On October 12 2011 08:37 Catch]22 wrote: He wont win an election for presidency, so why vote for him? Also, I'm not sure if the marriage of conservativism and libertarianism is actually a good one..., they seem alike but it feelsl ike fitting a square peg in a rounded-corner-square hole
Most conservatives, view libertarians as a direct threat. Ron Paul taking over Bill Buckley's job I guess.
I'm referring to Buckley's shaping of the conservative party to include more liberal views. Big government, large budget, standing armies as long as the cold war continues. DeepElemBlues will chime into how Ron Paul would be nothing without Buckley. Upon further review, he is right. Without the deformation of old republican values into what most call Neoconservatism, Ron Paul wouldn't have much to complain about. He would also assert i have 0 credibility because i dare assert a unoriginal thought such as Buckley was the greatest establishment-troll of the post war era.
I'm hardly the first to think it. I guess the Cato institute negates the John T Birch society in that reguard. The Book in Question, Mr Blues is Bill Buckley: Pied Piper for the Establishment.
"From the 1960s to today, conservative Americans have been led astray by William F. Buckley, Jr. and other false conservatives who want to interject the U.S. government into almost every aspect of our lives. This blockbuster hardback presents a critical examination of Buckley's life and career, including his promotion of liberal causes. Don't let yourself be fooled! By understanding how the liberal establishment embraced Buckley and his so-called conservatism, you can avoid the traps laid down by similar false conservatives."
Opinions vary, I'm pretty damn conservative.
EDIT: 4 chan? Maybe your talking about Boxxy. If you only watch one video in my list. Make it Jon Stewart or Armed Chinese Troops.
On October 12 2011 21:05 zeru wrote: So i googled around a little and found out that Ron Paul doesn't accept the theory of evolution and denies it. Also something about him wanting to bring back the gold standard. He's either crazy, stupid, or both, I'm not sure which. Funny that this isnt included in OP :p
He was most definitely a joke on 4chan in 2008, whether the whole internet loves Ron Paul thing started there because people thought they actually like him I don't know.
A politician like that would be laughed at by everyone here in sweden.
I strictly browse /v/ nowadays but /b/ likes Ron Paul a lot and always has because he doesn't censor the Internet and is against anti piracy laws.
On October 12 2011 21:05 zeru wrote: So i googled around a little and found out that Ron Paul doesn't accept the theory of evolution and denies it. Also something about him wanting to bring back the gold standard. He's either crazy, stupid, or both, I'm not sure which. Funny that this isnt included in OP :p
He was most definitely a joke on 4chan in 2008, whether the whole internet loves Ron Paul thing started there because people thought they actually like him I don't know.
A politician like that would be laughed at by everyone here in sweden.
I left out religeon, because here in Amercia it is your right to believe what you want to believe. My views on a higher power, or religeon, because that is what the evolution coversation always seperates down to is a deep personal belief, such as not for me to criticize one, without criticizing all. It should almost never be a deciding factor, in a election, in a economic crisis that hasn't been witnessed since 4 chan's inventor was wiping poop on his face in the 70's, and before that since the 20's and 30's. It's not a focal point for me personally.
The gold standard. Yes, he has advocated it. He has criticized the decision to ever leave it. Does he currently advocate a full gold standard... no. He wants the currency backed by silver and gold because the constition wisely required it. He also wants the United States Treasury dept to stop delegating it's coin and print responsibility, back to itself. Not to private banking firms, and political retiree/swapee's(Cain, Perry,Romney,Christie) the candidate's they fund.
Assuming you were American, and the banks went insolvent, and the FDIC, already broke, incapable of covering anymore than a fractional reserve bank could cover it's deposits. You had just a few thousand worthless federal reserve notes in your account. At the time when the dollar is being threatened to lose it's status as the reserve currency, a looming trade war with china. The Credit rating already devalued by S+P. You would be hard pressed to find a neighbor, who would support a fiat currency, backed by nothing tangible, not even some horrible retarded derivitives package, let alone in the hands of someone who will profit from your misery.
If Ron Paul gets elected I'm becoming an organic chemist, and I am going to get a license to sell hallucinogens to live my greatest fantasy. That is why I am going to vote for him.
On October 12 2011 09:46 Mindcrime wrote: Ron Paul's worship of the Constitution, a document which greatly expanded the power of the federal government, which was agreed to only by a minority of a minority of individuals who lived over 200 years ago, and somehow purports to still bind us, is antithetical to libertarianism.
Ron Paul is simply a "states' rights" conservative who, to paraphrase Karl Hess, would prefer to oppress people at a more effective level.
Boy I don't wish you lived in North Korea where they don't have a constitution and get beat up to death by talking bad about their government because they've destroyed their country and life.
If you despise the constitution so much why not abolish it and see what happens. I can tell you what will happen, because its happened thousands of times through history, it happens total tyranny with death camps and life of suffering.
The reason why USA has been so successful and rich is because when Europe had kings and dictators and fought all these wars the USA had freedom and peace. When things started going bad it had the revolution and now its come to oppose everything it stood for and is going down, probably destroying half the world with it as its so connected through the fake monetary systems and being the reserve currency of the world.
I nabbed a little video on fiat currency, for those not familiar with the concept. With the EU sov debt crisis on the front pages today.
.
This crisis(global), OWS, EU Sovereign debt crisis, and central banks globally just keep on going printing and propping till it's all bled out. Tom Woods wrote a book called Meltdown on the subject matter. China having it's currency not pegged to the dollar would be a hypocrital position to take.
If you were the single largest holder of Treasury debt, and the U.S. largest creditor. Ensuring a fair exchange rate would be common sense, especially with policy of currency expansion here.
Much simpler.. making sure the chinese people are not shipping off goods, they will never get fair value for, paid for at all. Unpopular, yea, tell me about it! Greek debt is getting bounced around currently. Who's gonna pay?
On October 12 2011 21:05 zeru wrote: So i googled around a little and found out that Ron Paul doesn't accept the theory of evolution and denies it. Also something about him wanting to bring back the gold standard. He's either crazy, stupid, or both, I'm not sure which. Funny that this isnt included in OP :p
He was most definitely a joke on 4chan in 2008, whether the whole internet loves Ron Paul thing started there because people thought they actually like him I don't know.
A politician like that would be laughed at by everyone here in sweden.
I left out religeon, because here in Amercia it is your right to believe what you want to believe. My views on a higher power, or religeon, because that is what the evolution coversation always seperates down to is a deep personal belief, such as not for me to criticize one, without criticizing all. It should almost never be a deciding factor, in a election, in a economic crisis that hasn't been witnessed since 4 chan's inventor was wiping poop on his face in the 70's, and before that since the 20's and 30's. It's not a focal point for me personally.
The gold standard. Yes, he has advocated it. He has criticized the decision to ever leave it. Does he currently advocate a full gold standard... no. He wants the currency backed by silver and gold because the constition wisely required it. He also wants the United States Treasury dept to stop delegating it's coin and print responsibility, back to itself. Not to private banking firms, and political retiree/swapee's(Cain, Perry,Romney,Christie) the candidate's they fund.
Assuming you were American, and the banks went insolvent, and the FDIC, already broke, incapable of covering anymore than a fractional reserve bank could cover it's deposits. You had just a few thousand worthless federal reserve notes in your account. At the time when the dollar is being threatened to lose it's status as the reserve currency, a looming trade war with china. The Credit rating already devalued by S+P. You would be hard pressed to find a neighbor, who would support a fiat currency, backed by nothing tangible, not even some horrible retarded derivitives package, let alone in the hands of someone who will profit from your misery.
Sure he can believe what he wants to. But denying evolution is like denying gravity. I don't understand how you can take someone like that seriously as a politician, not having the capability to think logically is a huge flaw for someone who wants to run as president. I seriously hope he's just saying he doesn't believe in it to get more votes from a wider area, else it would be messed up.
edit; im not saying an important man can't have faith, but having faith and not denying evolution isnt mutually exclusive.
He doesn't deny evolution... what are you even saying? I'm pretty sure that he simply defended the rights of schools to teach whatever they want to teach, which would be a basic principle of free market education.
On October 13 2011 04:45 Kiarip wrote: He doesn't deny evolution... what are you even saying? I'm pretty sure that he simply defended the rights of schools to teach whatever they want to teach, which would be a basic principle of free market education.
The thought of that is absolutely terrifying.
Human nutrition 101 brought to you by McDonalds! "I'm lovin' it"
On October 13 2011 04:45 Kiarip wrote: He doesn't deny evolution... what are you even saying? I'm pretty sure that he simply defended the rights of schools to teach whatever they want to teach, which would be a basic principle of free market education.
The thought of that is absolutely terrifying.
Human nutrition 101 brought to you by McDonalds! "I'm lovin' it"
Yes the thought of personal responsibility is innately absolutely terrifying for people that are used to living in nanny states.
But to address that, transparency can be forced via individuals' inquiries, because being sponsored by something to do them a favor is fraud if you don't state that ahead of time, at which point who is really going to want to go to school that has McDonalds as its sponsor for nutrition classes?
On October 13 2011 04:45 Kiarip wrote: He doesn't deny evolution... what are you even saying? I'm pretty sure that he simply defended the rights of schools to teach whatever they want to teach, which would be a basic principle of free market education.
The thought of that is absolutely terrifying.
Human nutrition 101 brought to you by McDonalds! "I'm lovin' it"
Yes the thought of personal responsibility is innately absolutely terrifying for people that are used to living in nanny states.
But to address that, transparency can be forced via individuals' inquiries, because being sponsored by something to do them a favor is fraud if you don't state that ahead of time, at which point who is really going to want to go to school that has McDonalds as its sponsor for nutrition classes?
the thing is, the fact that people want creationism taught in schools means they arent safe to choose education for themselves, for the same reason you dont let mentally handicapped people choose for themselves. some things are just opinions, and some things are just wrong.
Man I really want to like Ron Paul, and I do for many things but some of his views are just too crazy/out there for me. Still I think I'd rather have him as pres than any other rep candidate, congress would really mellow out/relax what he's capable of implementing.
Calling Alan Greenspan terrible does make me like him just a little bit more than I did though.
Ron Paul simply cannot be in office. He hates the government, yet he wants to be elected as the highest government official in the country. That in itself is contradictory.
Guess we interpret things the way we want to. "There is no proof for either side" lol...
There you have it. I guess Ron is more like myself in some ways.
If that's your issue. then I would recommend you look into Huntsman. Romney is too coy on the subject to get a good answer.
Sadly this election cycle will feature little of substance on this subject, just typical argumentative, slanted statements. If anyone else thinks I picked poor issues, it's fair to say so. I just cannot see it being any more productive than race commentary instead of 9-9-9!!! Plenty to chat about there!
On October 12 2011 09:36 rel wrote: So many people saying, "Oh I'd vote for him, but it's a wasted vote." If all those people actually voted for him he might have a chance lol....
Not being trolling, but do the votes from Guam count towards the general election?
On October 12 2011 09:36 rel wrote: So many people saying, "Oh I'd vote for him, but it's a wasted vote." If all those people actually voted for him he might have a chance lol....
Not being trolling, but do the votes from Guam count towards the general election?
No they do not. U.S. Citizens residing there are not allowed to vote either.
On October 13 2011 06:25 Sufficiency wrote: Ron Paul simply cannot be in office. He hates the government, yet he wants to be elected as the highest government official in the country. That in itself is contradictory.
He is a segregationist. Simple as that.
Not it isn't contradictory, he wants to become head to stop it from being the self-destructive government it is today. That is why everyone is so scared of him; people think these problems will just so away if we just keep electing status-quo candidates like Bush and Obama.
I was intrigued with what I heard about Obama's anti-war leanings, but none of that came to effect. What? We have less troops there? We still have many MANY people over there in the sandbox.
Not sure where that segregationist comment came from.
On October 13 2011 06:25 Sufficiency wrote: Ron Paul simply cannot be in office. He hates the government, yet he wants to be elected as the highest government official in the country. That in itself is contradictory.
He is a segregationist. Simple as that.
That's simply not true.
He doesn't like how big the government has grown, but he's not an anarchist.
EPT
