Ron Paul Critique

[pohibaba]

These are a few reasons why I think Ron Paul is not a good candidate for presidency. This critique is comprised of my opinions.

1. The man has what seems like a contradiction with libertarian non-aggression principle in regards to "illegal immigration". Which is a core philosophy of libertarianism. Although I can't really be sure of what his stance is on those people who decide to move from place to place*, which coincidently leads me to the next topic.

I have no idea what you're arguing here. Anyone who fails to understand that we need to protect our borders is living in a hopeless utopia, and isn't worth the time an argument would take. While I disagree with Ron Paul on parts of this issue, I think he generally has the right idea. Reform the way we go about making new citizens, end birthright citizenship, and begin to make our borders safe immediately. Explain to me how that's un-libertarian.

2. Like all candidates, the man is very vague. Less vague then some, to be fair.

I have no idea what you're talking about here, either. Is it that you simply haven't researched his ideas or could you simply not understand them?

3. This one is closely tied to #2. How the hell does he expect to end all those government bureaucracies? There is just too much special interest tied into them. If you're a Joe Schmoe on government salary with phat benefits, you're not just gonna let it go with a shrug and "oh well, it's for the best" attitude. They won't let it happen, but if he manages it, he is gonna have to employ the national guard to quell the protests. Or does he think yanking out the funding for it by nulling the fed will kinda snap everything into place?

Sure, the people with those jobs aren't going to like it much, but is that reason enough to continue them? People lose their jobs everyday, and if you honestly think there's going to be riots over it, you're more than a bit delusional.

i still haven't gotten past the fact that he's a creationist, and seeing the amount of coverage on the web, it's baffling why anyone would vote for a creationist. that's like asking an accountant who doesn't believe in negative numbers to do your taxes.

Not voting for someone simply for the fact that they believe in God is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard of. I'm an atheist myself, but what you're saying is simple ignorance. Plus, aren't you the guy who said he jumped from the Ron Paul bandwagon to the Obama one? Obviously you knew nothing about Ron Paul anyway.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

The reason a lot of govt agencies wont get disbanded is because of the special interests group we call americans.

Shut the fuck up guartz

Yeah, we americans love wasting money on bureaucracies and inefficient organizations.

So we destroy things that help americans instead of improve them?

Nothx

Hmm, when the war on poverty started dependency on government was declining and the amount of people living in poverty was declining. Now, according to what the Census Bureau defines as poverty is higher than in 1965, and dependency is higher. How exactly are we helping them if poverty is higher now than it was when these "things that help Americans" were created?

[guartz]

So we destroy things that help americans instead of improve them?

lol. "hey let's try to jam this square peg in this round hole until it fits."

obligatory "stfu guartz" comment, etc. etc.

Shit, I'm a walking study of praxeology now.

[Demosthenes11]

The idea here is, even if he believes dinosaurs were placed there by satan to fool us, the executive office or the federal government has no authority to make you believe likewise.

still, it's explicitly an bad example to have a president who is a creationist and believes that men and dinosaurs walked together and that the earth is 6000 years old. the christian fundamentalists in Kansas must be thrilled to see it happen. either way, he doesn't have a chance in the upcoming primaries despite the amount of web coverage he's gotten.

because being a creationist means anything beyond thinking god created life?

It's not necessarily exactly what RP wants to get done will get done, it's putting the gear in motion for change (gtfo Obama), and god knows this country needs it

[email protected]RACRACY DOES GREAT THINGS

[guartz]

These are a few reasons why I think Ron Paul is not a good candidate for presidency. This critique is comprised of my opinions.

1. The man has what seems like a contradiction with libertarian non-aggression principle in regards to "illegal immigration". Which is a core philosophy of libertarianism. Although I can't really be sure of what his stance is on those people who decide to move from place to place*, which coincidently leads me to the next topic.

I have no idea what you're arguing here. Anyone who fails to understand that we need to protect our borders is living in a hopeless utopia, and isn't worth the time an argument would take. While I disagree with Ron Paul on parts of this issue, I think he generally has the right idea. Reform the way we go about making new citizens, end birthright citizenship, and begin to make our borders safe immediately. Explain to me how that's un-libertarian.

2. Like all candidates, the man is very vague. Less vague then some, to be fair.

I have no idea what you're talking about here, either. Is it that you simply haven't researched his ideas or could you simply not understand them?

3. This one is closely tied to #2. How the hell does he expect to end all those government bureaucracies? There is just too much special interest tied into them. If you're a Joe Schmoe on government salary with phat benefits, you're not just gonna let it go with a shrug and "oh well, it's for the best" attitude. They won't let it happen, but if he manages it, he is gonna have to employ the national guard to quell the protests. Or does he think yanking out the funding for it by nulling the fed will kinda snap everything into place?

Sure, the people with those jobs aren't going to like it much, but is that reason enough to continue them? People lose their jobs everyday, and if you honestly think there's going to be riots over it, you're more than a bit delusional.

i still haven't gotten past the fact that he's a creationist, and seeing the amount of coverage on the web, it's baffling why anyone would vote for a creationist. that's like asking an accountant who doesn't believe in negative numbers to do your taxes.

Not voting for someone simply for the fact that they believe in God is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard of. I'm an atheist myself, but what you're saying is simple ignorance. Plus, aren't you the guy who said he jumped from the Ron Paul bandwagon to the Obama one? Obviously you knew nothing about Ron Paul anyway.

1. libertarians believe in natural law, versus positive law. Also, law enforcement is force. It's believed to be unethical to use force against people who want to move. Hey, I didn't write this stuff, and I'm not particularly versed in it, so I may be butchering the idea.


2. You pretty much answered your own question here. He talks about what he is gonna do, but now how. Which is thrice as important.


3. Hey man, in the past people tried to cut funding to the department of education and almost had their hands bitten off. Completing removing it... now that's gonna meet some friction, you know what I mean? I'm just curious how on earth is he gonna pull it off, unless you know, he plans on using his amazing skills of reasoning and common sense to subdue the greed in us.

[finale23]

Not voting for someone simply for the fact that they believe in God is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard of. I'm an atheist myself, but what you're saying is simple ignorance. Plus, aren't you the guy who said he jumped from the Ron Paul bandwagon to the Obama one? Obviously you knew nothing about Ron Paul anyway.

struck a nerve there, ease up with the insults. there's a difference between being religious and being a creationist. not believing in evolution directly raises questions with respect to one's intellect among other things. plus, everyone has something they want to see in a candidate, believing in evolution and embracing science just happen to be two of the more important ones for me.

because being a creationist means anything beyond thinking god created life?

more like believing stories in the bible to the letter, such as how noah housed all species of animals on his boat and whatnot.

[guartz]

You know, might be a moot point, but did he really say he was a creationalist?

I remember him saying he's a Christian and believes in God...but that's really not the same. Plus he did go to a medical school so he might be versed in biology better then you and I.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Not voting for someone simply for the fact that they believe in God is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard of. I'm an atheist myself, but what you're saying is simple ignorance. Plus, aren't you the guy who said he jumped from the Ron Paul bandwagon to the Obama one? Obviously you knew nothing about Ron Paul anyway.

struck a nerve there, ease up with the insults. there's a difference between being religious and being a creationist. not believing in evolution directly raises questions with respect to one's intellect among other things. plus, everyone has something they want to see in a candidate, believing in evolution and embracing science just happen to be two of the more important ones for me.

because being a creationist means anything beyond thinking god created life?

more like believing stories in the bible to the letter, such as how noah housed all species of animals on his boat and whatnot.

Lots of people with questionable intellect running around then.

[guartz]

Lots of people with questionable intellect running around then.

Like me for example. I understand microevolution... but no matter how much I tried, I could never grasp cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, macroevolution.. etc. Cosmic evolution just seemed like another religion to me, to be honest. A way cooler, alternative realities colliding stuff.

[Saga]

Not voting for someone simply for the fact that they believe in God is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard of. I'm an atheist myself, but what you're saying is simple ignorance. Plus, aren't you the guy who said he jumped from the Ron Paul bandwagon to the Obama one? Obviously you knew nothing about Ron Paul anyway.

struck a nerve there, ease up with the insults. there's a difference between being religious and being a creationist. not believing in evolution directly raises questions with respect to one's intellect among other things. plus, everyone has something they want to see in a candidate, believing in evolution and embracing science just happen to be two of the more important ones for me.

because being a creationist means anything beyond thinking god created life?

more like believing stories in the bible to the letter, such as how noah housed all species of animals on his boat and whatnot.

Lots of people with questionable intellect running around then.

considering the strong backing the evolution theory has, i'm inclined to agree with finale. the "proof," and let's use the term lightly because im about to present the other side of the argument here, has been scientifically documented and observed over and over and over again.

now, since i know Swamp is a hardcore religious person (aren't you a jehova's witness? we had a debate about religion several months ago), it's safe to assume that the "proof" for the creationists (or the seemingly ignorant, in some people's mind) is right there in the bible. the problem is that sort of "proof" is merely a belief, which is much harder to convince someone of due to the nature of a belief.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Not voting for someone simply for the fact that they believe in God is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard of. I'm an atheist myself, but what you're saying is simple ignorance. Plus, aren't you the guy who said he jumped from the Ron Paul bandwagon to the Obama one? Obviously you knew nothing about Ron Paul anyway.

struck a nerve there, ease up with the insults. there's a difference between being religious and being a creationist. not believing in evolution directly raises questions with respect to one's intellect among other things. plus, everyone has something they want to see in a candidate, believing in evolution and embracing science just happen to be two of the more important ones for me.

because being a creationist means anything beyond thinking god created life?

more like believing stories in the bible to the letter, such as how noah housed all species of animals on his boat and whatnot.

Lots of people with questionable intellect running around then.

considering the strong backing the evolution theory has, i'm inclined to agree with finale. the "proof," and let's use the term lightly because im about to present the other side of the argument here, has been scientifically documented and observed over and over and over again.

now, since i know Swamp is a hardcore religious person (aren't you a jehova's witness? we had a debate about religion several months ago), it's safe to assume that the "proof" for the creationists (or the seemingly ignorant, in some people's mind) is right there in the bible. the problem is that sort of "proof" is merely a belief, which is much harder to convince someone of due to the nature of a belief.

LOL, how the hell do you know I'm a hardcore religious person? Have we met somewhere?...because I have never discussed my views on religion on this board, nor would I even consider myself hardcore religious.

[Saga]

there was an enormous debate about religion in the spam forum several months ago, like in the summer some time in may or june i think. you were heavily involved in it, as was i, and i remember elphaba being there too for a bit.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Sorry, I was not, I don't think I have even posted in the spam forum.

Edit: I just noticed you said Jehova's Witness. If it was me in that forum, I would have said adventist.

[Vuitton]

Not voting for someone simply for the fact that they believe in God is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard of. I'm an atheist myself, but what you're saying is simple ignorance. Plus, aren't you the guy who said he jumped from the Ron Paul bandwagon to the Obama one? Obviously you knew nothing about Ron Paul anyway.

struck a nerve there, ease up with the insults. there's a difference between being religious and being a creationist. not believing in evolution directly raises questions with respect to one's intellect among other things. plus, everyone has something they want to see in a candidate, believing in evolution and embracing science just happen to be two of the more important ones for me.

because being a creationist means anything beyond thinking god created life?

more like believing stories in the bible to the letter, such as how noah housed all species of animals on his boat and whatnot.

Lots of people with questionable intellect running around then.

considering the strong backing the evolution theory has, i'm inclined to agree with finale. the "proof," and let's use the term lightly because im about to present the other side of the argument here, has been scientifically documented and observed over and over and over again.

now, since i know Swamp is a hardcore religious person (aren't you a jehova's witness? we had a debate about religion several months ago), it's safe to assume that the "proof" for the creationists (or the seemingly ignorant, in some people's mind) is right there in the bible. the problem is that sort of "proof" is merely a belief, which is much harder to convince someone of due to the nature of a belief.

LOL, how the hell do you know I'm a hardcore religious person? Have we met somewhere?...because I have never discussed my views on religion on this board, nor would I even consider myself hardcore religious.

Your asking questions when the answer is in the block of text you quoted. Try reading? Or do you religious people not believe in that either? I should warn you though, there is about as much documentation and proof for reading as there is for evolution. Don't take either of them for .

I feel deep shame and sadness (as well as frustration and dumbfoundedness) for people who think evolution is . Try taking a Physical Anthropology, Biology, or Genetics class. All three will go into great scientific detail in showing you how DNA and Evolution works.

However, I know none of you religious people care for Science. All you hear is :elmer:

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Um...the answer is not in the block of text I quoted. I don't think I have one post in the spam forum. Maybe you should try reading, or do you evolution people do not believe in that either?

[Demosthenes11]

is this seriously gonna turn into a religious bashing / debate thread?

I don't fucking care if you believe in creation, evolution (oh hi, some of us believe in both), or fucking mother Tiamat. A BELIEF is something you BELIEVE for non-physical reasons. I don't give a flying fuck if you people can't understand that or can only resort to bashing those that have beliefs. Nobody here is pushing their creation / beliefs on you, so quit being pricks and get off your high horse of "people who believe in creation are fucking stupid."

[Correction]

is this seriously gonna turn into a religious bashing / debate thread?

I don't fucking care if you believe in creation, evolution (oh hi, some of us believe in both), or fucking mother Tiamat. A BELIEF is something you BELIEVE for non-physical reasons. I don't give a flying fuck if you people can't understand that or can only resort to bashing those that have beliefs. Nobody here is pushing their creation / beliefs on you, so quit being pricks and get off your high horse of "people who believe in creation are fucking stupid."

The issue isn't necessarily that he believes in creationism. The issue is the use of faith and personal belief in his roles as a leader and representative of the U.S. across the world.

A candidate is more likely, for example, to get support from me and people I respect if he drives more of his decisions from reason rather than faith. Will it be faith or reason behind his policies on Global Warming, Democracy in the Middle East and the "One China?" Bush has put so much of his decision making in pure faith that he's doing the right thing, even when everyone else in the room is screaming "you're wrong." If his presidency has taught us anything, is that it's probably the worst way to run an executive branch. I don't need or want another man in that office who's liable to do the same thing.

[Demosthenes11]

so because someone uses faith as a basis for the spiritual part of his life, he is unable to make any logical decisions, especially when he is the leader of the free world?

[Charla]

So because someone uses the faith that is the basis for the spiritual part of his life as the foundation of his campaign to become the leader of the free world, he is unlikely to make any logical decisions when he is the leader of the free world?

More like that. Someone running on a faith-based platform will probably want to run a faith-based country. Otherwise they'd be disingenuous, right? (No idea if lolRonPaul is doing so, but as was said on page 1, nobody cares anyway).

[Weeks]

Like me for example. I understand microevolution... but no matter how much I tried, I could never grasp cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, macroevolution.. etc. Cosmic evolution just seemed like another religion to me, to be honest. A way cooler, alternative realities colliding stuff.

There is no real microevolution or macroevolution. There is evolution, it's one process, and the only reason anyone makes that distinction is to avoid debating a brick wall like you when it comes to the practical applications of evolutionary theory.