Ron Paul for Peace, Ron Paul for PRESIDENT

[Lean Forward]

Ron Paul is a completely delusional wacko.. I don't worry about it, though, cause it will never happen

 

[Btodd]

Those of you who are against Ron Paul are against freedom of choice.

Hahahahaha! So those of us that choose to reject Ron Paul are against freedom of choice? Nice logic. What did I use to reject him?

I have many problems with him, but one of my litmus tests is...he rejects the Theory of Evolution. If you can't even get that straight, then I don't want you making any decisions for me, whatsoever. On top of that rejection, he believes in State's rights to teach whatever they want. Bye-bye, Ron.

You might think that's irrelevant in regard to running the country, but I do not. It's a simple test of a person's ability to judge basic facts instead of adhering to ideology.


Btodd

 

[TerranceL]

Ron Paul is a completely delusional wacko.. I don't worry about it, though, cause it will never happen

Enjoy your Neo-con president that much huh?

 

[Lean Forward]

Enjoy your Neo-con president that much huh?

I agree with you that Obama is not a true liberal, but he is the far more sensible choice than any of the nutjobs on the republican roster, including Paul who comes off as completely disconnected to reality not unlike the rest of the republican candidates.

 

[cfyahoo08]

Hahahahaha! So those of us that choose to reject Ron Paul are against freedom of choice? Nice logic. What did I use to reject him?




Btodd

So do you therefore think you have to agree with a candidate on everything ?

Which candidate would give you more personal freedoms ?

 

[TerranceL]

I agree with you that Obama is not a true liberal, but he is the far more sensible choice than any of the nutjobs on the republican roster, including Paul who comes off as completely disconnected to reality not unlike the rest of the republican candidates.

I can pretty much guarantee that they wouldn't do anything that Obama wouldn't.

They all play the game. Remember way back when Obama was running in the primaries?

He played the liberals like finely tuned guitars. Said every little thing they wanted to hear, made any and every promise. Then when he became president all of that went out the door.

Same thing here. These people are trying to play to what they think their base wants to hear.

The utterly pathetic things is we know the man is a liar, we know he cannot keep his promises and still democrats will vote him because he's not one of the other guys.

It's the same thing that happened in 2004 with Bush. I was surprised then, I expect it now. People don't care about what's best for the country they care about what's best for their party.

 

[Btodd]

So do you therefore think you have to agree with a candidate on everything ?

Which candidate would give you more personal freedoms ?

I was simply pointing out the absurdity of your statement, that if I don't like him, I'm 'against' free choice. I used free choice to reject him as a viable candidate, so that premise is self-defeating.

No, I do not have to agree with a candidate on everything, but I disagree with Ron Paul on several things. I have yet to find a Libertarian candidate that doesn't scare the crap out of me if you let them talk long enough. Take Rand Paul for instance...he'll start out talking about fiscal responsibility (something I can agree with), and eventually say something like, '...I'm not so sure we should have passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964'. So, NO...I'm not for unlimited free choice, especially the choice to discriminate against people simply based on the color of their skin.

And since I value the scientific method a great deal, the last thing I want in the White House is an avowed Creationist who is in favor of letting States teach whatever they want to children. Free choice without limits results in the harm of many people...Rand Paul's reference to civil rights is a scary example of how out-of-whack this idea of unlimited free choice can get.


Btodd

 

[aSeattleConservative]

(Shrugs). Personally, I once described the Ron Paul's "place on the political spectrum" as follows:

Ron Paul is a Christian,...

Define Christian.

How does a supposed Christian take God's Word and question it, as Paul does in this interview?
Ron Paul on Homosexuality - YouTube

And to make things worse, he voted in favor of the above sinful behavior.
Ron Paul votes to homosexualize the US Military

Is Ron Paul aware of Romans 13:4? "For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

How can anyone that calls themself a Christian belong to a political party that goes against the Word of God? (Paul acknowledges that he is a "lifetime member of the Libertarian Party").

Please show me anywhere in the Libertarian Party Platform where God and His laws are mentioned. In fact, they even speak against Him, as shown in their preamble:

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others."

How can a supposed Christian support a party platform that goes against the Laws of God by wanting to legislate things that God abhors?
Platform | Libertarian Party

Regarding abortion: Ron Paul believes it is a "states rights issue". Since when does God condone the murder of the innocent, as long as it's done at the State level?

"At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion."
Abortion

Ron Paul a Christian? Maybe a "ala carte Christian", where he gets to pick and choose which of God's Laws he wants to acknowledge.

 

[Self Improvement]

Define Christian.

How does a supposed Christian take God's Word and question it, as Paul does in this interview?
Ron Paul on Homosexuality - YouTube

And to make things worse, he voted in favor of the above sinful behavior.
Ron Paul votes to homosexualize the US Military

Is Ron Paul aware of Romans 13:4? "For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

How can anyone that calls themself a Christian belong to a political party that goes against the Word of God? (Paul acknowledges that he is a "lifetime member of the Libertarian Party").

Please show me anywhere in the Libertarian Party Platform where God and His laws are mentioned. In fact, they even speak against Him, as shown in their preamble:

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others."

How can a supposed Christian support a party platform that goes against the Laws of God by wanting to legislate things that God abhors?
Platform | Libertarian Party

Regarding abortion: Ron Paul believes it is a "states rights issue". Since when does God condone the murder of the innocent, as long as it's done at the State level?

"At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion."
Abortion

Ron Paul a Christian? Maybe a "ala carte Christian", where he gets to pick and choose which of God's Laws he wants to acknowledge.

Heck yeah! Where can I sign up for that party?

 

[aSeattleConservative]

Heck yeah! Where can I sign up for that party?

They're currently accepting new members here:
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumb_328/1225552539WTM8Z3.jpg

 

[Satt]

I do not understand why people under the age 50 would want yet another old rich person to be seated in the executive branch.

It goes double for people under 30 and making less than 50k a year individually.

Would you rather trust a young poor person to manage your tax money? That's like saying it wouldn't be wise to get marital advice from an old couple that's been married 50 years. Makes perfect sense.

 

[cfyahoo08]

Would you rather trust a young poor person to manage your tax money? That's like saying it wouldn't be wise to get marital advice from an old couple that's been married 50 years. Makes perfect sense.

I wonder if those that would not vote for Ron Paul also support all decisions made by government ?

 

[lemur]

Would you rather trust a young poor person to manage your tax money? That's like saying it wouldn't be wise to get marital advice from an old couple that's been married 50 years. Makes perfect sense.

Using your analogy. The old couple who's been happily married for 50 years is in their 70's now. They grew up in the culture that dominated the 1950's, not the culture that dominates that 90's or 00's. While the misses might have been content being a housewife back then and having her husband being the sole breadwinner, the same is not often true now so basing a relationship off of feminine submission is hardly a good idea with today's younger demographics.

As for a more direct assault on the statement. I'm a poor (~5K/year) college student going into the STEM fields. Politicians on the other hand have already established their careers and have a mean net worth of a few million. The programs which will help me are not the same programs that will help them and in all probability, they do not know anyone even close to the economic situation that I'm in so for all purposes, I'm irrelevant to them.

The social theory is generally that if the politician at least remembers dealing with the same problems that I face, perhaps they'd be less willing to cut programs which help me. Perhaps even create new ones if we're lucky. This was seen during Obama's election campaign for instance, a fair number of people talked about him having a single parent household, going to school, and only recently paying off his student loans.

 

[cfyahoo08]

Ron Paul is for individual liberty. All other candidates are about political power and government rule over We the people.

 

[mpok1519]

yeah, he's for individual liberty to impede upon others' individual liberties.

He thinks that if a business wants to be "Whites Only", they should be allowed to do so.

How is that pro-liberty? Thats pro-oppression.

 

[lemur]

Ron Paul is for individual liberty. All other candidates are about political power and government rule over We the people.

Think about this statement. 'Ron Paul is for individual liberty' and everyone else is against it? This makes about as much sense as the last decade's 'I'm against terrorism' political campaigns or the 'I'm tough on crime' politicians. These are one sided issues where there is no actual opponent, just an implied one which conveniently is the other guy you're running against.

Take this example: pro-life and pro-choice, from the names along, there is already an indication that nobody is identifying themselves as anti-life or anti-choice. They also both believe that they're protecting the individual liberties of their respective demographics of interest. Pro-life people want to protect the individual liberties of the zygotes, for pro-choice, it's the potential mothers. This is a clear case where the rights of one group of individuals directly imposes on another group so the line is drawn at a personal level of which demographic you care more about.


A note to all posters here: If the statement you're making occupies one or two sentences and fits on a bumper sticker, chances are it's not a compelling argument and you're going to want to expand upon it.

 

[Satt]

Using your analogy. The old couple who's been happily married for 50 years is in their 70's now. They grew up in the culture that dominated the 1950's, not the culture that dominates that 90's or 00's. While the misses might have been content being a housewife back then and having her husband being the sole breadwinner, the same is not often true now so basing a relationship off of feminine submission is hardly a good idea with today's younger demographics.

As for a more direct assault on the statement. I'm a poor (~5K/year) college student going into the STEM fields. Politicians on the other hand have already established their careers and have a mean net worth of a few million. The programs which will help me are not the same programs that will help them and in all probability, they do not know anyone even close to the economic situation that I'm in so for all purposes, I'm irrelevant to them.

The social theory is generally that if the politician at least remembers dealing with the same problems that I face, perhaps they'd be less willing to cut programs which help me. Perhaps even create new ones if we're lucky. This was seen during Obama's election campaign for instance, a fair number of people talked about him having a single parent household, going to school, and only recently paying off his student loans.

You make a good point, while helping me to realize I didn't come across they way I meant to. What I was trying to say is don't discriminate based on age and wealth. That is all. Just because one rich old guy screws up doesn't mean that ALL rich old guys will screw up.

 

[lemur]

You make a good point, while helping me to realize I didn't come across they way I meant to. What I was trying to say is don't discriminate based on age and wealth. That is all. Just because one rich old guy screws up doesn't mean that ALL rich old guys will screw up.

Entirely understandable. They're technically Homo sapiens too so they have have a life experience and various motivations which make for a unique continuum of existence.

 

[disciple2011]

Would you rather trust a young poor person to manage your tax money? That's like saying it wouldn't be wise to get marital advice from an old couple that's been married 50 years. Makes perfect sense.

Poor analogy.

Paul has not had 50 years of managing other people's money. He was a doctor, not a finance manager.

Age doe not automatically denote prudence nor skill. It cam temper both, but it does not imbue someone by matter of years.

I have met some very young people that did not have a brain cell to rub against another and some that are quite bright. And I have seen the same with many old people.

The issue is why should we trust another old rich man when the old rich men have a poor track record? How many times should we keep trying to do something using the same ideas only to prove it failed?

Should we not try something else and see how that works?. Right now we have a middle aged rich man. Why can we not try an older middle class man? Or perhaps a woman that is middle class? Why not try something other than the same tactic?

 

[contango]

The same guy who would like to see heroin legalized?

What's wrong with legalising heroin? I'm a responsible adult so why does the government see fit to tell me what I can and can't put into my own body? It's not as if the war on drugs is doing anything other than making dealers very rich.

The same guy who wants to move back in time to the gold standard?

The gold standard that would prevent the Fed from devaluing your dollars by producing trillions of them to bail out the banks? The gold standard that would preserve the value of the dollars you earned and saved last year? Sounds like a good idea to me.

The same guy who thinks women shouldn't be allowed abortions even if they are victims of rape and/or incest?

If you believe that abortion is tantamount to murder what difference does it make why the person wants an abortion? If abortion is allowed as a convenience it makes little difference why someone wants it; if it is disallowed as a crime against the unborn it also makes little difference why someone wants it.