Ron Paul Rises

[zoobernut]

It's political suicide to say that you don't believe in Jesus. Doesn't mean they actually did. Hell, even the founders were mostly "Deist" which is just country-club agnostic atheism.

Sometimes I wonder what this country would do if political parties and discussing religion in the context of politics were both abolished. What would happen if people actually had to vote for someone based on the shit they said rather than the labels they carried?

[Gregorio]

Well the great thing about the whole Jesus thing, is we have no idea what happened. We don't know exactly when he lived, where, who was with him, etc. It's all here-say of what actually did happen - I really don't compare it to creationism, where we know almost exactly what has happened in the last 4.6 billions years.

We know about when the world was created...but we also know that you can't pull fish and bread out of thin air, walk on water, or get nailed to a cross, stabbed, then rise from the dead and move a 2 ton rock before floating into the air. I mean if you're going to go for a lesser of two evils kinda thing, then yeah the person who believes in Jesus doesn't seem as bad. But if you're citing creationism for a lack of critical thinking and recognizing evidence, I don't think you can ignore believing in other scientifically impossible things.

[shepardG]

As stated earlier...my take on the whole thing:

A bit about myself, I'm agnostic (I.e., I belive in a greater power, but other than setting off the big bang, he/she/it has never touched our reality), I'm Pro military, but not "spend more moneyz on the militariez" unless it's for the direct upkeep of the personnel, I believe that americas political system is rampant with greed, and that no matter what type of government you are, greed, left unchecked will destroy that system. I also believe that greed, along with apathy will get you the state of america today.

There are 400 million(rough) people in this country... I can't put a fact based number behind the amount of folks that ACTUALLY give a shit about america's current government and policies, but i can assure you it's retardedly low... like make you sick to your stomach if you care about things low... And that, in combination with the greed of corporations and the individuals in place in our government equals the craptastic situation we are in today.

Why I'm currently voting for Paul (and believe me, this could change, elections are still a long way off):

I look back at the economic swing of things in the past 80 years, and you just see this up and down scale coinciding with which ever party control's what...congress, president, senate. and It makes me sick. I see this two party system stifling the progress of human evolution on a sociological level that I personally feel is JUST AS BAD AS ORGANIZED RELIGION. One party makes a change, and 10 years later the other party changes it back, and so on and so forth until you get to this point in time where any sort of compromises that would move us along, are crushed under the weight of indecision or the belief that one side is giving up to much. It's pathetic. Again, this is furthered by the lack of the mass of american people who give a green god damn.

I'm voting for paul because having seen the horrors of wars first hand, I believe that america needs to slow down this military industrial complex and stop trying to police the world. I believe that bad things happen when good people do nothing, but a strong foreign policy shouldn't include flexing the military all over the globe in preparation for america's defense when a war MIGHT kick off. I could believe it wasn't for that if China and Russia had bases in america, but we don't lol, and most likely never will.
I think the best thing we could do to influence other nations is to set the fucking example, and you can't set that example when your so scared about being attacked that you posture military bases around the world.

I'm voting for him based on the fact that I think if the government regulated the states and let each one handle more of the issues of america, you'd see more folks take an active role in the political system. Again, Congress, and the president seem so far away and above the common man at this point in the country that It's easier to be apathetic. If those decisions were being made at a more local level, like 2 hours from your house, you might be more inclined to get off your ass, stop trying to camp gukumatz and go talk to your local town hall meeting to see what was coming down the pipe.

I Believe in capitalism, but it should work the same way up as it works down, and what I mean by that is these corporations, medical, military, banks etc. started off as these lowly entities at some point, and through hard work and determination (and some foul play, i'll admit) they rose to the heights their at now. The problem lies in their current "line" of hard work; I.e. "I'm at the top, I want to stay that way, I can influence the policies of the goverment with a few million dollars, instead of spending 100million to actively participate in the same capitalistic society. It's easier to buy policies that would stifle the little guy than to price your goods/services competitively, again greed left unchecked fucking it all up.

I completely disagree with his views on abortion, I realize he's a doctor and believes that life begins at conception, but I personally don't think "life" begins until realization of ones self occurs. Can that be scientifically defined? Hell if I know.
His religious views are another thing that bother the shit out of me, however i've been surrounded by folks who have put their faith in a magic book my whole life. The bible, the Koran, ....the book the Jewish folks read all the time, and i've come to the conclusion that just like being a red head, or being gay, or physically fit with no effort are things "that just are". Being scared about the unknown and having to find a belief system in the "unknown" is just how some folks are /shrug.

Hell i'm the same way, honestly, the big bang didn't happen from some omnipotent entity causing it, but definitive proof of what did cause it, if anything, is so far away from our conceptual grasp that I know it won't happen in my life time, and I'm o.k. with that. But i've also learned that some folks aren't. They need that crutch and, hell, they even hate when folks call it that because it throws that little wrench into their thinking at the most basic level.

I think RP would be a good president not because i completely agree with 100% of his ideas and policies, but because america has needed a shake up on the political front. I think corporations are confused/scared shit less, because they have no idea how to deal with him, because he's so far beyond the reach of their money(hopefully).

I think his negatives (and i will be the first to admit he has quite a few) could be placed in check using the same basic principals that our government is founded on. Checks and balances etc.

IDEALLY, for me, I'd love to see a libertarian, who is a bit less conservative. I don't think i will though. It's a god damn shame that any third parties get ousted due to the lack of backing/understanding/being an easy target for both dem's and repub's. It's funny because each party want's to run away with the government and that's completely against what our nation stood for/was founded on.

[Elrina]

Currently available republicans running for President all belong in a damn circus, not the White House.

A lot of us probably wouldn't vote for any of them regardless, but if all we had to (we don't) pick from are them, Ron Paul is probably the best of a bunch of shitty choices, imo. At least he's consistent in what he believes and the decisions he makes, making it possible to get an idea of how he would make his decisions.

Saying he's bad because he's a creationist and ignores evidence without actually noting which evidence he's ignored when determining policy decisions in the past is kinda silly imo. You can also look at his track record to see exactly how he does/would make his decisions, he's been in office for a pretty long period of time. And you can look at the rest of that bunch of silly fools wanting to get elected, and the decisions they make and have made.

If you lined up a a group of crazy fools in front of me and told me they were my only choices to pick from, and I was required to make a decision, picking one who is at least predictable and consistent in his craziness seems like a good choice. We have the House, Senate and Supreme Court to help keep him in check, and while I personally don't think he'd be a good person to have in the White House, I think he'd sure as hell be better than the other bunch of fucking clowns the Republicans are offering up.

Besides, since most of you are probably going to either vote for Obama or (not for a republican, or at least any of the current choices) third party/write-in anyway, I don't see why you would even care. The chances of Ron Paul beating Obama in a general election are pretty much non-existent, and the chances of any of the current Republicans candidates beating him aren't very high (imo). I wouldn't mind seeing some debates between Obama and Paul though. It would be pretty easy to point out the crazy shit Paul stands for, but at least he'd also be able to throw some good shit back at Obama that none of the other Republicans give a shit about.

[shepardG]

Currently available republicans running for President all belong in a damn circus, not the White House.

A lot of us probably wouldn't vote for any of them regardless, but if all we had to (we don't) pick from are them, Ron Paul is probably the best of a bunch of shitty choices, imo. At least he's consistent in what he believes and the decisions he makes, making it possible to get an idea of how he would make his decisions.

Saying he's bad because he's a creationist and ignores evidence without actually noting which evidence he's ignored when determining policy decisions in the past is kinda silly imo. You can also look at his track record to see exactly how he does/would make his decisions, he's been in office for a pretty long period of time. And you can look at the rest of that bunch of silly fools wanting to get elected, and the decisions they make and have made.

If you lined up a a group of crazy fools in front of me and told me they were my only choices to pick from, and I was required to make a decision, picking one who is at least predictable and consistent in his craziness seems like a good choice. We have the House, Senate and Supreme Court to help keep him in check, and while I personally don't think he'd be a good person to have in the White House, I think he'd sure as hell be better than the other bunch of fucking clowns the Republicans are offering up.

Besides, since most of you are probably going to either vote for Obama or (not for a republican, or at least any of the current choices) third party/write-in anyway, I don't see why you would even care. The chances of Ron Paul beating Obama in a general election are pretty much non-existent, and the chances of any of the current Republicans candidates beating him aren't very high (imo). I wouldn't mind seeing some debates between Obama and Paul though. It would be pretty easy to point out the crazy shit Paul stands for, but at least he'd also be able to throw some good shit back at Obama that none of the other Republicans give a shit about.

Good show ole' chap, good show!

Although, I'm not sure if Obama is the right answer either, imo, although, I can honestly say, he got a raw fucking deal that saw alot of past presidents/congresses/senates (both on the repubs and on the dems) stupid fucking policies come to a head right when he got into office.

[aurik]

Funding the transfer = asking congress for money = passing a bill that didn't have political support is what I believe Rhinox is saying.

But yes, closing overseas military prisons is more difficult than closing other bases.

Diggin this up from page 3 or some shit.

Can you imagine how the economy would suffer if the gov't stopped the massive stimulus it gives to the Military-Industrial Complex every year?

[Cadsuane]

Man I always hit these threads after the discussion has gotten stupid.

• He has never voted to raise taxes.
  
  Taxation hawks are either like inflation hawks, or identically equal if you're an austrian economist! ie. an idiot
  
• He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
  
  Because keynesian stabilization is the devil, which is what austrian economists say (see previous)
  
• He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
  
  Because liberty is predicated on your ability to murder/suicide your wife and/or sister
  
• He has never voted to raise congressional pay./He has never taken a government-paid junket./He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program./He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
  
  Shouldn't there be some libertarian double think argument here about how high congressional salaries incentivize elected officials to free market invisible hand something something?
  
• He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
  
  Because of constitutional idolatry as opposed to any actual good reason.
  
• He voted against the Patriot Act.
  
  See above.
  
• He voted against regulating the Internet.
  
  See above.
  
• He voted against the Iraq war.
  
  Question better left for aged sages: are libertarians for demilitarization and laissez fare foreign policy because they're peaceniks or because they're libertarians? Brotherhood of man or free markets?

[Churchill]

Thank you for continuing the stupid

[Ksandra]

It's a good thing OP makes a ron paul thread every month in order to remind me why I'd never vote for Ron Paul

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Is there at least an article that says Obama couldn't bring them here b/c of funding?

[Elrina]

So far what this thread has determined:

Ron Paul would be a bad President!

Since most of us pretty much agree with that statement, why don't we actually discuss whether supporting him during the primary is a good idea, considering his chances of beating Obama in a general election are virtually non-existent (one of the reasons he'd probably never win the primary anyway).

Ron Paul would actually offer some good debate material we actually give a shit about when debating Obama, which we wouldn't see if one of the other asshat Republicans wins the primary, and there would be the added bonus of watching Obama destroy him on some of his crazy views.

[Headspace]

With NDAA and SOPA going through with little to no resistance, i don't know what to think anymore

[Stumblingdrunk]

Is there at least an article that says Obama couldn't bring them here b/c of funding?

as far as i'm aware it had nothing to do with funding, no one would take them.

[Stumblingdrunk]

Honestly, who is going to say "yeah np we'll house your terrorist sleepaway camp"?

[Rhinox]

Is there at least an article that says Obama couldn't bring them here b/c of funding?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ention-center/

[Rhinox]

more specifically http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00347

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...690885858.html

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I'm a little tips but all those articles seem to indicate Congress puleed funding AFTER Obama wanted to move them. In other words, it was a response to Obama trying to move them.

[Rhinox]

Uhhhhhhhhhh..

[archibaldcrane]

Uhhhhhhhhhh..

Yeah, I dunno either man. You're on your own.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[Kuya]

Thank you for continuing the stupid

You sounding a little mad