Ron Paul

[Dorian]

The way I see it, despite disagreeing with a few views of Ron Paul, he is still the best candidate. Nobody even comes close.

If he gets anywhere near the presidency I'm voting for him.

I will not vote for anyone that supports socialized medicine (pretty much all democrats). I will not vote for any Christian fanatic who attacks the separation of church and state. He is neither. Sadly that is a rare thing.

I don't understand how this value can't be seen.

I wonder, if Thomas Jefferson was alive today how people on this forum would react to him. Certainly I disagree with him on things but overall he was great man in my opinion. However, just because I disagree with some things doesn't mean I should completely reject him and then lay down and accept someone like Bush or Hilary. I'd rather fight for someone close to my ideals than accept trash.

[Robert J. Kolker]

I wonder, if Thomas Jefferson was alive today how people on this forum would react to him. Certainly I disagree with him on things but overall he was great man in my opinion. However, just because I disagree with some things doesn't mean I should completely reject him and then lay down and accept someone like Bush or Hilary. I'd rather fight for someone close to my ideals than accept trash.

I don't know about This Forum. I can tell you how I react. Exasperation. Thomas Jefferson knew full well that slavery was wrong. He knew a Day of Reckoning was a-coming. Even so, he was so strapped for cash that he could not bring himself to sell his "property" while he was alive. I guess my annoyance with Jefferson, was not his ideas (some of which I agree with) but his money management. He was a spendthrift. He indulged his taste in books, wine and exotic seeds to experiment with when he could not afford to. How anyone so smart could be so dumb makes me want to tear at my hair and rend my garments.

Alexander Hamilton, the Statist From Hell, was a money manager par excellence. He knew how to manage his business and political affairs with expertise and precision. And he was smarter than just about anyone else around him (with the possible exception of Jefferson). And he knew he was smarter. It is no wonder that Hamilton's vision prevailed, not Jefferson's. If only Jefferson had as good a grip on his affairs as did Hamilton, Jefferson would have found both the will and a way to unslave his slaves and set an example to his fellow Southern land owners. Who knows? The Civil War might have been avoided altogether and 620,000 people who died, might have lived.

Bob Kolker

[DarkWaters]

I'm more afraid at the intensity of [Ron Paul's] following, individuals that not only believe he will win the GOP candidacy but that he's the only GOP candidate that can defeat whomever the Dems draft for the job.

I am not worried about this, since Ron Paul will never get the nomination.

I personally am more alarmed with how many individuals who value Ayn Rand are also infatuated with the Ron Paul campaign. Why do they not recoil from the fact that he does not consider Islamic Totalitarianism as a threat?

Anyway, this is not meant to be a personal attack on forum members such as Dorian, who I think is being respectful.

Edited September 10, 2007 by DarkWaters

[stephenmallory]

I personally am more alarmed with how many individuals who value Ayn Rand are also infatuated with the Ron Paul campaign. Why do they not recoil from the fact that he does not consider Islamic Totalitarianism as a threat?

I watched RP in the primary debate the other night on Fox. He seems to be more emotionally invested in his revulsion to America meddling in other countries than he is in his anger/fear of Islamic Totalitarianism. He kept making analogies with Russia or Mexico and how we would feel if they had military bases in Iowa. He also said that we should deal with a nuclear Iran the same way we dealt with a nuclear Soviet Union. He doesn't understand that there wouldn't even be a nuclear Iran if we had seriously dealth with The Soviet Union (We should have listened to General Patton in 1945).

What makes me afraid of Ron Paul is not so much his nonchalant attitude about Islamic Totalitarianism (I happen to largely agree with his theory of 'blowback'), but what I suspect is his sincere belief in the subjectivity of morality - at least at the international level. In the long run, this is far more disarming than possibly being mistaken about the extent to which Islamic Totalitarianism can harm us because it makes him incapable of asserting himself militarily even when he is convinced that he is in danger.

Edited September 10, 2007 by stephenmallory

[LaszloWalrus]

(I happen to largely agree with his theory of 'blowback')

Do you mean that you thinkg September 11th was the result of US action against the Islamic world?

[stephenmallory]

Do you mean that you thinkg September 11th was the result of US action against the Islamic world?

Succintly, yes (And that's just what Rudy Giuliani asked Ron Paul, btw). I won't say that I know conclusively, the events leading up to 9/11 are extremely complicated and there could be an arcane fact that would change my mind, but I do know the general outline of how 9/11 came about. Here's what I know:

The US Government thinks that the smooth flow of oil is something that the American people are entitled to, just like food stamps or education. As such, if an American company does business in the Middle-East (in this case, Saudi Arabia), they have the assurance of knowing that the American government will use all of it's leverage - not excluding military action - to keep them in business. As a result, American companies are willing to do business with Islamic dictators instead of just taking the oil like they should. As a result, Islamic dictators get rich. As a result, they hire people like Osama bin Laden's father to build palaces for them. As a result, Osama bin Laden inherits $300,000,000, goes crazy with Islam and hatred of the West, and uses that money to carry out terrorist attacks.

If the division of government and economics were consistently respected in this country, none of this ever would have happened because either Western companies simply wouldn't be in the Middle-East, or if they were, they wouldn't taking pragmatic approaches by giving their money to dictators, the dictator's architects, and the dictator's architect's insane, terrorist son.

I'm really not all that afraid of Islamic Terrorists. In the scheme of things in terms of every day threats to my life and liberty they're a fly speck. The IRS and common criminals down the street are of much greater concern to me. In fact, to be afraid of them and to treat Islamic Totalitarians like they are as powerful or as dangerous as something like Nazi Germany or The Soviet Union is giving them exactly what they want - you to be afraid of them.

Of course, I think that bin Laden or anyone like him is evil and that if it's worth the effort they should be exterminated. I also think that terror should be fought with terror. Nuclear weapons should have destroyed a few Middle-Eastern cities right after 9/11, but it's too late for that now - it wouldn't have the psychological effect. But this stuff is all short-term.

In the long run, like I said, it's our domestic policies that dictate our foreign policies. The way the government meddles in the affairs of Americans, it's no wonder that they're willing to meddle in the affairs of foreigners either. Unlike with it's own citizens, it's not immoral to do so, but it's my general impression that when it comes to the Middle-East, it's a tactical mistake.

[DarkWaters]

(I happen to largely agree with his theory of 'blowback')

Hi guys,

I have created a thread where we can explore the blowback theory with Objectivist principles. If you are interested in this topic, please participate in it.

[Toolboxnj]

I personally am more alarmed with how many individuals who value Ayn Rand are also infatuated with the Ron Paul campaign. Why do they not recoil from the fact that he does not consider Islamic Totalitarianism as a threat?

Yes, this is my biggest issue with Ron Paul. It seems like he rationalizes Islamic terrorism. Also, I dislike when individuals cite or point to the Constitution when they defend limited government. Rather, there should be a philosophical defense of liberty, freedom and justice, not this "well, it's in the Constitution so we would do X". Provide the moral reason why the Founders, in principle, supported freedom.

Edited October 5, 2007 by Toolboxnj

[Qwertz]

Has anyone mentioned the jurisdiction stripping bill Paul keeps introducing in the House?

Linky-poo

Eugh.

~Q

[Edit: Hooray for 500 posts!]

Edited October 8, 2007 by Qwertz

[DarkWaters]

According to Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics.com, Ron Paul was recently queried for his opinion on the term "Islamic fascism." What was Ron Paul's response?

[islamic Fascism is] a false term to make people think we're fighting Hitler. It's war propaganda designed to generate fear so that the war has to be spread.

This goes hand-in-hand with his description of the 9/11 attacks being orchestrated by "19 thugs with box cutters." Dr. Paul greatly underestimates the threat of Islamic terror.

[DavidOdden]

Has anyone mentioned the jurisdiction stripping bill Paul keeps introducing in the House?

Hooray and welcome to the 500 club, btw. OMG LOLZ is he serious?? So like, if Texas decides to pass a law requiring Texas Babdism to be taught in all schools, the Supreme Court could not hear a constitutional challenge. The Protection of Marriage act on steroids. I guess Paul's next move would be striking down Madison v. Marbury.

[DarkWaters]

Ron Paul was recently asked for his opinion on Ayn Rand and Objectivism.

was surprisingly positive. Dr. Paul indicates that Ayn Rand had a lot of positive influence on him although he (obviously) indicates that he disagrees with her on foreign policy.

[softwareNerd]

He titled it the "We the People Act". Perhaps he should have called it the "We the Christians Act". He gives no explanation why democracy should be allowed to trample rights only in the area of religion, and in no other.

[Qwertz]

Issue-based jurisdiction stripping is an absolute dealbreaker for me. Actually, I can't think of a single instance of jurisdiction stripping, purporting to remove a challenge to a statute (state or federal) under the U.S. Constitution from federal court jurisdiction, that would I would not find so obscene as to absolutely preclude my support for a candidate who advocated for same. That's a fundamental rule-of-law issue. If there is no final, single arbiter of disputes arising under the federal constitution, then the constitution is meaningless. Anyone who advocates this kind of jurisdiction stripping can be cleanly marked as an unprincipled, anti-rule-of-law crank.

~Q

[Clawg]

The campaign seems to take the next step up, 2mio$ donations today alone and still ~8 hours to go... wow

[DavidV]

Here is Ron Paul's statement on abortion:

Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

The important issue is not how his position affects his policy on abortion, but how it demonstrates his lack of understanding of the nature of rights. Would you trust a doctor (and Ron Paul is an obstetrician) who can't tell the difference between a clump of cells and a human being? Then why would you want to trust such a doctor with your freedom?

[Marty McFly]

The campaign seems to take the next step up, 2mio$ donations today alone and still ~8 hours to go... wow

Most of it is coming from the "truthers" I didn't know they were o rich. but then again, Michael Moor is a billionaire. and then they complain about the "Rich New Yorkers" or "New York Money People" who helped plot the attacks *rolleyes*

[Clawg]

Well, ~30000 people with an average of ~100$ each. Not sure how you conclude that it mainly came from one special interest group.

[Clawg]

The important issue is not how his position affects his policy on abortion, but how it demonstrates his lack of understanding of the nature of rights. Would you trust a doctor (and Ron Paul is an obstetrician) who can't tell the difference between a clump of cells and a human being? Then why would you want to trust such a doctor with your freedom?

I think the reasoning behind his view is important. He says that he finds "it difficult not to defend a life a minute before birth just as I would defend that life a minute after birth." (source)

Due to his experience with late abortions he took the point of view that there is no point in pregnancy where you can decide whether it is a person one minute after and no person one minute before, i.e. inductive reasoning (correct me if I'm wrong), i.e. equating a potential with an actual.

So the question is: In what fields of philosophy would inductive reasoning be wrong and why? He obviously does not follow that principle in foreign policy (does he? equating a potential peace with an actual?).

Difficult, I think using inductive reasoning as an absolute is wrong, but I guess I have more reading and thinking to do first.

Edited November 6, 2007 by Clawg

[adrock3215]

Ron Paul has his downfalls. However, anyone who wants to truly understand some of his positions and what he believes should read the following statement written by him in the year 2000:

A Republic, If You Can Keep It

Web address here:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm

[Marty McFly]

Well, ~30000 people with an average of ~100$ each. Not sure how you conclude that it mainly came from one special interest group.

I read that somewhere.

[Mammon]

Watch Ron Paul not understanding what a trade deficiet is and what it's effects are...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RKQmYfY3R7c

Also, I found this interesting video from an idiot on Youtube...

You see?

Ron Paul is fighting a dragon. But, instead of your standard set shining armor with plus 20 defense points against fire and dragon claws and a weapon arsenal capable of taking over an entire country without lifting a finger, this man brings with him a ballerina tutu and a box of toothpicks with Hello Kitty on them. Now on the side lines of this monster's lair we have a large group of screaming fan boys two pronouns away from the same excessive cheering at the launch of Halo 3 who are caught in a wondrously glazed eyed admiration for this man saying "Whoa! This guy is going up against the DRAGON! YEAH, finally someone is doing it! We are going to bring that fucker down! Bush did 9/11!" When his lack of understanding of the principles and problems of the thing he is facing costs him his flesh and blood and he meets his Baptist branded maker, that audiences reaction will undeniable fall into something like this "See! No one can defeat the dragon, he is tool powerful! We are all fucked!" and then they proceed to abandon what little use of reason they already, call it growing out of their childish fits, toss the Xbox and bend over with their pants down at the smallest glimmer of the the shine coming off your local taxpayers horn-rimmed-glasses.

Point being, nothing hurts the fight for freedom more then an unprincipled fucktard running with his boxers on this head waving the American flag and signing the national anthem in a way the won't offend any Native Americans, and at the same time stir up blind patriotic feelings of a large mass of people (sometimes called a political party) who rely on nothing more then catchy one-liner buzz phrases when making their choice about which half-educated, aged drunken, frat boy gets to plunder your wallet this time around for the next four to eight years.

Another elephant in the room shitting on our rug and drinking all of our Pepsi without asking for it, is how in the bloody hell does this man think he is going to accomplish all of this anyways? Sure, he can veto every peice of toilet paper with gibberish and verbage scribbled all over it with a nice "To: Supreme Court; Love: CoNgReSs~!!" on it, but seriously, 2/3 of those lovably irritating people-on-the-mental-level-of-13-year-olds can easily over ride his veto and Dr. No will be facing his largest problem, a proverbial pile of bird dung flung at him from the Capitol Building!

What's worse is that the smears will reach us too. In an era where popular opinion is dominated by catch phrases to put on bumper stickers and batty pundits in an arms race to win the ratings war, we will be caught in the middle of chimpanzee-style-fling-your-feces-and-scream-at-the-top-of-your-lungs-feast between multiple factions of equally confused and infuriated camps of annoying, swindling peices of intellectual garbage who demand my attention by putting their faces on Youtube with an out of focus camera zoomed too close in while they stutter on their words and breath to0 heavily, which makes it feel like more a pseudo-erotic encounter and less like an open invitation to exchange in anything remotely close to something, like, say... intellectual ideas!

Dr. Paul only makes my casual stroll through the modern political mire of piss and torn pages of Zimmerman's works all the more tiresome. It makes me wonder why I should even bother to vote. It seems like my freedom to sit in my room, eat Cheetos, masturbate to pornography and write a Thesis about the process man took to get to such a mind boggling achievement is going dry up regardless if I put put some pants on and push a button on a machine asking me to choice between Ron Paul, Big Bird and Skeletor...

Edited November 10, 2007 by Mammon

[promontorium]

idiot on Youtube Ron Paul fire and dragon claws ballerina tutu and a box of toothpicks with Hello Kitty monster's lair launch of Halo 3 wondrously glazed eyed DRAGON! bring that fucker down! Bush did 9/11!" "See! No one can defeat the dragon, he is tool powerful! We are all fucked!" childish fits, toss the Xbox horn-rimmed-glasses. unprincipled fucktard waving the American flag and signing the national anthem Native Americans catchy one-liner buzz half-educated, aged drunken, frat boy Another elephant in the room shitting on our rug atoilet paper with gibberish pile of bird dung

pseudo-erotic

mire of piss masturbate to pornography if I put put some pants Ron Paul, Big Bird Skeletor

I think you used up all the buzz words in the English language. I hope your misapropriation of the word "fucktard" makes you feel better. Because I can not imagine this long line of cultural name dropping in any way expresses what could be called an opinion. Well maybe in the "Shaka when the walls fell" kind of way. I understand though. How old are you? I remember when a man was defined by his efforts, his actions. Not by his specific ability to kill your Dragons. He can't be good without being as smart or well spoken as you or I? Life is a spectrum. You have to focus.

[softwareNerd]

He titled it the "We the People Act". Perhaps he should have called it the "We the Christians Act".

On his congressional web-site, Ron Paul has ann article titled "Christmas in Secular America".

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

HT: Carpetbagger

Edited November 12, 2007 by softwareNerd

[Qwertz]

The argument has been made that the language "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" was meant to leave the then-existing state established churches intact, by prohibiting the Federal government from disestablishing them. The original draft language wasn't subject to this interpretation, and some of the Framers (as distinct from the Founders) were worried that the original language would be read as commanding the creation of a bilateral wall of separation. The popular anti-secularist view today is that the "wall of separation" Jefferson mentions was intended by the Framers to be one-way - i.e. that government would be prohibited from interfering with the church, but that the church should be able to influence politics.

The anti-secularists find whatever support they can in the historical record, and they are able to find some evidence to support their views, especially among the opinions of the Framers (again, as distinct from the Founders). But even if, for the sake of argument, we were to assume that the Framers intended a religiously-influenced state, that doesn't make it right. I find it endlessly amusing how some religious conservatives are so comfortable stopping the analysis at Framers' intent.

The "We The People Act" was alone enough to ensure that I would not even consider voting for Paul, but this certainly clinches it.

~Q