Can someone tell me whats wrong with Ron Paul?

[McJuicy]

Most people dont like him and people who do like him are made fun of. I dont see anything wrong with his views. (at least any more then any other politician)

so whats the deal?

[Demented Ferret]

I'm not taking the bait, there's no way you're serious.

I hope.

[Shaun]

he hates blacks and jews

[Andres]

his economic views are very outdated and would result in severe problems to the american economy (and every economy dependent on it) if they were applied.

he's also very isolationist, in that if it were up to him the government wouldn't meddle in anything outside of america ever (which isn't really a good idea)

he's also very anti-government, especially the federal government, in that he's one of those guys that wants the government to not be able to override anything the state wants. very pro 'state rights'. "state's rights" is historically code for 'racism', as 'state rights' democrats' were the democrats that splintered from the current party b/c of civil rights.

he's also a racist. he published racist/antisemitic/paranoid newsletters for decades, and his excuse was 'someone wrote that, it wasnt me and i never noticed what it said' which is pretty much not credible. he's either a racist or he panders to racists for their votes, which is pretty bad too.

he's notorious in congress for voting no on everything, the fucking guy doesnt think america should do anything ever.

he's also dogmatic to the point of craziness. he just thinks the government shouldn't interfere, regardless of the cause. he voted against the government intervening in genocide in sudan by removing benefits to companies that trade in sudan, because 'fuck it, the government cant interfere in business'.

when you're as dogmatic as that, you are a bad politician because you are supposed to do things that work, not follow your idiotic utopian desire every step of the way.

basically, ron paul is the candidate for a fringe group of people who believe the government is out to get them, that no government is the solution to everything, and that america should be separated from everyone everywhere. they're the people that are scared of the united nations, that are scared of trade treaties with other countries, that are scared of "the feds", and that think the government did 911.

then there's also a bunch of people that just never bothered to research him and think he stands for "freedom" or some bullshit.


people make fun of him because his ideas aren't feasible at all. some of the other candidates have terrible ideas too, but they're terrible ideas that actually are carried on historically. ron paul would like, say, for america to dismantle every military base it has abroad and send everyone back here, which is just outlandish.

[Pozin]

Originally Posted by Andres

his economic views are very outdated and would result in severe problems to the american economy (and every economy dependent on it) if they were applied.

he's also very isolationist, in that if it were up to him the government wouldn't meddle in anything outside of america ever (which isn't really a good idea)

he's also very anti-government, especially the federal government, in that he's one of those guys that wants the government to not be able to override anything the state wants. very pro 'state rights'. "state's rights" is historically code for 'racism', as 'state rights' democrats' were the democrats that splintered from the current party b/c of civil rights.

he's also a racist. he published racist/antisemitic/paranoid newsletters for decades, and his excuse was 'someone wrote that, it wasnt me and i never noticed what it said' which is pretty much not credible. he's either a racist or he panders to racists for their votes, which is pretty bad too.

he's notorious in congress for voting no on everything, the fucking guy doesnt think america should do anything ever.

he's also dogmatic to the point of craziness. he just thinks the government shouldn't interfere, regardless of the cause. he voted against the government intervening in genocide in sudan by removing benefits to companies that trade in sudan, because 'fuck it, the government cant interfere in business'.

when you're as dogmatic as that, you are a bad politician because you are supposed to do things that work, not follow your idiotic utopian desire every step of the way.

basically, ron paul is the candidate for a fringe group of people who believe the government is out to get them, that no government is the solution to everything, and that america should be separated from everyone everywhere. they're the people that are scared of the united nations, that are scared of trade treaties with other countries, that are scared of "the feds", and that think the government did 911.

then there's also a bunch of people that just never bothered to research him and think he stands for "freedom" or some bullshit.


people make fun of him because his ideas aren't feasible at all. some of the other candidates have terrible ideas too, but they're terrible ideas that actually are carried on historically. ron paul would like, say, for america to dismantle every military base it has abroad and send everyone back here, which is just outlandish.

im not saying you're right or wrong, just a question, what exactly have we been doing that is "working"?

[Raz]

Originally Posted by Pozin

im not saying you're right or wrong, just a question, what exactly have we been doing that is "working"?

you have decent standard of living i assume.

[McJuicy]

I see, is that third party guy (Nader? I forget his name) still running this year?

[Andres]

yes.

[Fisticles]

if you believe the U.N. and all the world's governments are being influenced by aliens/satan in order to create a one-world government in order to, in the long run, turn us all into slaves/batteries, then a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for freedom!

[Klown]

He's also an internet superstar with conspiracy nutcases and middle class libertarian kids. His supporters are insane and like to create a lot of noise and trouble.

[Compcat]

w00t for communism!

[Andres]

i don't even know what to say to that.

[Compcat]

Originally Posted by Andres

i don't even know what to say to that.

Yeah, that actually was pretty stupid.

[McJuicy]

I have a buddy who is goin pretty nuts about this one world goverment stuff. He talks about how FEMA has concentration camps and stuff. How the patriot act is gonna take all our freedoms away. How north america is gonna unite into one. Its driving him nuts.

[Fisticles]

yeah, i just reinstalled deus ex, too.

[Klown]

H. Res. 1181: Expressing condolences and sympathy to the people of Burma for the grave loss of life and vast destruction caused by Cyclone Nargis.

Passed 410-1.

Ron Paul opposed a condolence bill to Burma because it also called on Burma’s military junta to postpone a referendum which would solidify their oppressive regime over the already-suffering country.

His spokeswoman, Rachel Mills: “It interferes with the internal affairs of another country. It’s just none of our business.” Note that the bill does not call for interference; it only contains an admonishment, not an invasion.

Take note: not only did Ron Paul refuse to express sadness for the plight of an Asian people burdened by the double disaster of natural calamity and tyrannical government, but he explicitly supports said military tyranny under the guise of a weak-handed isolationism.

[Phil Williamson]

ok as much as I dislike Ron Paul I don't much approve of that resolution. If you're expressing your condolences you shouldn't use it as an opportunity to throw in an "admonishment" of the government or any other kind of political message. It really does cheapen the message.

[Andres]

Originally Posted by Phil Williamson

ok as much as I dislike Ron Paul I don't much approve of that resolution. If you're expressing your condolences you shouldn't use it as an opportunity to throw in an "admonishment" of the government or any other kind of political message. It really does cheapen the message.

Yes you should, you nancy.

[McJuicy]

NEW WORLD ORDER

[Allergic 2 Life]

Originally Posted by Kyle McJuicy

Most people dont like him and people who do like him are made fun of. I dont see anything wrong with his views. (at least any more then any other politician)

so whats the deal?

don't worry kyle, i didn't know this as well.

[Bowman]

So what? Why should our government be screwing around in Burma? The Burmese didn't elect our representatives, so our representatives should have no say over the governance of the Burmese. Burma doesn't even constitute a direct threat to US interests. I see no need to meddle in their government with a measure like this. It's one thing to condemn a foreign government's actions. It's another thing to start telling that government what to do.

The Junta's actions are disgusting. But our government simply should not act like its their responsibility to overthrow it.

[Zaquis]

Originally Posted by Bowman

So what? Why should our government be screwing around in Burma? The Burmese didn't elect our representatives, so our representatives should have no say over the governance of the Burmese. Burma doesn't even constitute a direct threat to US interests. I see no need to meddle in their government with a measure like this. It's one thing to condemn a foreign government's actions. It's another thing to start telling that government what to do.

The Junta's actions are disgusting. But our government simply should not act like its their responsibility to overthrow it.

so basically what you're saying is "it isn't hurting US so why should we care" right?

[Andres]

I don't think you understand the words international politics.



It would be in extremely bad taste to just say "condolences" and ignore the realities of the country.

[McJuicy]

[Bowman]

We as people should care. We as in "our government" should not try to tell them what to do.