Ron Paul

[Vic]

I like RP for his integrity, ethics, and vision. He is IMO the most honest man in Congress, by far. What I don't like about him are his various bizarre conspiracy theories, and his extremely paleoconservative view of libertarianism.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Xavier434
A civil war would be the absolute extreme which I just tossed in there. There is a lot of crappy stuff which happens between all of that.

Anyways, there is no point arguing this further. You want to know the bottom line? Most of America does not want what you want. They do not want that degree of isolation and lack of unity between states and that's that. The states currently rely on each other quite a bit for many things peacefully and the last thing they want is lack of unity when it comes to such a thing. They like working together as a team under one united nation. I am sorry if you don't. If that's what you want, then go after it some place but you will be spending the rest of your days fighting for it here with nothing to show for it.

I have no idea why you think returning more power back to the states would lead to isolationism and a lack of unity within the states. That they would for some reason start bickering and hating each other. That they would somehow stop being "friendly" to each other. I think its preposterous.

It is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be, but for the sake of an unending argument I'll just say that I hope you are right and I am glad that I will never have to find out. Don't take it personally. I just don't want what you want and my vote will reflect that.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I still do not understand why you believe this country wouldn't just go back to where we are now if we tore the power away from the Fed as much as you want to do it. Of course, that is assuming it survives long enough to do so. How you have so much faith in the responsibility people and what they will do with power given the mounds of historical evidence which suggests otherwise is just beyond me.

What's wrong with going back to where we were? Times and their morals change with or without government. Slavery would have disappeared anyway.

The US has devastated Iraq. The size and scope of our federal government allowed that to happen. Do you really think Backwater, TX is going to mount an effective war against another country?

If the federal government is good, then a world government is even better. Let's make the UN an actual law maker with the power to enforce laws. Islam is a growing religion. Do you really want Sharia law enforced just because the majority approves?

Government actually institutionalizes bad behavior as long as the majority approves, so why would you want an even bigger government? If you think Bush was bad, wait until we the feds even more power and the next Bush wannabe comes into power. You'll think Bush was a saint by comparison.

The amount of evil any organization can do is exactly the same as the amount of good it can do. Imagine your perfect world. Then imagine the government required to bring it to fruition. Then imagine the exact opposite of your perfect world. That's what you're risking would happen if you have a government as large as necessary to create your perfect world. Now given your distrust of human nature, which end do you see as more likely?

Libertarians are willing to live with a less than perfect world because we're not willing to take a chance on the opposite happening.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: dullard
I am a blend between a democrat and a libertarian. I truely believe the libertarian ideals are ultimately the best possible end goal. However, I also believe that jumping directly from where we are now to the libertarian ideal state is very dangerous. I believe the change needs to be slow, cautious, and controlled. I believe that the democrat's version of those controls are infinitely better than the republican's versions of those controls. Yes, we should go towards Paul's libertarian stances, but we should do it carefully.

Ron Paul on the other hand, wants to just basically jump blindly into Pandora's box. He hasn't considered the consequences of the transition. He hasn't considered the instability that his proposed changes will create. He hasn't considered the destruction of current wealth that his policies will force (ie rich people hate him) nor the massive exploitiation of the poor that his policies will encourage (ie the poor people hate him) nor the crazed anarchy elimination of the security that the middle class currently feels (ie the middle class hates him).

Each governmental program that we have was put there for multiple reasons. Yes, there are multiple reasons to eliminate each program as well. But, we as a society have decided that the pros outweigh the cons. Building roads is expensive (con) but our economy and our enjoyment of life requires roads (pro). Generally, we believe the benefits of the infrastructure outweigh the costs. We as a society may have erred in our judgements, but at least there are reasons for our current choices. Yet, Paul wants to systematially dismantle just about every governmental program. Each and every voter relys upon at least one program, a program that Paul will take away. Thus each and every voter has a strong reason to oppose at least one of Paul's stances. That isn't an easy sell. It may ultimately be best for society, but it is hard to convince us.

Paul has consistantly gotten in the 3% range in actual votes and scientific polls (if you count both dem and rep votes). This is true from each of his presidential bids (this wasn't his first). He does have some support. But, he'll need to seriously consider at least 47% more of us and come up with a way to ease the transition for that 47%.

This is a superb post, and I agree 100% with each point. I myself find that I'm a blend of a social democrat but a staunch libertarian on most other issues.

 

[cpmer]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: dullard
I am a blend between a democrat and a libertarian. I truely believe the libertarian ideals are ultimately the best possible end goal. However, I also believe that jumping directly from where we are now to the libertarian ideal state is very dangerous. I believe the change needs to be slow, cautious, and controlled. I believe that the democrat's version of those controls are infinitely better than the republican's versions of those controls. Yes, we should go towards Paul's libertarian stances, but we should do it carefully.

Ron Paul on the other hand, wants to just basically jump blindly into Pandora's box. He hasn't considered the consequences of the transition. He hasn't considered the instability that his proposed changes will create. He hasn't considered the destruction of current wealth that his policies will force (ie rich people hate him) nor the massive exploitiation of the poor that his policies will encourage (ie the poor people hate him) nor the crazed anarchy elimination of the security that the middle class currently feels (ie the middle class hates him).

Each governmental program that we have was put there for multiple reasons. Yes, there are multiple reasons to eliminate each program as well. But, we as a society have decided that the pros outweigh the cons. Building roads is expensive (con) but our economy and our enjoyment of life requires roads (pro). Generally, we believe the benefits of the infrastructure outweigh the costs. We as a society may have erred in our judgements, but at least there are reasons for our current choices. Yet, Paul wants to systematially dismantle just about every governmental program. Each and every voter relys upon at least one program, a program that Paul will take away. Thus each and every voter has a strong reason to oppose at least one of Paul's stances. That isn't an easy sell. It may ultimately be best for society, but it is hard to convince us.

Paul has consistantly gotten in the 3% range in actual votes and scientific polls (if you count both dem and rep votes). This is true from each of his presidential bids (this wasn't his first). He does have some support. But, he'll need to seriously consider at least 47% more of us and come up with a way to ease the transition for that 47%.

This is a superb post, and I agree 100% with each point. I myself find that I'm a blend of a social democrat but a staunch libertarian on most other issues.

These programs are abused to no end. Anyone that can take of advantage of them, has. Paul even admitted though that most of his ideas have no chance of getting passed if he was in office but he could get some of them passed. Some are better none and the ones people fear the most in here are the ones that have no chance. He's even said himself that it will take many ron paul's, many terms to get all these policies passed.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
1. Because he isn't enthralled by wedge issues and he doesn't try to hoodwink voters with them.

2. Because he's an absolute loon about other issues (Fed, abortion, religion, economics in general).

He gained no respect from people that could have helped, mainly because his followers are a bunch of raving lunatics.

Coming from you Ill take that as a compliment

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Ron Paul is a creationist who believes in the church as the most powerful unit of government... In other words he's a stupid/insane theocrat

WTF? :laugh: Where are getting this? Are you really this ignorant?

I fear he may well be.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
1. Because he isn't enthralled by wedge issues and he doesn't try to hoodwink voters with them.

2. Because he's an absolute loon about other issues (Fed, abortion, religion, economics in general).

He gained no respect from people that could have helped, mainly because his followers are a bunch of raving lunatics.

Coming from you Ill take that as a compliment

From one raving lunatic to another?

 

[Craig234]

Because he's a radical nutjob whose policies would incredibly harm the American people.

To exaggerate, the libertarians are a little like saying 'let's get rid of the police'. Some people for a moment think 'great!' when they think of freely smoking pot and getting revenge on that jerk who wronged them, but then they realize that they're awfully vulnerable too. Promises of 'freedom' turn into actual local criminal gangs dominating.

Promises of individual freedom by libertarians turn into corporate tyranny (robber barons).

 

[First]

Originally posted by: cpmer

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: dullard
I am a blend between a democrat and a libertarian. I truely believe the libertarian ideals are ultimately the best possible end goal. However, I also believe that jumping directly from where we are now to the libertarian ideal state is very dangerous. I believe the change needs to be slow, cautious, and controlled. I believe that the democrat's version of those controls are infinitely better than the republican's versions of those controls. Yes, we should go towards Paul's libertarian stances, but we should do it carefully.

Ron Paul on the other hand, wants to just basically jump blindly into Pandora's box. He hasn't considered the consequences of the transition. He hasn't considered the instability that his proposed changes will create. He hasn't considered the destruction of current wealth that his policies will force (ie rich people hate him) nor the massive exploitiation of the poor that his policies will encourage (ie the poor people hate him) nor the crazed anarchy elimination of the security that the middle class currently feels (ie the middle class hates him).

Each governmental program that we have was put there for multiple reasons. Yes, there are multiple reasons to eliminate each program as well. But, we as a society have decided that the pros outweigh the cons. Building roads is expensive (con) but our economy and our enjoyment of life requires roads (pro). Generally, we believe the benefits of the infrastructure outweigh the costs. We as a society may have erred in our judgements, but at least there are reasons for our current choices. Yet, Paul wants to systematially dismantle just about every governmental program. Each and every voter relys upon at least one program, a program that Paul will take away. Thus each and every voter has a strong reason to oppose at least one of Paul's stances. That isn't an easy sell. It may ultimately be best for society, but it is hard to convince us.

Paul has consistantly gotten in the 3% range in actual votes and scientific polls (if you count both dem and rep votes). This is true from each of his presidential bids (this wasn't his first). He does have some support. But, he'll need to seriously consider at least 47% more of us and come up with a way to ease the transition for that 47%.

This is a superb post, and I agree 100% with each point. I myself find that I'm a blend of a social democrat but a staunch libertarian on most other issues.

These programs are abused to no end. Anyone that can take of advantage of them, has. Paul even admitted though that most of his ideas have no chance of getting passed if he was in office but he could get some of them passed. Some are better none and the ones people fear the most in here are the ones that have no chance. He's even said himself that it will take many ron paul's, many terms to get all these policies passed.

And in the meantime Paul offers no viable, reasonable solutions for said transitions. He offers absolutely no sane economic planning, almost all of it loony stuff about going back on the gold standard (what economic data says we should?), abolishing the Fed (who deals with banks and key interest rates now?), and why we should abolish the federal income tax. On this last point especially, he offers no solutions for paying for essential military/intelligence agencies or primary education needs around the country, none of which could be funded without a federal income tax. His solution is to ban the Department of Education, and have education be....governed by states? Despite the fact that some states can barely provide for primary education with federal aid? Again, no practical solutions from Paul.

How about the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA? These agencies (only a partial list mind you) are absolutely critical to national security, costing hundreds of billions of dollars annually (as they should), and yet we're supposed to believe they can be sustained without a federal income tax because Paul thinks we can cut every high spending social program in this country? I mean, I'm all for cutting the fat from SS, Medicare, Welfare, and the like, but I'm not stupid enough to believe that we should completely abolish said programs; people right now and for a decade or two to come depend on SS, Medicare, Welfare, etc. If Paul had said something like "We will keep these social programs, but reduce the dollar amount given away per person in the short term and then start to significantly reduce it in the long term, when far fewer people will be dependent on these social programs", then I'd seriously consider voting for him again. But as is, the best I've heard from him is some vague one-liner about Welfare and how he wouldn't immediately pull the plug on it. How nice, he wouldn't put people on the streets immediately.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: cpmer

Wow you people are so close minded. Thinking that abolishing the fed and irs is something that could never happen. Here's a wake up call for you! There were plenty of times in american history where we didn't have the fed or an income tax. So I ask you why do you think that this is so "crazy" of an idea?

Because a superior alternative hasn't been proposed. Pretty simple.

 

[cpmer]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Because he's a radical nutjob whose policies would incredibly harm the American people.

To exaggerate, the libertarians are a little like saying 'let's get rid of the police'. Some people for a moment think 'great!' when they think of freely smoking pot and getting revenge on that jerk who wronged them, but then they realize that they're awfully vulnerable too. Promises of 'freedom' turn into actual local criminal gangs dominating.

Promises of individual freedom by libertarians turn into corporate tyranny (robber barons).

By far the worst post in this thread

Because he's a radical nutjob whose policies would incredibly harm the American people.[/b]

What did your great american hero bush do?

To exaggerate, the libertarians are a little like saying 'let's get rid of the police'. Some people for a moment think 'great!' when they think of freely smoking pot and getting revenge on that jerk who wronged them, but then they realize that they're awfully vulnerable too. Promises of 'freedom' turn into actual local criminal gangs dominating.[/b]

Exaggerating or just making up BS analogies?

We already have robber barons but nice try.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Because he's a radical nutjob whose policies would incredibly harm the American people.

To exaggerate, the libertarians are a little like saying 'let's get rid of the police'. Some people for a moment think 'great!' when they think of freely smoking pot and getting revenge on that jerk who wronged them, but then they realize that they're awfully vulnerable too. Promises of 'freedom' turn into actual local criminal gangs dominating.

You obviously have no idea what Libertarianism is, or you're an idiot. Or both.

Promises of individual freedom by libertarians turn into corporate tyranny (robber barons).

Ironically, it is actually your ideas of big government that have given us just that today. Big pharma, big oil, big military. They all love government intervention, they soak up taxpayer money like you suck in air. And regulations, too, which help keep the little guy from competing with them.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
Because he's a radical nutjob whose policies would incredibly harm the American people.

To exaggerate, the libertarians are a little like saying 'let's get rid of the police'. Some people for a moment think 'great!' when they think of freely smoking pot and getting revenge on that jerk who wronged them, but then they realize that they're awfully vulnerable too. Promises of 'freedom' turn into actual local criminal gangs dominating.

You obviously have no idea what Libertarianism is, or you're an idiot. Or both.

Or you are. But it appears unlikely you are going to be able to rationally discuss anything, so I won't bother.

Promises of individual freedom by libertarians turn into corporate tyranny (robber barons).

Ironically, it is actually your ideas of big government that have given us just that today. Big pharma, big oil, big military. They all love government intervention, they soak up taxpayer money like you suck in air. And regulations, too, which help keep the little guy from competing with them.[/quote]

Duh. And I say that rarely, because it's usually rude.

Does a corporate takeover of the medical system make medicine and doctors bad, just because the result can be bad care for people?

Does a corporate takeover of the food industry make food bad, just because it can result in problems with pesticides and unhealthful but profitable products being dominant?

Does the excessive influence of the military-industrial complex mean we should not have a military force?

Of course when government is taken over by the powerful interests, it serves them and does bad.

The solution is not to get rid of the idea of democratic, elected government designed to let the people have power instead of the narrow, powerful interests, which would then really give them free reign for tyranny - the solution is to *protect* the idea of democracy and try to get rid of the corruption when it happens, the reliance on big money and the societal propagandization by the monied interests' think tanks spreading propaganda and dominating the mediia.

That's the only way to get power back in the hands of the people. Not the status quo of the powerful fooling people into voting for corpotocracy, and not crippling democracy.

 

[Capitalizt]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Promises of 'freedom' turn into actual local criminal gangs dominating.

Promises of individual freedom by libertarians turn into corporate tyranny (robber barons).

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end...for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis.

 

[palehorse]

Ron Paul's problem is that while he has several decent points to make, they all end up getting lost in the rest of his whackjob isolationist bullshit.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Of course when government is taken over by the powerful interests, it serves them and does bad.

How many times does it have to be said? Big government will always be taken over by powerful interests. You're willful ignorance doesn't change that fact.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I still do not understand why you believe this country wouldn't just go back to where we are now if we tore the power away from the Fed as much as you want to do it. Of course, that is assuming it survives long enough to do so. How you have so much faith in the responsibility people and what they will do with power given the mounds of historical evidence which suggests otherwise is just beyond me.

What's wrong with going back to where we were? Times and their morals change with or without government. Slavery would have disappeared anyway.

The US has devastated Iraq. The size and scope of our federal government allowed that to happen. Do you really think Backwater, TX is going to mount an effective war against another country?

If the federal government is good, then a world government is even better. Let's make the UN an actual law maker with the power to enforce laws. Islam is a growing religion. Do you really want Sharia law enforced just because the majority approves?

Government actually institutionalizes bad behavior as long as the majority approves, so why would you want an even bigger government? If you think Bush was bad, wait until we the feds even more power and the next Bush wannabe comes into power. You'll think Bush was a saint by comparison.

The amount of evil any organization can do is exactly the same as the amount of good it can do. Imagine your perfect world. Then imagine the government required to bring it to fruition. Then imagine the exact opposite of your perfect world. That's what you're risking would happen if you have a government as large as necessary to create your perfect world. Now given your distrust of human nature, which end do you see as more likely?

Libertarians are willing to live with a less than perfect world because we're not willing to take a chance on the opposite happening.

Three things:

1. I believe history would generally repeat itself. The world and people have changed a lot. There are many problems which have disappeared and probably will not come back. There are also many problems which are simply dormant and some of them are thanks to the Fed whether you wish to believe that or not. There are also many problems which haven't gone anywhere and instead they just look and sound different even though they are still exactly the same. Lastly, there is the vast array of new problems which have replaced the old ones. What would happen if Libertarians that think like you were in power long enough....let me say that again..."long enough" is that they would cut out all sorts of stuff that you don't like only to eventually replace it with something else which is just as bad if not worse because people would start demanding it and you know there will be politicians out there who are willing to answer their call at least for their own self gain. The entire process of reducing the government to such a small size and bringing it back to the size it is at now would most likely take a long time, but I am confident that it would happen. It would just happen in a different way. Therefore, I believe it is a waste of time and possibly the largest waste of time I could ever get the chance to witness. This primarily falls back to my argument about how I believe people are just too greedy and irresponsible to handle that level of freedom. That is exactly what it was like back then, that problem has hardly changed at all (it has only "modernized" itself), and that is exactly why history would just repeat itself if we were to try it again. I know you and many other just want to think the government tricked everyone for decades and the people had nothing to do with it, but you really need to wake up. That is part of the pie but it is only a slice. You need to consider the whole pie if you plan to get anywhere. Tell Ron Paul to start repeating that to himself 3 times a night before going to bed.

2. To answer your question, I don't want a bigger government. I want a smaller government than what we have now, but I don't want it to be nearly as small as someone like yourself wants it to be. I don't want to start cutting things left and right and essentially redistribute power and money to the point of reinventing the wheel. I want to improve upon what we currently have and make it efficient enough to the point where we can do the same job using the same service without having it cost as much. At least, that is where I want to start. From there, we can start considering some larger "upgrades" so to speak.

3. Lastly, you need to relax and stop blowing things out of proportion. I realize you are not happy. I know you think the Fed has too much control and power, but do not forget that the state, county, and even city government still has control of a lot of things that greatly effect your life on a daily basis. There are many things that need to be improved upon in this country, but life really isn't as bad and uncontrollable as a lot of die hard Libertarians are making it seem. The distribution of power may not be as balanced as I would prefer, but it really isn't that awful either.


One last question I would like all of you who support Libertarians to answer for me. I know you all dislike the amount of power and control the Fed has. You complain about a whole lot. However, I rarely hear any of you express what it is that you would like the Fed to have power over and control. Could a few of you give your opinions on what that would entail?

 

[BoberFett]

Read the constitution. I'm not your fucking mother.

 

[extra]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Because he's a radical nutjob whose policies would incredibly harm the American people.

To exaggerate, the libertarians are a little like saying 'let's get rid of the police'. Some people for a moment think 'great!' when they think of freely smoking pot and getting revenge on that jerk who wronged them, but then they realize that they're awfully vulnerable too. Promises of 'freedom' turn into actual local criminal gangs dominating.

Promises of individual freedom by libertarians turn into corporate tyranny (robber barons).

Uhhhhh.... May wanna look up what most libertarians actually believe....

None of them are in it for getting rid of the police or getting revenge on that jerk who wronged them or running around with no laws or rules...I think you are thinking of anarchists...

Libertarians are about personal accountability and freedom.

What libertarians want isn't for us to go back to the days when there were robber baron railroad men (to use an example...)

Yes, libertarians want there to be less regulations around businesses, however, they also want the people who run the corporations to be accountable for what they do, unlike they are today. Many want to do away with (or limit) the limited liability system in place today...Today you just pay a fine and get on with it.

Also, they aren't against things like building roads. Only a very small minority would argue that the federal government building transportation infrastructure is unconstitutional.

Many would even be FOR socialized medicine because it clearly falls within the general welfare of the constitution.

And yes, they would be for drug legalization...most people that have studied the drug war, regardless of where they lie on the political spectrum, are for ending it. Communist, libertarian, and everything in between, many are for ending it.

Most don't, at this point, want to do away with the income tax. What they *would* want to do is cut the government, apply as much income tax as possible to reducing our debt, and once it is paid down *then* get rid of the income tax if possible.

Yes, a lot of federal funding would go: agencies like the atf, dea, a lot of farm subsidies would go, endowments to the arts would go, foreign government aid payments would go, etc...

But a lot of government functions that people seem to think they want to get rid of would stay: an example would be NOAA (clearly constitutional as it is essential to protecting general welfare of the population)

Does the excessive influence of the military-industrial complex mean we should not have a military force?

No, it just means that the military should be for strong national defense purposes and national security, and not for projecting our power around the globe or invading other countries that haven't attacked us.

The solution is not to get rid of the idea of democratic, elected government designed to let the people have power instead of the narrow, powerful interests, which would then really give them free reign for tyranny - the solution is to *protect* the idea of democracy and try to get rid of the corruption when it happens, the reliance on big money and the societal propagandization by the monied interests' think tanks spreading propaganda and dominating the media.

Okay, I thought you were trying to say that Libertarians were nutty or something, then I read this, which sounds like it's coming from a Libertarian... I'm so confused at this point...

I just laugh at people saying that Libertarians are nuts and then a story comes up like the one where the meat packer plant wants to test all its cows for mad cow disease, but can't because the government won't let them...

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
1. Because he isn't enthralled by wedge issues and he doesn't try to hoodwink voters with them.

2. Because he's an absolute loon about other issues (Fed, abortion, religion, economics in general).

He gained no respect from people that could have helped, mainly because his followers are a bunch of raving lunatics.

Coming from you Ill take that as a compliment

From one raving lunatic to another?

Oh, you know it :laugh:

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Because he's a radical nutjob whose policies would incredibly harm the American people.

To exaggerate, the libertarians are a little like saying 'let's get rid of the police'. Some people for a moment think 'great!' when they think of freely smoking pot and getting revenge on that jerk who wronged them, but then they realize that they're awfully vulnerable too. Promises of 'freedom' turn into actual local criminal gangs dominating.

Promises of individual freedom by libertarians turn into corporate tyranny (robber barons).

Wow, quite ironic that you, someone who holds this belief, believe in the complete opposite extreme, which is even worse.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Read the constitution. I'm not your fucking mother.

Sigh...you know what you hate. You know what you want. You just have no idea how to get what you want or how to maintain it. Not that I can blame you. I don't think anyone really knows for sure. It's either that or there are people who do know, but they do not care enough to make it happen.