• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Can someone school me on why Ron Paul would be bad for the country?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
15,880
3,466
136
I think a lot of people don't realize that Ron Paul can't even just go in and do all this stuff he talks about, we still have a system of checks and balances.
We realize it, his supporters don't seem to. They actually think his ideas would be implemented. My self, I don't want to take the chance that some might be.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,206
19,030
136
See I don't think racism is a "state by state" issue. All humans should be treated equally regardless of color/race...there should be no debate at all. I think we're passed the day and age where anyone with a brain would actually vote for that (so most republicans would vote for it?). It's not in our culture anymore.

Though I think leaving a lot of the issues up to the states is great. If one state makes Abortion illegal and you happen to live in that state, you have 49 other states you can go have an abortion. If the federal government controls it and they make it illegal, well then you don't have any options at all.

I think a lot of people don't realize that Ron Paul can't even just go in and do all this stuff he talks about, we still have a system of checks and balances.
Yeah, but why would we elect someone who wants to implement horrible policies just because other people might be able to stop him from implementing his horrible policies? Why don't we just elect someone who understands monetary policy, economics, and the Constitution to begin with as opposed to hoping against hope that Congress can teach him?
 

allenk09

Senior member
Jan 22, 2012
366
0
0
You are continuing to try and conflate very different things. Obama participating in a church is not the same thing as Obama participating in the generation or dissemination of racist sermons. If you have any evidence he did so, you should produce it quickly. (it will mean the end of Obama's re-election efforts) Rev. Wright most certainly profited in some way from his words, but we aren't talking about Rev. Wright, we're talking about Obama. Ron Paul directly profited from the sale of racist newsletters. This is an inescapable fact. Obama profited in no way that I am aware of from Rev. Wright's speeches.

I'm not sure why this is such an emotional issue for you, but you are having a lot of trouble seeing things clearly. Obama's experience and Ron Paul's are nothing alike. To act like they are the same thing is just a denial of reality.
He's claimed that he's never seen any of the money from those newsletters.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,467
422
126
His stance on the 14th amendment.
This is a very important reason actually why I wouldn't vote for him, even though I think he is closer to being right on foreign policy issues concerning the middle east than any other candidate for election this coming November.

Too bad. We need another candidate with more support who agrees with Ron Paul when it comes to the Middle East.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
The racism charge against Dr. Paul is ridiculous. Nothing we know that he did or we know that he thinks proves that he's racist. I'll admit that Obama shouldn't be criticized for the actions of his pastor's racist statements.

If someone criticizes Dr. Paul then it shouldn't be personal because he really is looking out for the general welfare of the people and I'm sure all of these BS accusations of Dr. Paul being racist make him quite depressed. Looking out for the well being of the people has obviously always been his primary concern and to argue otherwise would be stupid. He's not in this for power or for any personal gain whatsoever and that's really the ultimate reason he should be voted for. The same cannot be said for George W Bush and Mitt Romney. They are men who like to control or who think that centralization of power should be there to serve a limited few. As for Obama, I think he just got suckered into all of it. I hope I don't.
 
Last edited:

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
yes it is. it's the same as sitting in the get away car as someone robs a liquor store. sure you're just sitting in the car you have nothing to do with it, but you sure asnshitnaremok with what is happening. you are the one twisting it to fit and agenda not me. I view them both asnequally insignificant and simply used to blind people to real issues. for instance I feel all the gay marriage stuff right now is being used kind of like a smoke screen.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
eskimospy, why do you want so much control over people? authoritarianism has no place here.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
This is a very important reason actually why I wouldn't vote for him, even though I think he is closer to being right on foreign policy issues concerning the middle east than any other candidate for election this coming November.

Too bad. We need another candidate with more support who agrees with Ron Paul when it comes to the Middle East.
Why do you like the 14th Amendment? Do you know the history behind it? Just asking:)
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,206
19,030
136
Did you watch your whole video? He is all over the place. At first he claims he was a bad businessman, then he claims he doesn't know if he made money off them or not, then he says he made money off the newsletters as a whole, but that the racist ones were a small part of it.

That right there is trademark behavior of someone who is lying.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
eskimospy, if lying is bad and makes you disquakify a candidate then you must be in the same boat as me. not voting for anyone. EVERYONE LIES
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,206
19,030
136
I have never seen you side on the side of liberty. all you ever talk about is how we need the government to make laws or regulate us. it's pathetic, you sound like a fundie religo-nut to me.
Well I'm sorry to hear that, but you're quite wrong. Maybe you should spend less time creating false equivalences between Ron Paul and Obama and coming up with new hyphenated words to describe me and spend more time reading other things I have written.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,206
19,030
136
eskimospy, if lying is bad and makes you disquakify a candidate then you must be in the same boat as me. not voting for anyone. EVERYONE LIES
Where did I say that lying disqualified a candidate? What's up with this endless stream of crap from you?
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Well I'm sorry to hear that, but you're quite wrong. Maybe you should spend less time creating false equivalences between Ron Paul and Obama and coming up with new hyphenated words to describe me and spend more time reading other things I have written.
I'm not drawing the equivalency, you are. You're just to much of a bias idiot to see it.. I also read a lot of what you write on these forums. In fact you're one of my favorite posters, why would I spend so much time responding to you here if you weren't? I just think you are to emotional and way to blinded by ideology, though an intelligent person for the most part.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
14,972
2,271
126
^

1. "biased" not "bias".

2. "too" not "to".

3. Personal attack rather than rebuttal.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,506
3,009
126
That or democratically elected officials. Once again, I roll my eyes in your general direction.
Tyranny of the majority, of one majority. Democracy does not work for 315 million people to be dictated to by a small group of representatives. Worse than that our two parties have stacked the ballot box and ensured permanent leadership by even fewer corrupt individuals.

Now is not the time to centralize and ensure their dominion.

Our people disapprove of the President, of Congress, and the Judiciary. We do not have enough diversity in our solutions for this country and partisan gridlock is the way of life. You can abolish the current gridlock, corruption, parties, and leaders by simply allowing states their god given rights to govern their people.

Congress does not have a low approval rating for nothing. 315 million split 50 ways is a hell of lot more representative and democratic than our current one size fits all policy. No one who claims to want freedom and liberty can stand against the notion of giving the people exactly what they want.

You've got a simple choice to make. You can place all your eggs in one basket and watch them all get smashed, or you can diversify your assets. It's about time you stopped getting smashed and made the right choice.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,304
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
I think a lot of people don't realize that Ron Paul can't even just go in and do all this stuff he talks about, we still have a system of checks and balances.
Actually this is why I won't vote for him, no matter what he claims he will do he has absolutely no support from either side of the isle. He would be a lame duck from day one of his Presidency.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,073
6,061
136
Dank69, do you really believe you can combat collectivist thought with more collectivist thought? Liberty unites all people. Why are you so afraid? This is why I am not a big fan of atheists, the majority of them have substituted God for Government. Instead of viewing themselves as the masters of their own destiny. Pathetic.
I am not trying to fight collectivist thought. I am merely seeking the truth and trying to pass it on. I am also trying to fight bullshit, for whatever that is worth.
I'm not drawing the equivalency, you are. You're just to much of a bias idiot to see it.. I also read a lot of what you write on these forums. In fact you're one of my favorite posters, why would I spend so much time responding to you here if you weren't? I just think you are to emotional and way to blinded by ideology, though an intelligent person for the most part.
Do you think you are not biased by your cynicism?
 
Last edited:

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,073
6,061
136
...
I think a lot of people don't realize that Ron Paul can't even just go in and do all this stuff he talks about, we still have a system of checks and balances.
Seriously, you have answered your own question. People understand that he is a whack job and as such, will not vote for him regardless of whether or not he can implement his whack job ideas.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,467
422
126
Why do you like the 14th Amendment? Do you know the history behind it? Just asking:)
I am aware of the citizens united case that was based on a perverted interpretation of the 14th Amendment. I am also aware that the amendment should have had more exacting language but its (as I see it) intended purpose is laudable.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Reasons why Ron Paul is bad for the US:
1. He is racist. He released years of racist newsletters, defended the content of the racist newsletters when they first came out, his former employees say that he was involved with the racist newsletters, he made tons of money off of the racist newsletters, and the racist newsletters mention esoteric OBGYN magazines and make bizarre new world order claims that are completely in line with Paul's OBGYN profession and his crazy conspiracy theories.

2. He does not believe in the Constitution. He wants to take out some of the most important portions of it.

3. He actually wants to take away civil liberties that people enjoy today. He thinks that state governments can do almost anything against an individual. He does not believe that the Bill of Rights applies to the states, basically he does not believe in the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment that applies most of the Bill of Rights to the states. Thus, he doesn't think that you have a First Amendment right against the state that you live in.

4. He believes in fairy tale economics. It's a school of 'economics' that takes all of the science and math out of economics and thus makes it a fairy tale. Moreover, this school of 'economics' is such a joke that it's centered around third rate universities.


I don't believe that we've seen a politician this dangerous to the US since George Wallace.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,506
3,009
126
Actually this is why I won't vote for him, no matter what he claims he will do he has absolutely no support from either side of the isle. He would be a lame duck from day one of his Presidency.
In a lame duck federal government, state's rights reign supreme by picking up the slack and solving problems themselves.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY