Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Replying to What are your opinions on Ron Paul?

Post Options

Enable emoticons?

Enter Your Name

Security Check *

[quote name='AtomicGarden' timestamp='1319442482' post='94864'] OK his views abortion are harsh and irrational but i can understand why he feels that way on abortion based on the fact that before becoming involved in politics he was a practicing OB/GYN doctor so yeah that's reasonable, but the main thing that stands out for me is his policy on national defense. we have been at war on two different fronts. well "officially" declared war in Afghanistan, and illegally at war in Iraq for the last decade and fighting both wars has sent us into a fiasco financially. So instead of fighting useless battles costing the deaths of thousands of lives (not just Americans, but Iraqi's, Kurds, etc)and stopping illegal wiretapping that goes against the Constitution, and the ideals of our Forefathers founded America on. He will instead focus on legitimate issues. Plus he's willing to end nation building in other country's that our draining us dry financially, and fix things here at home instead of having us become hated, hypocritical global police as Bush and Obama have done. Plus he's pro 2nd Amendment, and that's a good thing in my book based on how civilization as a whole is turning more violent with every passing day. [/quote]

or Cancel

Topic Summary

Posted 07 August 2012 - 12:47 PM

How many of you guys consider yourselves as punks, and still support the second amendment? Not starting an argument, I just want to know other punk's stances on it. I personally think that its a good thing.

SertraOD

Posted 07 June 2012 - 06:31 PM

Quote

But that will still happen even if Ron Paul gets into power. He still needs congressional approval to actually enact anything.

Yes, but like I said, we should put him in the ring. And there's no alternative candidate that has a chance.

Quote

I would argue that free market capitalism and perfectly competitive markets are a myth, and that power will always concentrate in systems that are designed to be hierarchical. But I agree in theory, I suppose.

I agree with you. But we should at least take this chance to bring it back to first base where there wasn't huge conglomerates. Even if they have the strong potential to arise again, we need to put the guy in power who will fight them.

Punk Rock Geek

Posted 07 June 2012 - 06:27 PM

SertraOD, on 07 June 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

The banks are stronger than the government because most politicians are corrupt and can be bought out.

But that will still happen even if Ron Paul gets into power. He still needs congressional approval to actually enact anything.

Quote

But, like I said, true free market capitalism is much more free and sustainable than the corporatism we have today. He doesn't plan on making things easier for the corporation, he plans on making things harder for them by stopping the lobbying, corporate welfare, and banking system. He would make things easier for the...

SertraOD

Posted 07 June 2012 - 06:20 PM

The banks are stronger than the government because most politicians are corrupt and can be bought out.

Ron Paul would be a force to be reckoned with because he refuses to compromise his values. Hey may not win the fight but we should at least put him in the ring.

But, like I said, true free market capitalism is much more free and sustainable than the corporatism we have today. He doesn't plan on making things easier for the corporation, he plans on making things harder for them by stopping the lobbying, corporate welfare, and banking system. He would make things easier for the small business man and small, local, organic farmer (big, big deal right here if you're at all concerned with farmer's markets).

Punk Rock Geek

Posted 07 June 2012 - 06:15 PM

Don't get me wrong. I believe he would make things unbearable if he got his way. But I'm not convinced he would get his way, even if he was elected. I support him mostly for his foreign policy, which he actually has a say on -- the rest is free market fundamentalism that congress won't allow (on either the right or the left), and even if it did allow, it would be very harmful towards the most marginalized of groups.

Sertra, you've acknowledged that the banks are stronger than the government, but seem to believe the opposite in the case of Ron Paul?

SertraOD

Posted 07 June 2012 - 06:06 PM

Quote

He is against the banking system? What does he propose instead?

I don't think you understand monetary policy as it stands (which is a world-wide system now).

The system we use, fiat currency, is a system in which the federal reserve prints a dollar, lends it to the US economy, and then we're expected to pay it back. So every dollar represents a piece of debt. The intention is for people to take that dollar and make more money (which the FED prints), then pay the old debt off but effectively creating new debt. This drives the economy to constantly expand and is unsustainable in a world with limited energy. It's also highly exploitative.

The constitution states that only congress can coin money and originally, every dollar was backed by gold or silver. A finite resource; thus, people work to sustain their lives rather than pay back debt to the FED. This is t...

Punk Rock Geek

Posted 07 June 2012 - 05:03 PM

Floyd, on 04 June 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

Voting for anarchism is kind of like shitting on the floor to make your house smell better.

I don't think that's what's being discussed. Voting against capitalism getting more unbearable is different than voting for anarchism.

That said, Ron Paul would make capitalism pretty darn unbearable. May be worth it for his foreign policy, and his views on the banks, but I don't feel strongly one way or another.

Black Cat

Posted 07 June 2012 - 12:09 PM

SertraOD, on 07 June 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

Most candidates "play ball" politically and are bought out by corporate lobbyists. Most candidates are too afraid to challenge the banking system here in America, which actually has more power than the government and literally controls every policy to the T.

Ron Paul is against the federal reserve and against the bank. With the removal of these obstructions, we could once again have genuine candidates and vote based on the issues. But as it stands, most politicians lie about their beliefs to get elected and then simply go along with the corporate agenda, whether democrat or republican. The two party system is an illusion behind the one par...

Skaz

Posted 07 June 2012 - 10:01 AM

If the elections are rigged, what chance does he have of getting into office? Even if he did have a chance, he would probably be assassinated anyway.

SertraOD

Posted 07 June 2012 - 09:21 AM

Black Cat, on 07 June 2012 - 07:08 AM, said:

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, yeah.

Seriously, "non-evil" candidate, what the hell? How do you even measure "evil" and "non-evil" and why should this be considered to be more important than the actual stances a candidate takes and concrete measures they are about to implement, if they get elected into office? I don't understand what it is with this guy, that even people with a completely different political background, seem to like him and go for the "At least he's genuine...

Review the complete topic (launches new window)

Replying to What are your opinions on Ron Paul?

Post Options

Topic Summary

Sign In