• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why Ron Paul

Ikari said:
I like Ron Paul because he's the only mother****er out there telling us what his actual philosophy and political platform are. At least the dude's honest, and thus already well ahead of the curve.
Click to expand...

I liked him because he was the ONLY one who had the nutsack to tell these neocon bastards in his OWN party that they are full of ****. I LOVED his foreign policy positions during the debate. I loved that he actually got boo'd by these assholes. To me, he should wear that with pride.

Ron Paul would have taken one more vote from Obama. Mine.

Oh well, looks like I'm voting for Obama now.
 
Hatuey said:
You're still refusing to see him saying he wants to return to the gold standard? Oh okay. Continue trolling.
Click to expand...

you can't even post such a quote. you post a wall of text, and say, yep, it's in there.

pathetic really.
 
Hatuey said:
Double speak for isolationism.



He's an isolationist without being a protectionist. The "intellectual" difference is one only Libertarians make.
Click to expand...

No, it's single speech for non-interventionism which is dynamically different than isolationism. But as we can see, you'd rather just spew your hatred and insults instead of engage honestly here.
 
Are corporatists terrified of the people (wanting to co-opt the news with tabloid garbage and wedge issues) like the Republican funded WTC mosque anti-muslim campaign, anti-Mexican stuff, anti-abortion to make America permanently divided?

What if Ron Paul dropped his anti-abortion stance, and gov. deregulation position, so he and Kucinich followers would be united and put the KIBOSH on the RNC/ DLC Corp. Big Oil/Banking Oligarchs?

A serious threat indeed.

Ask yourself this question – “Who benefits from racial and religious, divide and conquer” tactics?


I’m sure the answer you find is the Elites who manage the corrupt 2 Party System, benefit most.

 
Last edited:
Captain America said:
I liked him because he was the ONLY one who had the nutsack to tell these neocon bastards in his OWN party that they are full of ****. I LOVED his foreign policy positions during the debate. I loved that he actually got boo'd by these assholes. To me, he should wear that with pride.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul and Santorum cater to the Christian Coalition/ Religious Right and do so for business reasons ... monetary support and donations. Especially Evangelism and TV preachers is merely a money enterprise.
The fundraising machines keep the GOP in place, not the pro-con religious debates Bill Maher or Mike Malloy highlight and bore us to distraction with.

So when liberal hosts like Norm Goldman, Mike Malloy, or Bill Maher scream about religous wackos taking over America its really self-serving bulls__t for their niche audience. Norm likes screaming "Teabagging Bozos!" because he thinks it gives himself a boost to his shallow diatribes. Maher and Malloy are making money, the former in the millions.

The Tea Party and Christian Right are such a small minority in America, but they are over emphasized by the corp. media and the talk shows because it is politically expedient for the 2 Party System to trivialize matters to distraction, its is easier to oversimplify matters and say, "I live in Atlanta with all the DUMB, religious, racist, hayseeds, you see ..." and extrapolate that to the whole country, and blame that as WHOLE reason America fails.

The real reason America fails is because the Democratic Party is set up to fail. It rolls over and plays dead, sells out to the highest bidder, and has no morals.




_________________________________________________

"Cynics know the cost of everything, and the value of nothing," - Oscar Wilde.
 
Last edited:
Lokiate said:
Ron Paul fails simply because he isn't willing to compromise on anything.
Click to expand...

Except when it comes to buying votes in his district....
 
Well too bad, he is going to Tampa along with the REAL patriots.
 
Lokiate said:
Ron Paul fails simply because he isn't willing to compromise on anything.
Click to expand...


That and hes nuts....gotta love the ron paulers...he gets the same 8% support year after redundant year...its getting funny
 
Soon Ron Paul will reveal his plan to capture the Republican nomination. :beatdeadhorse
 
lpast said:
That and hes nuts....gotta love the ron paulers...he gets the same 8% support year after redundant year...its getting funny
Click to expand...

I like some of the stuff he says, but I never understood why people have raised his pedestal to god-like heights. He's just a man, and all men are fallible. We need realism not idealism.
 
I legitimately dislike most all of his positions. I support an aggressive and global foreign policy, I believe we need a Federal Reserve, I'm not opposed to every department he lists, etc. What I do like is his approach to criminal justice which while not where I stand would have the most beneficial net effect.
 
lpast said:
That and hes nuts....gotta love the ron paulers...he gets the same 8% support year after redundant year...its getting funny
Click to expand...

That sounds like the Democratic Party dogma from the liberal talking heads. "Oh he's nuts and is anti-abortion." The usual divide and conquer talking points from Maddow, Ed Schultz, and Mike Malloy to keep the herd in line.

The Supreme Court would never overturn Roe v. Wade anyway. Its just a scare tactic the Democrats like Thom Hartman like to throw around to scare people into staying loyal to the corrupt sycophants like Nancy Pelosi.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Except when it comes to buying votes in his district....
Click to expand...


You have any proof to back that claim up there mate? If not, I suggest you stop talking.

To the rest of the Ron Paul haters on this thread, I ask a simple question. What is it that you don't actually like about Ron Paul and his policies? Not his supporters, but the man and his ideas. Anything more specific than "oh well he's a loony and a nut" which basically translates out to be "the mainstream media, which is bought out and controlled by corporations with political ties, have told me he is a loony and a nut and I've been too lazy to do my own independent research so I believe them."

So again, what is it you don't like? Please be specific so that you generate actual healthy debate rather than just generic personal attacks on the guy.
 
Locke and Load said:
You have any proof to back that claim up there mate? If not, I suggest you stop talking.

To the rest of the Ron Paul haters on this thread, I ask a simple question. What is it that you don't actually like about Ron Paul and his policies? Not his supporters, but the man and his ideas. Anything more specific than "oh well he's a loony and a nut" which basically translates out to be "the mainstream media, which is bought out and controlled by corporations with political ties, have told me he is a loony and a nut and I've been too lazy to do my own independent research so I believe them."

So again, what is it you don't like? Please be specific so that you generate actual healthy debate rather than just generic personal attacks on the guy.
Click to expand...

1. I support a large defense budget, an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy, and I support involvement in multilateral institutions like NATO.

2. I have serious issues with the Federal Reserve, but I believe in the principles behind central banking and support the retention of the Fed.

3. I support fiât money, I support fractional reserve banking.

4. I oppose full reserve banking.

5. I believe that not every department Ron Paul mentions needs to be axed. I also believe public-private partnership which is the only part of the DoE I support, is not a bad thing.

As I said before there are several things I agree pretty strongly with him on, and generally speaking there is a fair bit of generic overlap. But those above issues are huge aberrations that I cannot stomach and that I think would be very damaging to the country. I could never support him, I might even back Barack Obama over Paul if I was forced to pick.
 
Sherman123 said:
As I said before there are several things I agree pretty strongly with him on, and generally speaking there is a fair bit of generic overlap. But those above issues are huge aberrations that I cannot stomach and that I think would be very damaging to the country. I could never support him, I might even back Barack Obama over Paul if I was forced to pick.
Click to expand...

How do you feel about the issue of his name being attached to the racism contained in the Ron Paul newsletter?
 
Kane said:
How do you feel about the issue of his name being attached to the racism contained in the Ron Paul newsletter?
Click to expand...

I accept his explanation for it. It doesn't seem like him at all, I don't think he's racist.
 
Sherman123 said:
1. I support a large defense budget, an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy, and I support involvement in multilateral institutions like NATO.

2. I have serious issues with the Federal Reserve, but I believe in the principles behind central banking and support the retention of the Fed.

3. I support fiât money, I support fractional reserve banking.

4. I oppose full reserve banking.

5. I believe that not every department Ron Paul mentions needs to be axed. I also believe public-private partnership which is the only part of the DoE I support, is not a bad thing.

As I said before there are several things I agree pretty strongly with him on, and generally speaking there is a fair bit of generic overlap. But those above issues are huge aberrations that I cannot stomach and that I think would be very damaging to the country. I could never support him, I might even back Barack Obama over Paul if I was forced to pick.
Click to expand...

I cannot claim to fully understand the fractional reserve and full reserve banking, but I know enough to understand that the Fed's growing increase of the money supply to drive down interest rates is causing widespread inflation, and that since it's creation in 1913, the value of the dollar has gone down a horrendous amount.

However, I find myself most interested in your first point about foreign policy. What, in your eyes, are the benefits of an "aggressive" and "interventionalist" foreign policy?
 
Locke and Load said:
I cannot claim to fully understand the fractional reserve and full reserve banking, but I know enough to understand that the Fed's growing increase of the money supply to drive down interest rates is causing widespread inflation, and that since it's creation in 1913, the value of the dollar has gone down a horrendous amount.

However, I find myself most interested in your first point about foreign policy. What, in your eyes, are the benefits of an "aggressive" and "interventionalist" foreign policy?
Click to expand...

The big concern with the Fed, and like I said I have many, is what will happen when the economy starts to recover and banks start to lend out all of this reserve cash they have on hand in large volumes as a result of the huge QE disbursement's that free'd up a ton of cash from money tied up in government treasury bonds. However I'm not going to throw the system out the window on account of that. I like that banks are able to lend out an amount greater than they have, it allows dynamic lending and growth that would not be possible if creditor had to match up with lender exactly. I'm not particularly concerned with the current value of the dollar, and I certainly wouldn't want a much stronger dollar. Paul Volcker had an article on inflationary concerns in the coming decade linked to what I mentioned earlier, but while it concerns me and I support some reform of the Fed, I don't want to abolish it. It is an important tool, and fractional reserve banking is an absolutely essential part of modern capitalism and the global economy.

As for foreign policy I believe it is naive to think that we can merely trade with the rest of the world. Without even touching on geopolitical interests that are unrelated to trade it is well and good to point out that free trade and equitable trade rights took centuries and gallons of blood to win! The rolling back of American power would undoubtedly weaken our access to markets in sensitive and important regions of the world like the Middle East, Central Asia, and increasingly Africa as other autocratic patrons swept in like China and Russia. We can judge from precedent on that count.

Beyond that issue I believe an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy geared towards democracy promotion and the maintenance of democratic hegemony is a profound moral and strategic good by reducing conflict over time, creating a framework for global peace and thus reducing the need for military expenditure in the long term, while creating a more prosperous globe and reducing the risk of other powers rising to challenge that democratic hegemony and upset our stability and balance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom