Ron Paul

[kenandkids]

The overwhelming reason that people proclaim to support Ron Paul, seriously it's the #1 reason every poll, is that he isn't a corporate stooge. I detest people that do bad things, whether or not they are paid to do it. I detest people that want to do bad things, whether or not they are paid to do it.

What I don't understand is how ordinarily good people can support such a corrupt and downright disgusting individual, and claim that his not being paid to be bad is a good thing.

A hitman is a bad person, a fellow that kills for fun is worse. Most teapublicans are told who and what to support, Paul simply does what his Randian philosophy tells him. People that work off of corrupt and sick philosophies NEVER DO GOOD THINGS! Yes, he might want to legalise pot and other drugs, but he wants state rights to trump that. Yes, he might want racism to be illegal, but he wants state rights to trump that. Any context of any stand he has, he willingly supports states rights to overturn should they choose.

Let's look at what Paul and his worshippers will do to America.


Drinking water:

State parks:

Child labour:

Ron Pauls ENTIRE stance:


The poor should be graceful enough to be happy when an employer feeds them, just like the 1800's when people were paid just enough not to starve by the only person/company in town.

The competition should run like hell, just like in the 1800's when the only person/company in town paid the sheriff to get rid of them.

The go-getters should either die or join the gang, just like in the 1800's when the only person/company couldn't stand rabble-rousers.

 

[televator]

Hey! That is not true about the drinking water. Free market will take care of it. Besides, people need generally good clean water..... to put their yachts in. Oh, not everyone owns a yacht? Well they should go buy one. Whats their problem? Poor people are weird.

 

[Aught3]

Facts?

 

[impiku]

Are liberals on this forum so incompetent to the point they cannot even formulate a legitimate argument against a philosophy? Why resort to propagating petty propaganda? I'm not even sure whether to take some of you even seriously now.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Are liberals on this forum so incompetent to the point they cannot even formulate a legitimate argument against a philosophy? Why resort to propagating petty propaganda? I'm not even sure whether to take some of you even seriously now.

You keep on using this word. Definition?

 

[impiku]

Hey Barney the purple dino, in a political discourse when one is speaking of "liberal" they are usually referring to a social liberal(a progressive) who moderately opposes interference of the government in private affairs but advocates heavy government intervention in economic matters. They also usually advocate government spending. Wikipedia is your friend.

 

[Prolescum]

[centre]

[/centre]

 

[impiku]

No, no, no too much political debate going on, just clarifications.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Facts?

 

[kenandkids]

Facts?

Yes.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Facts?

Yes.

Demonstrate this, please.

 

[kenandkids]

Demonstrate this, please.

Ron Paul wants to remove the EPA. As was shown in our nation before the EPA, and every nation without a form of one, pictures one and two are realities in a place without environmental protection.

Ron Paul wants an end to labour restrictions and employee protections. As was shown in our nation before the restrictions and protections, and every nation without a form of them, picture three is a reality in a place without them.

 

[Squawk]

Hey Barney the purple dino, in a political discourse when one is speaking of "liberal" they are usually referring to a social liberal(a progressive) who moderately opposes interference of the government in private affairs but advocates heavy government intervention in economic matters. They also usually advocate government spending. Wikipedia is your friend.

Quick point of reference, when you stay around here long enough you see so many terms with apparently well defined meanings get bastardised time and time again by people bending them to their own agenda. Atheist is the first that springs to mind. A natural consequence, clear definition of terms is sought frequently. Wiki and dictionary definitions are almost never presumed to apply unless stated to be accurate.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Demonstrate this, please.

Ron Paul wants to remove the EPA. As was shown in our nation before the EPA, and every nation without a form of one, pictures one and two are realities in a place without environmental protection.

Ron Paul wants an end to labour restrictions and employee protections. As was shown in our nation before the restrictions and protections, and every nation without a form of them, picture three is a reality in a place without them.

I agree that water regulation is a legitimate function of government, so I am with you on that one.

State parks are run by states. National parks are administered by the Department of the Interior; neither are regulated by the EPA.

However, you seem to have an awfully simplistic view of this. There's also centuries of history, technology, and culture to consider when measuring environmental impact. Also, the question if the loss of heavy industry in the US is an acceptable trade for environmental improvements is legitimate - and people can defend different answers to that question.

As for child labor - that's also something that's not so simple. Child labor can be good for a country - and for the children.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3621

I find it doubtful that child labor would happen in the US at levels seen at other places and times, and your emotional appeal to be unconvincing. If some does happen - the same arguments apply as in the article.

 

[Aught3]

Demonstrate this, please.

Ron Paul wants to remove the EPA. As was shown in our nation before the EPA, and every nation without a form of one, pictures one and two are realities in a place without environmental protection.

Ron Paul wants an end to labour restrictions and employee protections. As was shown in our nation before the restrictions and protections, and every nation without a form of them, picture three is a reality in a place without them.

Well that makes it a little clearer, thanks. I still would like to see Paul's own words though.

 

[kenandkids]

Well that makes it a little clearer, thanks. I still would like to see Paul's own words though.

Ron Paul has destroying the EPA as a primary topic on his platform. He wants businesses to have free rein to do whatever they wish, and if we don't like it we can sue the company AFTER the poisoning or destruction has occurred.
http://www.mygov365.com/discussions/discussion/119


Here is him whining that air quality standards hurt Texas business:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070927093141/http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=154


Here is him saying that everything should be privately owned (can't see how that could possibly go wrong... :roll: ) :
http://web.archive.org/web/20070927093141/http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=154


His views on The Civil Rights Act not being about race but an evil takeover of property, supporting Doma, supporting DADT, gender equality in pay being bad, protecting the Pledge from ever being considered in court, etc.:
http://ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm



He's also a climate change denier, opposes vaccination programs, denies evolution, believes that churches should have more of a role in society and be the primary supporter of the poor, etc..

Having taken a good position on a few views does not grant him exemption for his bad views. This man should not be in congress, much less president.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Hey Barney the purple dino, in a political discourse when one is speaking of "liberal" they are usually referring to a social liberal(a progressive) who moderately opposes interference of the government in private affairs but advocates heavy government intervention in economic matters. They also usually advocate government spending. Wikipedia is your friend.

Quick point of reference, when you stay around here long enough you see so many terms with apparently well defined meanings get bastardised time and time again by people bending them to their own agenda. Atheist is the first that springs to mind. A natural consequence, clear definition of terms is sought frequently. Wiki and dictionary definitions are almost never presumed to apply unless stated to be accurate.

This.

Though while we're on the subject: I also find that people who spend a lot of time fixating on labels really tend to wear out their welcome very fast. Especially so when the "you must just think that way because you're an x" thing enters into play.

Also, impiku, I see that you seem to get a kick out of comparing me to a cacophonous over-sized plushy. I assume this is as a term of endearment, so by all means continue to do so since it delights you so. Cheers.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Having taken a good position on a few views does not grant him exemption for his bad views. This man should not be in congress, much less president.

Just out of wild curiosity, is there a republican you would support over Ron? I extend this question to everyone in this thread...

 

[kenandkids]

Just out of wild curiosity, is there a republican you would support over Ron? I extend this question to everyone in this thread...

Actually yes. Huntsman has been setting himself apart from the field by being pro-science, accepting that taxes are necessary, and has even taken some decent humanistic stances toward gays and minorities. I disagree with much of his politics, but at least he lives in the real world, unlike the rest of them. This isn't to say that I'd support him over Obama though...

 

[impiku]

Quick point of reference, when you stay around here long enough you see so many terms with apparently well defined meanings get bastardised time and time again by people bending them to their own agenda.

Oh I'm well aware of that. :lol:

Wiki and dictionary definitions are almost never presumed to apply unless stated to be accurate.

I skim read wiki definition of social liberalism and it seemed quite objective.

Though while we're on the subject: I also find that people who spend a lot of time fixating on labels really tend to wear out their welcome very fast. Especially so when the "you must just think that way because you're an x" thing enters into play.

You can call it herd-mentality if you like, but I construe it more positively. Political labels just roughly outline one's political values, expecting it to perfectly describe a person is asinine. I would rather much prefer labels than enumerating a multitude of policies and beliefs to demonstrate my values, categorization saves time. Labels help identify and align people towards a common political goal. I believe it is significant.

In regards to Ron Paul, I don't know much about the guy, I only read one book from him, "The Revolution: A Manifesto" which I believe was a decent book. So I can't really comment on him but I'll add my two cents on the environment and child labor. Private ownership is a better way of protecting the environment than simply enacting regulations, since it provides incentives to protect one's property and this is vindicated by the fact that forests that are privately owned are better maintained than state-owned forests(Healing Our World by Dr. Mary J. Ruwart). Also consider Soviet Union in the past and the level of pollution there. Child labor was on a decline before child labor laws took effect. What ended child labor was wealth accumulated by labor(including child labor) and because of this, children could afford education for higher living standard in the future. I think the market also pushed them out naturally because capital was exploding and employers preferred to expand capital rather than labor to increase productivity, hence the high unemployment rate at the time, and they probably had to compete with adult workers that are better suited for work. The lives of children would've been in a worse shape if it weren't for child labor, the reason why they joined the work force to begin with is because ex ante they believed was the best choice for them, and they were probably right.