Mako wrote:He wants a self regulating free market economy, which is the only one that will truly work
Somalia is basically the only true free market economy in the way that Ron Paul works.
yeah, it doesn't work so well.
"He has stated many times that he doesn't want them to develop nukes, but at the same time we have no evidence at this point that they are doing so. We don't need another pointless war, especially with China saying they will back Iran"
Are you saying that if there were evidence, then he would support intervention, up-to and including a full-scale invasion?
"No, he doesn't believe in evolution but neither do millions of other people out there."
Those people also believe the world is 6000 years old and that men rode dinosaurs like horses. Do
you believe those things? Do you believe that the science behind antibiotics is wrong?
Millions of people, and many of the Ron Paul supporters I know, also believe that 9-11 was an inside job. Do you believe that as well?
"I agree with him that aborting a baby a few months before birth is the same as killing a baby a few months after birth."
Except Ron Paul's position is that aborting a zygote a second after it is fertiziled is the same as killing a baby a few months after birth. I cannot tell, are you agreeing with that?
"Obviously, things would be different if they were a r**e victim."
Right, which is why when Ron Paul introduced legislation that would outlaw all abortion everywhere, it included exceptions for rape cases.
Hahah. Just kidding.
"He rejected the notion of "separation of church and state" because he feels that prayer in public schools should not be prohibited"
Right, he rejects the constitution because it is fundamentally inconsistent with his absurd, theocratic belief-system.
"no establishment of religion"
Which making schools set aside x amount of time each day for prayer would be.
"As far as "gutting the judiciary"... I understand he wants the states to have the power, but trying to reverse Roe Vs Wade and others will only end badly."
He does not want the states to have the power in regards to abortion, lol.
"Again, he want be a little bit too religious for his own good, but to say he is anti-science in general is a bit of a stretch."
No, it is not. Even ignoring the ridiculous theocratic stuff, he believes in Austrian economics, the foundation of which is rejecting empiricism and the scientific method in favor of rigid dogma. That is the
definition of anti-science.
"I don't think I would call money not backed by anything a social construct."
Money backed by anything is a social construct, even if you were to convert your entire net worth into doubloons or whatever. That is what differentiates it from a system of pure barter. Gold has no inherent value or utility other than that which society arbitrarily places upon it. In the hypothetical scenario where the government collapses and civilization descends into a post-apocalyptic Mad-Maxxian hellscape,
gold is not going to magically retain its monetary worth because that monetary worth is based around a system of mutual social agreements. Can you *eat* gold? Can you use gold to shoot the roving bands of motorcycle gangs? Can you live in it? Can you use it to buy anything from the hypothetical Dystopia R Us store? No. In the absence of a societal framework, money of any form is not going to do you any good.
"At least, I don't think people envisioned the Fed being able to print money out of thin air like they are today."
Money is social construct, and its value is largely created out of 'thin air' by definition. The gold standard is just something that a brand of deranged lunatics gravitate toward because it has the word 'gold' in it and they believe gold has some sort of intrinsic value. A good number of them are also conspiracy cranks who are recycling the old belief that the entire world money supply is secretly controlled by a cabal of 8 Jewish bankers, but that is really neither here nor there.
"With segregation, he already said it is a done deal."
A done deal that he and many others would have fought back then and currently want to reverse, using the exact language and concepts that were used to institute and defend it back in the day.
"He said the government shouldn't be able to tell you what you do with your private business"
Right, if you want to not hire black people or sell products to them or allow them to use the same schools or drinking fountains or bathrooms as you, and you want force them to live in an apartheid state, then you should be allowed to do so. George Wallace and the Klan concur.
This civil rights bill will wind up putting a homeowner in jail because he doesn’t sell his home to someone that some bureaucrat thinks he ought to sell it to. My friends, a man’s home is his castle and he ought to be able-- [applause] And he ought to be able to sell it to people with blue eyes and green teeth if he wants to, it’s his home.-George Wallace.
"but if you were to segregate people you wouldn't be in business long anyway."
The free market and state governments were given
a hundred years to end the international humilation that was segregation. And a hundred years before that to end the abomination that was the slave trade. Of course, as I said, Ron Paul rejects science, rejects history, rejects empricism, and rejects basic humanity, so he can continue to make statements that have zero basis in objective reality.
"So the free market handles this."
If by 'handles it' you mean 'does absolutely nothing to mitigate or end it and in fact serves primarily as an excuse to extend it', then sure.
"His view of sexual harassment is that it is protected under the first amendment."
Yes, because he views the world in absolutist terms. If we have a right to bear arms, then we have a right to machine guns and rocket launchers. If we have a right to free speech, then we have a right to threaten, intimidate, and harrass. If we have a right to run a business, then we have a right to use that business to create a society where there is a permanent racial underclass of secondary citizens. The idea of a something being a right *and* having reasonable limitations at the same time? Practicality? Does not compute!
"He states that if the person doesn't like it they can simply quit their job."
Yes, which is basically short hand for "if you are not willing to quit your job over this, you
deserve this'. I do appreciate how Ron Paul does not try to hide the fact that his worldview is based on balls-to-the-wall cruelty.
"Who is to say that states would ban all those thing?"
Um, the fact that there are states that not only banned those things but banned those things and refused to unban them until they were forced to by the federal government and in fact still have those laws on their books. The fact that there are states that are actively trying to ban/re-ban/de facto ban those things *right now*.
Incidentally, I love how you are just like those people who argued that SOPA was fine because 'Just because we give copyright holders the power to take down any site they want for extremely frivolous reasons doesn't mean they
will. Who is to say that anyone will abuse those powers? No one! Pay no attention to all the historical attempts they have made to can sites for completely unreasonable reason! It won't happen!'
"In the issue of contraception he believes the federal government should have nothing to do with being the ones to give it to people."
And he believes that if a state wants to ban it, then that state should be allowed to ban it.
"It should be the individual's responsibility."
No, he says the contraception question should be the state's responsibility to take away entirely, because in reality, he does not have anything against the government removing one's liberties and oppressing people, only against the *federal* government doing it*. The state doing it is perfectly fine.
"I already talked about abortion."
So you already said you agree that the federal government should ban it? I must have missed that.
"You have to remember that is should be the voice of the people that chose what is right or wrong."
Is that you, Stephen Douglas? What is that, you think that it should be up to state popular sovereignty to determine whether slavery is abolished in each state?
I deny the right of Congress to force a slaveholding State upon an unwilling people. I deny their right to force a free State upon an unwilling people. I deny their right to force a good thing upon a people who are unwilling to receive it. The great principle is the right of every community to judge and decide for itself, whether a thing is right or wrong, whether it would be good or evil for them to adopt it; and the right of free action, the right of free thought, the right of free judgment upon the question is dearer to every true American than any other under a free government"A state isn't going to go against its own people and ban gay relationships."
Sure, just ignore all those states with laws that do and have done that very thing, and have given every indication that they want to do so again.
'Just because I want to give states the power to ban gay relationships doesn't mean *I* want to ban them, heavens, no!'
"He doesn't want to deny health care coverage to people with aids, he simple doesn't believe innocent people should have to pay more because of that said person with aids."
If that person with AIDS is unable to pay the additional medical bills, then the only way to actually prevent the cost from being passed to 'innocent people' is to deny that person healthcare. Not only deny them healthcare *insurance* but healthcare *period*.
"Corporations are not people."
Fair enough, Ron Paul's view is that corporations have *the same rights* as people and so therefore the constitution says they can give unlimited money to politicians. Right, got it.
"I don't really see the benefit of a five day waiting period either and of course he isn't going to go against the second amendment.
Yes or no. The 2nd Amendment means that I can go out and buy an AK-47, no questions asked.
"He already stated countless times that he didn't write those newsletters"
And you just take his word for it because...?
"Still, he would have had to read them at some point. I agree that it looks bad for him on this point, but that was a long time ago and people can change."
See, I actually do not care all that much about the August 1985 issue of the Ron Paul 'Drive the Darkies and the Queers into the Sea' Newsletter in and of itself. The more telling thing about him probably being a racist, homophobic, anti-science, theocratic dingbat is that he drafts and supports legislation that legitimizes, enables, and facilitates racist, homophobic, anti-science, theocratic policies.
Sorry, but I need more than a (conveniently selective) devotion to 'states rights', which have been used to justify our country's greatest abominations.
"His plan calls to cut spending to the EPA by 30% of what it was in 2006, not abolish it outright right away. More of a gradual process."
If I object to the idea of killing the EPA, am I supposed to be comforted that the method involves a slow-acting poison?
"He is against planned parenthood because they perform abortions, which he is against"
I am aware of *why* he opposes it. I am saying that that opposition is detrimental to society.
"Again, there are better ways to prevent unwanted children than by aborting them."
Yeah, like providing cheap, easy access to contraceptives. Of course, he opposes Planned Parenthood for that too, and supports states banning them. Sorry, 'being able' to ban them.
"Privatized fire departments... might give the government ones a run for their money and be more efficient."
Privatized fire departments already exist. They are not more efficient at anything that public fire departments do other than
letting people's houses burn.
Like I said though, the Ron Paul mindset only works if one lives in a world of absolutes: Those people did not pay the fee, therefore they
deserved to have their entire houses burn down and lose everything they had in the world.
"Privatized roads... might give the government ones a run for their money and be more efficient"
Toll roads are awesome!
"Privatized air traffic control... might give the government ones a run for their money and be more efficient"
And if it does not, hey, planecrashes are a small price to pay for experimentation.
"I can't see why both couldn't co-exist"
In the case of privatized fire departments and roads, they *do* co-exist. Most people just do not want them.
"the government does hate competition though'
Keep telling yourself that.
"Against the United Nations? Thank God! International Criminal cort is just more world government/ world corporations so no thanks."
Yeah, why would anyone want to engage in diplomacy and punish war crimes? Forget that noise.
"Yes, he calls for selling of federal land in his budget plan. The way the government handles them, would this be such a bad thing?
"Privatizing them would allow them to run more efficiently"
Awesome, we can replace Yellowstone with a condominium.
"and give our government some much needed money."
The government does not 'need' money at this particular moment.
"We can't keep what we can't afford"
The annual funding for the entire national park system represents about one-thirteenth of a single percent of the federal budget. The idea that we 'cannot afford it' is specious nonsense.
"I don't remember ever hearing him say he would want to deny health care to people with pre existing conditions."
No, just that corporations should be able to deny it to people if they want to. Given that corporations overwhelmingly want to, well....
"Ron Paul believes affirmative action has only made tension worse between races because of the unfair advantage they give to one race over the other. Minorities should be treated as equals not superior."
"On the 17th amendment: "The original intent of the founders was to have a Federalist system which consisted of individual states and a small central government with very limited powers. The idea was that the states would send the senators to Washington to represent them. If a senator started voting against the best interests of the state which he represented, he could be immediately recalled."
You do realize what the point of Amendments is, right? The original intent of the founders was to have a constitution which the people are able to
democratically alter when that constitution gets things wrong, e.g.
slavery. Their purpose for setting up a system that is anti-thetical to the notion of a democracy is moot.
"The FDA doesn't really seem to be doing its job right anyway, giving big corporations the benefit of the doubt."
More of those lovely absolutes, I see. 'The FDA is doing an imperfect job, therefore it should not be allowed to do
any job at all!' 'Corporations frequently get the benefit of the doubt, therefore we should ALWAYS give them the benefit of the doubt' 'Then everything will work out!'
"Medicare is unconstitutional."
The Constitution grants the cort the supreme right to interpret the Constitution, and the Supreme cort says Medicare is constitutional (based on the fact that the government has the power to collect taxes and provide services for the general welfare of its people). That makes it constitutional by definition.
Ron Paul is confusing 'Unconstitutional' with 'Something Ron Paul does not *want* to be constitutional', which is why he wants to do away with the authority of the judicial branch (checks and balances are unconstitutional, I guess).
"About the electoral college: "Democracy, we are told, is always good. But the founders created a constitutionally limited republic precisely to protect fundamental liberties from the whims of the masses, to guard against the excesses of democracy. The electoral college likewise was created in the Constitution to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The President was to be elected by the states rather than the citizenry as a whole, with votes apportioned to states according to their representation in Congress."
Uh, thank you for proving my point?
"I wouldn't say giving the states the power that were granted to them in the constitution is turning America back into a confederacy."
He wants to give the states powers that were very much not granted to them in the constitution by taking away the powers that *were* granted to the judiciary and the federal government. Also, the whole hilariously-hypocritical 'we need to be protected from democracy and the voice of the people!' thing.
"You can't even argue the fact that the media doesn't cover him at all."
Why would I argue that? I agree that most of the media does not give him heavy coverage. However, A. the great irony here is that the reason *why* he does not get adequate coverage is
not some grand conspiracy by the Iluminati and the Stonemasons and the Lizard People; the reason is that mainstream news is a for-profit entity that thrives on ratings, and there is no money to be made in stories about a candidacy that barely rises above the level of 'Old man yells at cloud'. (Additional irony, I have honestly heard lots of stories about him on NPR, but of course he wants that defunded/destroyed too
) The free market has spoken.
and B. that the media does not cover him is largely beneficial to him, as he would have far less supporters if everyone were to see him (and his frankly monstrous positions) for what he really is. Also, he gets to play the victim card
"Actually, a lot of his views go along with what the main stream thinks."
Basically none of the things that have been listed are mainstream positions.
"Ask any American about the income tax and they will all be on the side of Ron Paul there too."
They would be on his side in the abstract, which makes sense because Ron Paul lives in a fantasy land and refuses to deal with reality.
Ask them if they would support the sales increasing by about 400%, and they will not be on his side. Ask them if they would support military spending being drastically cut, and they will not be on his side. Ask them if they would support abolishing medicare and social security, and they will not be on his side. Ask them if they support getting rid of all welfare and unemployment 100%, and they will not be on his side.
Congrats, there goes almost all federal revenue, and those programs constitute about 80% of government spending right there, and voters overwhelmingly punish attempts to cut those things *at all*.
Now ask them if they want to repeal the Civil Rights Act, they will not be on his side. Ask them if they want to legalize hard drugs, and they will not be on his side. Ask them if they support repealing the minimum wage, and they will not be on his side. Ask them if they think democracy is something they need to be protected from, and they will not be on his side.
"I don't see how people can consider him to be a fringe candidate when he has the majority of support from 18-25 year old's"
[citation needed]
"Look at all his campaign stops around colleges. He constantly gets thousands of people to go out and hear him speak. For example, Ron Paul had a crowd of about 8,000 at UCLA."
Having been to political events at UCLA, Berkely, and USC, 8,000 people is... not very much.
"That should be up to the states, or even better, local communities to decide."
And if that state decides to ban it, then that is just groovy with him.
Of course it is.
Radiant wrote:His position might actually be worse. It's the ideal position for those who are opposed to same-sex marriage to be in. They can take away marriage from the government, and then make it 'religious' and then they can get away from having to deal with the government's rules like anti-discrimination and the separation of church and state. All so they can put the bar up right in homosexuals' faces.... He's a large roadblock to inevitable progress that wouldn't actually effect him
This is a good point, and it has really been like that since the founding of the country. Whether it be slavery, secession, denying women the right to vote, segregation... states rights doctrine has overwhelmingly functioned as a cover for the politicians to justify positions that are unpalatable and to prevent the rest of the country from dragging said state out of the previous century. Instead of being upfront and just saying "I don't want homos gettin' married", you instead use the euphemism 'I just want the states to be left alone to decide things for themselves'. Y'know, keep it subtle.
This is not to say that there are no states rights or that state governments do not in many circumstances handle specific issues better than the federal government, but I suspect the slavish,
semi religious fetishism over states rights correlates fairly strongly with wanting to keep certain groups of people down.
☆
