toldailytopic: What do you think of Ron Paul?

[Newman]

Ron Paul is truly the lone voice of honesty and common sense in our government. At least, he's the only voice of honesty and common sense that I can hear.

It seems the average TOLer thinks that he's "too libertarian", but for me (and this is my only criticism of Paul) he isn't libertarian enough.

People say that they like his economic ideas :up: but they don't like his foreign policy. To that I say "read more". Read some of Ron Paul's own writings on it, even if it is just five minutes of one chapter in the bookstore. Your conception of his ideas on foreign policy are probably based on what TV news, your neo-con friend, or some slanted opinion piece told you. His ideas simply are not that extreme. What is so revolting about a government minding its own business? What is so hard to understand about not intervening in other countries' affairs? What right do we have to "police the world"?

These questions, along with the simple fact that we cannot afford the trillions of dollars it takes to depose governments we don't like, set up new governments that we do like, then topple those, then try to kill all the people that fight for their own country back, etc., convince me that Ron Paul has it right when it comes to foreign policy.

As for the other hot topic so far in this thread, states' rights, one only has to point to the Constitution to show that Paul's view is the only constitutional one. Under the Constitution, states DO have the right to do the wrong things, provided that it isn't something that is forbidden by the Bill of Rights or the powers granted to the federal government.


I consider myself somewhat of an expert on Ron Paul's views (especially the economics/Austrian Business Cycle Theory and libertarian philosophy), and even in the rare occasion that we disagree, I still know what he'd say. So to all you detractors and doubters out there: bring it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Your last name wouldn't be von Mises, by any chance, would it? :think:

 

[Krsto]

Since leaving the Democrat side of the spectrum in favor of cynical centrism, Dr. Paul's been the only politician I would even CONSIDER voting for, at any level of government.

I'd rather have an extremist state-side politician than an extremist federal-side one any day.

Dr. Paul was the first presidential candidate to be interviewed for YouTube in a college dorm room, and raised millions in online contributions alone.

Though getting up in years, I believe he speaks to the growing number of political cynics in my generation, who like me have bounced back and forth across the political spectrum for years, only to eventually conclude that the whole thing is bunk.

He's never been anything but a straight shooter regarding his policies and opinions, and has never wavered because of peer or public pressure.

...thus he will never get higher than the House, no matter how consistently he votes or how much Internet following (and funding) he gets.

Good Lord! You're much too young to be so cynical. What will become of you when you are 50?

 

[Krsto]

Be it ever so difficult, I try not to think about Ron Paul.

So howabout that governor you got there? Could he redeem the image of presidential candidates who were Texas governors?

 

[sky.]

I think Ron Paul is just a contrarian. He reminds me of college student but he looks like he could fall over. I wish he would just cry and get it over with.

 

[Newman]

I think Ron Paul is just a contrarian. He reminds me of college student but he looks like he could fall over. I wish he would just cry and get it over with.

http://deadlinelive.info/2011/07/15...r-for-the-annual-congressional-baseball-game/

 

[sky.]

http://deadlinelive.info/2011/07/15...r-for-the-annual-congressional-baseball-game/

Yeah he hit a home-run 1980..../cheers

 

[fzappa13]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for August 13th, 2011 09:45 AM

toldailytopic: What do you think of Ron Paul?

Should he continue to garner the attention and support he has over the last 15 years I think he will likely be the next American politician to be assassinated ...

... that's usually how power mongers react to things not going their way ...

 

[Buzzword]

I just think that while he in many ways has come to represent a cynicism towards politics and politicians for many people (understandable, and I also happen to be one of those people), I just don't believe that he's about it all being bunk. He's in the system, working hard to change things. He's not tossing everything away.

I think the reason he's become such a champion of the political cynic is because he isn't moving "left" OR "right".
He moves with his own conscience, directed by the Constitution.

He's in the system, yet not in "the machine."
I.e., not on the payroll of the rich/corporate/military-industrial complex.

Yes, I get that. I don't think I misunderstood. Again, I simply think that he often gets heralded as an "it's all bunk" figure, he's really very involved, in the system that folks shun. I think he'd want people to vote, whether he were a candidate or not, and personally, I consider that when I think of him.

It depends on what you're calling bunk.
Two party system? Bunk. Both sides want to screw over the little guy.
Paul is VERY "it's all bunk" in this department, as he consistently refuses to grovel before the leadership of either party, preferring to blaze his own trail guided by conscience and the Constitution.

Sure (though why single out 20-somethings?). But consider that he's in the system, isn't he? I have issues with the "he's the ONLY candidate I'd vote for, otherwise I don't care" thing... I don't think that's what he stands for. Maybe he'll be a candidate to vote for. Maybe not. But if not, I don't see it as a reason to throw everything else on the garbage heap, and I'd expect that he doesn't either.

I mainly single out that group because I'm IN IT, and so are most of my coworkers, classmates, etc.

However, there also appears to be a growing number of 50-somethings who have become recently disillusioned, and they've had a lot more time and a lot more attempts at voting for the "right" candidate.

The reason I say he's the only one I'd ever vote for is because he's the only politician in my lifetime to gain my trust and admiration.
Plus he's a fellow Texan .

If another candidate like him came along, I'd be HAPPY to vote for him/her.
But Paul's consistent lack of nominations leads me to believe he's basically broken the mold in a time when party leadership (and looking at the numbers the American people as well) want cookie-cutter politicians and presidents.

That's great.

Yep!

Good Lord! You're much too young to be so cynical. What will become of you when you are 50?

Probably be cynical about something else as well. :rip:

 

[zoo22]

I think the reason he's become such a champion of the political cynic is because he isn't moving "left" OR "right".
He moves with his own conscience, directed by the Constitution.

Sure. That's fine. You seem to be skipping the fact that he's a politician, showing up for work with all of the folks and politics that you don't seem to have the time of day for. He finds the time of day for it.

He's in the system, yet not in "the machine."
I.e., not on the payroll of the rich/corporate/military-industrial complex.

I'm not disagreeing... But where does he go to work? Who cuts his paycheck?

It depends on what you're calling bunk.
Two party system? Bunk. Both sides want to screw over the little guy.
Paul is VERY "it's all bunk" in this department, as he consistently refuses to grovel before the leadership of either party, preferring to blaze his own trail guided by conscience and the Constitution.

Sure. But I don't think he'd want one to skip their vote if he didn't happen to be on the ballot. That's all I'm saying.

He's running with one of those two parties, isn't he? No? Wait. Yes. Huh? I thought Ron Paul was running for candidacy in one of the two of the two-system parties? lain:

I mainly single out that group because I'm IN IT, and so are most of my coworkers, classmates, etc.

However, there also appears to be a growing number of 50-somethings who have become recently disillusioned, and they've had a lot more time and a lot more attempts at voting for the "right" candidate.

Whoops, did you mean to skip 40 years of people there? 40 years... That's about hmm, well, how many millions of people do you think? But I suppose they don't have a take on it. You know, the 30-50 year old folks. The non-people. What?

The reason I say he's the only one I'd ever vote for is because he's the only politician in my lifetime to gain my trust and admiration.
Plus he's a fellow Texan .

As said, great. Sincerely. I'm just saying maybe there's more than just Ron Paul.

Hey, but also, how's that been working out with Texas? lain: Well, some very good food if not good schoolbooks. lain:

If another candidate like him came along, I'd be HAPPY to vote for him/her.
But Paul's consistent lack of nominations leads me to believe he's basically broken the mold in a time when party leadership (and looking at the numbers the American people as well) want cookie-cutter politicians and presidents.

Well, if it turns out he's not on the ballot, I suppose you can just ignore everything else. ... But I'd think he'd be showing up to vote.

Anyway. He did really well in the straw poll. That's cool.

 

[IXOYE]

Every time I see him in these debates he seems to get the most applause, and by that I mean the thunderous, spontaneous, almost unanimous applause but they never rank him as winning. Either each of his supporters have six arms or as Knight said alot of people really like some of what he says but can't swollow the whole pill.

The applause he gets is because the country is seeing how far we have ran from the outline the founders set up.for us. We have shifted so far left, what is considered lmcenter now, is left of Kennedy. Kennedy and Nixon 's view were not that far apart. Democrats invoke emotional stands to push the people.

Years back when NEWT was balance,Ingram the budget, they cut down a huge increase in school lunches. They didn't take anything away, just slowed down the increased in spending. The dem.s, everyone said the same thing, same phrase, "they want to take the.children's lunches away". The people buy into that. Sounds horrible, so they must be bad.

Iraq war, clinton's admin didn't go in, because they couldn't get the polls to show the people favored it. If the oil had been set on fire if Clinton attacked, haliburton would have.gone for them too. Clinton knew during reconstruction they could fund it through their oil. That would have meant we spent billions less. For the dems vs George w, they used his oil ties to try t bring him down.

The result, for a political maneuver, they cost your grandchildren money.

They still wanted to spend money. They still made promises to get elected that would cost money. The people are sick of it. So, ron oaul's views, being akin to Jefferson and washington's are appealing.

Your hope, governor "good hair" here in Texas, is probably running. He's in between ron paul and the pack. And I think a perry/bachman ticket could move people.

I want to see as a campaign platform, 20 year moratorium on congressional raises. That person wouldn't get elected,but he would have to make his every love public, because Congress would try to stonewall him.

Or how about a platform, "I will cease all congressional elections until the DEFECIT is balanced, not just the budget, or they have enough deaths in Congress to require elections. What this will do, is stop promises that cost us money, because with no elections, there is no need for promises, thus there is a huge chunk of gift spending increase wiped off of the future books.

Oh, and not let them leave the hill, until this is done. They live on ramen noodles and cold pizza until they get there. No family or conjugal visits, and remove all liquor, bit provide a small amount of beer to help them avoid the.shakes from withdrawals, call that a redneck kindness.

That is the ticket that would win.

 

[rocketman]

I love his economic views. I'd like to support him but his foreign policy and libertarian social views really sour me on him.

I watched a bit of that debate the other night and one of the other guys (I think Santorum) really nailed him on his states rights stance. He told Paul that the states don't have the right to do immoral things and Paul had no response.

Constitutionally speaking, the federal government from Abe Lincoln forward has trampled the rights of the states. Our govt. was set up with the federal government to be small and the states having more rights. The feds have lorded over the states and imposed their will including amending the constitution to allow the feds to tax it's citizenry, a power which the founders deliberately did not allow the central government to have from our inception. This being said the federal government has grown to it's current mammoth size because of it's expanding power over the states, I agree with Ron Paul in a certain sense and understand his position but, I do not necessarily agree with him in total. I do agree with him that the federal govt. needs to decrease in size and scope.

That being said... I sure wish economically we could adopt some of Ron Paul's ideas.

My sentiments exactly... :thumb:

 

[Cracked]

Probably where I disagree with him the most is that he would cut more government programs than I'd support. His idea of small government is smaller than mine.

I agree with this.

 

[Krsto]

I agree with this.

Right but at least he really believes in small government. The R's have it in their platform but just try and do it and hear them squeal. Republicans who get into office only paid lip service to small government to get themselves elected.

 

[Cracked]

Right but at least he really believes in small government. The R's have it in their platform but just try and do it and hear them squeal. Republicans who get into office only paid lip service to small government to get themselves elected.

There are things I like about him. Perhaps, if we wasn't so extreme in his stance on small government he would be the guy I'd vote for.

 

[The Barbarian]

Republicans who get into office only paid lip service to small government to get themselves elected.

They differ from democrats primarily in to whom they want to give the money. Oh, and they pretend to care about abortion.

 

[Buzzword]

Sure. That's fine. You seem to be skipping the fact that he's a politician, showing up for work with all of the folks and politics that you don't seem to have the time of day for. He finds the time of day for it.



Again, where does he go to work? Who cuts his paycheck?



Sure. And I don't think he'd want one to skip their vote if he didn't happen to be on the ballot.

I take it there's a reason you keep harping on this?

I haven't advocated that everyone take my position on the matter, but Paul appears to be the only one not attempting to screw over everyone not in his income bracket.

Also, he's running with one of those two parties, isn't he? No? Wait. I thought Ron Paul was running for candidacy in one of the two of the two-system parties? lain:

You know he originally ran as a Libertarian, right?
Kinda hard to help herd the sheep if they don't recognize you as a shepherd.

Thus, he ran as a Republican, and gained a position from which to attempt to enact change.

Whoops, did you mean to skip 40 years of people there? 40 years... That's about hmm, well, how many millions of people do you think? But I suppose they don't have a take on it. You know, the 30-50 year old folks. The non-people.

Whoa whoa whoa!
Where'd you get this idea that I somehow disregard everyone not in X-age group?

I was describing my experiences with people, not advocating a stance for others to follow and definitely NOT demonizing anyone who doesn't follow it.

Hey, also, how's that been working out with Texas? lain: Well, some good food.

There's a reason I left (to find and marry my wife)

Well, if it turns out he's not on the ballot, I suppose you can just ignore everything else. ... But I'd think he'd be showing up to vote.

He probably would be, but then he seems to place more faith in the general American populace than I do.

 

[sky.]

Ron Paul - "I think...I think...I think...opinion, opinion, opinion..."

Me - "What's the plan???"

Audience - "Next question"

 

[Persephone66]

I love his economic views. I'd like to support him but his foreign policy and libertarian social views really sour me on him.

I watched a bit of that debate the other night and one of the other guys (I think Santorum) really nailed him on his states rights stance. He told Paul that the states don't have the right to do immoral things and Paul had no response.

Most of Paul's Libertarian views are what I like about him, but I do side with the Libertarian Party.

 

[drbrumley]

Just a followup to my previous post.

Here's to u Santorum.

Glenn Beck is no Ron Paul. By Aaron David Ward

For a man who claims to be a principled defender of freedom, Glenn Beck leaves a lot to be desired. He talks out of both sides of his mouth and never seems to miss an opportunity to bash Congressman Paul who is one of the few principled defenders of liberty in a position of power seemingly left in the U.S.

At times, the controversial talk show host talks like a libertarian but every time you think there might be a chance that Beck will embrace freedom, he disappoints you. Glenn Beck is Lucy from Charlie Brown. Just when you think he/she will let Chuck kick the football, he/she pulls it away.

On Friday, August 12, 2011 on his radio talk show, Beck berated Congressman Paul for daring to tell the truth about America’s foreign policy debacles. During the GOP presidential debate in Ames Iowa, Dr. Paul was asked what he would do if Iran developed nuclear weapons. He stuck to the libertarian principle of non-aggression and non-intervention and said he would pursue diplomatic discussions and free trade with Iran. When replaying Dr. Paul’s answer on his radio show, Beck lost it. He called Paul "dead wrong" to suggest that somehow the Congressman’s response would jeopardize American lives. Once again Beck proves he is an establishment, neo-conservative, war-mongering blowhard who believes every Muslim is out to kill Westerners and Americans in particular. Beck, who loves to encourage Americans to read and understand their history, appears to be ignorant of the history of American covert and overt military and political intervention in Iran.

According to Wikipedia…In spring and summer 1953, the United States and Britain, through a covert operation of the CIA called Operation Ajax, conducted from the American Embassy in Tehran, helped organize a coup d'état to overthrow the Mossadeq government. The operation initially failed, and the Shah fled to Italy, but a second attempt succeeded, and Mosaddeq was imprisoned. According to a study of the coup headed by Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, intended "to resolve" the "controversy" over who and what were responsible, "it was geostrategic considerations, rather than a desire to destroy Mosaddeq's movement, to establish a dictatorship in Iran or to gain control over Iran's oil, that persuaded U.S. officials to undertake the coup."

And Americans wonder why Iranians are hostile to the United States and its out-of-control government.​

Right on Mr. Ward.