Ron Paul 2012
- Started
- Last post
- 78 Responses
- 20120
^ The problem with this theory is that people always want more. Business want more tax cuts, military industrial complex wants more wars. Energy companies want more oil drilling. It doesn't matter that Obama has governed like a moderate Republican and maintained the status quo, that's now considered socialism.
- bliznutty0
Yep - that's me (the recent donor)
- drgs0
hes so old
- monoblanco0
Good interview about Libertarian ideas:
<script src="http://www.vbs.tv/vbs_player.js?width=384&height=216&ec=1xM3huMTotC_7F9MpA0kMe2hVTyLpaOZ&st=Politicians%2C%20Pundits%2C%20And%20Other%20People&pl=http://www.vbs.tv/watch/politicians-pundits-and-other-people--2/moynihan" type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8"></script>
- monoblanco0
Good interview about Libertarian ideas:
<script src="http://www.vbs.tv/vbs_player.js?width=384&height=216&ec=1xM3huMTotC_7F9MpA0kMe2hVTyLpaOZ&st=Politicians%2C%20Pundits%2C%20And%20Other%20People&pl=http://www.vbs.tv/watch/politicians-pundits-and-other-people--2/moynihan" type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8"></script>
- The F*CK, how does one add a video from VBS?monoblanco
- HAHAHAutopian
- monoblanco0
- There, follow the link.monoblanco
- i like how "libertarians" are ok with non agreement with each other with out name calling. more adult like. and they try to comprehend other viewsdeathboy
- comprehend the others views withotu name calling. and even though they understand the other views they dont need to agree to feel part of the partydeathboy
- to agree to feel a part of the party. like i disagree with his views on public education in the context given.deathboy
- but id be happy to see it scaled back more to fit his approach. one can say he thinks it should just stopdeathboy
- but thats not practical and i believe he knows that. Hes jsut stating the ideal to shoot for.deathboy
- Think thats where peopel think libertarians are crazy. They dont understand context in such statementsdeathboy
- Its easier to say wow your talking utopian thats impossible. And the alternative is to jsut follow a party that they think represents themdeathboy
- think represents them the best. part of their identity. but good interviewdeathboy
- zaq0
he is definitely the best of the republican candidates.
- deathboy0
Its refreshing to hear ron paul speak. It should ashame most other politicians. Be hard pressed to really refute what he is saying. Always hard to find a a reasoned argument against what he says. My only beef with the guy is the gold standard. I havent read his books so im not exactly sure of the practical or feasibility in what he thinks would happen. And i dont know enough to know wether we having a standard screws us in a playing field where no one else does or if it creates confidence and incentive for others to have a standard. And if its too little too late since the printed cash to gold cant clearly sync up. And im not sure about progress without being able to just increase the money supply. But the idea of endless progress could be the problem. Might be nice to have little to no gain at slower rates. Might make people happier and live better than chasing the illusive idea of progress. But i'll stya open on the idea until i can definitive decide for myself. But the guy is pretty solid. One of the best principled politicians ive seen. Im hoping his son will follow suit.
- waterhouse0
^
Gold standard is your only beef? Then you and I have little common ground on social rights.He is principled. And that's neat. But - as you've candidly indicated - his political agenda covers darker ground than you may realize.
- define social rights. not sure your interpretationdeathboy
- and his agenda on darker ground im not sure about either. My concerns is wether an objective standard is feasible at this point for monetary policy. I need to read his books see if he goes into detail backing itdeathboy
- feasible. I need to read his books to understand his reasoning and why he thinks it would work.deathboy
- Define? Sure.
He's proudly opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.waterhouse - From what I see, his man-crush on the Constitution is "smoke and mirrors."waterhouse
- Is that because it restricted rights of some and gave more to others?deathboy
- What was her directly opposed to and the reasoning? A lot of the civil rights act was garbagedeathboy
- albeit it might have helped change the social conditioning of the time, but still not rightdeathboy
- He's attempted to retract much of his past hate speech.waterhouse
- I dont know much about the hate speech. But the ability to discriminate in trade is a right. If the hate comes from the idea of discrimination its weakdeathboy
- of discrimination and its negative conditioning than it is weak.deathboy
- Discrimination at the time was terrible because of social conditioning. Civil rights act i tempoted to agree was a necessary evil to awaken peopledeathboy
- necessary evil, but because it did some good doesnt change the fact it wasnt rightdeathboy
- As a generic whole some parts im sure were legit. Thats the problem with packaged dealsdeathboy
- JackRyan0
Man, I really like this guy.
- 20120
Well he didn't win (again) but soon you will be able to play the Ron Paul video game, so not all is lost
- albums0
Re: ^
I saw this the other day...
http://www.kickstarter.com/proje…
- waterhouse0
"deathboy:"
Please inform yourself more thoroughly on our discussion topics before fapping your mere enthusiasm all over this sophisticated website.
The Constitution was indeed crafted by great minds and worthy of our reverence. These men also bestowed on us a wealth of writings, correspondence and personal journals, providing us with invaluable insight into the essence of our nation's inception. Here's a sampling of Ron Paul's writings: http://www.thedailybeast.com/art…
Ron Paul's objections objections to the Civil Rights Act aren't over just Title II or Title VI. Rather, he's taken the profoundly isolated position against the entire Act, on the grounds that it sanctioned federal interference in the labor market.
If you're okay with a country where a hotel clerk can say, "We don't allow Coloreds here," so long as the Constitution of 1776 remains unmolested, than you certainly have the right to say so.
Just recognize that Ron Paul votes and speaks farther to the right of conservative media figures and the GOP party platform. He's publicly expressed thoughts and feelings that have made even the likes of Sean Hannity visibly uncomfortable.
At the close of his tenure as a House Republican, if you thoughtfully choose to laud his career, then that's that. Me, I think it's critical to cut through the bullshit that phobic troglodytes and career politicians try to sell us about the Constitution and freedom.
- History fans:
I meant to say, "the Constitution of 1789."
Good night.waterhouse
- History fans:
- deathboy0
id really like to see ron paul and gary johnson bounce ideas off of each other
- TheBlueOne0
Conservatives are 6 year olds. Libertarians are 13 year olds who are really into Dungeons and Dragons and think it's representative of how the world works. Liberals are the well meaning 17 year olds in the glee club.
- deathboy0
Dude you dont get the idea of rights hes defending. You get caught up in the social conditioning of the times. Im ok with a hotel clerk saying "we dont allow coloreds here." The idea of right is the colored person doesn't have any right to the owners property or his labor except in free trade. Should anyone have a right to my services if i refuse to give them? Doesn't that impede on my rights? The answer is yes it does and grants a higher set of rights that are unequal. Forget the race card and look at the principles involved. Discrimination is a right. Now this right can be used stupidly or not. But it is a right and everyone acts upon it. As far as constituion allowed and how they didn't qualify slaves as white men with rights that is wrong. But it was a social condition of the times. You look at jefferson and see he felt they should have the same rights, but i liek to think he knew that with the foundation layed people would see it and conditioning would change. And it did. It had hurdles and the civil rights act made peopel who had no concepts of rights or philosophy and reason be forced to accept the truth. However its was an act of force and diluted individual rights. I'd like to think we could repeal the laws established by it and people would have changed and understood it as the necessary evil it was. But so many people are conditioned like animals and neglect reason and would probably act the same before they were forced to accept it. To force someone to do something doesnt always establish knowledge and understanding. But it would be an interesting experiement to repeal it and see how far we have really come. The man stays solid with his principles despite the politics and emotional issues of such issues. Its why i respect him. Do you think if the civil rights acts stuff was appealed today and granted equal rights as they should be there would be an issue? Id guess some hillbillies might refuse blacks but see how long they last.
As far as career and the constitution hes solid. Hes not a rightwing guy just talking. Everything he says is backed up. The only other concern i can see is his right on pro life but it is justifiable. The line to draw when a person counts as a human being is grey area. When it is ok and not. Its a question of value and there really is no hardline and i respect his opinion on letting the individual state decide through a democratic vote. The whole idea of state legislation on the grey areas is the point.
Im positive im informed on what i state and if not ill say im not. And im positive on the right to discriminate wether it be a black in business or fat chic at a bar. The choice is the individuals and the terms agreed upon. It might not all be shiny and happy but that is the nature of freedom and liberty. If my logic is not conclusive i need an argument to pursuade me or prove it as false.
Now you might not agree with my view and if so id say look into what a right is derived from philosophically and not any emotional attachment to what you think is a right or should be right. And i think you'd find his reasoning sound, but you may disagree on the level of "necessary evil or force" to change how things are and if you do do not forget its still an evil or not right.
- deathboy0
And as far as the daily beast hoping to incite emotional response to non PC talk i dont really care as long as the principles are there. I personally make it a point to use derogatory and racist terms all the time. I have fun with it. If i say spic nigger kike cracker whatever it doesnt matter. Now im sure they can be taken out of context and used against me to pursuade public opinion against anything i have going, but theyre simply words and do not directly reflect the meaning i say to the meaning someone else hears. Does saying a person is a fat fuck mean you hate all fat people? However saying that spear chucker is so white seems to somehow be different. Race vs physical appearence doesnt matter to me its just a way to "make fun" and i act as id expect anyone else to do to me. Now promoting an agenda like the nazis did against the jews is different. If they wanted to make fun of jews stealing money like jon stewart and so many others do its fine, but to act violently or restrict rights is not cool. The action vs the words used is what is important. Too many people get but hurt on PC type verbiage and apply their own meanings which usually arnt the ones from the speaker. If ron paul cam out on a mic and spit every derogatory term imagined and than campaigned for equal rights id support him. The fact is he has always acted accordingly to the idea of equal rights. Or at least as far as i know.
