Ron Paul Rises

[Talint]

tacit legitimacy? To what? His personal bias? ... better that then tacit legitimacy to a war that slaughters thousands?

I mean, did you really just bring up tacit legitimacy?

Not if you're going to argue semantics with me for the next fifteen posts, I didn't.

[guartz]

Not if you're going to argue semantics with me for the next fifteen posts, I didn't.

See? The easiest thing to do when somebody throws your own shit to your face is to dismiss it.

[kuronosan]

Okay then, let's switch up the discussion. Out of Paul, Obama, and the other possible candidates, who do you think is going to take America in the right direction?

We need to stop waging fucking wars on countries and focus on domestic issues (such as limiting Internet freedom, which in essence is a violation of Constitutional rights) and quit policing a rapidly-changing world.

Clearly Obama lacks the fortitude to shove Congress into the floor. Other Repubs want to shill the rich. Paul obviously wants to end wars and help people in his own way.

You're basically given the choice between a pile of shit, a puddle of shit, and a rock made of shit. It's not rocket-fucking science.

All I know is that I voted for Obama and I'm displeased with the result. I refuse to vote for any Republican I've seen because they're all fucking stupid. To me, Paul honestly is starting to look like the most attractive candidate. I sincerely doubt Obama is going to accomplish much of anything in his second term that's positive. As a matter of fact, I'm all but convinced he's going to sign off on a war with Iran and will sign the NDAA and SOPA.

Why the fuck do I want a President like that?

[guartz]

I think the idea that america's institutional problems can be solved by the virtues of a single man is very cute. Let me ask some Obama supporters how that worked out for them.

Probably the most sensible post you made in this thread.

As to answer your question: "If someone dislikes neoliberal policy, but likes social democratic policy or ordoliberalism, why would they vote for a libertarian?"

You focus entirely to much on economical theories and not at all on the environment these theories, when applied, foster. I understand the desire to create a fair ground
where risk of abuse is minimal, however, going about it by creating controls is awfully counter-productive, since the very same controls (through inevitable corruption) allow
for the subjugation of the very people they were meant to protect.

[popsiclestix]

Those newsletters were the same shit brought up in 2008. Someone else wrote those letters using his name. He didn't find out about them until it passed years later. They are not even the same message he promoted at the time and was an act of a ghost writer. He recognizes that he failed in monitoring the use of his image/notoriety by others. Even if he says it a million times, no one listens. It is much like the birthing issue that Obama faced. It is an issue that distracts attention from the person's message in an attempt to discredit. But Obama was a media darling and only Fox News and Trump hounded Obama on it.

[Cail]

CNN was mean to ron paul so he ran away! boy gosh, i sure hope no one is as mean to him for the rest of his candidacy!

[Eaglestrike]

CNN was mean to ron paul so he ran away! boy gosh, i sure hope no one is as mean to him for the rest of his candidacy!

Considering the only time the media feels like talking about Paul is when they're harassing him, I don't blame him and don't hold it against him. It's commonly known that the media ignores the shit out of him, he owes them nothing.

[Talint]

Those newsletters were the same shit brought up in 2008. Someone else wrote those letters using his name. He didn't find out about them until it passed years later. They are not even the same message he promoted at the time and was an act of a ghost writer. He recognizes that he failed in monitoring the use of his image/notoriety by others. Even if he says it a million times, no one listens. It is much like the birthing issue that Obama faced. It is an issue that distracts attention from the person's message in an attempt to discredit. But Obama was a media darling and only Fox News and Trump hounded Obama on it.

Really? The Sarah Palin defense? What's next, complaining about gotcha questions? We gonna start calling it The Lamestream Media now?

It's more akin to Jeremiah Wright than it is to birther nonsense; as only conspiracy dipshits acknowledge birtherism.

[Dantrag]

I still think McCain would have won had it not been for Palin. She was so incredibly toxic to his candidacy for independents.

[Rhinox]

Lol McCain had the same problem Romney has. He needed to get a fresh face that passed hardcore conservatives Litmus test. I'd argue he wouldve lost by a bigger margin because his base wouldve stayed home.

[Kuya]

Probably the most sensible post you made in this thread.

As to answer your question: "If someone dislikes neoliberal policy, but likes social democratic policy or ordoliberalism, why would they vote for a libertarian?"

You focus entirely to much on economical theories and not at all on the environment these theories, when applied, foster. I understand the desire to create a fair ground
where risk of abuse is minimal, however, going about it by creating controls is awfully counter-productive, since the very same controls (through inevitable corruption) allow
for the subjugation of the very people they were meant to protect.

What do you mean subjugation? God help you if you mean taxation, because if you do, then i don't give a fuck.

[Kuya]

He didn't run from them? I think he pretty answered pretty clearly, and when they began harassing him about them despite that, then he left. What's the point in talking to media who refuse to accept an answer and continues to harass you about something because they want to make you look bad? From the very article Demo linked:



I mean seriously, that's as direct a response as you can get. Why stay if they want to continue harassing the man about that one thing instead of moving on with the interview?


At the moment, personally, I care much more about a President's view regarding war, oppression, censorship, and liberty than their social beliefs they can't do much about without cooperation from the congress and senate.

It's easy to attack Ron Paul. However, between the congress, senate and the Supreme Court, there's only so much he can do directly. There are realistic things he could accomplish, and most of those (that I know of, anyway) are good things, some of which are pretty immediately imperative and won't happen if anyone else is elected.

Generally, the way I'm thinking of it at the moment is like I said earlier. The entire range of current potentials, from Obama to every one of the Republican candidates other than Paul, will not only continue extending the National State of Emergency, but continue war time policies and furthering war time goals, as well as actually continuing to go to war with new countries. Not only that, but it's already been made clear Obama intends to sign the NDAA sometime in the next few days, and if SOPA/PIPA ever make it to him there is zero reason to believe he would veto that either.

I can live without a growth of social programs and social liberties for 4 years (considering that the checks and balances will prevent their regression) if it means ending war time policy, the state of emergency, and setting in place a few years of precedent without them. With some of the things Bush started, and put into place, and that Obama is continuing, through to the passing of the NDAA and heavy contemplation regarding SOPA/PIPA, as well as shit like SMISC and other Cyber Intel bills I've seen proposed recently, I'd like to have someone who's actually willing to veto blatant 1984-style oppression to prevent it from becoming modern day US Law.

Because Obama won't veto them. Neither will Romney, Gingrich, or any of the other clowns the Republicans have put forward. Who else is there that's running for President?

Only thing missing in your equation is who is in Congress during a RP presidency.

[guartz]

What do you mean subjugation? God help you if you mean taxation, because if you do, then i don't give a fuck.

No, I mean oppress politically and economically. I'm sure you noticed that the poor have been paying for every mistake the rich made.

[Plow]

Those newsletters were the same shit brought up in 2008. Someone else wrote those letters using his name. He didn't find out about them until it passed years later. They are not even the same message he promoted at the time and was an act of a ghost writer. He recognizes that he failed in monitoring the use of his image/notoriety by others. Even if he says it a million times, no one listens. It is much like the birthing issue that Obama faced. It is an issue that distracts attention from the person's message in an attempt to discredit. But Obama was a media darling and only Fox News and Trump hounded Obama on it.

Except that's simply not the case.

In 1996, Paul told TheDallas Morning News that his comment about black men in Washington came while writing about a 1992 study by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia.

Paul cited the study and wrote: "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"These aren't my figures," Paul told the Morning News. "That is the assumption you can gather from the report."

Nor did Paul dispute in 1996 his 1992 newsletter statement that said,"If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be."

You people think I'm kidding or exaggerating or whatever when I explain to you that he's a complete fucking nutjob.

I'm not. At all.

Considering the only time the media feels like talking about Paul is when they're harassing him, I don't blame him and don't hold it against him. It's commonly known that the media ignores the shit out of him, he owes them nothing.

Right, what people are concerned about is the explanation he owes CNN, not the explanation he owes the people he's asking to vote for him.

[Eaglestrike]

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

This quote here seems like it's more about making fun of the "criminal justice system" than anything racial. And if he's saying anything specifically racial, it's only things whites aren't "allowed" to say but blacks would say np.

[guartz]

My god, RP is racist.


oh look i still don't care about his bias. However, it's pretty sad that the best candidate out there who makes the most sense is a old racist guy.

[Churchill]

Are you fucking kidding me?

You don't have to be bought when your entire platform is "let the rich fuck anyone and everyone to any extent imaginable, it's not the government's business."





Seriously? You realize his biggest supporters ARE in fact the military industrial giants he supposedly so vehemently opposes, right?

You don't see anything inherently evil in the philosophy that 5 year old sick kids at the hospital door should be told to go fuck themselves?



Welcome to Ron Paul's entire platform.

I don't understand what you're saying, but as usual it's very...I don't know, inflammatory to you (this subject) and it's hard to understand why. You don't like Paul for x number of reasons, but the only things he can truly effect are those within the power of the President to do without Congress. It's been said a few times already: War, Foreign Policy, Police State-esque legislature. I don't care who is elected, I doubt x y or z will be much different but with how much business, the media, and the two parties want to ignore him it very much seems like he scares them. Is it because he's truly crazy and will run us into the ground faster than stepping on dogshit? Or is it because he's going to fuck up their status quo for oppressing the American people? I'd like to think the latter because again, there's only so much he can individually effect.

As far as campaign support, he gets supported by individual donations as far as I know, if there are Military Industrial Complex companies on there it's more than likely because a lot of their workers are ex-military. If you're claiming the military industrial complex is comprised of his military donations, then lol.

I was going to jump in and say "well then why haven't they backed him hardcore?"

but then I realized it's because noone thinks he could actually win and they don't want him mucking the election up for candidates they already own.

Although actually businesses don't want an even playing field - they want subsidies and tax breaks in their favor, which presumably a "libertarian" would eliminate. So yeah, in a way, some industries/dominant corporations wouldn't want a RP presidency.

This is the part that makes him intriguing, and it happened less last election which means they are probably more scared of him now.

Does anyone actually think he believes the shit in those newsletters?

Serious question.

Not really, I've watched a few videos from this thread and others and he seems genuinely concerned about inner city problems. Maybe it's not because black folks are getting the short end or anything to do with race, maybe he just wants the war on drugs eliminated and less money spent on prisons so it's easier to balance the state/national budgets, but either way it's a win/win.

I don't know, I still don't plan on voting for him, and don't really feel the need for an extended defense at the moment. Maybe it's true, and it's disappointing. Maybe it's just a sad mistake he made decades ago by not paying more attention to subordinates, which has now permanently latched onto him. Either way, I think he honestly doesn't believe the shit that's in them, myself (and to me, that's all that matters at this point in time, since they were written decades ago).

I've said several times before that I don't believe in voting for the lesser of two evils. It just seems like there are issues of a more pressing and devastatingly serious nature, that are progressively becoming larger and worse. And looking to the future, it only appears as if they're going to continue growing worse faster, until they have become impossible to ignore and almost impossible to reverse.

Looking at the Presidential landscape, with the last decade in mind, the last few years under Obama in mind, it appears as if there is only one person who intends on stopping that progression and doing what he can to reverse it before it reaches that point. And, crazy as he is, that's Ron Paul.

This

Really? The Sarah Palin defense? What's next, complaining about gotcha questions? We gonna start calling it The Lamestream Media now?

It's more akin to Jeremiah Wright than it is to birther nonsense; as only conspiracy dipshits acknowledge birtherism.

Are you arguing that the media isn't hostile/doesn't ignore Paul every chance it gets? I don't see how liberal, conservative bias media can be thrown out by people who support both parties yet something like this is a conspiracy theory.


I don't know if I'll vote - I may if by the time it gets to elections in my state Paul is leading but AZ isn't a deciding factor (and neither is Iowa apparently lol). I don't know if he's the best, and I definitely don't like the lesser of two evils idea but what I do like is that there is a very discernible fear for him from the people that are in power now. At best he'll take us out of wars overseas, bases overseas, begin to fix our foreign policy with the middle east and focus on some issues at home. My hope would be that if he did win, it opens the door for more candidates like him (assuming he does a good job) in the future - some younger, less archaic people who aren't afraid to throw some shades on and dealwithit.jpg to Congress. It may open the door for more people like him to run in the Congressional elections following the 2012 Presidential one. Liberals/Conservatives alike, doesn't matter, as long as they're not what we currently have. (Again, assuming the good results and he isn't full of shit)

[Kuya]

No, I mean oppress politically and economically. I'm sure you noticed that the poor have been paying for every mistake the rich made.

Let me be specific for you, since i just can't rely on you for this.

By this you mean that, when large banks made mistakes in part because of their own behaviour and public policy that sought to increase economic growth by growing the housing bubble, they were given public money but the people who made the mistake in buying houses were not given the same treatement. When the recession began, in part because of the financial crisis, we were given peacemeal inflationary policy that was in large part tax cuts, which tend to benefit the richest (you hate taxes btw). Right after the recession, public policy is seeking to decrease the deficit with austerity, which largely impacts people who are not rich. None of this is considered political oppression or economic oppression.

Someone like archi looks at this, and he says that we need to decrease the influence of the few, who have the most money, from government. You on the other hand, suggest that we need to get rid of government. I'll wait for the clapping.

Now you see, the problem with anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism, is that in order to defend these ideas people like you rely instead on first order principles and then you pretend to derive truth from them via logical processes. Meanwhile, the rest of us in the 21st century, understand that reliable information is derived both from empiricism and logic. So to show us how you are right, you like to give us hyperbole and hypotheticals rather than answer for what exists. So for example,

You focus entirely to much on economical theories and not at all on the environment these theories, when applied, foster. I understand the desire to create a fair ground
where risk of abuse is minimal, however, going about it by creating controls is awfully counter-productive, since the very same controls (through inevitable corruption) allow
for the subjugation of the very people they were meant to protect.

You said that the same policy tools that can create a fair ground also permit oppression. Another example of first order principle without looking at reality. Do states that have large social democratic policy, like the ones in Western Europe, oppress like say, a state like Syria? Why do states behave differently from one another? Don't try to give me one size fits all pronouncements; be specific.

[Plow]

I don't understand what you're saying, but as usual it's very...I don't know, inflammatory to you (this subject) and it's hard to understand why.

Because people fall for his bullshit.

Do you remember a guy named Ralph Nader?

He stood up to say "you know what, the dems are fucking shit up too," the same general philosophy RP uses to get people who otherwise wouldn't support him to do so. The main difference being that Nader's actually more liberal than the dems, not a complete opposite that has to rely purely on bullshit to convince people they'd actually like the most conservative republican president ever since the current dem isn't liberal enough for them. Sorry, rambling.

Anyway, point being:

America is pretty fucked right now.

Why?

In huge, huge part because of Ralph Nader.

RP is an enormous threat to make shit even worse, especially if he actually won and it wasn't just him getting a Romney or Perry elected.

[Plow]

To put it simply I'm fucking sick of tired of people thinking about their impossible ideals and deciding to vote retardedly rather than doing what's best for the people of the U.S.

I have been raging about this shit since you people decided Obama would be better than Hillary because Hillary "would just be more of the same" and Obama wouldn't.