• 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."

So, i just decided to give my support to Ron Paul...

PaperclipGod

Banned
Apr 7, 2003
2,021
0
0
Was almost tempted to go Obama in 2008, but after reading some of this Ron Paul "spam", i have to say a lot of it makes sense.

Smaller federal government and increasing states rights/autonomy? Hell yes.
We don't need a massive government telling us what to do, or to protect us from ourselves. This country was founded on the basis of individual liberty. Whether or not that results in a country capable of global hegemony and ensuring a high standard of living should be beside the point. This country began as a rebellion from federal regulation - and so it should have remained. Instead, every year since 1787 we do nothing but pass more laws on the local, state, and federal level. Is that level of regulation truly necessary? In 2007, in the first session of the 110th congress, nearly 7,000 new bills were proposed and more than 1,000 actually passed. Now remember, those are just bills - each bill can be comprised of dozens of new laws and regulations. But that's just the start... there are also agencies like the EPA and FCC which have de-facto federal law-making power with their ability to implement a wide range of fines and sanctions independent of the rest of the federal government. And I'm not even going to try to enumerate all the new state and local laws that get passed every year... you get the point.

Call me a looney, but i think the USA would do quite well without this huge cadre of full-time politicians doing nothing but advocating "change" and trying to one-up themselves with new, catchy sounding laws.


We have troops in 130 countries... why?
How does having US troops spread across the world keep us - as individuals - safe? After all, isn't safety the only justifiable reason we have for our military hegemony? Yet wouldn't it stand to reason that having a military just a quarter its current size - but based in the US - could defend US citizens better than our current military, with resources spread across the globe? Wouldn't it stand to reason that disentangling ourselves from the foreign policy of these nations would reduce the anger that their citizens feel towards us for intervening in their affairs? Isn't it more efficient to make us safe by being non-confrontational, versus being confrontational with a big military? Why, then, does our government strive for this hegemony? If not for safety, then what?

For wealth.

And that, if not unconstitutional, is unethical. We build military bases in the middle of resource-rich dictatorships in the name of what? Liberty? Obviously not - we do it for cheap commodity prices. We don't care about spreading democracy, we care about keeping our citizens standard of living among the highest in the world. While that's certainly great for our citizens, don't delude yourself into thinking it's helping the rest of the world. Everyone in the world can't be rich - and it's the rest of the world that currently suffers for our wealth. If we had achieved that level of economic supremacy purely through capitalistic endeavors, that would be one thing... we would be a model truly worth emulating. But to achieve world hegemony through bribery, coercion, and military might is not an ideal worth spreading, is it? Imagine if the tables were turned.



Now, i admit that some of Ron Paul's views are 'out there'...
...but even if he were elected president, it's not as if he has the power to single-handedly revert us to the gold standard and eliminate the IRS. He doesn't become some sort of libertarian dictator. He would still have to negotiate with congress. The idea isn't to transform society overnight, but to begin the process of a return to this countries constitutional roots. It was never written in the constitution that we should strive to become an economic, political, and military juggernaut to force what's best for us on the rest of the world. It was written that individual liberties should be respected above all... and that this country shouldn't be allowed to sacrifice those liberties in the name of security (the patriot act) or wealth (NAFTA, WTO, national debt).

We created something unique in 1787, but slowly that uniqueness has been eroded away. Each year more laws are passed, more layers of bureaucracy are added, and the citizen becomes further and further disconnected from the original liberties the founders valued so highly. Am i the only one who finds it amusing that every candidate clamors for the "change" banner, yet in reality their policy differences are nearly intangible? I mean really, how has an argument about whether or not we should pull troops out of one country become the most divisive issue of the election when we've still got troops in 130 other countries?

 

narcotic

Golden Member
Jul 15, 2004
1,236
0
0
Give me a break... It's like every couple of hours a new RP bot spawns?
I strongly suggest consolidating RP new bots threads, just seems unnecessary to have 100 threads for the same topic...
 

badkarma1399

Senior member
Feb 21, 2007
689
2
0
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Sir, step in line, the sheople are going that way------> :p
Because supporting a candidate who has about 10% of Republican support, little news coverage, and who follows the constitution more than any other candidate is being a sheep.

right.
 

PaperclipGod

Banned
Apr 7, 2003
2,021
0
0
Originally posted by: narcotic
Give me a break... It's like every couple of hours a new RP bot spawns?
I strongly suggest consolidating RP new bots threads, just seems unnecessary to have 100 threads for the same topic...
I have more posts than you do on AT and im a bot?
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
Rock on PaperClip! I'm hoping more Obama supporters come to our side as it seems his poll numbers are falling. If enough people vote for Dr. Paul he can win, doesn't matter about polls whatever etc.
 

Delita

Senior member
Jan 12, 2006
931
0
76
Originally posted by: PaperclipGod

Now, i admit that some of Ron Paul's views are 'out there'...
...but even if he were elected president, it's not as if he has the power to single-handedly revert us to the gold standard and eliminate the IRS. He doesn't become some sort of libertarian dictator. He would still have to negotiate with congress. The idea isn't to transform society overnight, but to begin the process of a return to this countries constitutional roots. It was never written in the constitution that we should strive to become an economic, political, and military juggernaut to force what's best for us on the rest of the world. It was written that individual liberties should be respected above all... and that this country shouldn't be allowed to sacrifice those liberties in the name of security (the patriot act) or wealth (NAFTA, WTO, national debt).

We created something unique in 1787, but slowly that uniqueness has been eroded away. Each year more laws are passed, more layers of bureaucracy are added, and the citizen becomes further and further disconnected from the original liberties the founders valued so highly. Am i the only one who finds it amusing that every candidate clamors for the "change" banner, yet in reality their policy differences are nearly intangible? I mean really, how has an argument about whether or not we should pull troops out of one country become the most divisive issue of the election when we've still got troops in 130 other countries?
:confused: Huh?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
That's nice but he never had a chance and unfortunately it's becoming harder to deny that fact.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,102
3,643
126
If Paul takes his campaign to the primary, it would be very tempting to vote against the pro government candidates of the Democrat and Republican parties.

If that causes the Republicans to lose the election, then we would have achieved a successful result because then there could be no denying the impact a mere 10% makes. It would resound what happens when Republicans betray their base and join the socialists in supporting more government expansion.

If the Republican Party does not stand for liberty against our government, then the Republican Party needs not stand AT ALL.

Of course if you fail to show up in the general election, then all your campaign was for naught. Are we to be reduced to whispers in the dark, like its some mad calling that government should not infinitely grow in size and power? Have we truly irreversibly lost this once great nation?
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
If Paul takes his campaign to the primary, it would be very tempting to vote against the pro government candidates of the Democrat and Republican parties.

If that causes the Republicans to lose the election, then we would have achieved a successful result because then there could be no denying the impact a mere 10% makes. It would resound what happens when Republicans betray their base and join the socialists in supporting more government expansion.

If the Republican Party does not stand for liberty against our government, then the Republican Party needs not stand AT ALL.
:thumbsup:
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,211
186
106
At the republican caucai ;) im supporting paul.

Tired of liberal neocon repugs
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
That's nice but he never had a chance and unfortunately it's becoming harder to deny that fact.
I'd rather "throw my vote away" on somebody who can't win than give my vote to a corrupt bastard and make it look like that bastard has greater support than he really does. I don't care if Paul had 1%, I'd still vote for him. Nobody owns my vote but me. Fuck the politicians who think I owe them loyalty.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Skoorb
That's nice but he never had a chance and unfortunately it's becoming harder to deny that fact.
I'd rather "throw my vote away" on somebody who can't win than give my vote to a corrupt bastard and make it look like that bastard has greater support than he really does. I don't care if Paul had 1%, I'd still vote for him. Nobody owns my vote but me. Fuck the politicians who think I owe them loyalty.
The well-educated and intelligent American voters will see Paul for the loon he is and rightfully give their support to Hillary and McCain.
 

brxndxn

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2001
8,475
0
76
Originally posted by: narcotic
Give me a break... It's like every couple of hours a new RP bot spawns?
I strongly suggest consolidating RP new bots threads, just seems unnecessary to have 100 threads for the same topic...
I think it's about time the multitude of supporters reject the term 'paulbots'. It's insulting.. I, for one, am tired of it..

Paul's supporters are individual people.. fervent individual people. Every post I have ever made about Ron Paul has been my exact thoughts at the time.. never copied..

 

schdaddy

Golden Member
Oct 1, 2000
1,015
0
0
:beer::thumbsup:

Start spreading the message offline and lets unite to repair our hurting nation.

family, friends, neighbors <-- they need to know about this movement
 

Duddy

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2002
4,673
2
81
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Skoorb
That's nice but he never had a chance and unfortunately it's becoming harder to deny that fact.
I'd rather "throw my vote away" on somebody who can't win than give my vote to a corrupt bastard and make it look like that bastard has greater support than he really does. I don't care if Paul had 1%, I'd still vote for him. Nobody owns my vote but me. Fuck the politicians who think I owe them loyalty.
The well-educated and intelligent American voters will see Paul for the loon he is and rightfully give their support to Hillary and McCain.
Yeah, great two choices.

Hmm, do I vote for someone who cries under pressure or someone who will threaten to start World War 3?
 

PaperclipGod

Banned
Apr 7, 2003
2,021
0
0
Interesting that no one has refuted the reasons i listed for supporting Paul. I figured this would spark more of a discussion than "lol paulbot" vs "no u". :/
 

TheNewbie

Senior member
Jul 17, 2007
747
0
0
Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
Interesting that no one has refuted the reasons i listed for supporting Paul. I figured this would spark more of a discussion than "lol paulbot" vs "no u". :/
Mr. Paul is selling you nothing but illusions. His ideas while may be appealing to some americans -such as yourself, are at best shallow, unrealistic and in some cases ones of a delusional political-ignorant.
You want more elaborated explanations cruise through any of the other 1000 RP threads here.

RP is a bad joke, nothing more, you want to be a part of that joke then go a head and vote for him, its not going to have any effect anyway.
 

PaperclipGod

Banned
Apr 7, 2003
2,021
0
0
Originally posted by: TheNewbie
Mr. Paul is selling you nothing but illusions. His ideas while may be appealing to some americans -such as yourself, are at best shallow, unrealistic and in some cases ones of a delusional political-ignorant.
You want more elaborated explanations cruise through any of the other 1000 RP threads here.

RP is a bad joke, nothing more, you want to be a part of that joke then go a head and vote for him, its not going to have any effect anyway.
So... what's wrong with the reasons i listed? This is a discussion forum, not google. I don't want to search through the entire forum - which consists mostly of people going "lol paul sux" - to find the few reasoned responses.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: TheNewbie
Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
Interesting that no one has refuted the reasons i listed for supporting Paul. I figured this would spark more of a discussion than "lol paulbot" vs "no u". :/
Mr. Paul is selling you nothing but illusions. His ideas while may be appealing to some americans -such as yourself, are at best shallow, unrealistic and in some cases ones of a delusional political-ignorant.
You want more elaborated explanations cruise through any of the other 1000 RP threads here.

RP is a bad joke, nothing more, you want to be a part of that joke then go a head and vote for him, its not going to have any effect anyway.
Well lets see. All other candidates want to INCREASE government size and oversight of citizens. Ron wants to do the exact opposite. Which way should we be going? More government or less? Thats really the question here. Most people (including yourself) who don't like Paul is because they have "endzone" mentality. They see his brash statements and say "oh what a loon!" but fail to realize there is an entire football field ahead before that endzone. His direction for this country is right. Does anyone think that he could actually return this country to a Constitutional Republic within his term? No. But he would set us on course for a better America.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: TheNewbie
Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
Interesting that no one has refuted the reasons i listed for supporting Paul. I figured this would spark more of a discussion than "lol paulbot" vs "no u". :/
Mr. Paul is selling you nothing but illusions. His ideas while may be appealing to some americans -such as yourself, are at best shallow, unrealistic and in some cases ones of a delusional political-ignorant.
You want more elaborated explanations cruise through any of the other 1000 RP threads here.

RP is a bad joke, nothing more, you want to be a part of that joke then go a head and vote for him, its not going to have any effect anyway.
Well lets see. All other candidates want to INCREASE government size and oversight of citizens. Ron wants to do the exact opposite. Which way should we be going? More government or less? Thats really the question here. Most people (including yourself) who don't like Paul is because they have "endzone" mentality. They see his brash statements and say "oh what a loon!" but fail to realize there is an entire football field ahead before that endzone. His direction for this country is right. Does anyone think that he could actually return this country to a Constitutional Republic within his term? No. But he would set us on course for a better America.
Just because RP2 knows which way the ball is supposed to be run doesn't mean his all play calling will work or is acceptable. Throwing bombs might work for Brady or Farve but not in politics and RP2 will be forced to punt on each and every one of his "radical" ideas/changes.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: TheNewbie
Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
Interesting that no one has refuted the reasons i listed for supporting Paul. I figured this would spark more of a discussion than "lol paulbot" vs "no u". :/
Mr. Paul is selling you nothing but illusions. His ideas while may be appealing to some americans -such as yourself, are at best shallow, unrealistic and in some cases ones of a delusional political-ignorant.
You want more elaborated explanations cruise through any of the other 1000 RP threads here.

RP is a bad joke, nothing more, you want to be a part of that joke then go a head and vote for him, its not going to have any effect anyway.
Well lets see. All other candidates want to INCREASE government size and oversight of citizens. Ron wants to do the exact opposite. Which way should we be going? More government or less? Thats really the question here. Most people (including yourself) who don't like Paul is because they have "endzone" mentality. They see his brash statements and say "oh what a loon!" but fail to realize there is an entire football field ahead before that endzone. His direction for this country is right. Does anyone think that he could actually return this country to a Constitutional Republic within his term? No. But he would set us on course for a better America.
Just because RP2 knows which way the ball is supposed to be run doesn't mean his all play calling will work or is acceptable. Throwing bombs might work for Brady or Farve but not in politics and RP2 will be forced to punt on each and every one of his "radical" ideas/changes.
^^endzone mentality that I was talking about.

Which direction do we go?
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: brxndxn
Originally posted by: narcotic
Give me a break... It's like every couple of hours a new RP bot spawns?
I strongly suggest consolidating RP new bots threads, just seems unnecessary to have 100 threads for the same topic...
I think it's about time the multitude of supporters reject the term 'paulbots'. It's insulting.. I, for one, am tired of it..

Paul's supporters are individual people.. fervent individual people. Every post I have ever made about Ron Paul has been my exact thoughts at the time.. never copied..
It's tough to argue individuality when I see the same B.S. copy & pasted all over the internet. You can't spam election and throwing in the word 'freedom' in every other sentence doesn't make your argument any more cogent.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY