Swine Flu also came up in the 70's under Carter -- a Democrat and came back up in 2010 under Obama. I'm not saying it's directly related, but coincidence?
I can give 500 more of these comedic gold quotes from her. Ranging from her saying the Revolution started in New Hampshire to her saying that Evolutionists are trying to overthrow the world to make a one-nation government to control us all.
I'm fine with Republicans, and even Republicans winning -- but fucking Christ not THIS one. I'd rather have Palin than this person.
NO! i really, really hope she is republican candidate
On August 18 2011 08:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: It's really popular to make fun of Ron Paul. It's popular to call him a kook, and dismiss him or his ideas. Usually, people who do this point to some obscure or largely irrelevant statement, some fringe issue that usually the president doesn't even control.
Where does Ron Paul stand on the most important issues of all?
1) End our interventionist policies in the middle-east, and bring our troops home. This will save our reputation abroad, save billions of dollars in spending, and most importantly, save lives.
2) End the failed war on drugs that has incarcerated thousands, cost billions of dollars, and led to worse results and greater violence than the medical approach taken in many European nations.
3) Secure our borders to prevent illegal immigration, but don't force businesses to investigate their employees, and don't support any draconian measures to round people up and deport them from their home.
4) Reduce the power and influence of the federal reserve to put an end to the cycle of devaluation of currency and excessive artificial credit, which has lead to bubbles and economic instability.
5) Oppose the idea of a federal amendment denying gays the ability to marry. Leave the concept of marriage up to individuals, and allow the individual states to determine their laws regarding this and other issues.
6) Reducing spending to finally begin to dig us out of the deep hole we are in, reducing our deficit and eventually our enormous debt.
To me, these positions do not seem crazy. In fact, they sound to me like common sense and the best possible direction our nation could go in. You won't hear a platform like this from any politician on any side of the spectrum. Republicans will give lip service to issues like closing the borders, and Democrats will give lip service to ending the wars... In the end it is just more of the same, with presidents from both sides simply continuing the failed policies of the previous.
I've never voted, and I've never registered to vote. I refuse to vote for anyone who supports policies which I think are fundamentally immoral, for that would be a sanction of them. Ron Paul is the only candidate I have ever heard who actually inspires me to register and vote and engage in politics. The fact that he did so well in the last debate gives me hope that our nation isn't completely lost.
1) Calls himself a scientist - Doesn't believe in evolution 2) Calls himself a libertarian - Doesn't agree with keeping state and church seperate
He is just a washed up radical conservative christian, sure he has good ideas that are mostly not even practical you can't just reduce spending and bring the boys home. There is a reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously anymore and yes it is because he is fucking stupid.
I must admit, the church and state thing irks me, but there are a lot of good little two-point quips you could make about the guy, too, like;
1) Staunchly pro-life and anti-abortion - Still believes States have the right to make that call for themselves 2) Christian - Frustrated at evangelicals leading the country to war 3) Christian - Does not believe in Federally mandated decisions on what marriage is, and that we should control sexual (private) behaviour 4) For small government - believes that Social Security is merely in need of help and needs correction of the numbers (less borrowing from it!)
Ultimately, you have to take the good with the bad with any political candidate. The only way to get a representative that believes all of exactly the same things you do, is to run for office yourself.
Claiming that 'the states should make the decision for themselves' is pretty much the equivalent of saying 'fuck you gay people, my libertarianism only extends to the point where I can sell it to my conservative poltical base'. If he was a true liberal, he'd be arguing for legalization of all marriages. The same goes for his pro-life position, if he would be a truly principal person he'd be saying that he doesn't give a shit, and that people can do whatever the hell they want.
Saying that it's 'up to the states' isn't an actual policy position, it's dodging the issue. 'My principals might apply to New York, but if they feel differently in Texas, that's cool too.' That's not an actual ideological position, that's called political pandering.
On August 18 2011 08:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: It's really popular to make fun of Ron Paul. It's popular to call him a kook, and dismiss him or his ideas. Usually, people who do this point to some obscure or largely irrelevant statement, some fringe issue that usually the president doesn't even control.
Where does Ron Paul stand on the most important issues of all?
1) End our interventionist policies in the middle-east, and bring our troops home. This will save our reputation abroad, save billions of dollars in spending, and most importantly, save lives.
2) End the failed war on drugs that has incarcerated thousands, cost billions of dollars, and led to worse results and greater violence than the medical approach taken in many European nations.
3) Secure our borders to prevent illegal immigration, but don't force businesses to investigate their employees, and don't support any draconian measures to round people up and deport them from their home.
4) Reduce the power and influence of the federal reserve to put an end to the cycle of devaluation of currency and excessive artificial credit, which has lead to bubbles and economic instability.
5) Oppose the idea of a federal amendment denying gays the ability to marry. Leave the concept of marriage up to individuals, and allow the individual states to determine their laws regarding this and other issues.
6) Reducing spending to finally begin to dig us out of the deep hole we are in, reducing our deficit and eventually our enormous debt.
To me, these positions do not seem crazy. In fact, they sound to me like common sense and the best possible direction our nation could go in. You won't hear a platform like this from any politician on any side of the spectrum. Republicans will give lip service to issues like closing the borders, and Democrats will give lip service to ending the wars... In the end it is just more of the same, with presidents from both sides simply continuing the failed policies of the previous.
I've never voted, and I've never registered to vote. I refuse to vote for anyone who supports policies which I think are fundamentally immoral, for that would be a sanction of them. Ron Paul is the only candidate I have ever heard who actually inspires me to register and vote and engage in politics. The fact that he did so well in the last debate gives me hope that our nation isn't completely lost.
1) Calls himself a scientist - Doesn't believe in evolution 2) Calls himself a libertarian - Doesn't agree with keeping state and church seperate
He is just a washed up radical conservative christian, sure he has good ideas that are mostly not even practical you can't just reduce spending and bring the boys home. There is a reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously anymore and yes it is because he is fucking stupid.
I must admit, the church and state thing irks me, but there are a lot of good little two-point quips you could make about the guy, too, like;
1) Staunchly pro-life and anti-abortion - Still believes States have the right to make that call for themselves 2) Christian - Frustrated at evangelicals leading the country to war 3) Christian - Does not believe in Federally mandated decisions on what marriage is, and that we should control sexual (private) behaviour 4) For small government - believes that Social Security is merely in need of help and needs correction of the numbers (less borrowing from it!)
Ultimately, you have to take the good with the bad with any political candidate. The only way to get a representative that believes all of exactly the same things you do, is to run for office yourself.
Claiming that 'the states should make the decision for themselves' is pretty much the equivalent of saying 'fuck you gay people, my libertarianism only extends to the point where I can sell it to my conservative poltical base'. If he was a true liberal, he'd be arguing for legalization of all marriages. The same goes for his pro-life position, if he would be a truly principal person he'd be saying that he doesn't give a shit, and that people can do whatever the hell they want.
Saying that it's 'up to the states' isn't an actual policy position, it's dodging the issue. 'My principals might apply to New York, but if they feel differently in Texas, that's cool too.' That's not an actual ideological position, that's called political pandering.
Actually, the position is: the federal government should not be dictating what the definition of marriage is. In an ideal world, the federal government would have absolutely nothing at all to do with marriage. You take away the benefits and the laws regulating marriage, and the issue of "equal rights" becomes a non-issue completely, because marriage would become a social institution and not a legal institution.
Whatever happened to separation of church and state?
On August 18 2011 08:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: It's really popular to make fun of Ron Paul. It's popular to call him a kook, and dismiss him or his ideas. Usually, people who do this point to some obscure or largely irrelevant statement, some fringe issue that usually the president doesn't even control.
Where does Ron Paul stand on the most important issues of all?
1) End our interventionist policies in the middle-east, and bring our troops home. This will save our reputation abroad, save billions of dollars in spending, and most importantly, save lives.
2) End the failed war on drugs that has incarcerated thousands, cost billions of dollars, and led to worse results and greater violence than the medical approach taken in many European nations.
3) Secure our borders to prevent illegal immigration, but don't force businesses to investigate their employees, and don't support any draconian measures to round people up and deport them from their home.
4) Reduce the power and influence of the federal reserve to put an end to the cycle of devaluation of currency and excessive artificial credit, which has lead to bubbles and economic instability.
5) Oppose the idea of a federal amendment denying gays the ability to marry. Leave the concept of marriage up to individuals, and allow the individual states to determine their laws regarding this and other issues.
6) Reducing spending to finally begin to dig us out of the deep hole we are in, reducing our deficit and eventually our enormous debt.
To me, these positions do not seem crazy. In fact, they sound to me like common sense and the best possible direction our nation could go in. You won't hear a platform like this from any politician on any side of the spectrum. Republicans will give lip service to issues like closing the borders, and Democrats will give lip service to ending the wars... In the end it is just more of the same, with presidents from both sides simply continuing the failed policies of the previous.
I've never voted, and I've never registered to vote. I refuse to vote for anyone who supports policies which I think are fundamentally immoral, for that would be a sanction of them. Ron Paul is the only candidate I have ever heard who actually inspires me to register and vote and engage in politics. The fact that he did so well in the last debate gives me hope that our nation isn't completely lost.
1) Calls himself a scientist - Doesn't believe in evolution 2) Calls himself a libertarian - Doesn't agree with keeping state and church seperate
He is just a washed up radical conservative christian, sure he has good ideas that are mostly not even practical you can't just reduce spending and bring the boys home. There is a reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously anymore and yes it is because he is fucking stupid.
I must admit, the church and state thing irks me, but there are a lot of good little two-point quips you could make about the guy, too, like;
1) Staunchly pro-life and anti-abortion - Still believes States have the right to make that call for themselves 2) Christian - Frustrated at evangelicals leading the country to war 3) Christian - Does not believe in Federally mandated decisions on what marriage is, and that we should control sexual (private) behaviour 4) For small government - believes that Social Security is merely in need of help and needs correction of the numbers (less borrowing from it!)
Ultimately, you have to take the good with the bad with any political candidate. The only way to get a representative that believes all of exactly the same things you do, is to run for office yourself.
Claiming that 'the states should make the decision for themselves' is pretty much the equivalent of saying 'fuck you gay people, my libertarianism only extends to the point where I can sell it to my conservative poltical base'. If he was a true liberal, he'd be arguing for legalization of all marriages. The same goes for his pro-life position, if he would be a truly principal person he'd be saying that he doesn't give a shit, and that people can do whatever the hell they want.
Saying that it's 'up to the states' isn't an actual policy position, it's dodging the issue. 'My principals might apply to New York, but if they feel differently in Texas, that's cool too.' That's not an actual ideological position, that's called political pandering.
Actually, constitutionally in the United States, it is up to the states to determine marriage laws. It's unconstitutional for the federal government to have anything to do with marriage laws. Taking the stance "the states should decide for themselves" is actually the only legal stance someone CAN take.
The Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Thus, since the constitution does not say marriage laws are a power given to the federal government, nor are the prohibited to the states, those laws are therefore governed by the states.
Ironically, most people who claim to love this document so much have no idea of what its actual contents are past the first 5 or 6 amendments, and hardly know anything at all about the text of the first 3 parts of the document before the bill of rights.
On August 18 2011 08:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: It's really popular to make fun of Ron Paul. It's popular to call him a kook, and dismiss him or his ideas. Usually, people who do this point to some obscure or largely irrelevant statement, some fringe issue that usually the president doesn't even control.
Where does Ron Paul stand on the most important issues of all?
1) End our interventionist policies in the middle-east, and bring our troops home. This will save our reputation abroad, save billions of dollars in spending, and most importantly, save lives.
2) End the failed war on drugs that has incarcerated thousands, cost billions of dollars, and led to worse results and greater violence than the medical approach taken in many European nations.
3) Secure our borders to prevent illegal immigration, but don't force businesses to investigate their employees, and don't support any draconian measures to round people up and deport them from their home.
4) Reduce the power and influence of the federal reserve to put an end to the cycle of devaluation of currency and excessive artificial credit, which has lead to bubbles and economic instability.
5) Oppose the idea of a federal amendment denying gays the ability to marry. Leave the concept of marriage up to individuals, and allow the individual states to determine their laws regarding this and other issues.
6) Reducing spending to finally begin to dig us out of the deep hole we are in, reducing our deficit and eventually our enormous debt.
To me, these positions do not seem crazy. In fact, they sound to me like common sense and the best possible direction our nation could go in. You won't hear a platform like this from any politician on any side of the spectrum. Republicans will give lip service to issues like closing the borders, and Democrats will give lip service to ending the wars... In the end it is just more of the same, with presidents from both sides simply continuing the failed policies of the previous.
I've never voted, and I've never registered to vote. I refuse to vote for anyone who supports policies which I think are fundamentally immoral, for that would be a sanction of them. Ron Paul is the only candidate I have ever heard who actually inspires me to register and vote and engage in politics. The fact that he did so well in the last debate gives me hope that our nation isn't completely lost.
1) Calls himself a scientist - Doesn't believe in evolution 2) Calls himself a libertarian - Doesn't agree with keeping state and church seperate
He is just a washed up radical conservative christian, sure he has good ideas that are mostly not even practical you can't just reduce spending and bring the boys home. There is a reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously anymore and yes it is because he is fucking stupid.
I must admit, the church and state thing irks me, but there are a lot of good little two-point quips you could make about the guy, too, like;
1) Staunchly pro-life and anti-abortion - Still believes States have the right to make that call for themselves 2) Christian - Frustrated at evangelicals leading the country to war 3) Christian - Does not believe in Federally mandated decisions on what marriage is, and that we should control sexual (private) behaviour 4) For small government - believes that Social Security is merely in need of help and needs correction of the numbers (less borrowing from it!)
Ultimately, you have to take the good with the bad with any political candidate. The only way to get a representative that believes all of exactly the same things you do, is to run for office yourself.
Claiming that 'the states should make the decision for themselves' is pretty much the equivalent of saying 'fuck you gay people, my libertarianism only extends to the point where I can sell it to my conservative poltical base'. If he was a true liberal, he'd be arguing for legalization of all marriages. The same goes for his pro-life position, if he would be a truly principal person he'd be saying that he doesn't give a shit, and that people can do whatever the hell they want.
Saying that it's 'up to the states' isn't an actual policy position, it's dodging the issue. 'My principals might apply to New York, but if they feel differently in Texas, that's cool too.' That's not an actual ideological position, that's called political pandering.
It's not political pandering, it's the Constitution of the United States of America. What is political pandering is saying you believe in small government sometimes but not when it comes to pushing your morals on other people. There are a lot of reasons the Constitution was written the way it was, and I suggest you read up on it before claiming such an odd stance. Ron Paul has made it clear that he doesn't think government should have any role in marriage whatsoever, but if it has to, marriage law is firmly in the realm of state governments. Ron Paul is not a liberal, he is a conservative, the only one really, and he believes completely in the Constitution, which means that any law not expressly delegated to Congress is the jurisdiction of the states. I don't agree with him on everything, but he is principled and he is not crazy. If you take the time to explore his views on everything, you will find that even if you disagree with him he makes plenty of sense and he is not crazy. Best of all, his religious beliefs are irrelevant because he firmly believes in a much weaker executive branch than what we have accepted as reality in our time. Over the decades Congress has let the President become this incredibly powerful figure, but that is absolutely not what the founding fathers had in mind. They hated the concept of a king, and the President was supposed to be as far from that as possible. The representatives of the people (Congress) are supposed to have the real power, with the President acting as a check and executor, not as an all-powerful deity.
To the both of you that responded to me, what I said had nothing to do with constitutionality whatsoever.
All that I said was that a 'true' liberal, like people claim Ron Paul to be, should simply say that it is someone's own choice to decide who they love and marry and whether they want to have a child or not. If you are a true liberal, people can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't directly hurt others. Men should be allowed to marry other men just as much as men should be allowed to marry women. It's called ideological consistancy, even if you're not capable of enforcing it if you actually make it to the white house. The constitutional argument holds no merit at all, he could be for gay marriage publicly, and still claim it wasnt constitutionally enforcable.
As long as Ron Paul doesn't represent that opinion, he's a complete and total hypocrite.
As an outside observer i cannot fathom where these people come from. All the candidates are crazy. All of them. Bachmanns downright scares me. I wonder how far they would get if that ran for public office there in northern europe? They probably wouldnt get very far. As many have said, they are all crazy but if i had to pick one, i would probably pick Ron Paul. He is just as crazy as the rest of them and a lot of his idea are downright dangerous if they are implemented in the way he would like it but at the same time some of the thing he says makes sense. Stopping wars, cutting spending and doing something about the federal reserve isnt bad ideas. It seems like trying to find the least smelly turd in a pile of shit. I dont envy you.
On August 18 2011 10:47 Derez wrote: To the both of you that responded to me, what I said had nothing to do with constitutionality whatsoever.
All that I said was that a 'true' liberal, like people claim Ron Paul to be, should simply say that it is someone's own choice to decide who they love and marry and whether they want to have a child or not. If you are a true liberal, people can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't directly hurt others. Men should be allowed to marry other men just as much as men should be allowed to marry women. It's called ideological consistancy, even if you're not capable of enforcing it if you actually make it to the white house.
As long as Ron Paul doesn't represent that opinion, he's a complete and total hypocrite.
On August 18 2011 08:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: It's really popular to make fun of Ron Paul. It's popular to call him a kook, and dismiss him or his ideas. Usually, people who do this point to some obscure or largely irrelevant statement, some fringe issue that usually the president doesn't even control.
Where does Ron Paul stand on the most important issues of all?
1) End our interventionist policies in the middle-east, and bring our troops home. This will save our reputation abroad, save billions of dollars in spending, and most importantly, save lives.
2) End the failed war on drugs that has incarcerated thousands, cost billions of dollars, and led to worse results and greater violence than the medical approach taken in many European nations.
3) Secure our borders to prevent illegal immigration, but don't force businesses to investigate their employees, and don't support any draconian measures to round people up and deport them from their home.
4) Reduce the power and influence of the federal reserve to put an end to the cycle of devaluation of currency and excessive artificial credit, which has lead to bubbles and economic instability.
5) Oppose the idea of a federal amendment denying gays the ability to marry. Leave the concept of marriage up to individuals, and allow the individual states to determine their laws regarding this and other issues.
6) Reducing spending to finally begin to dig us out of the deep hole we are in, reducing our deficit and eventually our enormous debt.
To me, these positions do not seem crazy. In fact, they sound to me like common sense and the best possible direction our nation could go in. You won't hear a platform like this from any politician on any side of the spectrum. Republicans will give lip service to issues like closing the borders, and Democrats will give lip service to ending the wars... In the end it is just more of the same, with presidents from both sides simply continuing the failed policies of the previous.
I've never voted, and I've never registered to vote. I refuse to vote for anyone who supports policies which I think are fundamentally immoral, for that would be a sanction of them. Ron Paul is the only candidate I have ever heard who actually inspires me to register and vote and engage in politics. The fact that he did so well in the last debate gives me hope that our nation isn't completely lost.
1) Calls himself a scientist - Doesn't believe in evolution 2) Calls himself a libertarian - Doesn't agree with keeping state and church seperate
He is just a washed up radical conservative christian, sure he has good ideas that are mostly not even practical you can't just reduce spending and bring the boys home. There is a reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously anymore and yes it is because he is fucking stupid.
I must admit, the church and state thing irks me, but there are a lot of good little two-point quips you could make about the guy, too, like;
1) Staunchly pro-life and anti-abortion - Still believes States have the right to make that call for themselves 2) Christian - Frustrated at evangelicals leading the country to war 3) Christian - Does not believe in Federally mandated decisions on what marriage is, and that we should control sexual (private) behaviour 4) For small government - believes that Social Security is merely in need of help and needs correction of the numbers (less borrowing from it!)
Ultimately, you have to take the good with the bad with any political candidate. The only way to get a representative that believes all of exactly the same things you do, is to run for office yourself.
Claiming that 'the states should make the decision for themselves' is pretty much the equivalent of saying 'fuck you gay people, my libertarianism only extends to the point where I can sell it to my conservative poltical base'. If he was a true liberal, he'd be arguing for legalization of all marriages. The same goes for his pro-life position, if he would be a truly principal person he'd be saying that he doesn't give a shit, and that people can do whatever the hell they want.
Saying that it's 'up to the states' isn't an actual policy position, it's dodging the issue. 'My principals might apply to New York, but if they feel differently in Texas, that's cool too.' That's not an actual ideological position, that's called political pandering.
It's not political pandering, it's the Constitution of the United States of America. What is political pandering is saying you believe in small government sometimes but not when it comes to pushing your morals on other people. There are a lot of reasons the Constitution was written the way it was, and I suggest you read up on it before claiming such an odd stance. Ron Paul has made it clear that he doesn't think government should have any role in marriage whatsoever, but if it has to, marriage law is firmly in the realm of state governments. Ron Paul is not a liberal, he is a conservative, the only one really, and he believes completely in the Constitution, which means that any law not expressly delegated to Congress is the jurisdiction of the states. I don't agree with him on everything, but he is principled and he is not crazy. If you take the time to explore his views on everything, you will find that even if you disagree with him he makes plenty of sense and he is not crazy. Best of all, his religious beliefs are irrelevant because he firmly believes in a much weaker executive branch than what we have accepted as reality in our time. Over the decades Congress has let the President become this incredibly powerful figure, but that is absolutely not what the founding fathers had in mind. They hated the concept of a king, and the President was supposed to be as far from that as possible. The representatives of the people (Congress) are supposed to have the real power, with the President acting as a check and executor, not as an all-powerful deity.
Finally! Someone who understands Ron Paul's view AND how the US government should be managed. I agree with every aspect on what's said and done here but people just points out one or two flaws of a president and then go apeshit over them being a bad representative. This is why I support Ron Paul, he believes the government should be following the rules on the Constitution and though his religious ideals are disagreeable to some extent, his policies at least focus on getting out of this shithole.
On August 18 2011 10:52 Tremendous wrote: As an outside observer i cannot fathom where these people come from. All the candidates are crazy. All of them. Bachmanns downright scares me. I wonder how far they would get if that ran for public office there in northern europe? They probably wouldnt get very far. As many have said, they are all crazy but if i had to pick one, i would probably pick Ron Paul. He is just as crazy as the rest of them and a lot of his idea are downright dangerous if they are implemented in the way he would like it but at the same time some of the thing he says makes sense. Stopping wars, cutting spending and doing something about the federal reserve isnt bad ideas. It seems like trying to find the least smelly turd in a pile of shit. I dont envy you.
No offense, but I wouldn't expect a Dane or any other European to understand the American right. We simply have some fundamentally different attitudes and perspectives in the US.
On August 18 2011 08:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: It's really popular to make fun of Ron Paul. It's popular to call him a kook, and dismiss him or his ideas. Usually, people who do this point to some obscure or largely irrelevant statement, some fringe issue that usually the president doesn't even control.
Where does Ron Paul stand on the most important issues of all?
1) End our interventionist policies in the middle-east, and bring our troops home. This will save our reputation abroad, save billions of dollars in spending, and most importantly, save lives.
2) End the failed war on drugs that has incarcerated thousands, cost billions of dollars, and led to worse results and greater violence than the medical approach taken in many European nations.
3) Secure our borders to prevent illegal immigration, but don't force businesses to investigate their employees, and don't support any draconian measures to round people up and deport them from their home.
4) Reduce the power and influence of the federal reserve to put an end to the cycle of devaluation of currency and excessive artificial credit, which has lead to bubbles and economic instability.
5) Oppose the idea of a federal amendment denying gays the ability to marry. Leave the concept of marriage up to individuals, and allow the individual states to determine their laws regarding this and other issues.
6) Reducing spending to finally begin to dig us out of the deep hole we are in, reducing our deficit and eventually our enormous debt.
To me, these positions do not seem crazy. In fact, they sound to me like common sense and the best possible direction our nation could go in. You won't hear a platform like this from any politician on any side of the spectrum. Republicans will give lip service to issues like closing the borders, and Democrats will give lip service to ending the wars... In the end it is just more of the same, with presidents from both sides simply continuing the failed policies of the previous.
I've never voted, and I've never registered to vote. I refuse to vote for anyone who supports policies which I think are fundamentally immoral, for that would be a sanction of them. Ron Paul is the only candidate I have ever heard who actually inspires me to register and vote and engage in politics. The fact that he did so well in the last debate gives me hope that our nation isn't completely lost.
1) Calls himself a scientist - Doesn't believe in evolution 2) Calls himself a libertarian - Doesn't agree with keeping state and church seperate
He is just a washed up radical conservative christian, sure he has good ideas that are mostly not even practical you can't just reduce spending and bring the boys home. There is a reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously anymore and yes it is because he is fucking stupid.
I must admit, the church and state thing irks me, but there are a lot of good little two-point quips you could make about the guy, too, like;
1) Staunchly pro-life and anti-abortion - Still believes States have the right to make that call for themselves 2) Christian - Frustrated at evangelicals leading the country to war 3) Christian - Does not believe in Federally mandated decisions on what marriage is, and that we should control sexual (private) behaviour 4) For small government - believes that Social Security is merely in need of help and needs correction of the numbers (less borrowing from it!)
Ultimately, you have to take the good with the bad with any political candidate. The only way to get a representative that believes all of exactly the same things you do, is to run for office yourself.
Claiming that 'the states should make the decision for themselves' is pretty much the equivalent of saying 'fuck you gay people, my libertarianism only extends to the point where I can sell it to my conservative poltical base'. If he was a true liberal, he'd be arguing for legalization of all marriages. The same goes for his pro-life position, if he would be a truly principal person he'd be saying that he doesn't give a shit, and that people can do whatever the hell they want.
Saying that it's 'up to the states' isn't an actual policy position, it's dodging the issue. 'My principals might apply to New York, but if they feel differently in Texas, that's cool too.' That's not an actual ideological position, that's called political pandering.
It's not political pandering, it's the Constitution of the United States of America. What is political pandering is saying you believe in small government sometimes but not when it comes to pushing your morals on other people. There are a lot of reasons the Constitution was written the way it was, and I suggest you read up on it before claiming such an odd stance. Ron Paul has made it clear that he doesn't think government should have any role in marriage whatsoever, but if it has to, marriage law is firmly in the realm of state governments. Ron Paul is not a liberal, he is a conservative, the only one really, and he believes completely in the Constitution, which means that any law not expressly delegated to Congress is the jurisdiction of the states. I don't agree with him on everything, but he is principled and he is not crazy. If you take the time to explore his views on everything, you will find that even if you disagree with him he makes plenty of sense and he is not crazy. Best of all, his religious beliefs are irrelevant because he firmly believes in a much weaker executive branch than what we have accepted as reality in our time. Over the decades Congress has let the President become this incredibly powerful figure, but that is absolutely not what the founding fathers had in mind. They hated the concept of a king, and the President was supposed to be as far from that as possible. The representatives of the people (Congress) are supposed to have the real power, with the President acting as a check and executor, not as an all-powerful deity.
Finally! Someone who understands Ron Paul's view AND how the US government should be managed. I agree with every aspect on what's said and done here but people just points out one or two flaws of a president and then go apeshit over them being a bad representative. This is why I support Ron Paul, he believes the government should be following the rules on the Constitution and though his religious ideals are disagreeable to some extent, his policies at least focus on getting out of this shithole.
It's funny because every time I see Ron Paul supporters pop up, they always say he "makes plenty of sense". No he does _not_. His economic policies are the kind of stuff you think might work before you take Economics 101.
On August 18 2011 08:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: It's really popular to make fun of Ron Paul. It's popular to call him a kook, and dismiss him or his ideas. Usually, people who do this point to some obscure or largely irrelevant statement, some fringe issue that usually the president doesn't even control.
Where does Ron Paul stand on the most important issues of all?
1) End our interventionist policies in the middle-east, and bring our troops home. This will save our reputation abroad, save billions of dollars in spending, and most importantly, save lives.
2) End the failed war on drugs that has incarcerated thousands, cost billions of dollars, and led to worse results and greater violence than the medical approach taken in many European nations.
3) Secure our borders to prevent illegal immigration, but don't force businesses to investigate their employees, and don't support any draconian measures to round people up and deport them from their home.
4) Reduce the power and influence of the federal reserve to put an end to the cycle of devaluation of currency and excessive artificial credit, which has lead to bubbles and economic instability.
5) Oppose the idea of a federal amendment denying gays the ability to marry. Leave the concept of marriage up to individuals, and allow the individual states to determine their laws regarding this and other issues.
6) Reducing spending to finally begin to dig us out of the deep hole we are in, reducing our deficit and eventually our enormous debt.
To me, these positions do not seem crazy. In fact, they sound to me like common sense and the best possible direction our nation could go in. You won't hear a platform like this from any politician on any side of the spectrum. Republicans will give lip service to issues like closing the borders, and Democrats will give lip service to ending the wars... In the end it is just more of the same, with presidents from both sides simply continuing the failed policies of the previous.
I've never voted, and I've never registered to vote. I refuse to vote for anyone who supports policies which I think are fundamentally immoral, for that would be a sanction of them. Ron Paul is the only candidate I have ever heard who actually inspires me to register and vote and engage in politics. The fact that he did so well in the last debate gives me hope that our nation isn't completely lost.
1) Calls himself a scientist - Doesn't believe in evolution 2) Calls himself a libertarian - Doesn't agree with keeping state and church seperate
He is just a washed up radical conservative christian, sure he has good ideas that are mostly not even practical you can't just reduce spending and bring the boys home. There is a reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously anymore and yes it is because he is fucking stupid.
I must admit, the church and state thing irks me, but there are a lot of good little two-point quips you could make about the guy, too, like;
1) Staunchly pro-life and anti-abortion - Still believes States have the right to make that call for themselves 2) Christian - Frustrated at evangelicals leading the country to war 3) Christian - Does not believe in Federally mandated decisions on what marriage is, and that we should control sexual (private) behaviour 4) For small government - believes that Social Security is merely in need of help and needs correction of the numbers (less borrowing from it!)
Ultimately, you have to take the good with the bad with any political candidate. The only way to get a representative that believes all of exactly the same things you do, is to run for office yourself.
Claiming that 'the states should make the decision for themselves' is pretty much the equivalent of saying 'fuck you gay people, my libertarianism only extends to the point where I can sell it to my conservative poltical base'. If he was a true liberal, he'd be arguing for legalization of all marriages. The same goes for his pro-life position, if he would be a truly principal person he'd be saying that he doesn't give a shit, and that people can do whatever the hell they want.
Saying that it's 'up to the states' isn't an actual policy position, it's dodging the issue. 'My principals might apply to New York, but if they feel differently in Texas, that's cool too.' That's not an actual ideological position, that's called political pandering.
It's not political pandering, it's the Constitution of the United States of America. What is political pandering is saying you believe in small government sometimes but not when it comes to pushing your morals on other people. There are a lot of reasons the Constitution was written the way it was, and I suggest you read up on it before claiming such an odd stance. Ron Paul has made it clear that he doesn't think government should have any role in marriage whatsoever, but if it has to, marriage law is firmly in the realm of state governments. Ron Paul is not a liberal, he is a conservative, the only one really, and he believes completely in the Constitution, which means that any law not expressly delegated to Congress is the jurisdiction of the states. I don't agree with him on everything, but he is principled and he is not crazy. If you take the time to explore his views on everything, you will find that even if you disagree with him he makes plenty of sense and he is not crazy. Best of all, his religious beliefs are irrelevant because he firmly believes in a much weaker executive branch than what we have accepted as reality in our time. Over the decades Congress has let the President become this incredibly powerful figure, but that is absolutely not what the founding fathers had in mind. They hated the concept of a king, and the President was supposed to be as far from that as possible. The representatives of the people (Congress) are supposed to have the real power, with the President acting as a check and executor, not as an all-powerful deity.
Finally! Someone who understands Ron Paul's view AND how the US government should be managed. I agree with every aspect on what's said and done here but people just points out one or two flaws of a president and then go apeshit over them being a bad representative. This is why I support Ron Paul, he believes the government should be following the rules on the Constitution and though his religious ideals are disagreeable to some extent, his policies at least focus on getting out of this shithole.
It's funny because every time I see Ron Paul supporters pop up, they always say he "makes plenty of sense". No he does _not_. His economic policies are the kind of stuff you think might work before you take Economics 101.
Yeah, once you take Economics 101, you are fully brainwashed and inundated with Keynesian economics. After that point, despite whatever actually is happening in the world which THOROUGHLY disproves every aspect of the theory, one will still believe it.
On August 18 2011 08:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: It's really popular to make fun of Ron Paul. It's popular to call him a kook, and dismiss him or his ideas. Usually, people who do this point to some obscure or largely irrelevant statement, some fringe issue that usually the president doesn't even control.
Where does Ron Paul stand on the most important issues of all?
1) End our interventionist policies in the middle-east, and bring our troops home. This will save our reputation abroad, save billions of dollars in spending, and most importantly, save lives.
2) End the failed war on drugs that has incarcerated thousands, cost billions of dollars, and led to worse results and greater violence than the medical approach taken in many European nations.
3) Secure our borders to prevent illegal immigration, but don't force businesses to investigate their employees, and don't support any draconian measures to round people up and deport them from their home.
4) Reduce the power and influence of the federal reserve to put an end to the cycle of devaluation of currency and excessive artificial credit, which has lead to bubbles and economic instability.
5) Oppose the idea of a federal amendment denying gays the ability to marry. Leave the concept of marriage up to individuals, and allow the individual states to determine their laws regarding this and other issues.
6) Reducing spending to finally begin to dig us out of the deep hole we are in, reducing our deficit and eventually our enormous debt.
To me, these positions do not seem crazy. In fact, they sound to me like common sense and the best possible direction our nation could go in. You won't hear a platform like this from any politician on any side of the spectrum. Republicans will give lip service to issues like closing the borders, and Democrats will give lip service to ending the wars... In the end it is just more of the same, with presidents from both sides simply continuing the failed policies of the previous.
I've never voted, and I've never registered to vote. I refuse to vote for anyone who supports policies which I think are fundamentally immoral, for that would be a sanction of them. Ron Paul is the only candidate I have ever heard who actually inspires me to register and vote and engage in politics. The fact that he did so well in the last debate gives me hope that our nation isn't completely lost.
1) Calls himself a scientist - Doesn't believe in evolution 2) Calls himself a libertarian - Doesn't agree with keeping state and church seperate
He is just a washed up radical conservative christian, sure he has good ideas that are mostly not even practical you can't just reduce spending and bring the boys home. There is a reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously anymore and yes it is because he is fucking stupid.
I must admit, the church and state thing irks me, but there are a lot of good little two-point quips you could make about the guy, too, like;
1) Staunchly pro-life and anti-abortion - Still believes States have the right to make that call for themselves 2) Christian - Frustrated at evangelicals leading the country to war 3) Christian - Does not believe in Federally mandated decisions on what marriage is, and that we should control sexual (private) behaviour 4) For small government - believes that Social Security is merely in need of help and needs correction of the numbers (less borrowing from it!)
Ultimately, you have to take the good with the bad with any political candidate. The only way to get a representative that believes all of exactly the same things you do, is to run for office yourself.
Claiming that 'the states should make the decision for themselves' is pretty much the equivalent of saying 'fuck you gay people, my libertarianism only extends to the point where I can sell it to my conservative poltical base'. If he was a true liberal, he'd be arguing for legalization of all marriages. The same goes for his pro-life position, if he would be a truly principal person he'd be saying that he doesn't give a shit, and that people can do whatever the hell they want.
Saying that it's 'up to the states' isn't an actual policy position, it's dodging the issue. 'My principals might apply to New York, but if they feel differently in Texas, that's cool too.' That's not an actual ideological position, that's called political pandering.
It's not political pandering, it's the Constitution of the United States of America. What is political pandering is saying you believe in small government sometimes but not when it comes to pushing your morals on other people. There are a lot of reasons the Constitution was written the way it was, and I suggest you read up on it before claiming such an odd stance. Ron Paul has made it clear that he doesn't think government should have any role in marriage whatsoever, but if it has to, marriage law is firmly in the realm of state governments. Ron Paul is not a liberal, he is a conservative, the only one really, and he believes completely in the Constitution, which means that any law not expressly delegated to Congress is the jurisdiction of the states. I don't agree with him on everything, but he is principled and he is not crazy. If you take the time to explore his views on everything, you will find that even if you disagree with him he makes plenty of sense and he is not crazy. Best of all, his religious beliefs are irrelevant because he firmly believes in a much weaker executive branch than what we have accepted as reality in our time. Over the decades Congress has let the President become this incredibly powerful figure, but that is absolutely not what the founding fathers had in mind. They hated the concept of a king, and the President was supposed to be as far from that as possible. The representatives of the people (Congress) are supposed to have the real power, with the President acting as a check and executor, not as an all-powerful deity.
Finally! Someone who understands Ron Paul's view AND how the US government should be managed. I agree with every aspect on what's said and done here but people just points out one or two flaws of a president and then go apeshit over them being a bad representative. This is why I support Ron Paul, he believes the government should be following the rules on the Constitution and though his religious ideals are disagreeable to some extent, his policies at least focus on getting out of this shithole.
It's funny because every time I see Ron Paul supporters pop up, they always say he "makes plenty of sense". No he does _not_. His economic policies are the kind of stuff you think might work before you take Economics 101.
Yeah, once you take Economics 101, you are fully brainwashed and inundated with Keynesian economics. After that point, despite whatever actually is happening in the world which THOROUGHLY disproves every aspect of the theory, one will still believe it.
Just... no. Also note that I didn't even mention keynesian economics. One does not have to embrace them to criticize the nonsense Ron Paul spews.
On August 18 2011 08:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: It's really popular to make fun of Ron Paul. It's popular to call him a kook, and dismiss him or his ideas. Usually, people who do this point to some obscure or largely irrelevant statement, some fringe issue that usually the president doesn't even control.
Where does Ron Paul stand on the most important issues of all?
1) End our interventionist policies in the middle-east, and bring our troops home. This will save our reputation abroad, save billions of dollars in spending, and most importantly, save lives.
2) End the failed war on drugs that has incarcerated thousands, cost billions of dollars, and led to worse results and greater violence than the medical approach taken in many European nations.
3) Secure our borders to prevent illegal immigration, but don't force businesses to investigate their employees, and don't support any draconian measures to round people up and deport them from their home.
4) Reduce the power and influence of the federal reserve to put an end to the cycle of devaluation of currency and excessive artificial credit, which has lead to bubbles and economic instability.
5) Oppose the idea of a federal amendment denying gays the ability to marry. Leave the concept of marriage up to individuals, and allow the individual states to determine their laws regarding this and other issues.
6) Reducing spending to finally begin to dig us out of the deep hole we are in, reducing our deficit and eventually our enormous debt.
To me, these positions do not seem crazy. In fact, they sound to me like common sense and the best possible direction our nation could go in. You won't hear a platform like this from any politician on any side of the spectrum. Republicans will give lip service to issues like closing the borders, and Democrats will give lip service to ending the wars... In the end it is just more of the same, with presidents from both sides simply continuing the failed policies of the previous.
I've never voted, and I've never registered to vote. I refuse to vote for anyone who supports policies which I think are fundamentally immoral, for that would be a sanction of them. Ron Paul is the only candidate I have ever heard who actually inspires me to register and vote and engage in politics. The fact that he did so well in the last debate gives me hope that our nation isn't completely lost.
1) Calls himself a scientist - Doesn't believe in evolution 2) Calls himself a libertarian - Doesn't agree with keeping state and church seperate
He is just a washed up radical conservative christian, sure he has good ideas that are mostly not even practical you can't just reduce spending and bring the boys home. There is a reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously anymore and yes it is because he is fucking stupid.
I must admit, the church and state thing irks me, but there are a lot of good little two-point quips you could make about the guy, too, like;
1) Staunchly pro-life and anti-abortion - Still believes States have the right to make that call for themselves 2) Christian - Frustrated at evangelicals leading the country to war 3) Christian - Does not believe in Federally mandated decisions on what marriage is, and that we should control sexual (private) behaviour 4) For small government - believes that Social Security is merely in need of help and needs correction of the numbers (less borrowing from it!)
Ultimately, you have to take the good with the bad with any political candidate. The only way to get a representative that believes all of exactly the same things you do, is to run for office yourself.
Claiming that 'the states should make the decision for themselves' is pretty much the equivalent of saying 'fuck you gay people, my libertarianism only extends to the point where I can sell it to my conservative poltical base'. If he was a true liberal, he'd be arguing for legalization of all marriages. The same goes for his pro-life position, if he would be a truly principal person he'd be saying that he doesn't give a shit, and that people can do whatever the hell they want.
Saying that it's 'up to the states' isn't an actual policy position, it's dodging the issue. 'My principals might apply to New York, but if they feel differently in Texas, that's cool too.' That's not an actual ideological position, that's called political pandering.
It's not political pandering, it's the Constitution of the United States of America. What is political pandering is saying you believe in small government sometimes but not when it comes to pushing your morals on other people. There are a lot of reasons the Constitution was written the way it was, and I suggest you read up on it before claiming such an odd stance. Ron Paul has made it clear that he doesn't think government should have any role in marriage whatsoever, but if it has to, marriage law is firmly in the realm of state governments. Ron Paul is not a liberal, he is a conservative, the only one really, and he believes completely in the Constitution, which means that any law not expressly delegated to Congress is the jurisdiction of the states. I don't agree with him on everything, but he is principled and he is not crazy. If you take the time to explore his views on everything, you will find that even if you disagree with him he makes plenty of sense and he is not crazy. Best of all, his religious beliefs are irrelevant because he firmly believes in a much weaker executive branch than what we have accepted as reality in our time. Over the decades Congress has let the President become this incredibly powerful figure, but that is absolutely not what the founding fathers had in mind. They hated the concept of a king, and the President was supposed to be as far from that as possible. The representatives of the people (Congress) are supposed to have the real power, with the President acting as a check and executor, not as an all-powerful deity.
Finally! Someone who understands Ron Paul's view AND how the US government should be managed. I agree with every aspect on what's said and done here but people just points out one or two flaws of a president and then go apeshit over them being a bad representative. This is why I support Ron Paul, he believes the government should be following the rules on the Constitution and though his religious ideals are disagreeable to some extent, his policies at least focus on getting out of this shithole.
It's funny because every time I see Ron Paul supporters pop up, they always say he "makes plenty of sense". No he does _not_. His economic policies are the kind of stuff you think might work before you take Economics 101.
Yeah, once you take Economics 101, you are fully brainwashed and inundated with Keynesian economics. After that point, despite whatever actually is happening in the world which THOROUGHLY disproves every aspect of the theory, one will still believe it.
Just... no. Also note that I didn't even mention keynesian economics. One does not have to embrace them to criticize the nonsense Ron Paul spews.
Nonsense, as in, anti-Keynesian viewpoint? Or his Austrian viewpoint?
On August 18 2011 08:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: It's really popular to make fun of Ron Paul. It's popular to call him a kook, and dismiss him or his ideas. Usually, people who do this point to some obscure or largely irrelevant statement, some fringe issue that usually the president doesn't even control.
Where does Ron Paul stand on the most important issues of all?
1) End our interventionist policies in the middle-east, and bring our troops home. This will save our reputation abroad, save billions of dollars in spending, and most importantly, save lives.
2) End the failed war on drugs that has incarcerated thousands, cost billions of dollars, and led to worse results and greater violence than the medical approach taken in many European nations.
3) Secure our borders to prevent illegal immigration, but don't force businesses to investigate their employees, and don't support any draconian measures to round people up and deport them from their home.
4) Reduce the power and influence of the federal reserve to put an end to the cycle of devaluation of currency and excessive artificial credit, which has lead to bubbles and economic instability.
5) Oppose the idea of a federal amendment denying gays the ability to marry. Leave the concept of marriage up to individuals, and allow the individual states to determine their laws regarding this and other issues.
6) Reducing spending to finally begin to dig us out of the deep hole we are in, reducing our deficit and eventually our enormous debt.
To me, these positions do not seem crazy. In fact, they sound to me like common sense and the best possible direction our nation could go in. You won't hear a platform like this from any politician on any side of the spectrum. Republicans will give lip service to issues like closing the borders, and Democrats will give lip service to ending the wars... In the end it is just more of the same, with presidents from both sides simply continuing the failed policies of the previous.
I've never voted, and I've never registered to vote. I refuse to vote for anyone who supports policies which I think are fundamentally immoral, for that would be a sanction of them. Ron Paul is the only candidate I have ever heard who actually inspires me to register and vote and engage in politics. The fact that he did so well in the last debate gives me hope that our nation isn't completely lost.
1) Calls himself a scientist - Doesn't believe in evolution 2) Calls himself a libertarian - Doesn't agree with keeping state and church seperate
He is just a washed up radical conservative christian, sure he has good ideas that are mostly not even practical you can't just reduce spending and bring the boys home. There is a reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously anymore and yes it is because he is fucking stupid.
I must admit, the church and state thing irks me, but there are a lot of good little two-point quips you could make about the guy, too, like;
1) Staunchly pro-life and anti-abortion - Still believes States have the right to make that call for themselves 2) Christian - Frustrated at evangelicals leading the country to war 3) Christian - Does not believe in Federally mandated decisions on what marriage is, and that we should control sexual (private) behaviour 4) For small government - believes that Social Security is merely in need of help and needs correction of the numbers (less borrowing from it!)
Ultimately, you have to take the good with the bad with any political candidate. The only way to get a representative that believes all of exactly the same things you do, is to run for office yourself.
Claiming that 'the states should make the decision for themselves' is pretty much the equivalent of saying 'fuck you gay people, my libertarianism only extends to the point where I can sell it to my conservative poltical base'. If he was a true liberal, he'd be arguing for legalization of all marriages. The same goes for his pro-life position, if he would be a truly principal person he'd be saying that he doesn't give a shit, and that people can do whatever the hell they want.
Saying that it's 'up to the states' isn't an actual policy position, it's dodging the issue. 'My principals might apply to New York, but if they feel differently in Texas, that's cool too.' That's not an actual ideological position, that's called political pandering.
"If he was a true liberal" ? Hes not a Liberal, hes a Libertarian. Saying the states have the right to make the decision themselves is like saying, "I actually believe in the American constitution".
On August 18 2011 08:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: It's really popular to make fun of Ron Paul. It's popular to call him a kook, and dismiss him or his ideas. Usually, people who do this point to some obscure or largely irrelevant statement, some fringe issue that usually the president doesn't even control.
Where does Ron Paul stand on the most important issues of all?
1) End our interventionist policies in the middle-east, and bring our troops home. This will save our reputation abroad, save billions of dollars in spending, and most importantly, save lives.
2) End the failed war on drugs that has incarcerated thousands, cost billions of dollars, and led to worse results and greater violence than the medical approach taken in many European nations.
3) Secure our borders to prevent illegal immigration, but don't force businesses to investigate their employees, and don't support any draconian measures to round people up and deport them from their home.
4) Reduce the power and influence of the federal reserve to put an end to the cycle of devaluation of currency and excessive artificial credit, which has lead to bubbles and economic instability.
5) Oppose the idea of a federal amendment denying gays the ability to marry. Leave the concept of marriage up to individuals, and allow the individual states to determine their laws regarding this and other issues.
6) Reducing spending to finally begin to dig us out of the deep hole we are in, reducing our deficit and eventually our enormous debt.
To me, these positions do not seem crazy. In fact, they sound to me like common sense and the best possible direction our nation could go in. You won't hear a platform like this from any politician on any side of the spectrum. Republicans will give lip service to issues like closing the borders, and Democrats will give lip service to ending the wars... In the end it is just more of the same, with presidents from both sides simply continuing the failed policies of the previous.
I've never voted, and I've never registered to vote. I refuse to vote for anyone who supports policies which I think are fundamentally immoral, for that would be a sanction of them. Ron Paul is the only candidate I have ever heard who actually inspires me to register and vote and engage in politics. The fact that he did so well in the last debate gives me hope that our nation isn't completely lost.
1) Calls himself a scientist - Doesn't believe in evolution 2) Calls himself a libertarian - Doesn't agree with keeping state and church seperate
He is just a washed up radical conservative christian, sure he has good ideas that are mostly not even practical you can't just reduce spending and bring the boys home. There is a reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously anymore and yes it is because he is fucking stupid.
I must admit, the church and state thing irks me, but there are a lot of good little two-point quips you could make about the guy, too, like;
1) Staunchly pro-life and anti-abortion - Still believes States have the right to make that call for themselves 2) Christian - Frustrated at evangelicals leading the country to war 3) Christian - Does not believe in Federally mandated decisions on what marriage is, and that we should control sexual (private) behaviour 4) For small government - believes that Social Security is merely in need of help and needs correction of the numbers (less borrowing from it!)
Ultimately, you have to take the good with the bad with any political candidate. The only way to get a representative that believes all of exactly the same things you do, is to run for office yourself.
Claiming that 'the states should make the decision for themselves' is pretty much the equivalent of saying 'fuck you gay people, my libertarianism only extends to the point where I can sell it to my conservative poltical base'. If he was a true liberal, he'd be arguing for legalization of all marriages. The same goes for his pro-life position, if he would be a truly principal person he'd be saying that he doesn't give a shit, and that people can do whatever the hell they want.
Saying that it's 'up to the states' isn't an actual policy position, it's dodging the issue. 'My principals might apply to New York, but if they feel differently in Texas, that's cool too.' That's not an actual ideological position, that's called political pandering.
It's not political pandering, it's the Constitution of the United States of America. What is political pandering is saying you believe in small government sometimes but not when it comes to pushing your morals on other people. There are a lot of reasons the Constitution was written the way it was, and I suggest you read up on it before claiming such an odd stance. Ron Paul has made it clear that he doesn't think government should have any role in marriage whatsoever, but if it has to, marriage law is firmly in the realm of state governments. Ron Paul is not a liberal, he is a conservative, the only one really, and he believes completely in the Constitution, which means that any law not expressly delegated to Congress is the jurisdiction of the states. I don't agree with him on everything, but he is principled and he is not crazy. If you take the time to explore his views on everything, you will find that even if you disagree with him he makes plenty of sense and he is not crazy. Best of all, his religious beliefs are irrelevant because he firmly believes in a much weaker executive branch than what we have accepted as reality in our time. Over the decades Congress has let the President become this incredibly powerful figure, but that is absolutely not what the founding fathers had in mind. They hated the concept of a king, and the President was supposed to be as far from that as possible. The representatives of the people (Congress) are supposed to have the real power, with the President acting as a check and executor, not as an all-powerful deity.
Finally! Someone who understands Ron Paul's view AND how the US government should be managed. I agree with every aspect on what's said and done here but people just points out one or two flaws of a president and then go apeshit over them being a bad representative. This is why I support Ron Paul, he believes the government should be following the rules on the Constitution and though his religious ideals are disagreeable to some extent, his policies at least focus on getting out of this shithole.
It's funny because every time I see Ron Paul supporters pop up, they always say he "makes plenty of sense". No he does _not_. His economic policies are the kind of stuff you think might work before you take Economics 101.
That is funny. Every time someone comes into one of these threads and says "I have a degree in economics and I agree with Ron Paul" the response is "HERP DERP your degree doesn't mean shit."
On August 18 2011 08:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: It's really popular to make fun of Ron Paul. It's popular to call him a kook, and dismiss him or his ideas. Usually, people who do this point to some obscure or largely irrelevant statement, some fringe issue that usually the president doesn't even control.
Where does Ron Paul stand on the most important issues of all?
1) End our interventionist policies in the middle-east, and bring our troops home. This will save our reputation abroad, save billions of dollars in spending, and most importantly, save lives.
2) End the failed war on drugs that has incarcerated thousands, cost billions of dollars, and led to worse results and greater violence than the medical approach taken in many European nations.
3) Secure our borders to prevent illegal immigration, but don't force businesses to investigate their employees, and don't support any draconian measures to round people up and deport them from their home.
4) Reduce the power and influence of the federal reserve to put an end to the cycle of devaluation of currency and excessive artificial credit, which has lead to bubbles and economic instability.
5) Oppose the idea of a federal amendment denying gays the ability to marry. Leave the concept of marriage up to individuals, and allow the individual states to determine their laws regarding this and other issues.
6) Reducing spending to finally begin to dig us out of the deep hole we are in, reducing our deficit and eventually our enormous debt.
To me, these positions do not seem crazy. In fact, they sound to me like common sense and the best possible direction our nation could go in. You won't hear a platform like this from any politician on any side of the spectrum. Republicans will give lip service to issues like closing the borders, and Democrats will give lip service to ending the wars... In the end it is just more of the same, with presidents from both sides simply continuing the failed policies of the previous.
I've never voted, and I've never registered to vote. I refuse to vote for anyone who supports policies which I think are fundamentally immoral, for that would be a sanction of them. Ron Paul is the only candidate I have ever heard who actually inspires me to register and vote and engage in politics. The fact that he did so well in the last debate gives me hope that our nation isn't completely lost.
1) Calls himself a scientist - Doesn't believe in evolution 2) Calls himself a libertarian - Doesn't agree with keeping state and church seperate
He is just a washed up radical conservative christian, sure he has good ideas that are mostly not even practical you can't just reduce spending and bring the boys home. There is a reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously anymore and yes it is because he is fucking stupid.
I must admit, the church and state thing irks me, but there are a lot of good little two-point quips you could make about the guy, too, like;
1) Staunchly pro-life and anti-abortion - Still believes States have the right to make that call for themselves 2) Christian - Frustrated at evangelicals leading the country to war 3) Christian - Does not believe in Federally mandated decisions on what marriage is, and that we should control sexual (private) behaviour 4) For small government - believes that Social Security is merely in need of help and needs correction of the numbers (less borrowing from it!)
Ultimately, you have to take the good with the bad with any political candidate. The only way to get a representative that believes all of exactly the same things you do, is to run for office yourself.
Claiming that 'the states should make the decision for themselves' is pretty much the equivalent of saying 'fuck you gay people, my libertarianism only extends to the point where I can sell it to my conservative poltical base'. If he was a true liberal, he'd be arguing for legalization of all marriages. The same goes for his pro-life position, if he would be a truly principal person he'd be saying that he doesn't give a shit, and that people can do whatever the hell they want.
Saying that it's 'up to the states' isn't an actual policy position, it's dodging the issue. 'My principals might apply to New York, but if they feel differently in Texas, that's cool too.' That's not an actual ideological position, that's called political pandering.
It's not political pandering, it's the Constitution of the United States of America. What is political pandering is saying you believe in small government sometimes but not when it comes to pushing your morals on other people. There are a lot of reasons the Constitution was written the way it was, and I suggest you read up on it before claiming such an odd stance. Ron Paul has made it clear that he doesn't think government should have any role in marriage whatsoever, but if it has to, marriage law is firmly in the realm of state governments. Ron Paul is not a liberal, he is a conservative, the only one really, and he believes completely in the Constitution, which means that any law not expressly delegated to Congress is the jurisdiction of the states. I don't agree with him on everything, but he is principled and he is not crazy. If you take the time to explore his views on everything, you will find that even if you disagree with him he makes plenty of sense and he is not crazy. Best of all, his religious beliefs are irrelevant because he firmly believes in a much weaker executive branch than what we have accepted as reality in our time. Over the decades Congress has let the President become this incredibly powerful figure, but that is absolutely not what the founding fathers had in mind. They hated the concept of a king, and the President was supposed to be as far from that as possible. The representatives of the people (Congress) are supposed to have the real power, with the President acting as a check and executor, not as an all-powerful deity.
Finally! Someone who understands Ron Paul's view AND how the US government should be managed. I agree with every aspect on what's said and done here but people just points out one or two flaws of a president and then go apeshit over them being a bad representative. This is why I support Ron Paul, he believes the government should be following the rules on the Constitution and though his religious ideals are disagreeable to some extent, his policies at least focus on getting out of this shithole.
It's funny because every time I see Ron Paul supporters pop up, they always say he "makes plenty of sense". No he does _not_. His economic policies are the kind of stuff you think might work before you take Economics 101.
That is funny. Every time someone comes into one of these threads and says "I have a degree in economics and I agree with Ron Paul" the response is "HERP DERP your degree doesn't mean shit."
Where exactly has anyone said something like this? Do you have a degree in economics?
On August 17 2011 03:45 GameTime wrote: For me, Paul supports: -Lowering taxes -Actually cutting spending in entitlement programs -Ending all our wars -Dramatically reducing our military presence around the world/Not policing the world -Putting America back on the gold standard/fighting inflation -The constitution
He opposes: -Bailouts -Quantitative Easing -The new health care bill -Big government
He has a proven track record in congress and is the most consistent candidate in this whole race. I don't see how you don't vote for him, no one else even comes close.
Because I wont go in to how ron paul is a disaster with economics. Heres some less cheery facts about him.
Ron Paul Is For: Abolishing Public Education Allowing states to create fundamentalist governments and imposing mandatory religion Destroying America's ability to trade with foreign nations
Ron Paul is Against: The 14th Amendment The 1st Amendment The 17th Amendment
The man is a complete loon, for some one who talks about the constitution so much he has serious issues with it. Hes classified often as a libertarian, but the better classification is that hes a fundamental neo-confederate.
He's a complete nut.
He's against them because there's been many cases where the Federal government has intruded on private lives as a result of them. The man believes in States rights to decide things like freedom of religion, privacy, sexual behaviour and so on and so forth. He has reason for resisting them, not because he's just a 'loon'.
The man is fiercely pro-life and anti-abortion, yet believes the States have the right to make those decisions. I have absolutely nothing but respect for a person that can sit in the political theatre and admit something like that.
Just because you can deem a reason to your insanity doesn't make it a legitimate cause. The insanity here is he thinks its unconstitutional (rather we should ignore the constitution) that the federal government has a role in protecting the rights of its citizens and that state governments should be allowed to trample whatever rights they feel like.
It's insanity because people clamoring to states rights lost the debate during the framing of the constitution and then 80 years later lost one of the bloodiest wars in American history over the same damn idea, that states have the right to limit and take away rights of citizens.
States have proven time and time again that they're terrible stewards of rights just as the framers realized when they were writing the constitution, and this asshole has the audacity to evoke their names on his crusade to destroy the rights of americans.
This. There is absolutely nothing about state government that makes them intrinsically better than the federal government.
On August 17 2011 16:39 liepzig wrote: Ron Paul is the only viable candidate. Everyone else is either insane, dishonest, or just downright sleazy (*cough* Rick Perry). Also, I have a degree in Economics, have published in an international economics journal, and am about to start my Masters degree, so it's not like I don't know what I'm talking about. His ideas are a tad extreme, but at least they are grounded in sound economic logic. Everyone else simply believes that God and Am-uur-ican Exceptionalism will pull the country out of this mess
EPT
