So I noticed a distinct lack of threads relating to Ron Paul, so I figured I would make one myself. So I was wondering, what do you think about him? I think he has some good ideas, and some freaking stupid ones too. However, out of all the presidential candidates, I really only myself supporting him, or obama(to keep all the other crazy candidates out of office).
So, what do you support, if anything about him and his ideas? What do you disagree with? (I would put a poll, but I think people would make more thought provoking answers if I didnt include one).
You noticed a lack of Ron Paul threads? You must have missed the last three. :P I agree with parts of his foreign policy (removing all troops from everywhere and trying to revert us back into isolationists is just silly) and he can be relied upon to oppose things like the NDAA. Other than that? Not much.
Well I did a search for "Ron Paul" and all I got was that article about slaying dragons for ron paul, so I suppose its a bit odd that I didnt see any lol. I agree with what you say, it just seems he has soon many extreme opinions, which makes it a bit hard to see myself supporting him. He certainly has the support of the military though.
Broderick: So I noticed a distinct lack of threads relating to Ron Paul.
Then you are blind and unable to sustain an internet connection.
Kidding... Kind of...
Literally, there are only a handful of threads related to US politics and foreign policy that Ron paul's name does not come up on the first page. He may not be the subject of the OP, but it quite frequently turns to him.
Hell, this one has him in the OP (granted, this is a GOP primary general discussion thread that I created to track the primaries, so this is more self promotion).
Seriously, this is the internet. There are a terrifying number of Paulites in here.
More addressing your post, Ron Paul stands against every political innovation of the 20th Century. His domestic policy describes a society where almost everyone is essentially a slave to corporate greed. His foreign policy is isolationism in its most purest form. His social policy would bring back segregation and sex discrimination. Every time I see a Paulite push for his candidacy, they have demonstrated an ignorance of his platform or reality in general. And while I am unable to vote in US elections (being a non-US citizen), he is the epitome of the anti-president and I would never vote for him even if it became a vote between him and Cthulu.
A friend of mine on another forum gave me a great summary for Ron Paul.
"Half Right" is giving him way too much credit. My favorite analogy for Ron Paul is the broken clock. A broken clock, as we all know, is right twice a day. What most people don't consider is that a broken clock is not only right twice a day, it's precisely right twice a day. A perfectly functional clock, meanwhile, may be slightly off and therefore never tell the exactly correct time, but any fool could tell that it's far more useful.
Now imagine that you stumble upon the broken clock at the exact time that it's correct. Maybe you come across it a little before its correct time, and observe it until just a little afterward. From that perspective, the broken clock looks pretty doggone accurate. If you don't sit around the rest of the day watching it, you'll see a much lower cumulative error arising from the broken clock than the functional-but-slightly-off clock, and may very well find yourself inclined to judge it more useful than the working clock.
Of course, the reality of the situation is that you've now placed your faith in a broken clock, and this is exactly the mistake that "progressive" Ron Paul supporters make. Just like the broken clock, Ron Paul tells the same time whenever you ask him: "Government intervention bad, free market interactions good." And if you ask him at the right time, say, in a discussion of foreign interventionism or drug prohibition, you might say to yourself "Well I'll be darned, all those other clocks are a little off, but this clock is exactly right. It must be vastly superior!"
The problem, of course, comes when you decide to check the time at any other point in the day. When you want to know how we're going to provide for our poor and our elderly and our sick, or how we're going to keep massive corporations from exploiting a labor surplus to make wage slaves of us all, or how we're going to protect our environment from the negative externalities of the free market, or how we're going to assure equal rights for minorities, you get back the same answer, an age-old answer that has been tried and found sorely wanting.
This is the point where most progressively minded people realize that what they're looking at is a broken clock and adjust their positions accordingly. Unfortunately, a select few, upon observing that their preferred clock is not accurately reflecting the time of day, will reconcile the difference not by adjusting their belief about the clock's veracity to fit reality, but by adjusting their beliefs about the current time of day to fit the clock. And from this mistake comes Ron Paul's enthusiastic but sadly misguided "progressive" Internet following.
In short: he has exactly one principle which he follows unwaveringly, and this works for some things, but completely fails on many others, especially important ones.
Stagnant: A friend of mine on another forum gave me a great summary for Ron Paul.
"Half Right" is giving him way too much credit. My favorite analogy for Ron Paul is the broken clock. A broken clock, as we all know, is right twice a day. What most people don't consider is that a broken clock is not only right twice a day, it's precisely right twice a day. A perfectly functional clock, meanwhile, may be slightly off and therefore never tell the exactly correct time, but any fool could tell that it's far more useful.
Now imagine that you stumble upon the broken clock at the exact time that it's correct. Maybe you come across it a little before its correct time, and observe it until just a little afterward. From that perspective, the broken clock looks pretty doggone accurate. If you don't sit around the rest of the day watching it, you'll see a much lower cumulative error arising from the broken clock than the functional-but-slightly-off clock, and may very well find yourself inclined to judge it more useful than the working clock.
Of course, the reality of the situation is that you've now placed your faith in a broken clock, and this is exactly the mistake that "progressive" Ron Paul supporters make. Just like the broken clock, Ron Paul tells the same time whenever you ask him: "Government intervention bad, free market interactions good." And if you ask him at the right time, say, in a discussion of foreign interventionism or drug prohibition, you might say to yourself "Well I'll be darned, all those other clocks are a little off, but this clock is exactly right. It must be vastly superior!"
The problem, of course, comes when you decide to check the time at any other point in the day. When you want to know how we're going to provide for our poor and our elderly and our sick, or how we're going to keep massive corporations from exploiting a labor surplus to make wage slaves of us all, or how we're going to protect our environment from the negative externalities of the free market, or how we're going to assure equal rights for minorities, you get back the same answer, an age-old answer that has been tried and found sorely wanting.
This is the point where most progressively minded people realize that what they're looking at is a broken clock and adjust their positions accordingly. Unfortunately, a select few, upon observing that their preferred clock is not accurately reflecting the time of day, will reconcile the difference not by adjusting their belief about the clock's veracity to fit reality, but by adjusting their beliefs about the current time of day to fit the clock. And from this mistake comes Ron Paul's enthusiastic but sadly misguided "progressive" Internet following.
In short: he has exactly one principle which he follows unwaveringly, and this works for some things, but completely fails on many others, especially important ones.
Well as I said, I dont exactly support him, however, with the way things are going, he doesnt really seem to need mine. He has some interesting ideals, however most of them are quite outdated and some seem outright terrible(his views on abortion). The ammount of support he is getting though is interesting, concidering he seems to have quite a lot of ratical opinions, such as the reinstatement of the gold standard.
My thoughts on Ron Paul the presidential candidate (as opposed to the internet behemoth that is his actual philosophy) is that he's screwed because the Republican party doesn't want him and internet fame isn't enough to make him more than a spoiler as a third party candidate. As far as his ideas for when he's president, he'd never push anything really big through except tax cuts, hardly what we need right now.
Broderick: So I was wondering, what do you think about him
Same thing I thought in the last dozen topics about him. Homophobe, fascist, doesn't care about other people, doesn't have a clue about drugs, doesn't have a clue about society, and he's an oathbreaker on top of that. Yes, there is a waterproof argument for each of those terms. No, it can't be refuted easily.
Of course, now that I've said that, now comes the obligatory 'not so!!!' response for any random Paulite. Maybe they'll say again he only wants to move marriage to the states to dodge Roe vs Wade, taking the only road left to restrict marriage to only a man and a woman, and because of that he's not a homophobe. That excuse was always particularly funny because it makes the reader wonder if the Paulite himself doesn't see just how the homophobic sentiments are hidden and put to work without saying it openly even once.
Although, maybe I shouldn't bash the Church of Paul too much, no matter how annoyed I am with them. After all, they open less topics than there are about SOPA, it has to be said.
Stagnant: A friend of mine on another forum gave me a great summary for Ron Paul.
"Half Right" is giving him way too much credit. My favorite analogy for Ron Paul is the broken clock. A broken clock, as we all know, is right twice a day. What most people don't consider is that a broken clock is not only right twice a day, it's precisely right twice a day. A perfectly functional clock, meanwhile, may be slightly off and therefore never tell the exactly correct time, but any fool could tell that it's far more useful.
Now imagine that you stumble upon the broken clock at the exact time that it's correct. Maybe you come across it a little before its correct time, and observe it until just a little afterward. From that perspective, the broken clock looks pretty doggone accurate. If you don't sit around the rest of the day watching it, you'll see a much lower cumulative error arising from the broken clock than the functional-but-slightly-off clock, and may very well find yourself inclined to judge it more useful than the working clock.
Of course, the reality of the situation is that you've now placed your faith in a broken clock, and this is exactly the mistake that "progressive" Ron Paul supporters make. Just like the broken clock, Ron Paul tells the same time whenever you ask him: "Government intervention bad, free market interactions good." And if you ask him at the right time, say, in a discussion of foreign interventionism or drug prohibition, you might say to yourself "Well I'll be darned, all those other clocks are a little off, but this clock is exactly right. It must be vastly superior!"
The problem, of course, comes when you decide to check the time at any other point in the day. When you want to know how we're going to provide for our poor and our elderly and our sick, or how we're going to keep massive corporations from exploiting a labor surplus to make wage slaves of us all, or how we're going to protect our environment from the negative externalities of the free market, or how we're going to assure equal rights for minorities, you get back the same answer, an age-old answer that has been tried and found sorely wanting.
This is the point where most progressively minded people realize that what they're looking at is a broken clock and adjust their positions accordingly. Unfortunately, a select few, upon observing that their preferred clock is not accurately reflecting the time of day, will reconcile the difference not by adjusting their belief about the clock's veracity to fit reality, but by adjusting their beliefs about the current time of day to fit the clock. And from this mistake comes Ron Paul's enthusiastic but sadly misguided "progressive" Internet following.
In short: he has exactly one principle which he follows unwaveringly, and this works for some things, but completely fails on many others, especially important ones.
Heh, that's quite a clever metaphor. It even works with candidates like Santorum and Perry in that they're broken clocks whose arms have fallen off. They're never right no matter what the time of day.
Heh, this topic appeared right above the "SOPA is NOT DEAD" topic and for a moment there I read it as "Ron Paul is NOT DEAD".
Anyway Ron Paul is an odd fellow. On some things I believe he could not be more right, on other things I find him to be completely outside of his head. Overall though I think he is a good man with many more good ideas than bad ones. Still wouldnt want him to be President though, but just for the comedic value I would love him as Fed Chairman if we had a reset button to undo the damage after the fact.
Heh, that's quite a clever metaphor. It even works with candidates like Santorum and Perry in that they're broken clocks whose arms have fallen off. They're never right no matter what the time of day.
No they are right quite often, just not often enough.
Seekster: Heh, this topic appeared right above the "SOPA is NOT DEAD" topic and for a moment there I read it as "Ron Paul is NOT DEAD".
Anyway Ron Paul is an odd fellow. On some things I believe he could not be more right, on other things I find him to be completely outside of his head. Overall though I think he is a good man with many more good ideas than bad ones. Still wouldnt want him to be President though, but just for the comedic value I would love him as Fed Chairman if we had a reset button to undo the damage after the fact.
Heh, that's quite a clever metaphor. It even works with candidates like Santorum and Perry in that they're broken clocks whose arms have fallen off. They're never right no matter what the time of day.
No they are right quite often, just not often enough.
When it comes to the likes of Perry/Santorum, they could tell me that 2+2 = 4 and I'd still look in a book to check. Neither strike me as particularly pleasant human beings.
Seekster: Heh, this topic appeared right above the "SOPA is NOT DEAD" topic and for a moment there I read it as "Ron Paul is NOT DEAD".
Anyway Ron Paul is an odd fellow. On some things I believe he could not be more right, on other things I find him to be completely outside of his head. Overall though I think he is a good man with many more good ideas than bad ones. Still wouldnt want him to be President though, but just for the comedic value I would love him as Fed Chairman if we had a reset button to undo the damage after the fact.
Heh, that's quite a clever metaphor. It even works with candidates like Santorum and Perry in that they're broken clocks whose arms have fallen off. They're never right no matter what the time of day.
No they are right quite often, just not often enough.
When it comes to the likes of Perry/Santorum, they could tell me that 2+2 = 4 and I'd still look in a book to check. Neither strike me as particularly pleasant human beings.
Oh stop it, I don't care if you disagree with them politically, attacking them personally like that is silly.
Perry is a politician to the core but he has been amusing enough to keep as Governor for all this time, also the man loves Texas and Texans like it when the governor loves Texas. Turns out that doesnt work as well when you are running for President though.
Santorum means well but the man is a little too far to the right for my tastes. I think he may have a calling in being an advocate for family values but being President just isnt in the cards.
And while I am doing this.
Obama seems a bit too arrogant and self-centered but all in all seems like a perfectly decent man and he shares a key trait with Bush in that he sincerely believes that what he is doing is best for the country (though Bush was a lot more humble). I have many issues with Obama the President, I have very little issue with Obama the man. After all, to convince a classy woman like Michelle Obama to marry him he can't be all that bad.
Broderick: So I was wondering, what do you think about him
Same thing I thought in the last dozen topics about him. Homophobe, fascist, doesn't care about other people, doesn't have a clue about drugs, doesn't have a clue about society, and he's an oathbreaker on top of that. Yes, there is a waterproof argument for each of those terms. No, it can't be refuted easily.
Of course, now that I've said that, now comes the obligatory 'not so!!!' response for any random Paulite. Maybe they'll say again he only wants to move marriage to the states to dodge Roe vs Wade, taking the only road left to restrict marriage to only a man and a woman, and because of that he's not a homophobe. That excuse was always particularly funny because it makes the reader wonder if the Paulite himself doesn't see just how the homophobic sentiments are hidden and put to work without saying it openly even once.
Although, maybe I shouldn't bash the Church of Paul too much, no matter how annoyed I am with them. After all, they open less topics than there are about SOPA, it has to be said.
Alright, I can see how you might think that about him on everything else, but FASCIST? How the hell do you even reach that conclusion?
Santorum means well but the man is a little too far to the right for my tastes. I think he may have a calling in being an advocate for family values but being President just isnt in the cards.
He is a good man and one of the best politicians the US has made in the last 50 years (given the general quality of out politicians that is damning him with faint praise).
I am a Libertarian and he is more of a constitutionalist. In many ways our ideals line up but he does miss things from time to time. Specifically I like his foreign policy and most of his economic ideas. What I do not like is some of his social standings. Overall though his social standings only affect the states and not the federal government, so I typically forgive him for that (no one is perfect).
Oh stop it, I don't care if you disagree with them politically, attacking them personally like that is silly.
Perry is a politician to the core but he has been amusing enough to keep as Governor for all this time, also the man loves Texas and Texans like it when the governor loves Texas. Turns out that doesnt work as well when you are running for President though.
Santorum means well but the man is a little too far to the right for my tastes. I think he may have a calling in being an advocate for family values but being President just isnt in the cards.
And while I am doing this.
Obama seems a bit too arrogant and self-centered but all in all seems like a perfectly decent man and he shares a key trait with Bush in that he sincerely believes that what he is doing is best for the country (though Bush was a lot more humble). I have many issues with Obama the President, I have very little issue with Obama the man. After all, to convince a classy woman like Michelle Obama to marry him he can't be all that bad.
Sorry, but I felt the need to quote that again. I wish more people would follow that sentiment.
Broderick: So I noticed a distinct lack of threads relating to Ron Paul, so I figured I would make one myself. So I was wondering, what do you think about him? I think he has some good ideas, and some freaking stupid ones too. However, out of all the presidential candidates, I really only myself supporting him, or obama(to keep all the other crazy candidates out of office).
So, what do you support, if anything about him and his ideas? What do you disagree with? (I would put a poll, but I think people would make more thought provoking answers if I didnt include one).
He's nothing but a two faced liar who'll say anything he can to get in power. In short, he's a politician. What makes him different is that instead of hiding his bull shit behind saying something like 'freedom' he has his own brand of bull shit. 'government intervention is bad!' Oh, and I forgot to mention the people voting for him have a terrible reputation for a good reason - because they're obnoxious, paranoid twats. Not all of them mind you, but clearly quite a few people are being utter twats if that's what makes them stand out above the other two parties.
What upsets me the most is how his supporters argue he's a champion for individual rights. Um, no guys, he isn't. He's for property rights and practically property rights. In terms of individual rights the only thing he's even remotely for is drug laws. If he were truly for individual rights he'd be against don't ask don't tell, he'd be for abortion, and he wouldn't be primarily for property rights. Giving corporations too much power is in no way better than giving government too much power.
I suppose the real question is, who would you prefer as a leader? The insane, xenophobic Rick Perry, the unjust Mitt Romney, the two faced Obama, The outright ridiculous santorum or the sneaky Ron Paul?
Broderick: So I noticed a distinct lack of threads relating to Ron Paul, so I figured I would make one myself. So I was wondering, what do you think about him? I think he has some good ideas, and some freaking stupid ones too. However, out of all the presidential candidates, I really only myself supporting him, or obama(to keep all the other crazy candidates out of office).
So, what do you support, if anything about him and his ideas? What do you disagree with? (I would put a poll, but I think people would make more thought provoking answers if I didnt include one).
I like his videos more than Rick Perry's.
Here is a video for Ron Paul...
and now here is a Rick Perry video...
Wow.. That Ron Paul Video was actually really good. Rick Perry's video is obviously crud, but Ron Paul's Video... Wow.
OT: I stopped Supporting Ron Paul when I learned he was against Israel, (Although I learned that from Yahoo and Wikipedia says otherwise). Plus, the fact that he has racial issues makes him less appealing to me then when he once was (NOTE: I didn't say he was a racist, all I am saying is he's an old man with odd ideas about other races.) It doesn't really matter, I don't think any of the current Republicans are gonna beat Obama. In the End, I'll just vote for the Libertarian Party's Candidate.
I do like how he fights the idiocy of the current Republican Party as well:
jSalamanca32: Alright, I can see how you might think that about him on everything else, but FASCIST? How the hell do you even reach that conclusion?
Ron Paul is strongly nationalistic, values the (religious) group above the individual, and is strongly opposed to personal freedom (anti-abortion, anti-civil rights, anti-religious freedom, anti-equality of chances etc).
That's the majority of the societal views of fascism right there. Especially him being anti-abortion is compelling. Not only does that point of view break the hippocratic oath he once swore, but a side effect is that the bodies of all women who happen to live in a country, are in a way property of the state, since they're no longer allowed to decide what to do with it. That's the most extreme intrusion into personal freedom possible.
And because he wants to make those things law, you even have an aspect of the fascist trait of approving of the use of force and violence to enforce the will of the collective.
Although admittedly, Paul's economic agenda is unlike that of classical fascists. But I think that is of secondary importance. Fascism is mostly a way of thinking about the state, liberalism and the 'the collective vs the individual' question.
Ron Paul... he has a legion of undying fanatical supporters who preach his word and nothing ever seems to make him stop. Not the fact that he would never get Congress to cooperate, nothing. Clearly a villain.
But more seriously, I simply disagree with a lot of what he says. I don't get why he has apparently fanatic minions.
Santorum means well but the man is a little too far to the right for my tastes. I think he may have a calling in being an advocate for family values but being President just isnt in the cards.
You misspelled "hating homosexuals".
Just so you know, I was drinking when I read that and JD went through my nose because I snorted so hard.
Santorum means well but the man is a little too far to the right for my tastes. I think he may have a calling in being an advocate for family values but being President just isnt in the cards.
You misspelled "hating homosexuals".
Just so you know, I was drinking when I read that and JD went through my nose because I snorted so hard.
Good show.
Wow your sense of humor sucks then Zekksta, even drunk a grade schooler could put more thought into a jab. I didnt even bother responding to it, thats how pitiful it was.
jSalamanca32: Alright, I can see how you might think that about him on everything else, but FASCIST? How the hell do you even reach that conclusion?
Ron Paul is strongly nationalistic, values the (religious) group above the individual, and is strongly opposed to personal freedom (anti-abortion, anti-civil rights, anti-religious freedom, anti-equality of chances etc).
Anti-civil rights act of 1964. It's quite the difference, sir. Otherwise, I'm ignoring the specifics of your method of intentionally claiming everything wrong about someone you might not agree with whether or not it's the truth, and saying "he doesn't care about other people" despite him joining a military he disagreed with or giving free health care to people who couldn't afford it is really quite out there.
lSHaDoW-FoXl: He's nothing but a two faced liar who'll say anything he can to get in power. In short, he's a politician. What makes him different is that instead of hiding his bull shit behind saying something like 'freedom' he has his own brand of bull shit. 'government intervention is bad!' Oh, and I forgot to mention the people voting for him have a terrible reputation for a good reason - because they're obnoxious, paranoid twats. Not all of them mind you, but clearly quite a few people are being utter twats if that's what makes them stand out above the other two parties.
What upsets me the most is how his supporters argue he's a champion for individual rights. Um, no guys, he isn't. He's for property rights and practically property rights. In terms of individual rights the only thing he's even remotely for is drug laws. If he were truly for individual rights he'd be against don't ask don't tell, he'd be for abortion, and he wouldn't be primarily for property rights. Giving corporations too much power is in no way better than giving government too much power.
I suppose the real question is, who would you prefer as a leader? The insane, xenophobic Rick Perry, the unjust Mitt Romney, the two faced Obama, The outright ridiculous santorum or the sneaky Ron Paul?
What our nation needs is the Jimquisition.
So your suggestion is that the man has spent 30 years consistently preaching the same positions no matter how unpopular, giving back part of his office budget every year, and is now running a campaign on a platform most people seem to think is insane (see comments above), and all of this was just his decietful long game to try and gain power? And in the same breath you use to make this suggestion, you call his supporters paranoid...
I think you need to reevaluate the man. Is he always right? You may say no. Is he deceitful? You're gonna have to find an arguement that hasn't been made for that one, because nobody has reason to believe that.
Just so you know, I was drinking when I read that and JD went through my nose because I snorted so hard.
Good show.
Wow your sense of humor sucks then Zekksta, even drunk a grade schooler could put more thought into a jab. I didnt even bother responding to it, thats how pitiful it was.
Well I'm glad you bothered responding to me responding to it then.
Just so you know, I was drinking when I read that and JD went through my nose because I snorted so hard.
Good show.
Wow your sense of humor sucks then Zekksta, even drunk a grade schooler could put more thought into a jab. I didnt even bother responding to it, thats how pitiful it was.
Without starting an argument about the overuse of terms like homophobia or "hating homosexuals", how could you consider someone who wants to change the constitution to encroach on state rights and rip apart marriages between gay couples in the states that perform them and prevent them from performing any more, and to be able to charge gay adults with a crime just for having consensual sex in their own homes anything other than hating homosexuals?
Just so you know, I was drinking when I read that and JD went through my nose because I snorted so hard.
Good show.
Wow your sense of humor sucks then Zekksta, even drunk a grade schooler could put more thought into a jab. I didnt even bother responding to it, thats how pitiful it was.
I sincerely hope that "family values" is an underhand jab towards organizations like the AFA or FRC that exist, for the most part, solely to attack and discriminate against homosexuals. Because otherwise Santorum really is detached from the word. Seriously, what does he have to do with REAL family values? What does the word even mean any more if not "I hate sex, and especially gay sex"?
So your suggestion is that the man has spent 30 years consistently preaching the same positions no matter how unpopular, giving back part of his office budget every year, and is now running a campaign on a platform most people seem to think is insane (see comments above), and all of this was just his decietful long game to try and gain power? And in the same breath you use to make this suggestion, you call his supporters paranoid...
I think you need to reevaluate the man. Is he always right? You may say no. Is he deceitful? You're gonna have to find an arguement that hasn't been made for that one, because nobody has reason to believe that.
He's for property rights and he pretends to be for individual rights. In my book, that is indeed deceitful. He's not a whole lot different from Obama or any other politician when you think about it. Obama will say one thing and do something completely different meanwhile Ron Paul likes to try and decorate his beliefs with irrelevent words like 'individual rights' and 'the constitution.' On about one issue he's for individual rights but for the rest I can't so much say the same.
He supports isolationism, AKA abandoning the free world to be gobbled up by Russia, China and Iran.
It kept America safe in the 30s and 40s didn't it? Peace in our time!
He's a dixiecrat in relation to slavery and is incapable of comprehending the positives of low inflation.
Human rights and economic power aren't important to the United States anyway, right?
His political programme would entail humanity's decline into authoritarianism and the collapse of the world economy. All I'm curious to know is whether he's planning to blame the jews or the blacks for it for extermination afterwards.
I doubt he is serious in his power ambitions though, it seems more likely that he is building an influence base from which to wield power within the republican party, which hopefully will cripple them in the future.
He supports isolationism, AKA abandoning the free world to be gobbled up by Russia, China and Iran.
None of these countries are going to be doing any gobbling. Russia's population is in free fall and Iran's got a broken economy and severe political divisions. The only real threat is China, and then only to Taiwan and Russia. They, as well, face issues of a graying population and the dangers of an unsustainable economy.
It kept America safe in the 30s and 40s didn't it? Peace in our time!
It did. It wasn't until we started embargoing Japan and helping out Great Britain (such as giving them fifty destroyers) that we had any conflict with the Axis. Ron Paul isn't entirely wrong in thinking that isolationism avoids war, and it's in line with the Founding Fathers' ideals of free trade and friendship towards all.
Of course, such attitudes don't keep tyrants at bay. If you abandon force as an option, you don't have any leverage to ensure that the treaties you do make bear any weight.
He's interesting regarding a handful of issues, like war, foreign relations, drugs, but he's pretty horrible on plenty of others, like abortion, taxes, environment, equality of chances, healthcare etc. etc. etc.. Is he has bad as, say, Santorum? Doubtful. But in the "lesser evil"-calculations we have to make, he still is a lot worse than Obama in my view. This is not meant as an endorsement of Obama in any way, of course, as I have argued against Obama countless times on this board, it's just that where there's bad, there's worse and even worse still. I wish there was a progressive candidate.
None of these countries are going to be doing any gobbling. Russia's population is in free fall and Iran's got a broken economy and severe political divisions. The only real threat is China, and then only to Taiwan and Russia. They, as well, face issues of a graying population and the dangers of an unsustainable economy.
Russia is ripe for a revival of pan-slavic nationalism and Iran is eying a broken Iraq with a large segment of the population that shares its religion, including oil reserves and a chance for a propaganda victory in defeating the "Great Satan".
Chinas ambitions are currently limited, but this is more due to the dangers of angering the Unietd States at this juncture.
It did. It wasn't until we started embargoing Japan and helping out Great Britain (such as giving them fifty destroyers) that we had any conflict with the Axis. Ron Paul isn't entirely wrong in thinking that isolationism avoids war, and it's in line with the Founding Fathers' ideals of free trade and friendship towards all.
Except that Germany already had designs on America due to the fact that it represented a threat to them, just as Japan did. Denmark and Norway maintained a policy of isolationism and neutrality since 1864 and independence respectively, strategic goals ensured this would not be respected however. America represents an objective to any global player due to its economic power and its natural resources.
Of course, such attitudes don't keep tyrants at bay. If you abandon force as an option, you don't have any leverage to ensure that the treaties you do make bear any weight.
Ron Paul will be abandoning America's influence and presence around the world, and his ideology will ensure that anyone not striking directly at America will have free reign to do whatever. The fact that he is building influence is alarming enough in itself, a Ron Paul presidency would severely worsen humanity's outlooks in the next millenium
Just so you know, I was drinking when I read that and JD went through my nose because I snorted so hard.
Good show.
Wow your sense of humor sucks then Zekksta, even drunk a grade schooler could put more thought into a jab. I didnt even bother responding to it, thats how pitiful it was.
Well I'm glad you bothered responding to me responding to it then.
Just so you know, I was drinking when I read that and JD went through my nose because I snorted so hard.
Good show.
Wow your sense of humor sucks then Zekksta, even drunk a grade schooler could put more thought into a jab. I didnt even bother responding to it, thats how pitiful it was.
Without starting an argument about the overuse of terms like homophobia or "hating homosexuals", how could you consider someone who wants to change the constitution to encroach on state rights and rip apart marriages between gay couples in the states that perform them and prevent them from performing any more, and to be able to charge gay adults with a crime just for having consensual sex in their own homes anything other than hating homosexuals?
Well I am against any federal attempt to define marriage (and as a consequence against DOMA, its unnecessary though the sentiment is appreciated). The states should be the only authority in the country that define marriage (so long as government is in the business of defining marriage that is). If a state says two people are married then it doesnt matter what sex/gender they are, the federal government has to honor that. Now the real question is, do other states have to honor that? There was a somewhat humorous story a few years back here in Texas where I think two women married in Massachusetts or something tried to get a divorce and the state basically told the, "we legally can't grant you a divorce because doing that would require us to acknowledge that you were married, in short you don't have to get a divorce from us."
As for criminalizing consensual sex acts inside of private place, any attempt to do so is absurd (unless I am missing something). The government as zero interest in regulating that sort of thing and its practically unenforceable anyway. Now non-consensual sex acts (which would imply anything with a minor or animal automatically) are another matter but consensual, well in that case my policy is simple, I won't ask, and I would prefer you not to tell me about it.
Wow your sense of humor sucks then Zekksta, even drunk a grade schooler could put more thought into a jab. I didnt even bother responding to it, thats how pitiful it was.
Well I'm glad you bothered responding to me responding to it then.
So I noticed a distinct lack of threads relating to Ron Paul, so I figured I would make one myself. So I was wondering, what do you think about him? I think he has some good ideas, and some freaking stupid ones too. However, out of all the presidential candidates, I really only myself supporting him, or obama(to keep all the other crazy candidates out of office).
So, what do you support, if anything about him and his ideas? What do you disagree with? (I would put a poll, but I think people would make more thought provoking answers if I didnt include one).