paul".

In that he didn't intend it to "prove" the conclusion, but simply as a supporting element? I suppose that's possible.

Now look, I came here for a good argument...
No you didn't. You came here for an ARGUMENT!
But this isn't an argument at all!
Yes it is.
No it isn't!
Yes it is.
An argument is a connected series of statements demonstrating a conclusion; it is not mere contradiction.
It can be.

Hey everybody, I see there is a strong hatred towards Ron Paul. I was just wondering if you could give me a list (please in list form so it's easy for everyone to read/understand) of things you don't like. If possible also include a list of some things you do like. Here is what comes off the top of my head:

What I like:
stance on civil liberties
foreign policy
policy on drugs
anti-WTO and ant-NAFTA

What I don't like:
his overly strong religious beliefs
his pro-gun beliefs

There's more for each column, but that's all I can brainstorm now, I'm beat.

Like:
Anti-NAFTA
No Amnesty
Pro-Life/Religious

Dislike:
Drug policy
Civil liberties

"No Amnesty" is the overriding problem, I think, going into 2008, so that's why he has my support. For now, that is.

Really, ever since Tancredo dropped out I've been a "none of the above" guy.

If you're doing something useless, it's an inefficient allocation of resources to continue paying you for it. It takes money and labor away from producing things of actual social utility. The simple fact that something provides you with a job doesn't make it worth keeping.

Not that the IRS is useless. But its role as a provider of jobs is not in and of itself a reason to keep it. We can provide jobs and do something useful in the process.Would you fault West Virginian coal miners for not voting for someone that wants to reduce acid rain?

Would you fault West Virginian coal miners for not voting for someone that wants to reduce acid rain?

I guess it depends on whether or not that acid rain is falling on me and destroying my area's environment and economic resources.

I guess it depends on whether or not that acid rain is falling on me and destroying my area's environment and economic resources.Kind of irrelevant to the coal miners' decision, though.

We may be diving head-first into the dark depths of pedantry but I'd make a distinction between an argument and a reason. I think "my dad would lose his job if that happened" is a reason rather than an argument for "no thankyou Ron Paul".

but the reason and the context implies an argument.

nm someone already posted article /edited out

Hey everybody, I see there is a strong hatred towards Ron Paul. I was just wondering if you could give me a list (please in list form so it's easy for everyone to read/understand) of things you don't like. If possible also include a list of some things you do like. Here is what comes off the top of my head:

What I like:
stance on civil liberties
foreign policy
policy on drugs
anti-WTO and ant-NAFTA

What I don't like:
his overly strong religious beliefs
his pro-gun beliefs

There's more for each column, but that's all I can brainstorm now, I'm beat.

What i dislike about Ron Paul:

1. He has allowed a newsletter bearing his name to be written by others.
Everyone who has a newsletter, blog, magazine or broadcast with their name in the title should never allow anyone else to write/print/post/speak in it, especially guests, ghost-writers and editors.

2. He is not overbearingly suave and deceptive like a politician should be.
He doesn't look good like a movie actor. He seems like an forthright but nerdish white collar professional who speaks his mind by calling things plainly as he sees them. The only thing he has going for him is that he thinks that the government isn't above the law, but should follow the Constitution, and he has voted consistently that way since he has been in congress.

3. He will take money from people with whom he disagrees to use for his own ideas.
He doesn't even pretend that he will use it for what they want; but tells them up front that he will use it for what he wants and not for their ideas. The nerve! He should learn from the leading Republican and Democrat contenders and just lie.

4. Some of his followers scare me.
There is a house full of politically active college students at the end of the block. The go around helping the neighbors by offering to shovel snow, help the elderly neighbors with errands and checking up on them to see if they are ok; They have Ron Paul signs in their yard, and tend to be overly cheerful. They seem to think that by being neighborly that their silly ideas of liberty, freedom, and equality will catch on. Others go around hanging up Ron Paul signs everywhere. Some of them are even conspiracy kooks who hang around airports and get sucked into jet engines.

What i like about Ron Paul.

1. His voting record is and has been consistent with his political philosophy, unlike most other candidates who have waffled on the issues. He knows where he stands on the issues and why because of an integral political philosophy that holds to the inherent liberties, rights and freedom of the individual against oppressive and arbitrary government.

2. He has always voted for civil liberties. He does not believe that some people are more equal than others, or that some groups should have special rights denied others. Those accuse him of racism do so by guilt through association, not by his voting record.
3. He has never voted to raise taxes, and calls for government to live within its means, just like everyone else has to do. He insists that the government obey the Law by returning to honest money and tight fiscal policy in accordance with the Constitution.
4. He doesn't believe that the U.S. should bully other nations.
He wants a humble foreign policy, and that warmongering is the wrong tactic for stability in the middle east, or anywhere.
5. I think returning to being one nation of 50 states (composed of public servants), instead of one state of 50 administrative districts
[that pits 13 or so nations (aligned vaguely on ethnicity and demographic grouping) against each other for entitlements] is a good idea; and voting for Ron Paul will take us back to the direction of the rule of Law and liberty instead of a rule of laws and law enforcers.
6. He has read and understands the Constitution, and demonstrates his understanding by his voting record.

I guess there is more to like about him than there is to dislike. :) I dont know if i am allowed to post links to other web sites, so i will err on the side of caution, and not.

Hey everybody, I see there is a strong hatred towards Ron Paul. I was just wondering if you could give me a list (please in list form so it's easy for everyone to read/understand) of things you don't like. If possible also include a list of some things you do like. Here is what comes off the top of my head:

What I like:
stance on civil liberties
foreign policy
policy on drugs
anti-WTO and ant-NAFTA

What I don't like:
his overly strong religious beliefs
his pro-gun beliefs

There's more for each column, but that's all I can brainstorm now, I'm beat.

Wow. I like everything that you listed even the dislikes. (Although he seems to be nominally Christian as far as American Christian go, and belongs to a denomination that isn't ).

1. He has allowed a newsletter bearing his name to be written by others.
Everyone who has a newsletter, blog, magazine or broadcast with their name in the title should never allow anyone else to write/print/post/speak in it, especially guests, ghost-writers and editors.

2. He is not overbearingly suave and deceptive like a politician should be.
He is below average in looks and demeanor. He doesn't look like a hollywood actor. He seems like an forthright but nerdish white collar professional who speaks his mind by calling things plainly as he sees them. The only thing he has going for him is that he thinks that the government isn't above the law, but should follow the Constitution, and he has voted consistently that way since he has been in congress.

3. He will take money from people with whom he disagrees to use for his own ideas.
He doesn't even pretend that he will use it for what they want; but tells them up front that he will use it for what he wants and not for their ideas. The nerve! He should learn from the leading Republican and Democrat contenders and just lie.
4. Some of his followers scare me.
There is a house full of politically active college students at the end of the block. The go around helping the neighbors by offering to shovel snow, help the elderly neighbors with errands and checking up on them to see if they are ok; They have Ron Paul signs in their yard, and tend to be overly cheerful. They seem to think that by being neighborly that their silly ideas of liberty, freedom, and equality will catch on. Others go around hanging Ron Paul signs everywhere. Still others are conspiracy kooks who hang around airports and get sucked into jet engines.


What i like about ron paul.

1. His voting record is and has been consistent with his political philosophy, unlike most other candidates who have waffled on the issues. He knows where he stands on the issues and why because of an integral political philosophy that holds to the inherent liberties, rights and freedom of the individual against oppressive and arbitrary government.

2. He has always voted for civil liberties. He does not believe that some people are more equal than others, or that some groups should have special rights denied others. Those accuse him of racism do so by guilt through association, not by his voting record.

3. He has never voted to raise taxes, and calls for government to live within its means, just like everyone else has to do. He insists that the government obey the Law by returning to honest money and tight fiscal policy in accordance with the Constitution.

4. He doesn't believe that the U.S. should bully other nations. He wants a humble foreign policy, and that warmongering is the wrong tactic for stability in the middle east, or anywhere.

5. I think returning to being one nation of 50 states (composed of public servants), instead of one state of 50 administrative districts [that pits 13 or so nations (aligned vaguely on ethnicity and demographic grouping) against each other for entitlements] is a good idea; and voting for Ron Paul will take us back to the rule of Law, and liberty instead of a rule of laws, and law enforcers.

6. He has read and understands the Constitution, and demonstrates his understanding by his voting record.

I guess i like Ron Paul more than i dislike him. :) I don't know what the policies are about posting links so i will err on the side of caution, and not. When the state primary comes up i will most likely vote for him.

I will not vote for a guy who will only bring in gridlock. I want things done dammit, Paulbots are living in a fantasy if they think even 1% of his more nutty ideas are going to get through congress. Also why would I vote for a guy who would give states the right to discriminate against me?

Plus his supporters are the most annoying twats I've ever met online. Some advice to RP fans, spamming a message board for gamers is not going to win you any votes.

I love Ron Paul. And I don't think he is racist.

I love Ron Paul. And I don't think he is racist.

*sigh*

Do I really have to explain to people again that you have admitted that you are a racist? linky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13216345&postcount=160)

And that you don't think the Confederacy was racist?

*snip*

What i like about ron paul.

1. His voting record is and has been consistent with his political philosophy, unlike most other candidates who have waffled on the issues. He knows where he stands on the issues and why because of an integral political philosophy that holds to the inherent liberties, rights and freedom of the individual against oppressive and arbitrary government.

2. He has always voted for civil liberties. He does not believe that some people are more equal than others, or that some groups should have special rights denied others. Those accuse him of racism do so by guilt through association, not by his voting record.

*snip*

6. He has read and understands the Constitution, and demonstrates his understanding by his voting record.

I guess i like Ron Paul more than i dislike him. :) I don't know what the policies are about posting links so i will err on the side of caution, and not. When the state primary comes up i will most likely vote for him.

You might want to read this old post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13208967&postcount=1)

Well, it seems he's doing quite well on the results from the Florida debates tonight:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=548191

What i like about ron paul.

1. His voting record is and has been consistent with his political philosophy,

No, it hasn't.


2. He has always voted for civil liberties.

No, he hasn't.


3. He has never voted to raise taxes, and calls for government to live within its means
No, he doesn't.


He wants a humble foreign policy

No, he doesn't.


5. I think returning to being one nation of 50 states (composed of public servants), instead of one state of 50 administrative districts [that pits 13 or so nations (aligned vaguely on ethnicity and demographic grouping) against each other for entitlements] is a good idea; and voting for Ron Paul will take us back to the rule of Law, and liberty instead of a rule of laws, and law enforcers.

No, it won't.


6. He has read and understands the Constitution, and demonstrates his understanding by his voting record.

No, he hasn't.


I guess i like Ron Paul more than i dislike him. :)
According to your own list, you don't like Ron Paul at all. He fails on every single count that you listed.

*sigh* Why don't Ron Paul supporters ever bother to actually look into his record?

What i dislike about Ron Paul:

1. He has allowed a newsletter bearing his name to be written by others.
Everyone who has a newsletter, blog, magazine or broadcast with their name in the title should never allow anyone else to write/print/post/speak in it, especially guests, ghost-writers and editors.


Using ghost-writers and the like is fine. Allowing racist, homophobic, pro-violence, and inaccurate trash to go out in your name for over 10 years and then later claiming that you had no idea? That's a different story altogether.

2. He is not overbearingly suave and deceptive like a politician should be.

Yes, actually, he is.

What i like about Ron Paul.

1. His voting record is and has been consistent with his political philosophy, unlike most other candidates who have waffled on the issues.

No, it hasn't been. If you actually look into Ron Paul's record, you will see that his stated political philosophy and his proposed bills (as well as his votes) often clash.

He knows where he stands on the issues and why because of an integral political philosophy that holds to the inherent liberties, rights and freedom of the individual against oppressive and arbitrary government.

What complete and utter bullshit. Have you read the "We the People Act" where Ron Paul specifically tries to strip the individual of his ability to seek
redress against his state government when it infringes upon his rights?

How about his bill to single out Iranian students - and only Iranians students - to have their financial aid taken away?

His consistent statements that your state government should be able to control who you sleep with, how you do it, what contraceptives you can and cannot use, and what medical attention you can seek?

2. He has always voted for civil liberties. He does not believe that some people are more equal than others, or that some groups should have special rights denied others. Those accuse him of racism do so by guilt through association, not by his voting record.

He supports "Don't ask, don't tell," which specifically targets homosexual service members. He voted for to block homosexual couples from adopting children in Washington, DC. He supports DOMA - and has even gone so far as to say that any federal judge upholding the equal protection rights of homosexuals should be impeached - and to propose a bill to that effect.

And there is the bill targeting Iranian students that I mentioned above.

All of that was just off the top of my head.

3. He has never voted to raise taxes, and calls for government to live within its means, just like everyone else has to do. He insists that the government obey the Law by returning to honest money and tight fiscal policy in accordance with the Constitution.

He calls for all of that, while adding his own pork to spending bills. Yeah, really consistent.

4. He doesn't believe that the U.S. should bully other nations.
He wants a humble foreign policy, and that warmongering is the wrong tactic for stability in the middle east, or anywhere.

Yeah, we shouldn't bully other nations, but we should break agreements with them and annex their territory, eh?

You are aware, I presume, of Ron Paul's bills stating that we should annex the Panama Canal?


6. He has read and understands the Constitution, and demonstrates his understanding by his voting record.

You mean when he is voting for bills that he states are unconstitutional?

Meanwhile, if he's really read the Constitution, can you please explain to me how he managed to miss the 1st, 9th, and 14th Amendments?

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html

*sigh* Why don't Ron Paul supporters ever bother to actually look into his record?

Probably because when they ultimately do, they stop being Ron Paul supporters.

Off-topic: if you happen to talk to Jocabia between now and later this evening, inform him that I'm working on the next post for PNPO and that he shouldn't get antsy. Because I know he's getting antsy.

His name sounds to French!!:mad:

I'm just curious...I haven't done much reasearch on Ron Paul...but can some one give me proof to him being racist?

I'd do it myself...but I'm tired...and lazy...

I'm just curious...I haven't done much reasearch on Ron Paul...but can some one give me proof to him being racist?

I'd do it myself...but I'm tired...and lazy...

The links in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13372711&postcount=71) are a good start.

I'm just curious...I haven't done much reasearch on Ron Paul...but can some one give me proof to him being racist?

I'd do it myself...but I'm tired...and lazy...

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

We can either believe that newsletters published by organizations he either began or was a part of put out racist trash for over 10 years and he didn't notice (which is what he claims) or we can believe something that is much more likely - that he willingly allowed them to go out, whether he wrote them or not.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

We can either believe that newsletters published by organizations he either began or was a part of put out racist trash for over 10 years and he didn't notice (which is what he claims)

Honestly, that is what Ron Paul apologists now expect us to believe, with the simple, unthinking faith of a religious fundamentalist explaining to me why I'm just going to Hell unless I convert.

We're supposed to believe that he's completely incompetent and irresponsible, to the point of imbecility. Like that's supposed to be better than being a racist liar.