What do we think of Ron Paul?

[Prozerran]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83KG661nbnY

So, let's discuss Ron Paul. Here are the points touched upon in this interview:


Iran
Foreign Policy
Limited Government
Returning to the Gold Standard
Bringing Troops Home
The Chances of Mr. Paul to be Nominated by the Republican Party


Please feel free to discuss any or all of the points.

[Neo]

I have more problem with his rabid fans more then anything.

Seems like a decent platform and such though. I made a rather large post about this over on BF.

-Neo

[Icarus]

You should hear his economic stances... He sees no need for the IRS or for the federal reserve bank. Sure, he's got nice views on foreign policy, but i'd say that's it. It seems that every great thing he says or proposes is paired with something else that is just... not at all rational.

[Battlecruiser]

Well, I think his foreign policy of non-intervention is just about perfect. And it's so simple but it makes so much sense. We can't just police the world and maintain an empire. It hurts other countries, but moreover, it hurts us as well. It's just too costly in terms of money, lives, and time. We also can't just give billions and billions of dollars to Israel and Pakistan and many other countries. In the end, it is us, the taxpayers, who are getting screwed everytime our government decides to just throw money to these countries. We give more to Israel in just one payment than we spend on rebuilding New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina (I believe the figure was 11 billion to Israel, 5 billion to reconstruction efforts).

Limited government sounds good to me as well. I don't see a need for a welfare/warfare state right now. A welfare state was useful during the depression, but I think people can take care of themselves now if they had a higher disposable income (because Ron Paul would eliminate the income tax and the Federal Reserve). The people already dependent on social security and medicaid and medicare would still be helped, while younger people could get out of the disaster that social security is. But, I must say, I think NASA is a great program and I don't think it should be removed simply because of the nostalgia. But I can see why it should be, and I think private enterprise would do an equally good job on aerospace endeavors since they wouldn't have the problem of funding.

[Prozerran]

Limited government sounds good to me as well. I don't see a need for a welfare/warfare state right now. A welfare state was useful during the depression, but I think people can take care of themselves now if they had a higher disposable income (if there was no more income tax). The people already dependent on social security and medicaid and medicare would still be helped, while younger people could get out of the disaster that social security is. But, I must say, I think NASA is a great program and I don't think it should be removed simply because of the nostalgia. But I can see why it should be, and I think private enterprise would do an equally good job on aerospace endeavors and they wouldn't have the problem of funding.

Interesting that you point this out. Just today I received an e-mail about this:


**************************************************
KySat/Kentucky Science and Technology Corporation
kstc@kstc.com / www.kysat.com (http://www.kysat.com/) / (859) 233-3502
**************************************************
Kentucky Space Express mission to launch December 5, 2007

KySat, at a virtual media conference, today announced that Kentucky’s first mission to space will launch on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 5:30 PM MST (7:30 PM EST) from the White Sands launch facility in New Mexico. Code Name: Space Express…will be a sub-orbital launch carrying a KySat student designed and built payload. The final countdown for Space Express commenced at 12 PM EST today, November 14, 2007, and can be tracked at http://www.kysat.com (http://www.kysat.com/).

The Space Express payload will be carried aboard a Shadow ID rocket provided by Lunar Rocket and Rover Company based in Los Alamitos, California. The mission, expected to reach an altitude of approximately 120 km (about 75 miles) will fly a non-recoverable payload. The primary objective of Space Express is to test subsystems and processes being developed for future orbital KySat missions now in development with launch targets beginning in 2008.

The Space Express payload configuration includes:
·Electrical Power System
·Command and Data Handling System
·Communication System
·Telemetry System

The mission will be monitored and tracked by three (3) KySat designed ground stations and the radar array at White Sands Missile Range.

Approximately twelve students plus various faculty/mission advisors from member KySat organizations will travel to White Sands as part of the launch team. This team will handle final payload testing, launch integration and ground station operations during the mission.

KentuckySatellite (KySat) is an ambitious joint-enterprise involving public organizations, colleges, universities and private companies in a student-led initiative involving the design, build, launch and ground operation of small satellites (i.e., <10kg) and other spacecraft to promote science, technology, engineering, innovation and education. Beginning in 2008 KySat plans to launch a minimum of one orbital mission a year…each with increasing complexity and capacity.

Panelists participating in the virtual media conference included:
·Kris W. Kimel, Kentucky Science & Technology Corporation...KySat Managing Partner, 859-229-6161 or kkimel@kstc.com.
·James Lumpp, University of Kentucky...KySat Mission Advisor (jel@uky.edu)
·Ben Malphrus, Morehead State University...KySat Mission Advisor (b.malphrus@morehead-st.edu).
·Greg Schmidt, Associate Director for Strategic Planning, Science Directorate, NASA Ames Research Center (gschmidt@mail.arc.nasa.gov).
·Robert Kleinberg, President/CEO, Lunar Rocket & Rover Co., Inc. (robert.kleinberger@lunar-rocket.com).
·Tyler Doering, Space Express Student Design Team Lead (tyler.doering@gmail.com).

Complete mission details along with visuals of the Shadow 1D launch vehicle, a view from space at the approximate altitude Space Express is expected to achieve and names and photos of the KySat student design teams are available in the Press Room at http://www.kysat.com (http://www.kysat.com/).

KySat Enterprise Members include: University of Kentucky; University of Louisville; Morehead State University; Murray State University; Western Kentucky University; Kentucky Space Grant Consortium, Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education; Kentucky Science and Engineering Foundation; Kentucky Science and Technology Corporation (Managing Partner) and Kentucky Community and Technical College System.

For additional information relating to the Kentucky Space Express or KySat initiative, please contact Kris Kimel at kkimel@kstc.com or 859-229-6161.

******************
14 Nov 2007
KSTC/KySat
******************

Heh. Awesome! Keep in mind that this was all organized by STUDENTS independent of any corporate direction (though there is significant investment from some corporations looking to fund research into space exploration). So, there is hope after all.

[SolidSamurai]

Hm... it's obvious the future of space exploration will be entirely corporate... or at least it's a likely possibility. It leaves you to wonder about the likely possibility that corporations will override government jurisdiction someday. And they may continue to exist even after the earth is engulfed in ice 150 years from now (global warming).

[Anoiktos]

Regardless of his political stance, I have no respect for someone who buys, either in person or in proxy, thousands of internet shills to advertise his name in random forums.

Period. He could be advocating the ascension of apes into humans and I would still want to stick a broom through his earlobes.

[Modred]

I believe Ron Paul is a good man, but I find several of his positions to be too extreme. For example, eliminating the Department of Education comes up frequently. A drastic overhaul might be in order, but I fear that completely cutting federal oversight would do nothing to help failing schools and possibly create more sub-par schools. I have similar concerns for several of the other federal departments/programs he proposes to put on the chopping block, with the exception of the IRS.

[Battlecruiser]

Thing is however, education is the function and responsibility of the state according to the Constitution. The Federal Government has no right to meddle with it, and to be honest, it's just a waste of money and another level of unnecessary bureaucracy. No Child Left Behind is a failure, simply put, and has made the standard of education lower throughout the nation. Teachers now teach to the test instead of teaching the material.

And Ron Paul will give parents the freedom to choose the education they want for their child. It will be much easier to be homeschooled if you want to be. People won't be forced to go to public schools just because they can't pay for school taxes on top of the price for an alternative (Private schools or homeschooling).

Regardless of his political stance, I have no respect for someone who buys, either in person or in proxy, thousands of internet shills to advertise his name in random forums.

Period. He could be advocating the ascension of apes into humans and I would still want to stick a broom through his earlobes.

No one is buying anyone. Get real. You're sounding just like Fox News does about their own debate polls. All the people who are supporting him are doing so by their own will. In fact, most of the campaign is grassroots. There are so many volunteers that the official campaign doesn't even know the vast majority of them. Ron Paul is one of the few candidates representing liberty and respecting the constitution. He is the messenger, but this is a revolution lead by the people.

Yes, people spamming his name are annoying, even to me. But you've got to realize this is the only way for supporters of independent thinking candidates who aren't corporate tools to get the name out. This is the natural result of the media essentially censoring anyone who doesn't promote or support their agenda. The internet is the last true marketplace of ideas where the people can share their thoughts.

Prozerran, thanks for the story. It's inspiring to hear that students were able to do all that themselves. Just goes to show people can do a lot without government help.

[Modred]

No Child Left Behind is a failure, simply put, and has made the standard of education lower throughout the nation. Teachers now teach to the test instead of teaching the material.

I have no issue with this. But you are assuming that state government will do a better job than the federal government could ever do. For some states, perhaps this is true, but I don't trust a dime to the Texas state government. At least, not while Rick Perry is still in office.

[Battlecruiser]

I have no issue with this. But you are assuming that state government will do a better job than the federal government could ever do. For some states, perhaps this is true, but I don't trust a dime to the Texas state government. At least, not while Rick Perry is still in office.

You have a point. I doubt the education in, say, Arkansas, is going to be as good as New York's. But that's why you have the option of homeschooling or private schools. Ron Paul will make it much easier for you and on your wallet to choose the alternatives. And worst comes to worst, you can move to another state or district. I know my parents chose where I live at least partially because of the education.

[Darmago]

I have no issue with this. But you are assuming that state government will do a better job than the federal government could ever do. For some states, perhaps this is true, but I don't trust a dime to the Texas state government. At least, not while Rick Perry is still in office.

heh, the Governor of South Carolina recently cut the funding for the Board Certified teacher program in South Carolina, causing what little pay that SC teachers get to be docked even more.


I find Ron Paul to be WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more Libertarian than I enjoy. I find that most Libertarians I meet are just people who don't want to pay taxes.

Return to the Gold standard? yes. Education Reform? yes. Tax reform? Yes. Minimalist government... Hell no. Free market... Hell no.

To get a good idea of what I fear about a complete libertarian government(albeit exaggerated) read Jennifer Government.

[ChimTheGrim21]

The President's sole purpose as Commander in Chief is to uphold the constitution--that is how he's sworn into office! Bush has done away with that, and now we need a President to get this country back to its constitutional roots. If you don't think the constitution is important, then get in a time machine and travel to Nazi Germany.. I hope it's a blast. If it's not Ron Paul in 2008, then the only other candidate I trust as a good commander is Barack Obama.

Barack Obama/Ron Paul 2008

[Ubergopher]

The President's sole purpose as Commander in Chief is to uphold the constitution--that is how he's sworn into office! Bush has done away with that, and now we need a President to get this country back to its constitutional roots. If you don't think the constitution is important, then get in a time machine and travel to Nazi Germany.. I hope it's a blast. If it's not Ron Paul in 2008, then the only other candidate I trust as a good commander is Barack Obama.

Barack Obama/Ron Paul 2008

So you're one of those... people...

Either way I don't like Ron Paul to much mostly because of his views on foreign policy. Iran not a threat? We might bomb Iran tomorrow? WTF? I agree with most of his domestic policy, but based on his foreign policy I will not be voting for him. I will give him this though, he is honest and doesn't do the same double talk that the other candidates do.

Also, his views on the military? Yuck. I envision Clinton era funding cuts if not worse.

If Barack or Hillary get elected I'm pretty sure I will NOT be re-enlisting in 2009.

[Prozerran]

So you're one of those... people...

Either way I don't like Ron Paul to much mostly because of his views on foreign policy. Iran not a threat? We might bomb Iran tomorrow? WTF? I agree with most of his domestic policy, but based on his foreign policy I will not be voting for him. I will give him this though, he is honest and doesn't do the same double talk that the other candidates do.

Also, his views on the military? Yuck. I envision Clinton era funding cuts if not worse.

If Barack or Hillary get elected I'm pretty sure I will NOT be re-enlisting in 2009.

It's interesting how divided we can be because of the financial impact it has on us. You know, I'm in sales. The great part about sales is you don't have to be captive to one industry, so if I'm selling mortgages and the mortgage market goes south, all I need to do is go sell health insurance. And if that goes south, I can just switch to another industry like becoming a stock broker or something. All it takes is keeping your eye on where the money is going and catching the wave when it hits. So, if there are funding cuts to the military, no one's going to blame you for moving into something different. Go where the money takes you if it's money you're so worried about.

I don't think any candidate is going to make everyone happy, especially not now when the country is so incredibly polarized. And with so much misinformation out there, it's hard to think that we really KNOW what each candidate really represents. I like that Ron Paul is sticking to his guns and telling us exactly what he plans to do. I think, though, at the same time he's sort of shooting himself in the foot by being so bold, because while it garnishes support for his campaign, it turns so many more away (whether that will actually matter at the polls is a different story). Not everyone agrees with smaller government, and by naming some of the specific groups he plans to eliminate, he just opens himself up to more attack. He has a large following, but I worry that if he doesn't get the Republican nomination, he's not going to be elected if he runs on an independent ticket. There are still millions and millions of people that vote the party instead of the man. That's not going to change.

But all of that aside, let's be honest with ourselves. Who is really being truthful? Paul is explaining exactly what he plans to do. The democrats and republicans are busy slinging mud at each other and trying to show their teeth while Paul is sitting back watching these idiots make fools out of themselves. I like Ron Paul, and if Fred Thompson doesn't get the nomination and Paul runs on the independent ticket, I'll surely vote for him. But that's all we can really hope for - that enough people will decide they've had enough with the democrat and the republican special interest groups (the big-gunned, heavy hitters in those parties, you know... corporate entities?) and get someone in office that will restore the government to what it was before Reagan took office, back when there was prosperity and peace (well, for the most part anyway). We can sort out the details later, but I firmly believe it's high time we started cleaning house!

[Ubergopher]

So, if there are funding cuts to the military, no one's going to blame you for moving into something different. Go where the money takes you if it's money you're so worried about.
Its not just the inevitable funding cuts, I remember reading in history class what happened the last time America started to adopt a policy of isolationism. With the current state of affairs in the world we NEED the ability to quickly project power to prevent exactly what happened in the 1940s. Anything else is just naive.

[Battlecruiser]

I find Ron Paul to be WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more Libertarian than I enjoy. I find that most Libertarians I meet are just people who don't want to pay taxes.

Return to the Gold standard? yes. Education Reform? yes. Tax reform? Yes. Minimalist government... Hell no. Free market... Hell no.

I'm not a libertarian just because I don't want to pay taxes. It's much more than that. I respect human rights and I love freedom. People should be allowed to do what they want to do as long as they aren't encroaching upon anyone else's rights and aren't violating the constitution/the law. I don't want the government telling me what to eat or how to behave. I have my own morals and set of beliefs.

He isn't strictly for the Gold Standard, but rather, he wants money that actually means something... sound money. He'll probably be for silver and gold competing as the currencies, or whatever else the market decides. But having a fiat monetary system allows the government to just print out money and increase the money supply whenever they come up short in paying the bills for our massively overgrown empire. Since the dollar is worth what it is worth only because the government says so, and since they are devaluing the currency whenever they feel like it, like right now, the dollar is losing a lot of trust. And that's the only backing for the dollar right now, and it doesn't have much left. This idea of competing currencies and backing the money with precious metals comes from a Nobel Prize winning economist named Friedrich Hayek. So if you think it's kooky or whatever, just know that one of the best economists of the 20th century came up with it.

I can understand why someone may not want a small government. But what do you have against a free market? That is probably one of the most important things our government was founded on to protect.

[pixels]

Only candidate that isn't a completely dirty politician, imo.

Best choice by far. Certain things are not the greatest about him, but when you look at the competition, jesusfuckwad how can you pick any one of the other morons. He'll make plenty of excellent changes to the gov't, and maybe some not so good ones, but a fair trade for all shitty ones.

[Anoiktos]

But you've got to realize this is the only way for supporters of independent thinking candidates who aren't corporate tools to get the name out.
Believe me when I say I know the difference between a loyal supporter and a shill. I dated a shill for several months, and it becomes painfully obvious how stupidly they act. If you can't speak of your candidate without spamming his name, and when asked what he stands for you can't explain more than the bullet points of his campaign ideals, there's something very, very wrong.

Granted, the people in this thread seem much less incredibly stupid than the ones who spammed everywhere a few months ago, but these aren't the people I'm irritated at.
I respect human rights and I love freedom. People should be allowed to do what they want to do as long as they aren't encroaching upon anyone else's rights and aren't violating the constitution/the law. I don't want the government telling me what to eat or how to behave. I have my own morals and set of beliefs.
You're advocating free market economics and freedom of speech/opinion/etc, then. Essentially a laissez-faire government. The problem with this stance, to me, is that all people are not born equal, nor are all people born into equal power in society. Until these two statements become false, a minimalistic government and/or privatized schools, medicine, etc. seem to me to be the exactly what you oppose - encroaching upon other peoples' rights. Furthermore, trickle-down economics and purely free-market settings will tend to oppress much more than they help in the short run, despite any potential aid in the long run, and do not work at all if outsourcing and imports remain at the levels they are now.

I am all for people being able to do what they want. I'm just all for all people being able to do what they want, which implies restrictions on what people who would like to restrict other people's wants can do.

[Icarus]

Anoiktos, I'd give you rep for that post, If I could

Another thought... Say Ron Paul gets elected, and proposes the policies he promised to propose to congress. What do you think congress will have to say to them?

Because congress is in the democrat majority, I'd predict all the negative policies won't pass, and all the positive ones, especially concerning iraq, will be.

[Prozerran]

Believe me when I say I know the difference between a loyal supporter and a shill. I dated a shill for several months, and it becomes painfully obvious how stupidly they act. If you can't speak of your candidate without spamming his name, and when asked what he stands for you can't explain more than the bullet points of his campaign ideals, there's something very, very wrong.

Granted, the people in this thread seem much less incredibly stupid than the ones who spammed everywhere a few months ago, but these aren't the people I'm irritated at.

I see a tendency here to group the candidate in with the shills. Everyone needs to make decisions for themselves, and I think a lot of people are capable of doing that with honest, truthful information. The problem is, a lot of people don't receive that information because honest, truthful information doesn't always sell advertising space on major news networks. See Nielson Ratings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_Ratings) for more on how television programming works.

There's nothing really wrong here in my opinion. People believe the candidate is the right man for the job, and they're doing just what any good marketing campaign would. I don't see anything wrong with it, but if you really think these people need to know the depth of detail beyond the bullet points of the campaign, you should write Mr. Paul a letter asking for more detailed information. Or you could just go to his website and look for yourself instead of expecting them to give you all the details.

You're advocating free market economics and freedom of speech/opinion/etc, then. Essentially a laissez-faire government. The problem with this stance, to me, is that all people are not born equal, nor are all people born into equal power in society. Until these two statements become false, a minimalistic government and/or privatized schools, medicine, etc. seem to me to be the exactly what you oppose - encroaching upon other peoples' rights. Furthermore, trickle-down economics and purely free-market settings will tend to oppress much more than they help in the short run, despite any potential aid in the long run, and do not work at all if outsourcing and imports remain at the levels they are now.

I am all for people being able to do what they want. I'm just all for all people being able to do what they want, which implies restrictions on what people who would like to restrict other people's wants can do.

Blame the tyranny that is the majority, my friend. The way I see it, there are small too few people who actually benefit from our society as it exists today. I completely agree with you that in any society all people are not born equal. My problem with your stance that you're just all for all people is that the rich get what they want while the poor scrape and fight for every little piece of scrap they're thrown. When so few benefit while so many suffer, it's just a plain, simple condition of nature that the society eventually either reforms or revolts. I think Ron Paul respects the office of the Presidency and the needs of the many.

[Battlecruiser]

You're advocating free market economics and freedom of speech/opinion/etc, then. Essentially a laissez-faire government. The problem with this stance, to me, is that all people are not born equal, nor are all people born into equal power in society. Until these two statements become false, a minimalistic government and/or privatized schools, medicine, etc. seem to me to be the exactly what you oppose - encroaching upon other peoples' rights. Furthermore, trickle-down economics and purely free-market settings will tend to oppress much more than they help in the short run, despite any potential aid in the long run, and do not work at all if outsourcing and imports remain at the levels they are now.

I am all for people being able to do what they want. I'm just all for all people being able to do what they want, which implies restrictions on what people who would like to restrict other people's wants can do.
I'm sorry, I don't follow your logic. How does a minimalistic government encroach upon other peoples' rights if not all people are equal (And you're right in a certain sense about people not being equal. We don't all have the same opportunities)? Are you talking about things like Affirmative Action (Which I'm for, only because of a grand exception)? Again, I'm sorry, but I'm not really following your train of thought.

I noticed you mentioned trickle down economics. I know for a fact that Ron Paul does not subscribe to the supply side school of thought. Keynesian and Supply side economics are just two sides of the same coin of government involvement in the market (fiscal policy). Dr. Paul believes in classical economics. That is, the market will correct itself by itself if it is in a recession without the help of the government. He will NEVER be reducing taxes on only the rich. And that's the basis of trickle down economics. He will only eliminate the income tax entirely.

Here's a good article/interview on his economic views in Businessweek.com that came out yesterday: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_50/b4062021769214.htm
I think you'll find it interesting.

[Battlecruiser]

Its not just the inevitable funding cuts, I remember reading in history class what happened the last time America started to adopt a policy of isolationism. With the current state of affairs in the world we NEED the ability to quickly project power to prevent exactly what happened in the 1940s. Anything else is just naive.

You know, that was the same comparison that McCain made in that horribly run CNN Youtube debate. It's a false comparison. For one, Hitler was the one agressively invading and occupying countries... kinda like what we are doing right now. If anything, the rest of the nations in the world are appeasing us as we unilaterally force our political and economical agenda in the Middle East through the barrel of a gun.

Second of all, you, just like McCain, don't realize/know the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. Non-interventionism was the advice of the founders and Ron Paul would follow that. Don't you remember "no entangling alliances?" We can trade and diplomatically talk with all countries and set a good example for the rest of the world. We can once again be looked up to as a role model and a haven of freedom. And we wouldn't sacrifice much other than the empire which was bound to fail. Essentially we would do everything we do now other than using war and intimidation as an instrument of policy. We would gain a lot of the respect we lost in the past few years, and terrorists would not have much of a reason to attack us.

Why hasn't Canada or Switzerland been attacked yet, just to name a couple of countries? They hate us because of our foreign policy and our military bases on their land. And even if any country wanted to attack us, we would have a strong national defense, rather than the weak one we have now since our military is overstretched and overbloated.

I could go on, but I think you got the point.

[Neo]

Only 2 it turns out (Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia and Rep. presidential candidate, Ron Paul) with 409 members voting yesterday in favor. The new bill requires everyone (that includes you and Starbucks) offering an open WiFi connection to the public to be on the lookout for "illegal images" and "obscene" cartoons and drawings which you must report.

http://digg.com/politics/House_overwhelming_passes_SAFE_Act_Ron_Paul_dissen ts

This is yet another reason that I am starting to believe Ron Paul would be a very good candidate.

He's not fucking delusional like the rest of them.

Seriously, who the hell are these people that would pass a bill like this?

And what the heck? How is this even in the slightest bit enforceable? What happens if you don't "report" these "obscene images" (and what's considered obscene?)

edit: tis spam, sorry.

-Neo

[Anoiktos]

There's nothing really wrong here in my opinion. People believe the candidate is the right man for the job, and they're doing just what any good marketing campaign would. I don't see anything wrong with it
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/ron-paul-promot.html
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/more-on-ron-pau.html#previouspost

"People".

I don't think so. And misguided supporter or not, this sort of "publicity" does not belong in American politics. It's enough of a circus already without artificial clowns.

[Neo]

As opposed to the real spam we get plastered all over the television from the "leading candidates" and/or snail-mail and/or physical-spam like pamphlets and stuff?

That story is kind of old though isn't it?

Helluva way to smear RP though. Everyone in the US "hates spam!" -.-;;

-Neo

[Anoiktos]

As opposed to the real spam we get plastered all over the television from the "leading candidates" and/or snail-mail and/or physical-spam like pamphlets and stuff?
There is a difference between spam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(electronic)) and shill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill). Therein lies my irritation with this form of advertisement, though I dislike spam also.

In one, the spam-ee may dislike the message of the spam, but it is clearly a message, clearly biased. In the other, the shill-ee may dislike the message of the shill, but it is often unclear whether or not it is advertisement or honest opinion.

[Prozerran]

There is a difference between spam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(electronic)) and shill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill). Therein lies my irritation with this form of advertisement, though I dislike spam also.

In one, the spam-ee may dislike the message of the spam, but it is clearly a message, clearly biased. In the other, the shill-ee may dislike the message of the shill, but it is often unclear whether or not it is advertisement or honest opinion.

I'm still trying to decipher why I should really care, to be perfectly honest. I mean, this guy sort of says it best:

Honestly, you people writing these stories crack me up, who cares?
After years and years, we finally get an honest man with integrity running for office where no honest man has been in quite some time and this hack story is the best you writers can come up with???

This is what they refer to as "reaching".

This is a response to the "hack" story from Ukraine. Really, it's not that big of a point to make about Paul. Please try again.

[Dark_Magneto]

This is what Ron Paul is facing: blatant censorship in polling (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=JPpCvF7N3Vg).

[Battlecruiser]

This is what Ron Paul is facing: blatant censorship in polling (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=JPpCvF7N3Vg).

Fuck you Frank.

But yeah, all the polls are total crap. But the media spouts it off continuously if it favors the candidate they've already chosen. Then, they just repeat enough times, and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy because all the tools think that they are wasting their vote if they aren't helping a front runner candidate. All they do is vote for the lesser evil. This type of thinking snowballs, and as a result, we get an election that's the equivalent of asking you if you want to literally eat shit (2girls1cup material) or have sex with a pig, and ultimately, a bunch of dipshits in office.

This type of media censorship has been going on for a while. Anyone remember ANY of the debates on national TV on channels like CNN or MSNBC? If you look at the time that each candidate speaks, you'll notice the frontrunners get 4 or 5 times the speaking time as a second tier candidate. And that's simply because the "non-biased" host of the debate will give them large sections of time, and most of the questions.

[Haladras]

This is completely naive of me and I should probably be personally inspecting the choices to see the next President, but by this point, I don't really care very much.

Two things:

1) Please....PLEASE JUST GET BUSH OUT OF OFFICE AS SOON AS YOU CAN!!! PLEASE!!! FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY!!!!

*Ahem*

2) Don't elect ol' Rudy. He's strikes me as quite a dishonest man. And I'm not even talking about his personal life or...cross-dressing (I like to keep such private choices separate from my opinion). I could bring up info, but...

*Sigh*

I'm just tired of it all. Bush's reign has scarred me deeply, and I just want this election over with as soon as possible. Just this once...I want to trust people like you guys to make the right choice.

This is speaking from the bottom of my heart. Sorry if I've offended anyone, but this is how I'm feeling on it.

[Icarus]

I'm sorry, I don't follow your logic. How does a minimalistic government encroach upon other peoples' rights if not all people are equal (And you're right in a certain sense about people not being equal. We don't all have the same opportunities)? Are you talking about things like Affirmative Action (Which I'm for, only because of a grand exception)? Again, I'm sorry, but I'm not really following your train of thought.

I noticed you mentioned trickle down economics. I know for a fact that Ron Paul does not subscribe to the supply side school of thought. Keynesian and Supply side economics are just two sides of the same coin of government involvement in the market (fiscal policy). Dr. Paul believes in classical economics. That is, the market will correct itself by itself if it is in a recession without the help of the government. He will NEVER be reducing taxes on only the rich. And that's the basis of trickle down economics. He will only eliminate the income tax entirely.

Firstly, it's not going to be the minimalist government that's going to be encroaching on your rights. Without government regulation, the inherent problem with laissez-faire, that monopolies will inevitably develop.

Now, Americans may not find a problem with this, because they don't hear much about it, but abroad, people know truly the horrors that capitalism burdens upon vulnerable nations, and vulnerable peoples. Free market allows a powerful corporation to essentially rape the populace of any developing country, so that it can become richer and cater to the upper-classmen of the world, most notably the citizens of the U.S.A..

Free market goes hand in hand with privatization, and indeed if such a system is allowed to operate unchecked, every single facet of your life, from your labor to your house to your neighborhood to your city to the rainwater to the sunshine to the insects living in the ground will be owned by someone much more powerful than you, and as they have shown today, even with limits, they will abuse that power heavily.

Also, trickle down economics is a joke.

I think Ron Paul respects the office of the Presidency and the needs of the many.
Because free market and free trade caters to the needs of the many?

Ron Paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's a joke, and it's obvious his only purpose is to steer liberal voters from voting for democrats.

There are only two reasons someone would vote for Ron Paul:
-They are a pro-corporate exploitation via free market like every right-wing nut
-They've seen shit like zeitgeist, loose change, and the various unrealistic conspiracy videos and articles that have become a recent fad on the interweb, and they see this guy's name attached to it.

Probably my biggest beef with Ron Paul's supporters is that they don't recognize that even if all these bullshit conspiracies were true, according to their supposed structure, Ron Paul does not have it anywhere in his platform to halt such fantasies, and if anything, to accelerate them.

[Battlecruiser]

Firstly, it's not going to be the minimalist government that's going to be encroaching on your rights. Without government regulation, the inherent problem with laissez-faire, that monopolies will inevitably develop.


I'm not the one who thinks that minimalist government will be encroaching upon my rights. I think the opposite. I was under the impression that Anoiktos was saying that when he said:
Until these two statements become false, a minimalistic government and/or privatized schools, medicine, etc. seem to me to be the exactly what you oppose - encroaching upon other peoples' rights.

the inherent problem with laissez-faire, that monopolies will inevitably develop.
[/COLOR]
I'm not sure where you are getting this from. Are you just making that up?

I don't think you understand what a free market is or what laissez-faire is. With a free market, that is, one that any business can enter because there are no entry regulations, there will never be a monopoly unless that monopoly happened to be perfectly fair to its customers and employees and no one in the market chooses to compete with it. In that case, I don't really see a problem with the monopoly. But, in the sense that you are referring to monopolies (In a negative sense, of course), if there was a free market, a competitor would be allowed to emerge and if the competitor provides a better service than the big bad company that once was a monopoly soon enough, the ex-monopoly would have to change its bad practices or it will be looking at decreasing market shares, and maybe even going out of business.

The only time a monopoly (in the bad sense) can exist is through government government regulation that restricts market entry and protects the monopoly or gives it subsidies. Monopolies love when government regulates because then they can just lobby or get corrupt officials to regulate the market to make it hard for competitors to emerge. Monopolies are scared of free markets because that means they have to be providing really, really good service that satisfies the consumer or else they won't be a monopoly for much longer.

If the monopoly is having predatory pricing, then they are getting subsidized by the government in one way or another.

But abroad, people know truly the horrors that capitalism burdens upon vulnerable nations, and vulnerable peoples. Free market allows a powerful corporation to essentially rape the populace of any developing country, so that it can become richer and cater to the upper-classmen of the world, most notably the citizens of the U.S.A..

Any examples of this? Are they true free markets with no government regulation? Chances are, these corporations are being helped by government in some way or form that allows them to do what they are doing. For example, in the case of Wal-Mart, they are able to have low prices (Some may consider this predatory pricing) because they don't pay their employees well and don't give them many benefits. Instead, their employees are told to go get welfare and medicaid. Well, guess who is paying for that? The tax-payers. And who is giving out the welfare? You guessed... government. So the low prices are subsidized by the policies of government.
Free market goes hand in hand with privatization, and indeed if such a system is allowed to operate unchecked, every single facet of your life, from your labor to your house to your neighborhood to your city to the rainwater to the sunshine to the insects living in the ground will be owned by someone much more powerful than you, and as they have shown today, even with limits, they will abuse that power heavily.


The only time corporations are going to be having monopolistic controls on these things is if the government gives it to them (In the form of public utilities, perhaps). But the government that Ron Paul wants (And the one the Declaration of Independence wants) is one where the sole job of the government is to protect individual rights, and property. Your house is private property, something the government is meant to protect. So really, your statement is nonsensical hyperbole that has nothing to do with what Ron Paul wants or reality. By the way, guess who owns our labor now? Who takes away nearly 50% of the fruits of your labor?

To be honest, I'm not even sure how you're making the assumption that I'm for corporations. If anything, that's you. A government grown too large is just a tool for the corporations to buy and use so they can gain power and use it legally. Ever hear of the military-industrial complex? The medical-industrial complex? Lobbyists? Special interests? Think tanks? They control government.
Also, trickle down economics is a joke.

Agreed. But Keynesian isn't much better either. Their both just two sides of the same coin of discretionary fiscal policy meant to influence the market. I'd rather the income tax is eliminated completely, which is something Ron Paul will do immediately.

I'll respond to the second part of your post tomorrow. I don't have time to do it now, but just know, you're wrong about him and his supporters.

[DoctorZettabyte]

On the subject of Ron Paul, I'm not really in the mood for debating, but CNN (the most trusted name in mass hysteria), brings us These Newsletters. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html)

What do you think of him now? Does this change your opinions? Debate it!

-DocTera

[Battlecruiser]

On the subject of Ron Paul, I'm not really in the mood for debating, but CNN (the most trusted name in mass hysteria), brings us These Newsletters. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html)

What do you think of him now? Does this change your opinions? Debate it!

-DocTera

Those rumors have been debunked, time and time again. Ron Paul is NOT A RACIST. I repeat RON PAUL IS NOT A RACIST. New York times posted about it, then retracted their statements because they knew they were wrong. But anyway, Ron Paul just responded to these idiotic racist allegations. You can check out his response in the videos below (Watch both parts).
http://youtube.com/watch?v=G7FwULXnM_E
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AvzsiESqVss
This idea that Ron Paul is a racist has been completely proven false. I have never seen Ron Paul more angry than he was in that video. Wow. And he's quite justified too. I'd hate for people to smear and lie about me and call me all sorts of things I am not. I'm guessing the TNR and the other people who keep spreading this crap are enjoying a nice cup of STFU because they just got exposed for being the frauds they are.


Because free market and free trade caters to the needs of the many?

The free market caters to the needs of the free market. People are a part of the market.

Ron Paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's a joke, and it's obvious his only purpose is to steer liberal voters from voting for democrats.

Oh right, that must be it. He couldn't possibly be trying to send out the message of freedom and prosperity. The real wolves in sheeps clothing are all the frontrunners running for office. Not one of them has acknowledged or even mentioned the huge economic problems we are going to face such as a ridiculously large debt of about 50 trillion dollars from Social Security and Medicare. Not one of them has mentioned the inflation tax that happens when the Fed just prints money as they keep lowering the discount rate. The video below explains it. If you don't like Glenn Beck (Though that doesn't really even matter since it is an interview, not really his opinion), 60 Minutes also did an interview with the U.S. comptroller David Walker.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=I-16u9x3tfE
Here is the 60 minutes interview (http://youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs).

[Icarus]

there will never be a monopoly unless that monopoly happened to be perfectly fair to its customers and employees and no one in the market chooses to compete with it.

You mean started earlier, with more money, and gained hold of the resources, labor, consumers, and all the other facets of selling before anyone else?

In most commodity-based industries, resources are limited. Those who have gone to the sites of productions, bought the means, supplied it's own transportation and distribution programs, bought processing plants, advertising campaigns, etc. have an advantage over everyone else. Vertical monopolies, in a free market, would lead to horizontal monopolies. Which is part of the problem with the next point in your post:

a competitor would be allowed to emerge and if the competitor provides a better service than the big bad company that once was a monopoly soon enough, the ex-monopoly would have to change its bad practices or it will be looking at decreasing market shares, and maybe even going out of business.

How would emerging business compete with the larger companies? The larger companies have the means to offer their product/services at lower prices, as well as the means to have higher quality in their product/services, whereas these "emerging" businesses have to deal with the small amount of resources they start with.

The only time a monopoly (in the bad sense) can exist is through government government regulation that restricts market entry and protects the monopoly or gives it subsidies. Monopolies love when government regulates because then they can just lobby or get corrupt officials to regulate the market to make it hard for competitors to emerge.

Can you give me any links for legislation that helped powerful corporations? I don't doubt such things exist, because here in the U.S.A. we are borderline free market. The government sticks it's head in only when the lobbyists want it to.

If the monopoly is having predatory pricing, then they are getting subsidized by the government in one way or another.

Really? If the government is attempting to promote industries, raising prices simply doesn't make sense. I come to the opposite conclusion: If a company is receiving subsidies and other specialized federal benefits, their prices would be anything but predatory.

Any examples of this? Are they true free markets with no government regulation? Chances are, these corporations are being helped by government in some way or form that allows them to do what they are doing. For example, in the case of Wal-Mart, they are able to have low prices (Some may consider this predatory pricing) because they don't pay their employees well and don't give them many benefits. Instead, their employees are told to go get welfare and medicaid. Well, guess who is paying for that? The tax-payers. And who is giving out the welfare? You guessed... government. So the low prices are subsidized by the policies of government.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/clothes/nike041505.cfm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...57/ai_19016001 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n1_v57/ai_19016001)
http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2...03-274661.html (http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2005/Jun/03-274661.html)
http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=141&a=1189
http://www.pangaea.org/street_children/asia/carpet.htm

Some really good articles

A free market is one that is allowed to do as it pleases. Such a system requires, and provides for, nations that are forced into such detestable conditions. How else are developing nations supposed to promote commerce, within a capitalist earth? Why do you think ANYONE would promote such lax on labor? They simply have to, till they get to the point that china has, where their workforce becomes so large, they can step up on the ladder and become the ones who exploit. A sad cycle.

@the bold: this is another problem I see in your logic. You and your beloved candidate promote lowering taxes and eliminating many core taxes so to minimalize government. If this is done, how is the government supposed to attain the means to enforce any of it's policies, such as these?

If there's ever a chance that an economic institution will act genuinely good for the entirety of people, It would not be one controlled by just any person, they aren't held accountable for much of anything, but the government, which is controlled by the people, is held accountable, and has the appeal and the power to do such things.

The only time corporations are going to be having monopolistic controls on these things is if the government gives it to them (In the form of public utilities, perhaps). But the government that Ron Paul wants (And the one the Declaration of Independence wants) is one where the sole job of the government is to protect individual rights, and property. Your house is private property, something the government is meant to protect. So really, your statement is nonsensical hyperbole that has nothing to do with what Ron Paul wants or reality. By the way, guess who owns our labor now? Who takes away nearly 50% of the fruits of your labor?

Yes, this was the case during the renaissance, where pretty much any corporate entity was state-owned. But in the modern day, with our technology and our networking capabilities, corporations can independently gain a vertical monopoly for itself, and the first-comers can then buy everyone else's resources, in a free market. At your last two questions, that's easy: the capitalists.

To be honest, I'm not even sure how you're making the assumption that I'm for corporations. If anything, that's you. A government grown too large is just a tool for the corporations to buy and use so they can gain power and use it legally. Ever hear of the military-industrial complex? The medical-industrial complex? Lobbyists? Special interests? Think tanks? They control government.

You are pro-Ron Paul. Therefore, you are pro-free market, and consequently, pro corporate control. I'm a marxist, so no, there's not a snowball's chance in hell I support any private corporation.

Of course, I totally agree with you, special-interest groups will, can, and have gotten what they want through government. But you make the mistake of placing the blame, and the cause of such conditions, on the government. If the government was run by say... as opposed to bourgeoisie, the proletariat, such things would not happen. The real cause of such conditions is the predominant capitalism that has entrenched itself around the globe.

[Anoiktos]

Those rumors have been debunked, time and time again. Ron Paul is NOT A RACIST. I repeat RON PAUL IS NOT A RACIST....This idea that Ron Paul is a racist has been completely proven false. I have never seen Ron Paul more angry than he was in that video. Wow.
...Debunked? Here, I'll lay down as much as I can for you:

Paul has this to say:
Link (http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS233377+08-Jan-2008+BW20080108):

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts."

So it comes to this: Do you expect us to have enough faith to believe him when he says that the articles were printed without his permission? In a newsletter with his name on it? And, if so, what does that tell you about him? That he is someone who doesn't bother - for several years - checking up on what his subordinates are doing with his name?

Also, repeating "RON PAUL IS NOT A RACIST" in caps doesn't make it true.

These are links to copies of pieces of the newsletters themselves, not any articles relating to them:
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/sponraceterrorism.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/November1990.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/december1990.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/January91.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/October1990.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/June1990.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/reportoct1992.pdf
"If you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example)."

[Battlecruiser]

He already took moral responsibility for it, for making a mistake in allowing others to use his name and write the newsletters. But he did not write it. It doesn't sound like him, and anyone that knows him knows that it doesn't sound like him. Did you even watch the video? This isn't something you can prove, but I'll take that a man that has great respect for MLK and Rosa Parks and Gandhi isn't a racist. He's already said that these newletters were written when he was a doctor and he didn't read those racist statements because he didn't have the time to. The were written by a ghost writer. But I guess if you've got something against the man, any claim that really offers no proof other than a newspaper that isn't written by him is good enough to smear a man as a racist. I just love it when people tell me that I'm supporting a racist KKK type person. I'm Indian. And Ron Paul has gotten the most donations from blacks. But whatever, you guys won't understand until you realize that individualists don't think in terms of groups and so, it is impossible for them to be racist. Ron Paul is an individualist. He doesn't judge or group people by the color of their skin or any other method of grouping. Collectivists, such as liberals or conservatives, communists or fascists, do.

Honestly, I'd believe you guys if you got a video or recording of Ron Paul saying racist things. But he has never said anything remotely racist.

[Anoiktos]

I just love it when people tell me that I'm supporting a racist KKK type person.
I'm not saying that you're supporting a racist, I'm saying that the man you're supporting may not be who you think he is. I frankly disagree with his policies in almost every way.
I'm Indian Yeah. Most of the democrats voted for the Patriot act. People do things that they regret, or that don't make any sense, sometimes.

What I *am* saying is that he's either pretty free with his name, to be able to not notice what was going on for so long (three years? He didn't read any of his newsletters for three years?), and thus of questionable responsibility, or that he is or was more racist than he's portraying himself to be.

I'm not saying that Paul is, in fact, like this guy, but an example of a famous politician who portrayed himself as a philanthropist while being responsible for the torture and slaughter of thousands was King Leopold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II_of_Belgium). Politicians aren't always people you should take at face value.

Now, as you've likely seen from my previous posts in this thread, I have an ulterior motive: I have a reason that I distrust Paul other than anything anyone has shown me, or any article I've read, specifically the spam in his name and the nature of the bellicosity of many of his supporters. So I may just be biased because of this - but even if he has nothing to do with it, this (http://www.secureworks.com/research/threats/ronpaul/?threat=ronpaul) is another example of someone going behind his back and doing something that he avows knowing nothing about with his name.

[Battlecruiser]

I'm not saying that you're supporting a racist, I'm saying that the man you're supporting may not be who you think he is. I frankly disagree with his policies in almost every way.

I thank you for your concern, but I assure you, I've spent many hours (Probably totaling more than a 100) studying this guys issues, and I am convinced he is the best candidate running for the presidency. You probably think I'm a shill too, and you have a right to. You also have the right to believe Ron Paul is a racist. You also have the right to believe that the Earth is flat if you so wanted to. Nothing I say is going to convince you otherwise since you have already prejudged, so this discussion is useless.

Numbers, I didn't realize I was arguing with a communist. That's not a bad thing, and I think I used to like the idea of communism too a few years ago. I think communism is well-intentioned, as is almost all types of government, but I don't think it works in the real world unless there is a perfect government. Which is impossible. Just look at Russia, China (Which is becoming increasingly capitalistic), and the success of Hong Kong. Nonetheless, you obviously think that free markets won't work either in real life (I disagree, but that's my opinion). So it doesn't look like either of us is going to be changing positions, and this is a debate that's been going on for many years, and I don't feel like discussing it in a thread about Ron Paul. I'll read the Road to Serfdom while you read the Manifesto.

[Anoiktos]

Nothing I say is going to convince you otherwise since you have already prejudged, so this discussion is useless.
Nothing I say is going to convince you otherwise since you have already prejudged, so this discussion is useless.

You probably think I'm a shill too ... You also have the right to believe Ron Paul is a racist. You also have the right to believe that the Earth is flat if you so wanted to.
Oddly enough, I don't believe R-Paul is racist, nor do I believe the earth is flat, supported by four elephants, or standing on a turtle. But then, I suppose none of those revelations matter, due to the previous statement. Kind of a lockout, no?

As for 'Shill', I dated one, so I like to think I'm pretty good at knowing when I'm talking to one or not, and you aren't a shill. Fanboi, perhaps, but that's not actually a bad thing.

[Haladras]

Just as a side note, it's not the best argument to state that you've been (allegedly) "studying this man's claims for 40 hours." This is very, VERY shaky ground here, so just stick to the harder claims, please.