29 replies to this topic

[gimmedeath]

Who likes him?

Who doesn't and why?

Yes, he's "right-wing", but he is a true conservative - Not one of the typical warhawk neoconservatives. He's been speaking truth and freedom for more than 30 years. He is a Republican Congressman from Texas.

He's been opposed to the PATRIOT ACT since Day 1.  

He's against the WAR IN IRAQ and all other oppressive moves towards killing innocent people.

He's against the WAR ON TERROR and knows that the U.S.A's foreign policy is what causes the oppressed people of the mid-east to fight back against this country in whatever way they can.

He's also against the WAR ON DRUGS.

He's one of the few in Congress who actually reads bills before they pass and votes NO on anything that would take away from your personal liberties or violates the Constitution.

I'm making this thread because I'm confused about where people in this community (and Anti-flag) stand when it comes to Ron Paul. Is he not talked about and/or supported simply because he's right wing? I myself have supported him ever since I discovered who he was back in 2002.

I'm 21 years old and have been listening to Anti-flag since I was 12. Their music opened my eyes to everything corrupt and I am forever grateful to them.  I appreciate anyone's opinion. Thanks.

[Montag]

He never met my criteria in support for public schools and services, I liked what I head Obama say better and where he came form.
I don't have anything against him he gets people thinking/talking which is something I like.

[Broken Magnifying Glasses]

gimmedeath, on 22 June 2009 - 09:09 PM, said:

Who likes him?

Who doesn't and why?

Yes, he's "right-wing", but he is a true conservative - Not one of the typical warhawk neoconservatives. He's been speaking truth and freedom for more than 30 years. He is a Republican Congressman from Texas.

He's been opposed to the PATRIOT ACT since Day 1.  

He's against the WAR IN IRAQ and all other oppressive moves towards killing innocent people.

He's against the WAR ON TERROR and knows that the U.S.A's foreign policy is what causes the oppressed people of the mid-east to fight back against this country in whatever way they can.

He's also against the WAR ON DRUGS.

He's one of the few in Congress who actually reads bills before they pass and votes NO on anything that would take away from your personal liberties or violates the Constitution.

I'm making this thread because I'm confused about where people in this community (and Anti-flag) stand when it comes to Ron Paul. Is he not talked about and/or supported simply because he's right wing? I myself have supported him ever since I discovered who he was back in 2002.

I'm 21 years old and have been listening to Anti-flag since I was 12. Their music opened my eyes to everything corrupt and I am forever grateful to them.  I appreciate anyone's opinion. Thanks.

He's not talked about because the election is over. Obama won and so we have a different tool in office than Paul.
I don't support him because he is just as fake as the rest of them, he just never had a chance to show it.

[Montag]

Broken Magnifying Glasses, on 22 June 2009 - 09:23 PM, said:

He's not talked about because the election is over. Obama won and so we have a different tool in office than Paul.
I don't support him because he is just as fake as the rest of them, he just never had a chance to show it.

Nixon didn't do anything anyone else didn't, he just got caught.

[James]

- Anti-abortion
- Libertarian

Need I say more?

[Punk Rock Geek]

You say you liked him since 2002, so that at least tells me that you are genuinely interested in him, and didn't get get caught up in the "Ron Paul Revolution."

I like his foreign policy, but not his domestic policy.  Mike Gravel wanted to appoint him as secretary of defense, so that would have been the best of both worlds.  Unfortunately, that won't ever come to fruition.  

[Blue Eyed Devil]

Montag, on 22 June 2009 - 09:45 PM, said:

Nixon didn't do anything anyone else didn't, he just got caught.

Nixon was a good president, regardless of Watergate.

[Fightin_da_Man]

gimmedeath, on 22 June 2009 - 09:09 PM, said:

Who likes him?

Who doesn't and why?

Yes, he's "right-wing", but he is a true conservative - Not one of the typical warhawk neoconservatives. He's been speaking truth and freedom for more than 30 years. He is a Republican Congressman from Texas.

He's been opposed to the PATRIOT ACT since Day 1.  

He's against the WAR IN IRAQ and all other oppressive moves towards killing innocent people.

He's against the WAR ON TERROR and knows that the U.S.A's foreign policy is what causes the oppressed people of the mid-east to fight back against this country in whatever way they can.

He's also against the WAR ON DRUGS.

He's one of the few in Congress who actually reads bills before they pass and votes NO on anything that would take away from your personal liberties or violates the Constitution.

I'm making this thread because I'm confused about where people in this community (and Anti-flag) stand when it comes to Ron Paul. Is he not talked about and/or supported simply because he's right wing? I myself have supported him ever since I discovered who he was back in 2002.

I'm 21 years old and have been listening to Anti-flag since I was 12. Their music opened my eyes to everything corrupt and I am forever grateful to them.  I appreciate anyone's opinion. Thanks.

Ron Paul isn't really that radical.  He favors a small federal government, but has no problem with highly intrusive state governments.  He's also a fundie creationist nut who supports the teaching of Creationism in public school science classes.

He's voted yes on banning adoptions by homosexuals, voted to ban federal funding for needle exchanges, opposed adding "sexual orientation" as a protected class for job discrimination, opposes the minimum wage, etc.

He's got this great image as being different from all the other politicians, but he isn't necessarily better.

[AWalKer]

Blue Eyed Devil, on 23 June 2009 - 08:38 AM, said:

Nixon was a good president, regardless of Watergate.

Not a crook.
But in all seriousness, I find Nixon's economic policies interesting, as it is more Keynesian than other republicans. Also, the fact that Milton Friedman hated him was a ringing endorsement in my eyes.

On the subject of Ron Paul, I find him to be an interesting guy. I am not sure if i would vote for him as president, but I do believe we need more senators as him. If he was only more active/liberal on domestic issues.

[Loki]

Punk Rock Geek, on 22 June 2009 - 10:10 PM, said:

You say you liked him since 2002, so that at least tells me that you are genuinely interested in him, and didn't get get caught up in the "Ron Paul Revolution."

I like his foreign policy, but not his domestic policy.  Mike Gravel wanted to appoint him as secretary of defense, so that would have been the best of both worlds.  Unfortunately, that won't ever come to fruition.  

This to the letter. I liked him when I first heard about him early in the election. I agreed with his foreign and fiscal policies, however he is against gay rights and abortion. If he had run as an independent.
I am a big supporter of states rights. It seems like it may help with many of the hot button issues to just let each state vote on them. Unfortunately this will lead to an even larger political divide between red and blue states.

[gimmedeath]

James, on 22 June 2009 - 10:10 PM, said:

- Anti-abortion
- Libertarian

Need I say more?

What do you have against Libertarians?

He personally doesn't agree with abortions, as he was an OBGYN and delivered a lot of babies - so he feels abortion is murder. But he sees it as a matter best left to the states and opposes the Federal Government being involved with the decision. Abortion is a sensitive issue, since it deals with the lives of the unborn and the rights of another. I don't know how it will ever be resolved.

But simply casting a great man to the side because of an issue like that is trivial in my opinion. It's the whole left vs right bullshit mentality. It only divides people. Most politicians on either side are completely corrupt, so when you find someone like Ron Paul I don't think it's wise to disregard him based on a single social issue. Especially when he would never want to impose his personal beliefs on you.

[gimmedeath]

Broken Magnifying Glasses, on 22 June 2009 - 09:23 PM, said:

He's not talked about because the election is over. Obama won and so we have a different tool in office than Paul.
I don't support him because he is just as fake as the rest of them, he just never had a chance to show it.

Some people actually like to support good Congressman even when they're not running for President.

When you find a politician who isn't corrupt in a Congress that sleeps with corporations, you kinda feel like telling people.

He's really not fake, do some research and you will see there's no dirt on him and he's been sticking to his principles for a long long time.

[Fightin_da_Man]

gimmedeath, on 23 June 2009 - 11:10 AM, said:

But simply casting a great man to the side because of an issue like that is trivial in my opinion. It's the whole left vs right bullshit mentality. It only divides people. Most politicians on either side are completely corrupt, so when you find someone like Ron Paul I don't think it's wise to disregard him based on a single social issue. Especially when he would never want to impose his personal beliefs on you.

So we should like him just because he's not corrupt?  I'm sure there are some fascists out there who aren't in bed with corporate America, should we start cheerleading for them too?

And yes, Paul does want to impose his personal beliefs on us.  He just wants it to be done by the states instead of the feds.  That really doesn't make me feel any better.

gimmedeath, on 23 June 2009 - 11:16 AM, said:

Some people actually like to support good Congressman even when they're not running for President.

When you find a politician who isn't corrupt in a Congress that sleeps with corporations, you kinda feel like telling people.

He's really not fake, do some research and you will see there's no dirt on him and he's been sticking to his principles for a long long time.

Sticking to his principles?  Lets take a look:

Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008) vs. Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
Protect all voluntary associations; don’t define marriage. (Oct 2007)  vs. No need for Marriage Amendment; DOMA is enough. (Sep 2007) (that is, support for DOMA)
Support of states rights vs. Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997) vs. School prayer is not a federal issue. (Apr 2008)
The “living Constitution” is the death of democracy. (Apr 2008) vs. Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
Transfer funds from debt & empire-building to healthcare. (Oct 2007) vs. Private medical savings accounts, not government meddling. (Apr 2008)
Washington shouldn’t dictate to us our personal behavior. (Sep 2007) vs. support of DOMA (above), banning gay adoption (above), school prayer amendment (above), definition of life at conception (above)

Not to mention, why should we be glad that he sticks to principles like "Property rights are the foundation of all rights. (Sep 2007)"?

Sorry, not swallowing your Paul Flavor-Aid.

Citations from http://www.ontheissu...TX/Ron_Paul.htm

[gimmedeath]

Punk Rock Geek, on 22 June 2009 - 10:10 PM, said:

You say you liked him since 2002, so that at least tells me that you are genuinely interested in him, and didn't get get caught up in the "Ron Paul Revolution."

I like his foreign policy, but not his domestic policy.  Mike Gravel wanted to appoint him as secretary of defense, so that would have been the best of both worlds.  Unfortunately, that won't ever come to fruition.  

Feel free to elaborate on what you don't like about his domestic policy.

Is he not worth supporting just because you don't agree with EVERYTHING he stands for? That's the point I'm trying to get at. I'm not asking you to support him for president, that's over for now anyway.

Just support him as a good human being.

[Fightin_da_Man]

I get the feeling that I'm being ignored...

[gimmedeath]

Fightin_da_Man, on 23 June 2009 - 11:31 AM, said:

So we should like him just because he's not corrupt?  I'm sure there are some fascists out there who aren't in bed with corporate America, should we start cheerleading for them too?

And yes, Paul does want to impose his personal beliefs on us.  He just wants it to be done by the states instead of the feds.  That really doesn't make me feel any better.




Sticking to his principles?  Lets take a look:

Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008) vs. Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
Protect all voluntary associations; don’t define marriage. (Oct 2007)  vs. No need for Marriage Amendment; DOMA is enough. (Sep 2007) (that is, support for DOMA)
Support of states rights vs. Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997) vs. School prayer is not a federal issue. (Apr 2008)
The “living Constitution” is the death of democracy. (Apr 2008) vs. Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
Transfer funds from debt & empire-building to healthcare. (Oct 2007) vs. Private medical savings accounts, not government meddling. (Apr 2008)
Washington shouldn’t dictate to us our personal behavior. (Sep 2007) vs. support of DOMA (above), banning gay adoption (above), school prayer amendment (above), definition of life at conception (above)

Not to mention, why should we be glad that he sticks to principles like "Property rights are the foundation of all rights. (Sep 2007)"?

Sorry, not swallowing your Paul Flavor-Aid.

Citations from http://www.ontheissu...TX/Ron_Paul.htm

Well he's not a fascist, so I don't see where you're going with that. And yes, if a politician isn't in bed with lobbyists and corporations that is a rare find my friend.

And he isn't trying to impose his beliefs on you through the states either. He is simply following the constitution. He's a strict constitutionalists so some of the things you see him do may seem odd, and he may be the only one doing them, since most other politicians don't care about the constitution anymore.

Such as all the things you just listed. Why don't you read into them more instead of just looking at the titles. A lot of the time the way Ron Paul confronts an issue is in response to how the Federal Government is dealing with it. So you can't just take his stance at face value like that.

And further more, who cares? Would you really call that a big deal anyway? That's the worst thing about Ron Paul?

You could make lists and lists about all the inconsistencies and corrupt doings of other politicians.

[Fightin_da_Man]

gimmedeath, on 23 June 2009 - 12:24 PM, said:

Well he's not a fascist, so I don't see where you're going with that. And yes, if a politician isn't in bed with lobbyists and corporations that is a rare find my friend.

You said, we should support him because he isn't in bed with corporate America.  You didn't make any mention of whether or not we agree with him on any particular policy matter, but rather that his corporate independence should be enough.  My point is that I'm sure you can find people running on fascist/nazi/etc party tickets that are not in bed with corporate America.  That doesn't mean that they are worthy of support.

Quote

And he isn't trying to impose his beliefs on you through the states either. He is simply following the constitution. He's a strict constitutionalists so some of the things you see him do may seem odd, and he may be the only one doing them, since most other politicians don't care about the constitution anymore.

Well he specifically isn't because he isn't in state government.  He believes that the states can and should legislate his beliefs.  He wants schools to teach creationism; he wants states to ban abortion.  How is that not imposing his beliefs?

Quote

Such as all the things you just listed. Why don't you read into them more instead of just looking at the titles. A lot of the time the way Ron Paul confronts an issue is in response to how the Federal Government is dealing with it. So you can't just take his stance at face value like that.

Why don't you actually explain why they aren't contradictory instead of asking me to do your work for you?

I see distinct contradictions between claiming to support voluntary associations and yet supporting a law which allows states to ignore those voluntary associations.  I find a contradiction between opposing big federal government and meddling in states affairs and supporting a law which bans homosexuals from adopting children in DC.  I find a contradiction between the position that abortion should be a states rights issue and the position that the federal government should define life as beginning at conception (which would make abortion murder by definition).

It seems to me that he only sticks to his so-called principles when it's convenient.  When he feels he has the opportunity to legislate his beliefs via the federal government (by DOMA, by denying rights to homosexuals, by attempting to create a side-stepped federal abortion ban) he seems to do so.

Quote

And further more, who cares? Would you really call that a big deal anyway? That's the worst thing about Ron Paul?

I present you with factual proof that he a) violates his supposed principles and B) supports authoritarian impositions of his socially conservative ideology and you don't care.  If you don't care that he doesn't fit your image of him, then this has nothing to do with actual issues and is just some personality cult.

Quote

You could make lists and lists about all the inconsistencies and corrupt doings of other politicians.

I'm sure you could.  I wasn't aware that we were talking about them, but for the record I don't support them either.  I'm an anarchist.

[James]

gimmedeath, on 23 June 2009 - 11:10 AM, said:

What do you have against Libertarians?

Srsly? Do I have to explain this?

Quote

He personally doesn't agree with abortions, as he was an OBGYN and delivered a lot of babies - so he feels abortion is murder. But he sees it as a matter best left to the states and opposes the Federal Government being involved with the decision. Abortion is a sensitive issue, since it deals with the lives of the unborn and the rights of another. I don't know how it will ever be resolved.

Green - Abortion never legal, or legal only when necessary to save the life of the mother or protect her physical health
Yellow - Abortion legal in "hard cases", such as rape, incest, and/or deformed child.
Red - Abortion legal for social reasons (e.g. mother says she can't afford a child), or to protect the mother's "mental health" (definitions and requirements vary).
Purple - Abortion legal at any time during pregnancy for any reason.

Notice a pattern? It's illegal in developing countries, theocracies, predominantly catholic nations, and politically unstable countries - all places that I'm not entirely eager to live in. Maintaining a woman's right to choose is one of the most important important social issues there is to me. If social conservatives are able to take this away from women and the population as a whole I fear that nothing will be safe. Don't play it off as some sort of trivial issue, because it isn't. People kill over the abortion debate and lives are ruined in the name of fetuses.

Quote

But simply casting a great man to the side because of an issue like that is trivial in my opinion. It's the whole left vs right bullshit mentality. It only divides people. Most politicians on either side are completely corrupt, so when you find someone like Ron Paul I don't think it's wise to disregard him based on a single social issue. Especially when he would never want to impose his personal beliefs on you.

Oh my god, for serious?

I'll tell you what, you get someone pregnant and then tell me how you would feel if a so called 'libertarian', the champion of the people and a crusader against government intervention told you that you couldn't have an abortion. Or you couldn't get married because you're gay. Or you weren't entitled to equal pay because you were a woman.

This is why I hate libertarians. Do you care about anything other than economic 'freedom'?

[gimmedeath]

Fightin_da_Man, on 23 June 2009 - 12:51 PM, said:

You said, we should support him because he isn't in bed with corporate America.  You didn't make any mention of whether or not we agree with him on any particular policy matter, but rather that his corporate independence should be enough.  My point is that I'm sure you can find people running on fascist/nazi/etc party tickets that are not in bed with corporate America.  That doesn't mean that they are worthy of support.



Well he specifically isn't because he isn't in state government.  He believes that the states can and should legislate his beliefs.  He wants schools to teach creationism; he wants states to ban abortion.  How is that not imposing his beliefs?



Why don't you actually explain why they aren't contradictory instead of asking me to do your work for you?

I see distinct contradictions between claiming to support voluntary associations and yet supporting a law which allows states to ignore those voluntary associations.  I find a contradiction between opposing big federal government and meddling in states affairs and supporting a law which bans homosexuals from adopting children in DC.  I find a contradiction between the position that abortion should be a states rights issue and the position that the federal government should define life as beginning at conception (which would make abortion murder by definition).

It seems to me that he only sticks to his so-called principles when it's convenient.  When he feels he has the opportunity to legislate his beliefs via the federal government (by DOMA, by denying rights to homosexuals, by attempting to create a side-stepped federal abortion ban) he seems to do so.



I present you with factual proof that he a) violates his supposed principles and supports authoritarian impositions of his socially conservative ideology and you don't care.  If you don't care that he doesn't fit your image of him, then this has nothing to do with actual issues and is just some personality cult.



I'm sure you could.  I wasn't aware that we were talking about them, but for the record I don't support them either.  I'm an anarchist.

Yes obviously you are an anarchist, so there's basically no point in having this conversation with you. There's nothing I can say that would matter because you have no hope in fixing things as they stand.

I on the other hand think we can take back our country by supporting good people in government, the ones that don't want to tyrannically take over everything. As a starting point at least.

You can't get passed the little things and look at the bigger picture. Everyone has flaws and no one is perfect. There will never be a politician who is just like you and supports everything you believe in. And I'm sure that's one of the reasons that you are an anarchist.

If you want to nit pick at Ron Paul you are missing my point completely. And besides you are convinced he is a homophobic pro lifer, which he isn't. You seem to mistake the way he stands on things for a typical, moral controlling, neofascist republican.

I appreciate your views and your desire for debate, we just see things differently.

[gimmedeath]

James, on 23 June 2009 - 12:56 PM, said:

Srsly? Do I have to explain this?


Green - Abortion never legal, or legal only when necessary to save the life of the mother or protect her physical health
Yellow - Abortion legal in "hard cases", such as rape, incest, and/or deformed child.
Red - Abortion legal for social reasons (e.g. mother says she can't afford a child), or to protect the mother's "mental health" (definitions and requirements vary).
Purple - Abortion legal at any time during pregnancy for any reason.

Notice a pattern? It's illegal in developing countries, theocracies, predominantly catholic nations, and politically unstable countries - all places that I'm not entirely eager to live in. Maintaining a woman's right to choose is one of the most important important social issues there is to me. If social conservatives are able to take this away from women and the population as a whole I fear that nothing will be safe. Don't play it off as some sort of trivial issue, because it isn't. People kill over the abortion debate and lives are ruined in the name of fetuses.

Oh my god, for serious?

I'll tell you what, you get someone pregnant and then tell me how you would feel if a so called 'libertarian', the champion of the people and a crusader against government intervention told you that you couldn't have an abortion. Or you couldn't get married because you're gay. Or you weren't entitled to equal pay because you were a woman.

This is why I hate libertarians. Do you care about anything other than economic 'freedom'?

Do you guys realize what "leaving it up to the states" means?

That means you actually have a say on the issue. Locally. You can have your voice heard on a matter. Federally, the government mandates a law that everyone has to abide by. Locally, people vote and decide on issues and laws can vary state by state or even town by town.

But even so, in my opinion abortion isn't as simple as that - hence all the debate and division. It's about life. There's a question of whether you are killing something or not. I mean, does that not make since?

I know religious zealots have completely hijacked the debate and assaulted the rights of individuals, but fuck... There really is the possibility that you are killing someone, and that is something to legitimately be concerned about.

And that's all Ron Paul is saying, even if he's personally opposed to it.

But a few of you seem convinced that he's dead set on making it illegal. No, he's against making it FEDERALLY legal OR illegal, because that allows government to dictate absolute morality. And I think that's a good stance to take on such a sensitive, divisive issue.