• 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!

Is Ron Paul Insane?

Is Ron Paul Insane?

  • Total voters
    98
Harry Guerrilla said:
Ron Paul isn't insane but he has a humongous uphill battle to fight.

He is really the only one screaming to a deaf audience that they must reign in spending and expansion. In our majority is right society people will think he is crazy.

Some of his supporters like the 9-11 truthers and the I only care about legalizing drugs crowd are bad for his image. It paints the rest of us as the same.
Click to expand...
Look at all the **** he proposes and then votes against knowing they will pass anyway.
 
Paul might not be insane, but his most outspoken supporters definitely are.
 
Last edited:
new coup for you said:
Which is is, in this country, something the right is more guilty of.

Any democrat who suggests a mixed economy is branded a socialist. It's ludicrous.
Click to expand...

the very same poster that refers to us as isolationists doesn't like being called a socialist.

how ****ing rich!
 
Lachean said:
For example?
Click to expand...

He is likely referring to how pork spending is implemented. his constituents inform him of what they would like to see their tax dollars spent on, he forwards their request to the appropriations committee, then votes against the nondiscretionary spending bill they ultimately settle on.
 
ARealConservative said:
his outspoken critics are the nut jobs.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Thinking that we shouldn't interfere in other countries, even to prevent a genocide, is being a nut job.
Thinking that war is always bad, even in self-defense, is being a nut job
Thinking that maybe, on some occasions, the government could be used to help people, is being a nut job.

The weird thing is I'm sort of libertarian-leaning, but I can't stand the obnoxiousness and arrogance of some of Paul's most dedicated supporters. He's not the freaking Messiah.
 
Dav said:
Gotcha. Thinking that we shouldn't interfere in other countries, even to prevent a genocide, is being a nut job.
Thinking that war is always bad, even in self-defense, is being a nut job
Thinking that maybe, on some occasions, the government could be used to help people, is being a nut job.

The weird thing is I'm sort of libertarian-leaning, but I can't stand the obnoxiousness and arrogance of some of Paul's most dedicated supporters. He's not the freaking Messiah.
Click to expand...

you, as a free individual can interfere anywhere you wish.

What is nuts is thinking you can transfer authoritative power to the government that you don't actually have yourself. When I sign up to protect and serve this country, it doesn't mean you can stick your bleeding heart in to the issue and compel me to defend some other country that you are sympathetic to.

that's what is nuts comrade.
 
Dav said:
Gotcha. Thinking that we shouldn't interfere in other countries, even to prevent a genocide, is being a nut job.
Click to expand...

I noticed you began to reply to my response, then gave up on it.

I am going to assume for now, you realized how nutty it is to argue that you have the right to force others to fight in far off wars that have nothing to do with protecting this country.

So for now I will go on to the rest of your misguided post.

Thinking that war is always bad, even in self-defense, is being a nut job
Click to expand...

Refusing to protect yourself in the face of imminent danger is a sign of being nuts. The problem is, this has nothing to do with Ron Paul's positions, or the position of anybody that supports him as far as I know. You are erecting straw men so that you can easily topple them.

Thinking that maybe, on some occasions, the government could be used to help people, is being a nut job.
Click to expand...

Hey look, another straw man. How often to you hear Ron Paul wishing to interfere with state and local government? Is it possible that the man simply wants government to act in accordance with the law. How nutty of us to wish for the federal government to focus on protecting individual rights while state and local government (of which I have a greater voice) can be in the business of helping people in need.

The weird thing is I'm sort of libertarian-leaning, but I can't stand the obnoxiousness and arrogance of some of Paul's most dedicated supporters. He's not the freaking Messiah.
Click to expand...

Another straw man. I don't participate in hero worship, and have no messiah. I'm not even a libertarian, but I am a vocal Ron Paul supporter that you have insulted in this thread with your wide (and ignorant) brush.
 
ARealConservative said:
I noticed you began to reply to my response, then gave up on it.

I am going to assume for now, you realized how nutty it is to argue that you have the right to force others to fight in far off wars that have nothing to do with protecting this country.

So for now I will go on to the rest of your misguided post.
Click to expand...

I gave up because I realized I didn't fully understand your post. Would you mind elaborating?

Refusing to protect yourself in the face of imminent danger is a sign of being nuts. The problem is, this has nothing to do with Ron Paul's positions, or the position of anybody that supports him as far as I know. You are erecting straw men so that you can easily topple them.
Click to expand...

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.

Hey look, another straw man. How often to you hear Ron Paul wishing to interfere with state and local government? Is it possible that the man simply wants government to act in accordance with the law. How nutty of us to wish for the federal government to focus on protecting individual rights while state and local government (of which I have a greater voice) can be in the business of helping people in need.
Click to expand...

Eh, won't say I'm against that. Actually, I think a lot of his economic policies make some sense, even if they are more extreme than I'd like. 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.

Another straw man. I don't participate in hero worship, and have no messiah. I'm not even a libertarian, but I am a vocal Ron Paul supporter that you have insulted in this thread with your wide (and ignorant) brush.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Dav said:
I gave up because I realized I didn't fully understand your post. Would you mind elaborating?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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”
 
Ron Paul is a complete non-interventionist.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ARealConservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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”
Click to expand...
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.

Ethereal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Staying out of the League of Nations was part of what allowed WWII to happen.

Interfere in what way? Militarily?
Click to expand...
(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.
Click to expand...
Eh, no argument here. I like his domestic ideas to some extent, I just think that he takes them too far.
 
Dav said:
I never said anything about making the world safe for democracy
Click to expand...

We shall see....

Dav said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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)
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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:
Ethereal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nah, you're insane. I voted for Ron Paul, so I guess I should just be put down.
 
EgoffTib said:
Nah, you're insane. I voted for Ron Paul, so I guess I should just be put down.
Click to expand...

If things keep going like they are, we are all going to end up being put down, in an economic sense, of course.
 
If a far left liberal says you're crazy, you should punch him in the face.

If a far right conservative says you're crazy, you should punch him in the face.

If a Centrist/Moderate says you're crazy, maybe you should look into straitjackets.
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
In the minds of classical conservatives, "New Deal" democrats, socialists, fascists, corporatists, elitists, and just plain pessimists, then yes he is going to come off as insane. When someone comes along speaking against facets of government dependent society, those who manipulate government for personal gain are going to do whatever possible limit their reach.

.
Click to expand...
Hey, I think he is far from perfect but I think he's far better than the vast majority of US and UK politicians.
 
Hatuey said:
If a far left liberal says you're crazy, you should punch him in the face.

If a far right conservative says you're crazy, you should punch him in the face.

If a Centrist/Moderate says you're crazy, maybe you should look into straitjackets.
Click to expand...

Moderate means little. It posits a false one-dimensional spectrum between stereotypical liberals and conservatives.
 
Hatuey said:
If a far left liberal says you're crazy, you should punch him in the face.

If a far right conservative says you're crazy, you should punch him in the face.

If a Centrist/Moderate says you're crazy, maybe you should look into straitjackets.
Click to expand...

what about the dip****s that think he's crazy? :2wave:
 
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.
Click to expand...

I mispoke. No unneccessary foreign entanglements.

Staying out of the League of Nations was part of what allowed WWII to happen.
Click to expand...

1. This is mere conjecture.

2. It is not relevant to my question.

What, exactly, do you think will happen if we withdraw from the UN and NATO? I'm not even saying I agree with Paul on either issue, I'm just wondering what specific objections you have.

"Ron Paul wants to withdraw from the UN and NATO!!!"

...Is not a substantive criticism.

(answered above)
Click to expand...

You've answered nothing. What type of interference are you talking about? Be specific.

Eh, no argument here. I like his domestic ideas to some extent, I just think that he takes them too far.
Click to expand...

"He just takes them too far."

...Is not a substantive criticism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom