Why Ron Paul blows.

[color=#2e1a6b]from the start of our discussion, I've been saying that he wants to get rid of the Dep. of Edu.





[color=#2e1a6b]FUCKING HYPOCRISY



[color=#2e1a6b]yes



[color=#2e1a6b]They've been trying to "compromise" it for years, it hasn't worked. this is because the system is fundamentally flawed, which is why alot of these programs should be gone



[color=#2e1a6b]there's a quote system; quote me saying that.


[color=#2e1a6b]didn't you basically admit that they leech off society when you said

"So clearly we spend too much money on government public benefits projects. That's...not really the immigrant's fault"

[color=#2e1a6b]besides, I posted that link which you ignored http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States#Economic_Costs_of_Undocumented_Immigrants

Oh yes, me not letting personal anecdotal evidence serve as a method for allowing drugs or medical methods to be used because I have contradicting evidence that is actually scientific and statistically significant is hypocrisy.

I have a sneaking suspicion you don't know what that word means.



Great, another thing I disagree with you on then. It's almost like we're diametrically opposed on literally all fronts.



What compromise? Have they for instance...decided that knowing irrelevant american history to become a worker in the united states is logically unnecessary? Have they determined that deciding to plant a flag in the English language and mandate that immigrants learn to speak it in order to work here is inherently bigoted and insane?

Please, tell me what 'compromises' they've been trying to make.



So you don't think that? It was an implicit statement made in the idea that immigrants were receiving benefits and you felt this was a negative thing. Implicitly saying that they don't deserve the benefits because they are, in effect, 'leeches', whom only receive, and do not give. IF that's NOT your position, then what you say below this is moot.



No...I wasn't saying they were leeching, I was saying there's inherent flaws in the public programs that do subsidizing. How does, "This program is flawed" = "The people benefiting are being leeches."? I don't see the logical line you drew there.

[color=#2e1a6b]besides, I posted that link which you ignored http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States#Economic_Costs_of_Undocumented_Immigrants[/quote]

Yes, and none of the arguments in there are arguments for kicking illegal immigrants out, but naturalizing them and providing them with citizenship papers so that they aren't a strain that they're FORCED to be if they don't want to go through the current naturalization process we have now, which is, as you've said, fundamentally flawed.

Earlier you responded by saying it it was an "ethical choice". You did not respond with "evidence that is actually scientific and statistically significant":

Spoiler:

[color=#2e1a6b]This is not at all accurate; You are giving the government the right to choose what medicine I'm allowed to use. I don't agree with the governments selection, and I already justified why I disagree. I want the freedom to take care of myself and the ones I care about, yet the government won't even let me do that.

"I don't agree with the government's selection" right, you don't agree as to the safe drugs, you want the unsafe drugs. I won't let you hurt yourself with unsafe drugs. That's my position. Sorry if you don't like that, I find that to be the ethical choice, not letting you pick drugs that won't work, or will do harm to you.

and now you're saying that you don't care about my experience. You are contradicting your beliefs; hypocrisy.

[color=#2e1a6b]They've been trying to "compromise" it for years, it hasn't worked. this is because the system is fundamentally flawed, which is why alot of these programs should be gone

What compromise? Have they for instance...decided that knowing irrelevant american history to become a worker in the united states is logically unnecessary? Have they determined that deciding to plant a flag in the English language and mandate that immigrants learn to speak it in order to work here is inherently bigoted and insane?

Please, tell me what 'compromises' they've been trying to make.

*edited the image link, since it messed up. (it was such a perfect image too)

Spoiler:

Of course I believe there's too much money spent on public welfare programs and whatnot. However unlike some people I don't think that this means we should outright get rid of it. It's a flawed system, this is to be expected with...ANY human made system. The goal shouldn't be, "If there are problems, abolish it." the goal should be, "IF there are problems, compromise to come to the best conclusion." And fucktards like Ron Paul are the types of people to go, "Screw it! Out with the whole thing!"

They've been trying to "compromise" it for years, it hasn't worked. this is because the system is fundamentally flawed, which is why alot of these programs should be gone

[color=#2e1a6b]As you can see, I was talking about public welfare programs, not immigration

No you didn't, because you also made it sound like the illegal immigrants were coming over, giving nothing to society

[color=#2e1a6b]there's a quote system; quote me saying that.

So you don't think that? It was an implicit statement made in the idea that immigrants were receiving benefits and you felt this was a negative thing. Implicitly saying that they don't deserve the benefits because they are, in effect, 'leeches', whom only receive, and do not give. IF that's NOT your position, then what you say below this is moot.

[color=#2e1a6b]So you can't quote me?

I'm saying that they receive much more than they give. I'm not saying they "only receive, and do not give".

"So clearly we spend too much money on government public benefits projects. That's...not really the immigrant's fault"

No...I wasn't saying they were leeching, I was saying there's inherent flaws in the public programs that do subsidizing. How does, "This program is flawed" = "The people benefiting are being leeches."? I don't see the logical line you drew there.

[color=#2e1a6b]"this program is flawed" Because "the people benefiting are being leeches"

"Homeopathy: what does the "best" evidence tell us?"Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.

After reviewing the Cochrane Database of systematic reviews, it was concluded that the effects of homeopathy couldn't at all be determined to be anymore than placebo in effectiveness.

Oh, and James Randi did a nice fun trick in the beginning of his speeches all the time where he'd down and entire bottle of homeopathic sleeping pills and nothing would ever happen.

Kinda fun, check it out:



...I'm not contradicting my beliefs at all. The FDA relies on studies vetted by scientists to determine what is good for you and what is not. I'm saying that's my standard of evidence at least in order to decide the drugs people ought to be allowed to use.

I'm not pro people being able to treat their kids 'however they want'. IF you think prayer will help when it's been shown to not, and you'd rather pray than go to a hospital, then screw you, you don't get to choose. IF you think homeopathy will help when it's never been shown to be anything more than a complimentary treatment that can be easily compared to a mere placebo effect? Screw you, you don't get to choose.

And when you say, "I should be able to choose because it helped my sister" (which you don't know really) I don't care, because that's not the standard of evidence I'm using. It's not hypocrisy...it's being consistent with my own standards.



Indeed I did.



Mm, no you weren't. You were talking about immigration reform policy, because that's the exact part of my post where I was talking about immigration reform policy, and you responded with "They've been trying to compromise it for years."

And besides, if we ARE talking about public welfare programs, if you consider something to be fundamentally flawed if it's fallible...then congratulations. Everything in existence is fundamentally flawed. You've stated nothing.



I drew an implicit statement from what you said...or don't you understand what that means?



So then what's the problem? Because natural born citizens end up doing that too. This is not a problem with the immigrants.



Nope. Program's flawed because of how easy it is to obtain benefits, and how much benefits one receives when their application is accepted.

It's not the people, it's the system in place. And the system in place isn't bad, it's just flawed, meaning we need to find ways to mend it, not get rid of it outright.

[color=#2e1a6b]can you post a link?


[color=#2e1a6b]That "sleeping pill" was probably just something that balances the body's melatonin; not chemically inducing sleep



[color=#2e1a6b]The studies by the FDA only test for the drugs ability to suppress the symptoms of the disease, and not actually heal it.


[color=#2e1a6b]So... can I choose my medication (that you think is harmful), since your attitude is "screw you"?



[color=#2e1a6b]ok, were gonna play a game:
try to find where there is a reference to immigration. ready... go!




If slightly changing it doesn't fix the problems of it, it's fundamentally flawed

[color=#2e1a6b]So you can't quote me?

I drew an implicit statement from what you said...or don't you understand what that means?

[color=#2e1a6b]yes, and I responded to it. [size=5](you still never quoted me)[/h]


[color=#2e1a6b]source?


[color=#2e1a6b]this might sound off-topic, but which candidate's position on this issue do you like best?

Why do I have to do all your homework for you? Most sources like that might require you to order them, subscribe to someone, or something. It depends on how much you CARE to learn. I posted exactly who to contact. But since you're adamant that unless I give you a source 'didn't happen', I'll post cochrane studies for different reatments of homeopathic medicine and how they stack up.

Asthma: Conclusion: Cannot be recommended.

http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD000353/homeopathy-for-chronic-asthma

ADHD: Conclusion: No evidence of homeopathy's effectiveness

http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD005648/homeopathy-for-adhd

The actual study: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/192_08_190410/ern11179_fm.html






And you base this speculation off of...? Plus, he ate a whole bottle of sleeping pills, I'm fairly certain nobody is ever supposed to eat a whole bottle of any kind of pills in one gulp.



Source?





Nope. Because by 'screw you' I meant that you don't get to hurt yourself just because you want to.

Though you probably already knew that. You're not a complete idiot, meaning that you were being intentionally flippant. Good job.



*facepalm*

I honestly don't feel like looking up what you said awhile ago. Pain in my ass. Instead I'll just ask this:

Do you agree with this statement: We should build a massive fence along the border of mexico to keep americans in.



"Our first half assed attempts at compromise didn't work. Fuck the whole thing. Massive overhaul."

Yeah, fuck that logic.




So I didn't need to quote you, you silly twit. I honestly don't know what I haven't responded to you on. I've been only deleting parts of your posts where you say "We're ending this conversation." So what the fuck have I missed?





www.pmengineer.com/Articles/Industry_News/2011/02/10/Citizens-Take

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/fy2009/indexfy09.htm

^ White people outnumber 'hispanics' in welfare recipiency.



None.

So, I made a topic a long while back called "Why Ron Paul Blows" and gave 10 specific reasons, including that he doesn't believe in evolution, or climate change, wants to repeal the civil rights act, and the Americans with disabilities act, he's against the public option, he's radically pro life and wants to dissolve the department of education.

Here are some more reasons why I think Ron Paul is a horrible person to be elected for ANY office.

1. He continues this idiotic belief that there's some sort of war on religion. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html Which is absolute nonsense. What kind of position do you need to be in where the vast majority of Americans are christians, yet you're still under threat by the 'secular leftists'. Let me let you in on something Dr. Paul, Secularism is a GOOD THING. And the leader of Americans for a Secular Society is a CHRISTIAN. Secularism is NOT what either he, or fox news, or any other republican likes to think. It is NOT pushing atheism or outlawing christianity. Secularism is simply, separating the establishment of official religion, where it has no place. Specifically, where there are publically owned, tax supported property, religion has NO place in it.

Fucking war on christmas...who the hell is taking christmas away from anyone? Nobody.

2. He wants to get rid of the income tax. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/taxes/ Though, it's worth pointing out that he's against ALL taxes, but that doesn't make his position any less retarded.

Taxes support so much within the american system that at this point, if we took them away, the country would COLLAPSE. Infrastructure would be FUCKED. Government workers would have NO job. Policeman, firefighters, publically funded schools, just get rid of all of that if you get rid of taxes. What kind of psychosis is required to desire such an outcome? And for anyone who says he doesn't support getting rid of these things, too bad, taxes fund them, and he IS against interstate highways: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xO2EA5KGOc

3. He's pretty homophobic. You might say, "He's against banning same sex marriage!" And you might not agree or think there's any evidence to suggest that, but guess what? The reason he's against the ban is because of his anti-federalist libertarian views that the government shouldn't have much of the power it has now, including banning same sex marriage. That's why. Not because he approves. He fights to keep states from legalizing same sex marriage(http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html) and was pro don't ask don't tell(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnRkUJjazU&feature=related). He also votes to defund any organization that presents homosexuality as acceptable(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:)

4. He seems a bit racist. Quote: "If you've ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how fleet footed they are." Quote: “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” And complained about transportation security hiring visible minorities as workers. http://www.salon.com/2007/06/02/ron_paul_6/ And the rest can be found in old personally published newsletters by him, which he used to defend, and now denies he ever had any part of.

5. He wants to bring back the gold standard. http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/fiat-money-inflation-federal-reserve-2/

...What the fuck is with him? The gold standard would be a HORRIBLE idea. And nobody knows this better than Winston Churchill who wrote in his autobiography that installing the gold standard was, "The worst decision of my political career."

You may argue that the gold standard is associated with long run price stability because it acts as a limit to economic growth, but economists like Anna Schwartz have argued that this kind of instability in short-term price levels can lead to financial instability as lenders and borrowers become uncertain about the value of debt.

And that's just the BEGINNING to all the problems with an established gold standard.

So my question: Why the hell do people want this extremist guy elected?

He seems more like a candidate for the early 1900's than the early 21st century.

I would really like to see ron paul being elected so i could laugh of americans even more ...

What if getting rid of the income tax IS a good idea? It's a stupid idea in practice. All it does is prevent other people from getting rich and standing up to the government. It doesn't actually do anything to stop the corrupt upperclass because they're the ones getting tax breaks and getting bail-outs.

I say we should reward hard work!

Also, why are we singling out Paul? Why not threads like "Why Obama sucks" or "Why Mitt Romney sucks"?

What about "Why Gary Johnson sucks"?

Well I focus on Ron Paul because for some strange reason he has a LOT of support among my generation. And that blows my mind.

But you know what? You're right. I should be explaining why all the politicians suck. Since it is my belief that they all suck, and elections are about picking whoever doesn't quite suck as much as the rest.

This is exactly why I don't care about politics anymore.

Number 3 on your list I didn't know about. That comes off as pretty two-faced to me. Something like that makes it clear he would take advantage of a loop-hole to make himself look good.

You know, if you're so confident in your public statements that people will be googling for ages to come, we can ask the RonPaulForums to respond to each and every individual criticism you have of the doctor! ;)

Ron paul is the shit dawg.

Please, like I give a shit about those cultists that actually go to RonPaulForums.

The ones on THOSE forums have drunk their kool-aid. They'll just tell me I'm wrong without explaining why and cal me a bunch of names. I have no need for such vapid nonsense.

Now this is getting interesting! ;)

Yes, that was a mess. Instead of talking about Ron Paul, we debated 5 different issues at once. I hope that doesn't happen again in this thread.

Here are some more reasons why I think Ron Paul is a horrible person to be elected for [color=red]ANY office.

President is different than Mayor. They have different levels of authority, different restrictions, and different responsibilities. I'm only gonna focus on how these reasons affect his ability to serve as President, not any office.

1. He [color=red]continues this idiotic belief that there's some sort of war on religion. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html Which is absolute nonsense. What kind of position do you need to be in where the vast majority of Americans are christians, yet you're still under threat by the 'secular leftists'. Let me let you in on something Dr. Paul, Secularism is a GOOD THING. And the leader of Americans for a Secular Society is a CHRISTIAN. Secularism is NOT what either he, or fox news, or any other republican likes to think. It is NOT pushing atheism or outlawing christianity. Secularism is simply, separating the establishment of official religion, where it has no place. Specifically, where there are publically owned, tax supported property, religion has NO place in it.

Fucking war on christmas...who the hell is taking christmas away from anyone? Nobody.

That article was from almost 10 years ago, so don't say that he continues to speak about it. He was saying that the action of banning displays of Christmas violates a tradition of our country that's been upheld for the past 200 years. As president, he will certainly not enforce his religious views on others, so this isn't an issue

2. He wants to get rid of the income tax. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/taxes/ Though, it's worth pointing out that he's against ALL taxes, but that doesn't make his position any less retarded.

Taxes support so much within the american system that at this point, if we took them away, the country would COLLAPSE. Infrastructure would be FUCKED. Government workers would have NO job. Policeman, firefighters, publically funded schools, just get rid of all of that if you get rid of taxes. What kind of psychosis is required to desire such an outcome? And for anyone who says he doesn't support getting rid of these things, too bad, taxes fund them, and he IS against interstate highways: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xO2EA5KGOc

[color=#2e1a6b]You're an idiot You don't understand what you're talking about. Ron Paul is against all FEDERAL taxes. These tax dollars go to fund: Illegal wars, unconstitutional departments of the executive branch, the drug war, the federal prisons (in which 90% of inmates are from the drug war), and Obama taking 7-digit $ vacations. The "Policeman, firefighters, publically funded schools"[color=#2e1a6b] are funded by CITY taxes. Ron Paul can't and won't stop city taxes, he wants to stop FEDERAL taxes.

3. He's pretty homophobic. You might say, "He's against banning same sex marriage!" And you might not agree or think there's any evidence to suggest that, but guess what? The reason he's against the ban is because of his anti-federalist libertarian views that the government shouldn't have much of the power it has now, including banning same sex marriage. That's why. Not because he approves. He fights to keep states from legalizing same sex marriage(http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html) and was pro don't ask don't tell(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnRkUJjazU&feature=related). He also votes to defund any organization that presents homosexuality as acceptable(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:)

[color=#2e1a6b]So... it doesn't matter how he'll actually govern, what matters are his feelings on the matter

4. He seems a bit racist. Quote: "If you've ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how fleet footed they are." Quote: “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” And complained about transportation security hiring visible minorities as workers. http://www.salon.com/2007/06/02/ron_paul_6/ And the rest can be found in old personally published newsletters by him, which he used to defend, and now denies he ever had any part of.

[color=#2e1a6b]He didn't write that, he might have known about it, might have not; We don't know. What we do know is that he's not racist, and that's what matters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY

5. He wants to bring back the gold standard. http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/fiat-money-inflation-federal-reserve-2/

...What the fuck is with him? The gold standard would be a HORRIBLE idea. And nobody knows this better than Winston Churchill who wrote in his autobiography that installing the gold standard was, "The worst decision of my political career."

You may argue that the gold standard is associated with long run price stability because it acts as a limit to economic growth, but economists like Anna Schwartz have argued that this kind of instability in short-term price levels can lead to financial instability as lenders and borrowers become uncertain about the value of debt.

And that's just the BEGINNING to all the problems with an established gold standard.

[color=#2e1a6b]Honestly, I haven't studied economics, so I don't entirely understand it. I study it next year in highschool, so I could argue better then. However, I can say this:
Ron Paul predicted the economic crisis that we're experiencing now, Unlike Anna Schwartz or whoever. Ron Paul has credibility to speak on economics, something that only Austrian economists have.

So my question: Why the hell do people want this extremist guy elected?

[color=#2e1a6b]Because he will defend our civil liberties, he will reduce the size of the federal government, he will stop the spending, stop the wars. He faces the issues instead of hiding from them. He actually explains what caused the economic problems, and explains how to fix them. He does all these things, and to top it off, he's the most consistent and trustworthy politician ever, if it's even appropriate to call him a politician; He's a true statesman

That's a lie. The amount of people in prison as a result of the drug war in federal prisons are WAAAAY less than 90%. http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs#Federal-Data

And by the by that's not just marijuana.



So...even though I gave examples of what he would encourage and how he votes...and that's me saying it doesn't matter how he governs?

Yeah no.




And we know based off of a video where he was at a debate to establish racial votes? Really all that shows is his views on race are inconsistent, when compared to my source. Good job showing yet another reason he shouldn't be trust to lead anything.



Ok, how do you know that Anna Schwartz and my other sources didn't predict economic crisis'? Pretty much EVERYONE knew Bush was going to fuck up our economics. This wasn't a secret, and so I'm not impressed that Paul knew. and besides, that still doesn't make the gold standard a good thing.




Right, like encouraging against homosexual marriage and taking away our interstate highways.



And increase the strength of the state governmnet. What exactly is the difference between a state gobernment telling you you can't do something and the federal government telling you you can't do something? States suck at civil liberties rights, and if you need any proof of this just look at California with Prop 8, or Virginia with the recent abortion laws where a woman needs to be raped with a special ultrasound tool if she wants to get an abortion, and that's only a couple example of a much bigger problems. Fuck state governments.



Well he'd better since he's stopping all income too.



Right, to become an isolationist. That'll work. *facepalm*



Isolationism is facing the issues instead of hiding from them? Yeah no.



No he doesn't. He gives his opinions on the matter, and then gives horrible ideas to solve the problems.



Yeah, badly.



My ass. He used to defend the newsletters he published, now he denies ever being involved. He has shady campaign contributors and he's a two-faced bastard on homosexual marriage. Plus he's not even consistent with his racial views, and as it seems in the video, he changed his view to suit his surroundings and gather voters. He's the same as any other politician.



Spare me, he's an idiot.

Edit: You know what Lelouch? Before you respond to me, respond to this video first.



Here are the links the video maker provides.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/ron_paul_on_immigration.html

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3985423

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.03216:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll764.xml

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=229&Itemid=60

http://wayback.archive.org/web/jsp/Interstitial.jsp?seconds=5&date=1201942253000&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.house.gov%2Fpaul%2Fcongrec%2Fcongrec2007%2Fcr011107.htm&target=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20080202085053%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.house.gov%2Fpaul%2Fcongrec%2Fcongrec2007%2Fcr011107.htm

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jyG7EtPtRN_AdgusdTswFk5JDJuw

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/12/ron-paul-ordered-bin-laden-raid/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/#.Tk0h-YJ25HI

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul269.html

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Tax_Reform.htm

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2007_4483248

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/2007/08/06/ron-pauls-400-million-earmarks

http://ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

http://www.ronpaularchive.com/2002/07/what-does-the-first-amendment-really-mean/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul239.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul275.html

Ron Paul is just as inconsistent as any other candidate, possibly even worse, and is NOT as pro-liberty as you seem to think he is.

Again, I ask you as I did before, and as this video asks, what the fuck is the difference between being oppressed by the federal government, and being oppressed by the state government?

[color=#2e1a6b]You didn't provide evidence that he will enforce his religious views on others


[color=#2e1a6b]ok, 3 things:

1. WTF?
2. Please use complete sentences
3. You didn't quote all of what I said:
The "Policeman, firefighters, publically funded schools" are funded by CITY taxes. Ron Paul can't and won't stop city taxes, he wants to stop FEDERAL taxes.




[color=#2e1a6b]yeah, we haven't attacked anyone since the last declared war (World War 2)



[color=#2e1a6b]Sorry, I forgot to read Article II section [size=10]Doesn't exist[/h] where it says "the executive may place departments to regulate food, drugs, education, the envirement, etc"



[color=#2e1a6b]I got that percentage from here, but the amount really doesn't make much difference.



[color=#2e1a6b]That's what it sounded like, at least this part did:





[color=#2e1a6b]I'll admit that you're right; any politician can speak to a specific group and say stuff that they want to hear. I should have posted a better video, so... here's what he said on CNN



[color=#2e1a6b]No it doesn't. Ron Paul didn't say those racists comments, so you can't use those to claim inconsistency.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHNp1wf1T_k#t=0m43s

[color=#2e1a6b]Ok, your turn to show Anna Schwartz' predictions



[color=#2e1a6b]The former doesn't take away any liberties, and the latter was falsely phrased, but actually defends our civil liberty



[color=#2e1a6b]see bottom of post


[color=#2e1a6b]He's not an Isolationist, he's a non-interventionist. There's a fucking difference, so stop calling him an Isolationist. I've said this multiple times, so you either don't read what I say, or you're intentionally being stupid.



[color=#2e1a6b]correct



[color=#2e1a6b]Are you really talking about Ron Paul? Ron Paul's the only candidate who explains what causes the economic problems

so, this isn't explaining what causes the economic problems? even if you disagree with him, you can't just say "no, he doesn't explain what caused the economic problems".



[color=#2e1a6b]Did you really just say that he has Shady campaign contributors? WTF, Goldman&sax, JP morgan, and other lobbyist support Obama and Romney, not Paul. Paul get's his support from citizens who love freedom, and active duty military

I already explained that he was never racists, and I showed that he said those things on CNN, you know, national television.



[color=#2e1a6b]I watched the first 15 minutes of it. In regards to Foreign affairs, Ron Paul consistently voted to defend against threats to our national security, and not get involved if it doesn't. I support enforcing the clause of the 14th amendment. I also think that the Federal government shouldn't force states to give taxpayer-funded benefits to non-taxpayers.



[color=#2e1a6b]Humor me, show me Ron Paul changing his position. And no, Ron Paul never held a racist position, so don't bring up that BS again.



[color=#2e1a6b]Your question is like asking "what's the weight difference between 100lbs of feathers and 100lbs of bricks"

I have very little control over the federal government. If my state is against welfare, but most other states are, My state is forced to provide welfare, even though most of the people in my state are against it. The more Local the government, the more control you have over it. any issue should be governed by the most local government available. So, fire safety can be handled by the city, therefore, the city government is in charge of the fire department; the federal government isn't in charge of the fire department. Driving regulations would be too complicated if they changed in each city, so the state government is in charge of driving regulations. There are many issues that are handled by the federal government, which could be handled by a more local form of government (in this case, state government).

[quote="Lelouch24"]
[color=#2e1a6b]You didn't provide evidence that he will enforce his religious views on others


Did you just not read what I just said?

I DON'T CARE that someone can pick out that bush policies lead down to bad roads. And by the by, Anna Schwartz is not unvocal about her disdain for the way the economy is going and her critiques of current policies, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Schwartz. But are you seriously basing your trust on the efficacy of the gold standard on Ron Paul being able to tell just like everyone else that Bush was going to screw the economy? OVER professional economists who study this shit for a living and are President of the International Atlantic Economic Society? NONE of her credentials count because RON PAUL KNEW GEORGE W. BUSH WAS GONNA SUCK.

Are you that thick?



Right, encouraging against civil liberties has nothing to do with taking them away.

Seriously, read that over and over until you understand how retarded that was. As far as taking away interstate highways, it takes away our ability to travel to our neighbors easily which, since he wants to reduce the powers of the government to the states, means that people are forced to be subject to their states' tyranny, and can't readily move to another state to get away. This is an isolationism of states, how is that NOT stomping on civil liberties?




Listen Lelouch. you're young and you clearly don't know how politics work, so I'll let you in on a secret. Being a non-interventionist MEANS that you're an isolationist. I know the terms are seperate, but let me explain.

See, being a non interventionalist means that you don't help out other countries with their problems. Right? So if you never help out other countries with their problems...what...incentive...do they have to help US? And by that I mean, what incentive do they have to be nice to us in trades? To keep trading with us at all? Our alliances mean nothing because even if other people get attacked, a non interventionalist says, "Well that's your business we're staying out of it."

So. By being a non interventionalist, this will, INEVITABLY lead to becoming...isolated. That is the fact of the matter. Paul might not call himself an isolationist, you might not call him one, but tomatoe tomatoe.




Cute. Born out of ignorance and indicative of no real counter argument. But cute.



I SAID he 'gives his opinions on the matter'. That's what he does in that video. See, Ron Paul is not an economist. He's a medical doctor. He's a layman trying to come up with solutions and reasons for the necessity OF those solutions that he refuses to leave to professionals. That's why he's an idiot. He's not qualified to say what the problems are.


Also what's this bullshit about him being the only one to talk about economics, what the problems are and how to fix them? Are you THAT blind that you just don't pay attention when other politicians address those issues?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlZt5iN96iM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2f9HGLhm6w

Seriously?!


You gave no evidence that he was never racist. You gave evidence of him claiming that he was never racist, while I gave quotes from articles he published declaring the opposite. Sorry, evidence is against you. Paul's word on the matter is worth nothing in the face of substantial contradictory evidence.

Also, I never said Romney and Obama don't also have shady campaign contributors, If you read what I said again I said, quite clearly, he's just as bad as any other politician on that front. And you're trying to deny it with no evidence.

I mean, Google's one of his top contributors, and they're one of the shadiest corporations in the world.



So when he voted for, and SPONSORED the Mark and Reprisal Act, which enforced a mercenary force to hunt down Osama, AFTER already having made statements that we should leave Obama alone, you still just plug your ears and say, "La la la la la, Ron Paul has always remained consistent!"



I gave you a video explaining a shit ton of them. Oh, and yeah, he is inconsistent on race. Your denial is indicative of no evidence but your own bias of wanting to take Paul at his word. All you're doing is hearing the claims, seeing that there are links substantiating them and going, "No no no no no la la la la la I refuse to admit Ron Paul isn't the messiah of liberty!" Wake the fuck up Lelouch!



Nonsense. You have just as little control over your state government as you do the federal government. In fact, it's even worse because INDIVIDUAL STATES tend to be a lot more extreme in their views then when you put all the states together. Hence the reason you get states like Virginia ordering ultrasound rape for abortion seekers, and North Carolina outlawing science that makes it look like the sea level will rise. Fact is? When it comes to civil liberties, more often than not, the federal government knows better than the states.



Bullshit. Most issues don't JUST affect your local area. And if there ARE issues that ONLY affect your local area, they're ALREADY take n care of on a local level.



So let's say you live in an area prone to wild fires. And the wild fire is heading towards your city but your city lacks the necessary supplies to fight it off. They need another city to team up wit hthem to help, or you're going to burn down. But that city decides to be non interventionist and say, "Hey, that's your problem, sorry." Do you see the problem with your political philosophy?



They organize multiple fire departments if necessary, and are skilled in doing so thanks to taxes. And it's regularly needed.



They'd be really complicated if they changed by state too. But oh tat's right, you don't think people should have interstate travel for some strange reason.



And the state government would do NO BETTER and in many cases be FAR WORSE than the federal government. Are you aware that if we left something like, say, Slavery, up to state governments it wouldn't be fully outlawed until...19...95. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n21_v87/ai_16820758/

I can't believe you're still defending that local governments should be making major decisions when you have New York outlawing Big Gulps. Wake. The Fuck. Up.

This thread is becoming just as bad as last time. We're essentially debating every political issue, with the exception of drug policy. All this thread is is you calling Ron Paul an idiot for having a position that differs from you. I'm not gonna keep such a thread active, so I'm not gonna make any more replies in this thread. If want to continue this debate, make a new thread for the particular issue you want to talk about (such as "Ron Paul is racists", "Federal Income tax", "Gold Standard", etc).

There's certainly a lot I want to respond to, especially "Listen Lelouch. you're young and you clearly don't know how politics work"[color=#2e1a6b], but like I said, I don't want to continue this thread.