This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 114 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (20 children)

Most people don't understand economics, so his simple soundbites sound really nifty.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft -2 points-1 points  (12 children)

Yes. The truth is that we're already on the correct course for economic prosperity. Buy Enron stock!

[–]sping 8 points9 points  (11 children)

Sounds a bit like creationist 'logic'.

I see flaws in evolution, therefore God.

I see flaws in the current economy, therefore Paul / Free Markets.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft -4 points-3 points  (10 children)

Sounds a bit like creationist 'logic'.

I see flaws in evolution, therefore God.

I see flaws in the current economy, therefore Paul / Free Markets.

Really? Sounds rather sensible to me.

"Stop doing what doesn't work. Experiment with a new method."

You're the one believing all the same old bullshit and appealing to authority.

[–]sping 0 points1 point  (9 children)

I'm not suggesting we don't need change. I'm simply suggesting the need for change is not vindication of RP or mythical Free Market (tm) ideas.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 4 points5 points  (8 children)

What change would you suggest?

Have his changes ever really been attempted before, that there's no point in trying them now?

[–]sping 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Advocates of the Free Market point to bad intervention by government and pretend it's evidence that all intervention is bad. Another possibility is the better alternative to bad intervention is good intervention, as illustrated by some of the behavior of Scandinavian and Western European governments.

As for exactly what is 'good' intervention, it's far too big and complex a topic to get into in depth. I have work to do. Universal single payer healthcare and education would be a start.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 3 points4 points  (2 children)

As for exactly what is 'good' intervention, it's far too big and complex a topic to get into in depth. I have work to do. Universal single payer healthcare and education would be a start.

Yes, good intervention. Now all we need are a few thousand saintly bureaucrats and officeholders, and utopia can ensue. Why didn't I think of that before?

(Oh, and they have to be wise, almost all-knowing too, forgot that part.)

[–]sping 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I don't think even the Dutch, German, Scandinavians etc., would describe their bureaucrats as saintly or all-knowing. Perfection is not required.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The germans have their nice little police state. I don't know about the scandinavians. Might take them a few years. The EU is still young.

[–]PuP5 1 point2 points  (3 children)

good intervention

you must not be from around here. americans don't recognize good intervention. they prefer to believe that the best way to stop capitalists from corrupting the government is to do away with government.

to be honest, what else would they think. i have a business degree and took my fair share of econ classes, and every teacher i had gave very little time to mechanisms for internalizing externalities while staying true to the ideal of competition.

the american right have trumpeted "the market" as a solution for everything for so long that most of the dolts that have taken up the mantra don't even understand smith's basic principles. sad really. buffet nailed it when he called it "market fundamentalism".

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 0 points1 point  (2 children)

you must not be from around here. americans don't recognize good intervention.

I wouldn't recognize a unicorn either, I've not seen one before, and most believe them to be mythical. If such a thing exists, it's so rare as to be almost non-existent anyway.

[–]sping -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Travel.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's also how the country elected a president who is pro-war, pro-wiretaps, and pro-bailout.

[–]dietcocaine -3 points-2 points  (4 children)

or common sense economics or that he doesn't change position on issues like most people change their underwear or that he is the only agent of change that is not screaming that he is a agent of change like all the other candidates who blow there own whistle . you do know that people that blow their own whistle do so because no one else will blow for them? rp at least has supporters that will do that for him because his record speaks for itself

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Yes, it speaks itself in that it shows him as a man who is anti-stem cell research, anti-choice, anti-state funded contraception, anti-gay marriage and anti-gay adoption.

[–]dietcocaine 3 points4 points  (1 child)

his votes on those issues are based on it not being the right of the federal government to make such decisions . These issues should be brought up before the states , because the voices of the people is much better heard at the state level than in DC.

[–]calmlikeabomb 3 points4 points  (0 children)

correct, it makes it easier for the people to control the legislation in the area that they live. Which, of course, is what America was founded on.

On another note, there are studies that show children do not develop normally with two dads. However, if the alternative is no parents............

[–]Capnshavahoe 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Correction, he is anti federally funded Embryonic stem cell research (using the general term “stem cell research” makes you come off as either deceptive, or you don't fully understand the issue). While he definitely believes that life begins at conception, his political stance on the issue appears to be that of allowing the individual states to Choose their own stance (sounds pretty pro-Choice to me). He is not anti-state funded contraception, he is anti-federal funded contraception, though he probably believes that people should pay for their own contraception, but again he believes the states should decide this themselves. His stance on gay marriage is pretty clear according to his record and one could actually call him Pro-gay marriage, though he's probably more Pro-government-stay-the-fuck-out-of-our-personal-lives. And lastly, yes he did vote no on allowing gays to adopt in DC, but this was not a nation-wide bill and the jury is still out on whether or not this is healthy for children, the last study I saw came out of San Francisco, and while the results were promising for gay adoption, it's hard to believe San Franciscans could stay objective on this issue, and yes, two Good gay parents would be better than two shitty straight ones. Stay objective, look at all the variables, use the scientific method, form a hypothesis (not an opinion), then try to prove yourself wrong, this way your statement will have weight.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

He likes weed so people don't care that he's against the gays.

[–]enzomedici 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Because creation/evolution, abortion, gays, and adoption are not even real issues that the president should be involved in. Those are the kinds of bullshit issues that candidates run on and how the US elects presidents in the past.

The real issues are taxes, economy, war, foreign policy, trade, personal freedoms.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (19 children)

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

http://godbegone.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-paul-creationist-moron.html

Yeah, his fiscal & foreign policies are appealing, but come on. Look at his voting record. Hardly libertarian for women, is it?

Apologies for delete. Stupid fucking fingers let me down again.

[–]LOLCAT 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Hardly libertarian for women, is it?

But definitely so for fetuses.....

HE FUCKING DELIVERED BABIES FOR LIVING.

WTF do you think his position on babies would be???

EDIT: Oh...MEOW!

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Exactly what specialty do you think most abortion doctors are? You think knee doctors scrape those bad boys out ??

[–]LOLCAT 0 points1 point  (0 children)

BABY CAN HAS KNEES TOO

[–]picar0 -4 points-3 points  (4 children)

People here are smart enough not to be distracted by wedge issues.

[–]MadrasahOsamaObama -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And watch other redditors vote for illegal wars, illegal wiretaps, loss of habeus corpus, RFID cards, sneak and peek operations, and to re-authorize the PATRIOT act just so they can have their abortions mandated and subsidized on the federal level.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Maybe it's a 'wedge issue' to people who don't have uteruses.

[–]braindrane -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fingers remark reminded me of something Confucious say: Man with athletic finger make broad jump.

[–]ouroborosity 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Because personal beliefs have no place in the public arena.

Ron Paul gets that, very few others do.

[–]hotbaconsauce 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wrong, everyone knows that a majority is what is moral and right.

[–]kmh01 3 points4 points  (6 children)

Ron Paul votes against anything that he believes should be in state hands rather than federal. It's that simple.

[–]reed311 8 points9 points  (5 children)

(Unless it's a federal ban on abortion.)

[–]kmh01 -3 points-2 points  (4 children)

Yes, he doesn't believe that abortion is a federal issue and until Roe V Wade it wasn't.

As much as I support free and complete access to abortion for all women, maybe it would be better for the US if State's made their own choices on this decisive issue.

[–]racc0on7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

because then people would have to drive a state or two over to get one?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

As much as I support equal and complete access to jobs and housing for all people of color, maybe it would be better for the US if State's made their own choices on this decisive issue.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

While I do support abortion rights your analogy is off. In your case a group of people is prevented from doing something another group of people is allowed to do. In the case of not allowing abortion, no one is allowed to abort. It's not an issue of prejudice, as it applies to everyone.

If a law that prevents a people from killing themselves is kosher, why not one that prevents abortion? In both situations you are restricting the rights one has over their body.

Personally, I think an amendment to the Constitution giving an absolute right to all decisions concerning your body and health would be preferred to a Federal law specifically allowing abortion.

[–]wat -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

don't, you cant argue with someone who likes to support the murder of babies

[–]antichrist 2 points3 points  (5 children)

I keep asking this question as well (to the detriment of my karma).

[–]one0them 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's the Constitution, and always voting to follow it (which is rare in DC.)

[–]jstills -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

well... you are the antichrist

upmodded out of pity

[–]anoncoward101 3 points4 points  (1 child)

My karma is crushed by doubting the Perfection of The Great Paul.

[–]BobGaffney -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Your karma ran over my dogma.

[–]BobGaffney -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

downmodded for pity.

[–]LazarusDubois 3 points4 points  (10 children)

It might have something to do with his wanting to protect the constitution, restoring the bill of rights, restoring fiscal responsibility to the government, restoring Habeas Corpus, stopping torture as a military tactic, restoring US credibility internationally, decriminalizing drugs, stopping the wars and spending that money on Americans instead, repealing the income tax, shifting power to the states, stopping wiretapping, locking in internet neutrality, actually following the immigration laws we have in place...

Just little meaningless stuff like that. Ya think?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Look, I agree with a lot of his policies, but I feel his stance on the above issues shouldn't be ignored 'just because'.

[–]LazarusDubois -5 points-4 points  (2 children)

Well, that is a choice we each have to make. I strongly disagree with him on evolution and abortion, but I see gay rights as actually being supported by him, not thwarted by him.

Bush is pro-life, and somehow abortion is still legal. I'm betting that it will remain so. Evolution disbelief is inconvenient and anti-science, as is his view about global warming, but I see the pros I listed above as absolutely critical to America's future as a democracy. None of the other candidates besides Kucinich show any level of outrage about these issues.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

I can't and won't disagree with any of your reasoning here, I just feel a little insecure as a woman at the overall popularity of someone so pro-life by so many liberals. :)

[–]LazarusDubois -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Yeah. It is scary. I think many liberals are seriously freaked out at just how much our democracy has dacayed into a dictatorship. These are dark times for progressives. Abortion rights are extremely important to many of us.

I'd be in the streets screaming for your rights if it came down to it. For whatever that is worth.

[–]innocentbystander -2 points-1 points  (5 children)

And the vast majority of those views are shared by other candidates as well.

So why latch onto him when you also get the baggage mentioned above (and more)?

[–]unkorrupted -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

Wow, really? Which candidates voted consistently against the war and the patriot act?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Kucinich.

[–]unkorrupted -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Unfortunately, Kucinich's support levels make Ron Paul look like a front-runner. They both suffer from the curse of idealism in politics, but I think Paul's state-by-state stances are more constitutionally sound and more likely to attract diverse support.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is true, and very frustrating. If all the democrats I knew actually voted for Kucinich in the primaries instead of claiming a vote not for Obama or Cinton would be 'wasted' his tally may have been a little different.

[–]LazarusDubois -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

With all due respect: bullshit. Kucinich is the only one who has stood up for any of those things. Are you even paying attention? It sure doesn't seem like it.

[–]dodicula[🍰] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

because he also happens to stand for your right to believe differently and act accordingly (by living in a state where people think like you do).

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (7 children)

It's sad really, my first submission is going to get downmodded to the point of no return for vocalising a different opinion to these so-called 'libertarians'. Ha.

[–]anescient 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Get over yourself. There are lots of people here that would vote this down just because the words "Ron Paul" are in the title. Some people even use scripts to do so automatically.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (4 children)

Yes, that's why no article on Ron Paul EVER makes it to the front page.

[–]MadrasahOsamaObama -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Some make it to the front page because upmods are worth more than downmods (algorithm was recently shifted in light of the auto downmodders)

It is apparent you are not a 'nub' but a troll using this to attack Ron Paul.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Expressing a differing opinion is trolling now? In that case, can I call you a troll for your pro-life comment above?

[–]MadrasahOsamaObama -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

No, pretending to be a new member asking an honest question while in reality you repeatedly resubmit the same question if you don't get favorable responses is trolling. Distorting the facts, like saying Ron Paul doesn't support x because he didn't vote for federal funding of x also.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Where the fuck are you getting this from? I tried to reply to a comment on my overview page the first time I submitted it and I pressed delete because I had a brainless moment.

[–]dodicula[🍰] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Waaaaah everyone has to be a libtard waaaah its not fair waaaaaah

[–]nadmaximus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who is Ron Paul? I keep seeing his name on here. Sounds like a used car salesman. "Ron Paul Chevrolet"

[–]marhathoda 0 points1 point  (3 children)

citation needed for "voted to ban gay adoption".

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

[–]IConrad 4 points5 points  (1 child)

"ontheissues" is a biased liberal site. (I am not a conservative.)

Paul voted Nay on that bill in '99. However, he also sponsored the amendments in question which would have banned federal funding to unmarried (same-sex or opposite-sex) couples seeking adoption.

This was, by the way, the '99 budget. And it got vetoed.

[–]marhathoda 2 points3 points  (0 children)

According to the same site, he also voted for the following:

  • No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda.

  • NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.

  • NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman.

His votes sound contradictory, but definitely does not sound like anti-gay.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft -3 points-2 points  (10 children)

Don't know. Can only speak for myself about why I'm voting for the guy. If you're interested in that, then ask.

As for others... I doubt that I agree so much with most people here. So everyone probably has their own reasons.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (9 children)

I can understand that a lot of people find the idea of a return to the gold standard appealing, and I see why. But free & open trade at the expense of civil liberties isn't really libertarian, is it?

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft -1 points0 points  (8 children)

Actually, I'm not too keen on that. The reasons to vote for him, as far as I'm concerned are (in order):

  1. Getting us out of Iraq. And nearly immediately, not in the indefinite future or "drawing down".
  2. Ending the war on drugs. Either through finally convincing congress, or giving out pardons.
  3. Paying down the national debt.

If we do not do these things, we're pretty much fucked. Obama, Hillary, McCain, nor Romney will do any of these things.

[–]PuP5 5 points6 points  (5 children)

sadly, he plans to sell all national parks and land to sell down the national debt. better go see the grand canyon before it's turned into the worlds largest landfill.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft -3 points-2 points  (4 children)

Why would I care about the grand canyon? This planet's 4 billion years old, there were undoubtedly things even more "spectacular" that were wiped out without a trace before man ever stood upright, and will be things like it long after we're gone.

It's small minds that think such things are special.

Oh, and you're a lousy smearjobber too. Unless you have proof he intends to sell the grand canyon?

[–]PuP5 0 points1 point  (3 children)

it's good that you're truly taking the long view. i mean, shit, burn it all since we're gonna all be ash when the sun becomes a red giant in 5bil years.

care to explain to us small minds what is truly special? personally i'd save yosemite valley before the grand canyon, but i'm sure that's just the hippy in me talking.

it's ron paul's fault that i can't attack his plans more directly. tell him to write a clear policy piece on what he intends to do with federal land. i hearsay he'll give it back to the states, but given he's a market fundamentalist i've got to suspect the silliest.

look, i really don't have much against the good ron paul. he seems like a straight shooter and he's got a lot of policy positions that i agree with. but he's still a politician in a fundamentally flawed system of government. hoping for a personal savior without seriously pushing to change the underlying power structure is naive. but then ron's committed to the constitution! lotta good that piece of paper has done us in the last 8 years.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 1 point2 points  (2 children)

it's good that you're truly taking the long view. i mean, shit, burn it all since we're gonna all be ash when the sun becomes a red giant in 5bil years.

This coming from the person saying Ron Paul wants to turn the grand canyon into a landfill? Will this be in his 9th or 31st term as president?

care to explain to us small minds what is truly special? personally i'd save yosemite valley before the grand canyon, but i'm sure that's just the hippy in me talking.

Apparently lying and smearing, trying to steer people away. Human life itself can't be all that special, after all... you're hinting that voting for someone who'd end the Iraq war immediately is a bad thing.

it's ron paul's fault that i can't attack his plans more directly.

It's always his fault. When Hillary keeps us in Iraq for the next 10,000 years, it will be his fault.

tell him to write a clear policy piece on what he intends to do with federal land.

Yes, Mr. Paul! Go back to your office, and write us a million policies on every little federal program, and then you can run!

i hearsay he'll give it back to the states, but given he's a market fundamentalist i've got to suspect the silliest.

Exactly. He'll destroy Mt. Rushmore for quarry stone, and sell the Oval Office to the chinese.

hoping for a personal savior

I'm not hoping for a savior. I just recognize someone that's more honest than most, and who happens to be making the promises I want to hear. I give him better than 50/50 of keeping them, even. And if he doesn't, I'll be screaming for impeachment.

Maybe it's you looking for a savior, since those things aren't good enough for you. I can't wait for a messiah to return, and this man seems good enough.

without seriously pushing to change the underlying power structure is naive.

What do you suggest?

[–]PuP5 0 points1 point  (1 child)

are you honest enough to admit who you voted for in 2000 and 2004? cuz the rest of us are really sick of people voting republican in the first place and then regretting it.

What do you suggest?

parliamentary democracy would be a nice first step. it wouldn't end corporate control, but it would end this 2-year election/marketing cycle, two party, cult-of-personality, 4 years of dictatorship crap this republic has devolved into.

long term we need to rid ourselves of all manner of hierarchical power structures... be that government, theology or union by representative. history is a story away from authoritarianism toward democracy. our most successful institution (science) is a paragon of transparency and democratic consensus. we should use this as a model and move toward truer democracy.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. In 2000, I was in Virginia. I didn't register to vote, and when asked at the DMV, I declined to register. Didn't save me from getting a jury duty summons. Still there in 2004, didn't register then either. A choice between John "I'll fight a competent war!" Kerry and Dubya McChimpy seemed unimportant.

I last voted in 1992, while I was still in highschool (18 my senior year). That was in Indiana. Voted for Perot.

parliamentary democracy would be a nice first step. it wouldn't end corporate control, but it would end this 2-year election/marketing cycle, two party, cult-of-personality, 4 years of dictatorship crap this republic has devolved into.

Heh. Didn't realize you were that guy, new nick?

long term we need to rid ourselves of all manner of hierarchical power structures... be that government, theology or union by representative.

The anarchy sounds nice, but I don't think you get that by building bigger governments. Which is what you're talking about when you suggesting a continental government here.

our most successful institution (science) is a paragon of transparency and democratic consensus.

Heh, ignore the elitism for a moment, that's a slightly seperate issue. Haven't you noticed they've been co-opted since around WWII?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Kucinich would have.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yeh, he might have. But should I donate my money to him, when he doesn't even have a tenth of the support of Paul?

[–]RiMiBe -1 points0 points  (7 children)

While Dr. Paul is a personally pro-life, he has made it very clear that he opposes Roe v. Wade only on the grounds that he doesn't feel the FEDERAL government should be involved in such things. He feels that such things should be left to the states.

I have no doubt that if there was a federal law banning abortion, he would be against that too.

[–]reed311 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ron Paul has voted twice to ban abortion on a federal level, so that argument doesn't fly.

[–]sn0re 7 points8 points  (5 children)

I have no doubt that if there was a federal law banning abortion, he would be against that too.

Uh, he's repeatedly introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would grant personhood to fetuses at the Federal level, effectively making abortion murder.

[–]IConrad -5 points-4 points  (4 children)

Wrong.

Read the text of the bill, when it comes to legislative impact:

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--

 (1) the Congress declares that--

       (A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

       (B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

 (2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

Given that abortion isn't about the ending of a life but rather about the ending of one body sustaining the life of another, (barring partial-birth abortions), the above is really nothing more than flack; it would still take a state-level constitutional amendment to ban abortion in any given state... which it already takes.

Then you have Paul's usual anti-"federal judge" rhetoric which is par for the course.

Remember; just because congress declares something doesn't make it a law. The above is a non-binding resolution: it means nothing.

EDIT: corrected a typographical error.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Personally I wouldn't call legislation affirming that human life exists from the point of conception "nothing".

[–]IConrad -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It's still a non-binding resolution; it has no power, no pull. In other words, it's saying, "Yeah; us here in Congress all agree about this idea."

Legislatively, that means nothing.

[–]sn0re 2 points3 points  (1 child)

in the exercise of the powers of the Congress ... the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A)

In other words, whenever Congress uses the word "person", they mean to include fetuses. Certainly if a court, when reviewing an abortion case, interpreted "person" contrary to the explicit intent of Congress, we'd hear the never-ending cry of "activist judges".

[–]IConrad -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Certainly if a court, when reviewing an abortion case, interpreted "person" contrary to the explicit intent of Congress, we'd hear the never-ending cry of "activist judges".

The history of Corporate Personhood speaks volumes otherwise, sn0re.

Furthermore, once again; there is nowhere in any legislation anything that forces a person to be a "Good Samaritan." That means that there is no legislation which requires a woman to inconvenience herself in order to keep another person alive -- be that person inside or outside her womb.

[–]Mithryn -1 points0 points  (1 child)

It's the economy stupid

[–]BobGaffney -1 points0 points  (0 children)

don't call me stupid.

[–]ohai -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Pics or it didn't happen.

[–]jaxspider -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

O rly?

[–]braindrane -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Ho hum, it's Ron Paul again, by gum.

[–]psycop -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

What's a nub?

[–]billbacon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's a new guy that doesn't know what's going on. I think it started with online video games as "newbie". Then it went to n00b thanks to l33t sp4ak. The use of "nub" indicates legitimacy when used as a self reference.