Originally posted by Capitalizt
It's astonishing to me how much time people like les spend demonizing RP and his positions. The guy is a "2%" candidate according to Paul bashers, yet they spend an inordinate amount of time dwelling on him. I find this is a common trend on many other forums I visit. Both lefties and "Hannity-Republicans" will literally spend HOURS and HOURs of their time digging up dirt on Dr Paul and writing lengthy rebuttles to his positions.
Honestly, why waste your time? Are you afraid he might actually win?
That took me ten minutes to write.
:conf:
And I think the reason I write multiple replies in this thread is because the more I write, the greater the chances of you actually responding to the content of one of them.
Lesbianosaur
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
Personally, I don't have as much faith in the American people. I think most people will go to the voting booth uninformed as usual, and vote for whatever neofascist candidate the media throws in their face.
A. When HRC and Giuliani don't win in Iowa, what happens to your hypothesis about the media picking the candidates?
B. Neo-fascist? Care to elaborate on how every candidate other than Paul is a "neo-fascist"?
C. Uninformed? You're the one who has proven incapable of actually discussing the positions of your Dr. Paul, instead choosing to deflect criticisms by complaining about other people simply being "uninformed." At least NeoPhono is able to participate in a discussion and not simply repeat campaign mantras given to him at the ronpaul2008 website.
D. I'm sorry you don't have much faith in the American people. If that is the case, perhaps you should look into a candidate that doesn't pledge to hand control over everything to the individual.
NeoPhono
I realize that Paul has stances that are extreme and are hard to swallow. The thing I've realized, and I think that Paul has too, is that he will not be able to implement every position he supports. He's not going to get the dollar back on the gold standard, he's not going to be able to withdraw us from every national treaty and he's not going to be able to abolish many, if any, government departments. In all honesty, that's not what I'm looking for him to do. I'm looking at him to be a beacon of moderation (for lack of a better term) in that his viewpoints might serve to moderate the views that are currently pervasive in our government.
He might not return us to the gold standard, but he might be able to work with the existing fiat currency system to find a better economic model. He might not be able to eliminate government departments, but he might be able to cut down on the bureaucracy and waste we currently have. He might not be able to withdraw us from all international organizations and treaties, but he might be able to help reduce the overriding American presence that many foreign countries hate and help focus American dollars and effort back home.
I don't completely prescribe to every stance Ron Paul has, however he would be one man in one branch of the government and it would be highly unlikely that he would get any of his ideas carried out exactly as he'd like. He would however bring divergent ideas which are more similar to mine, that when mixed with the current political culture may help to bring things back from where they are. I simply do not see another candidate that I think would do anything more but continue down the path we're currently headed (like I've said). I'll take Paul and all his flaws if it means we have a chance of changing things in Washington.
Capitalizt
lez, what we have today in the US is very close to fascism IMO. I used to laugh at the conspiracy nuts who railed against the
"military industrial complex", but after 8 years of neocon rule, I see just how correct they were. We've had a loss of privacy, loss of habeas corpus, torture of detainees, military tribunals, people being labeled traitors if they didn't support the "Patriot Act"...being accused of "not supporting the troops" if they don't support more war funding, etc. All of this resembles fascism. I think Ron Paul is correct when he calls it a "soft" fascism...or corporatism. While we don't have a dictator, Washington is being run by a group of unelected corporate/thinktank elites.
Military contractors + big business + special interest groups own both parties and all of the "major" candidates including Hillary and Rudy. Rudy has nearly 100 MILLION dollars in his warchest, a huge chunk of that coming from corporations and PACS. Contrast that with Ron Paul's 18.5 million $$ warchest funded almost entirely by individual contributions..
As much as I would like to see Paul win, his positions are too radical for the current establishment and they will not it happen. As I said earlier, I don't expect Paul to get much of his agenda through even if he were to be elected. The best he could hope for is to take a few whacks at the $3 Trillion monster with a baseball bat. The IRS will still be around. The FED will still be around...and our currency will be devalued more and more every year with no end in sight. The best Paul could hope for is to slow down the process and preserve what little capitalism we have left in America.
I don't think it's gonna happen though. The other candidates will buy votes with phony advertisements and promises of endless government "freebies" for all. Most people like the idea of something for nothing...and only a minority see these promises for what they are...promises for more government power, more federal control, more confiscation and redistribution of wealth...things that go against the founding principles of our country.
The libertarian message appeals to many people in America, but I'm afraid they are always going to be a minority. Despite Paul's grassroots success, he just doesn't have the cash to compete with the "big boys". To make matters worse, he has even promised NOT to take the $20 million in matching federal funds for his campaign because doing so goes against his philosophy. It's a stupid move practically speaking, but it speaks volumes about his character.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
It's a stupid move practically speaking, but it speaks volumes about his character.
...and you want him to be President. you're a smart guy, explain to me the logic in that?
how many "stupid moves" in a 4 year term would it take to change your mind if he held the most powerful job in the world? a job where not just American lives can be put at risk with the swipe of a Presidential pen but free lives all over the world. you want stupid moves? he's already told you he's got a pocket full of them.
i realize the medias got you all skeered with "the loss of Habeas Corpus" (which is complete bull) the Patriot Act and waterboarding but as much as all of that has been necessary in our own past, none of that is written in stone. none of it. it never was.
we are at a place right now in history where we've needed to come up with some pretty bold and we need debate over it more than ever but nothing deserves the label as fascist not in this country. under real fascism there is no debate and the intent is forever. but we tend to imply it all of the time not knowing that we really have no idea what it is. only in America can that happen (maybe Canada too) . it's ironic.
forget about foreign policy, Ron Paul has made it farly clear he's not reconciling the American people. if reconciling the American public is what you want, on his issues it's impossible.
you, we i should say, are caught up in the middle of some profound events changing this world. Ron Paul is the last mutherfu**er we need right now.
Q5echo
i'm a deist and i think this guy's off the reservation.
some of you atheist should have fun with that.
Krypton
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
i'm a deist and i think this guy's off the reservation.
some of you atheist should have fun with that.
"I don't think anyone can claim absolute truth on any side."
I think that was a great answer. Such an issue shouldn't decide an election.
HardTranceProd
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
i'm a deist and i think this guy's off the reservation.
some of you atheist should have fun with that.
Yeah. Thanks for this, I didn't know his views before. Typical naive American ignoramus... how could this idiot even be a doctor or an OB?!
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by HardTranceProd
Yeah. Thanks for this, I didn't know his views before. Typical naive American ignoramus... how could this idiot even be a doctor or an OB?!
Unfortunately he's not the first MD who ignorantly defies evolution. There's a bit of a separation of knowledge between the clinical practice and research side of biology, though I'd like to hope there shouldn't be much of one at all. However, MDs like Paul tend to show this separation of knowledge quite badly. One would hope that common sense and a basic acceptance of a widespread understanding with millions of studies from peer-reviewed literature would be enough for someone as intelligent enough to attain an MD status, but I guess not.
Capitalizt
As an agnostic I can't say I like Paul saying that evolution is a "theory"...but it's not enough to keep me from supporting him. He may be a Christian, but unlike the other GOP candidates, he isn't willing to use taxpayer dollars to promote religion or fund "faith based" charities the way Dubya has done..
Lesbianosaur
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
As an agnostic I can't say I like Paul saying that evolution is a "theory"...but it's not enough to keep me from supporting him. He may be a Christian, but unlike the other GOP candidates, he isn't willing to use taxpayer dollars to promote religion or fund "faith based" charities the way Dubya has done..
And what about federal laws defining life at conception or marriage as only between a man and a woman?
And anyway, I think you miss the point of Paul's opposition to federal funding for faith-based programs. He isn't against mixing religion with politics to protect secularism. He thinks secularism will somehow dilute religion.
From the horse's mouth:
quote:
No one familiar with the history of the past century can doubt that private charities, particularly those maintained by persons motivated by their faith to perform charitable acts, are more effective in addressing social needs than federal programs. Therefore, the sponsors of HR 7, the Community Solutions Act, are correct to believe that expanding the role of voluntary, religious-based organizations will benefit society. However, this noble goal will not be accomplished by providing federal taxpayer funds to these organizations. Instead, federal funding will transform these organizations into adjuncts of the federal government and reduce voluntary giving on the part of the people. In so doing, HR 7 will transform the majority of private charities into carbon copies of failed federal welfare programs.
Providing federal funds to religious organizations gives the organizations an incentive to make obedience to federal bureaucrats their number-one priority. Religious entities may even change the religious character of their programs in order to please their new federal paymaster.
