View Poll Results: Is Ron Paul Insane?

Voters
153. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. Ron Paul is mentally unstable.

    26 16.99%
  • No. Ron Paul is of sound mind.

    114 74.51%
  • I'm not sure.

    9 5.88%
  • Other.

    4 2.61%
Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 167

Thread: Is Ron Paul Insane?

  1. #111
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,159

    Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

    To throw my two bits into the ring, I don't agree with Ron Paul on quite a few issues, but I voted for him anyway. Reason? He's the closest thing to a true Constitutionalist that has been in the running for POTUS in a long time. Even though I think his foreign policy positions are maybe a little less than practical, his domestic issues line up with mine in most particulars. We so desperately need someone who would actually rein in governmental extremes, spending and intrusions that I would have rather had Ron Paul than anyone else who ran.

    Not to mention, he's the closest thing to an honest politician I've seen in a while also.

    G.

  2. #112
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    I gave up because I realized I didn't fully understand your post. Would you mind elaborating?
    I would be happy to elaborate. When young men sign up to serve in the military, they take an oath to protect this country from enemies, foreign and domestic. They never agreed to put their lives on the line to stop genocide in far off lands or to make the world safe for democracy.

    So you think it is nuts for us to oppose meddling in affairs that have nothing to do with this countries safety. I think it is nuts to expect people to risk their lives for my own personal pet causes, and immoral to compel them to do so via government force. If you want to stop genocide, get your ass in the line of fire and stop the genocide. Stop hiding behind the government and transferring authority you never had.

    Ron Paul is a complete non-interventionist. He wants to withdraw from the UN and NATO and stop sending foreign aid to our allies. He doesn't think that we should interfere to stop the genocide in Darfur. I'll reserve judgment as to whether or not these positions are "nutty", but I do not think it is nutty to be strongly against them.
    If you want to send aid to your allies, then send aid. You wouldn’t dare reach into my pocket directly to get that money. Instead you hide behind government and transfer this authority to them (which you never had in the first place). It is complete nuts the way your ilk justify your actions, then turn around and pretend we are nuts for having the moral clarity to call foul.

    Note how I said "some of Paul's most dedicated supporters", not all of them. The ones who think that people who supported anyone else in the primaries are uneducated morons, that he is the only honest politician in the country, and that his policies will save us all (many of them, from my experience, are also 9/11 truthers). Whether you are among these, I honestly don't know.
    I am one of his most dedicated supporters. The owner of this forum is also one of those dedicated supporters. A minority of his supporters are what I would refer to as “9/11 truthers”

  3. #113
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

    Ron Paul is a complete non-interventionist.
    Yes, that's what our foreign policy is supposed to be. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson established the concept of non-interventionist foreign policy. You know, free-trade, diplomacy, no foreign entanglements.

    He wants to withdraw from the UN and NATO and stop sending foreign aid to our allies.
    I'll never understand the aggrandizement of the UN and NATO. What terrible things do you suppose will happen if we withdraw from these international bodies? It's not like they have magical powers which keep the forces of evil at bay.

    He doesn't think that we should interfere to stop the genocide in Darfur.
    Interfere in what way? Militarily?

    But the fact stands that he is more extreme in his position than most people and basically wants to get rid of half of the federal government, so I find nothing nutty about being against his views.
    The reason so many people are wary of this is because his detractors falsely attribute slash-and-burn policies to him. Dr. Paul wants to phase out inefficient and unconstitutional government programs (because that's a Congressman's job), he's not advocating an acute restructuring of the Federal government. Dr. Paul is very principled but he’s also very pragmatic.

  4. #114
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    I would be happy to elaborate. When young men sign up to serve in the military, they take an oath to protect this country from enemies, foreign and domestic. They never agreed to put their lives on the line to stop genocide in far off lands or to make the world safe for democracy.

    So you think it is nuts for us to oppose meddling in affairs that have nothing to do with this countries safety. I think it is nuts to expect people to risk their lives for my own personal pet causes, and immoral to compel them to do so via government force. If you want to stop genocide, get your ass in the line of fire and stop the genocide. Stop hiding behind the government and transferring authority you never had.
    I never said anything about making the world safe for democracy (unless of course, there's a threat to all democracy, including ours). As for this country's safety, I do believe we should only go to war if our national interests are at stake. But outside of that, there are things we can do that don't involve the military. Why? Because there is such a thing as morality.

    As for the genocide... I don't think the US should unilaterally interfere in any of them, I think the UN should send out peacekeeping troops. But Ron Paul is against membership in just about any international organization AND against interfering in genocides, so as far as I can tell the fact that hundreds of thousands of people in Darfur have died is just fine by him.

    If you want to send aid to your allies, then send aid. You wouldn’t dare reach into my pocket directly to get that money. Instead you hide behind government and transfer this authority to them (which you never had in the first place). It is complete nuts the way your ilk justify your actions, then turn around and pretend we are nuts for having the moral clarity to call foul.
    OK, so then everyone keeps money in their pockets and nobody sends aid. So say the next Hitler rose and decided to take over Europe. We know that if he succeeds he'd eventually go after us. Should we now continue our policy of not aiding our allies?

    Or a free democracy somewhere in the world is attacked by an oppressive country who wants to take it over. I wouldn't want to take money out of your pocket to give to the free democracy, so I guess we just have to stand aside and watch more people suffer.
    I am one of his most dedicated supporters. The owner of this forum is also one of those dedicated supporters. A minority of his supporters are what I would refer to as “9/11 truthers”
    That's great for you guys. Once certain people start talking about how stupid non-RP-voters are, or how everything will go to hell if we don't follow his policies, that is where I draw the line.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Yes, that's what our foreign policy is supposed to be. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson established the concept of non-interventionist foreign policy. You know, free-trade, diplomacy, no foreign entanglements.
    No foreign entanglements work when you're a new, small nation. When you're the biggest guy around, there will be people who hate you just for existing, and you might have to change strategies a little.

    I'll never understand the aggrandizement of the UN and NATO. What terrible things do you suppose will happen if we withdraw from these international bodies? It's not like they have magical powers which keep the forces of evil at bay.
    Staying out of the League of Nations was part of what allowed WWII to happen.

    Interfere in what way? Militarily?
    (answered above)
    The reason so many people are wary of this is because his detractors falsely attribute slash-and-burn policies to him. Dr. Paul wants to phase out inefficient and unconstitutional government programs (because that's a Congressman's job), he's not advocating an acute restructuring of the Federal government. Dr. Paul is very principled but he’s also very pragmatic.
    Eh, no argument here. I like his domestic ideas to some extent, I just think that he takes them too far.

  5. #115
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav
    I never said anything about making the world safe for democracy
    We shall see....

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    As for the genocide... I don't think the US should unilaterally interfere in any of them, I think the UN should send out peacekeeping troops. But Ron Paul is against membership in just about any international organization AND against interfering in genocides, so as far as I can tell the fact that hundreds of thousands of people in Darfur have died is just fine by him.
    So your solution to hiding behind the government sending troops to far off lands is to allow the government to hide behind some other global bureaucracy (like the UN) that sends troops to far off lands. How does this even remotely address my complaints regarding American Troops agreement to defend this country being violated?

    OK, so then everyone keeps money in their pockets and nobody sends aid.
    Why does nobody send aid? Are you admitting that your cause is so empty and without support that nobody would be willing to do it without government force?


    So say the next Hitler rose and decided to take over Europe. We know that if he succeeds he'd eventually go after us. Should we now continue our policy of not aiding our allies?
    lol. First one to reach for the Hitler defense is a rotten egg.

    1) Without intervention and ridiculous sanctions in the insanely stupid first "great war" we could of avoided the first Hitler. Hitler is not a reason to intervene, he is the result of bad intervention....an explanation of unintended consequences - or blowback.

    2) Germany declared war on us long before they had taken over Europe.

    3) It is doubtful that Hitler would of taken over Eastern Europe strong enough to pose a threat to us. Our intervention actually created a power vacuum that the communists used to their advantage.....and hello cold war (more blowback)

    4) We then used this war to further intervene on the world stage - this time in the Middle East. Boy has that worked out! Your example for WW2 being the great example of why we should intervene was really well thought out! /sarcasm

    Or a free democracy somewhere in the world is attacked by an oppressive country who wants to take it over. I wouldn't want to take money out of your pocket to give to the free democracy, so I guess we just have to stand aside and watch more people suffer.
    In other words you claim we have an obligation to make the world safe for democracy.

    I think I've heard enough of your rambling logic. You can consider me nuts all you like.
    Last edited by ARealConservative; 04-10-09 at 08:57 PM.

  6. #116
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

    So your solution to hiding behind the government sending troops to far off lands is to allow the government to hide behind some other global bureaucracy (like the UN) that sends troops to far off lands. How does this even remotely address my complaints regarding American Troops agreement to defend this country being violated?
    Little thing called morality. It's that simple really.
    Doing something that isn't defending the country is not violating an oath to defend the country, unless that oath says that you can only defend your country and do nothing else.

    Why does nobody send aid? Are you admitting that your cause is so empty and without support that nobody would be willing to do it without government force?
    They might, but that is not the point. The government represents the people. If the people do not like the countries which aid is being sent to, or want less aid to be sent, they will elect people who believe in these things too. Individual people aren't going to make agreements with foreign leaders involving aid, governments are.


    1) Without intervention and ridiculous sanctions in the insanely stupid first "great war" we could of avoided the first Hitler. Hitler is not a reason to intervene, he is the result of bad intervention....an explanation of unintended consequences - or blowback.
    OK, but the US is not to blame for that, unless you count the US not putting a stop to it (which would have been interventionism)

    2) Germany declared war on us long before they had taken over Europe.
    They didn't until we had already declared war on Japan, at which point we knew full well what we were getting into.

    3) It is doubtful that Hitler would of taken over Eastern Europe strong enough to pose a threat to us. Our intervention actually created a power vacuum that the communists used to their advantage.....and hello cold war (more blowback)
    So you're saying it would have been OK for Hitler to control Eastern Europe?

    4) We then used this war to further intervene on the world stage - this time in the Middle East. Boy has that worked out! Your example for WW2 being the great example of why we should intervene was really well thought out! /sarcasm
    Not quite sure what you're referring to here... do you mean the creation of Israel?

    In other words you claim we have an obligation to make the world safe for democracy.
    Not democracy in general. It has to be free, they have to not hate us, and even then war isn't justified; I was justifying foreign aid. Even then, it's not so much an obligation as it is the right thing to do.
    Last edited by Dav; 04-10-09 at 09:45 PM.

  7. #117
    Sage
    First Thought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas
    Last Seen
    12-01-10 @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,218

    Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Staying out of the League of Nations was part of what allowed WWII to happen.
    You cannot actually believe that...
    "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

  8. #118
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,746

    Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    According to some, Ron Paul is apparently insane. In fact, in this month alone I have heard at least three people refer to him or his policies (although they frequently fail to specificy which ones) as crazy. So, my question to you is, "Is Ron Paul insane?" If so, what has he done to lead you to such a moronic and preposterous conclusion? Moreover, what specific policies of his do you find to be insane and why? Please, refrain from citing his policies as you remember them, instead, quote him directly and progress logically from there.
    You know, the real question should be if Bush, Obama, and the other Washington insiders are insane. Ron Paul seems pretty level headed to me.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  9. #119
    Sage
    First Thought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas
    Last Seen
    12-01-10 @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,218

    Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    You know, the real question should be if Bush, Obama, and the other Washington insiders are insane. Ron Paul seems pretty level headed to me.
    Nah, you're insane. I voted for Ron Paul, so I guess I should just be put down.
    "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

  10. #120
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,746

    Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

    Quote Originally Posted by EgoffTib View Post
    Nah, you're insane. I voted for Ron Paul, so I guess I should just be put down.
    If things keep going like they are, we are all going to end up being put down, in an economic sense, of course.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •