Do you like Ron Paul?

[Fletch XXX]

simple question... well, do you?

[porno jew]

no. a ron paul presidency would be a disaster for the enviroment and your average joe blow as well as we should be looking to the future at this point not the past.

[pornmasta]

I like paul markham

[Wizzo]

I like some of his ideas but he's clearly too short to be president.

[sperbonzo]

I'm all about Ron Paul. The rest of the political and media elite (on both sides), hate him and want to sideline him because he is TRULY in favor of shrinking the government, as his budget proposal 4 days ago showed yet again....



RON PAUL 2012!!.

[u-Bob]

What I like about him:
He's got a solid grasp of economics. (unlike most other politicians. Ask a normal politician a question that involves Hayek triangles, the effect of interest rates on the capital structure or basic trade cycle theory and you'll get the same prechewed answer they give a person who asks something about dairy farming.)

What I don't like about him:
He's still a politician.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

What I don't like about him:
He's still a politician.

qft. I forgot to include that bit.



.

[Chosen]

I don't know him

[devilspost]

[Rochard]

Ron Paul looks like a dirty old horny man.

Originally Posted by pornmasta

I like paul markham

Paul Markham looks like a dirty old horny man.

[pornmasta]

ron paul is against abortion (that's pretty strange for a libertarian)

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by pornmasta

ron paul is against abortion (that's pretty strange for a libertarian)

Not really. Libertarian's believe in freedom, including the right to live and not be killed.

Here is his position:

The heated debate about abortion is filled with emotional arguments that usually center on secondary considerations such as sexual morality, religious beliefs, women?s rights, or purely on pragmatic reasons: if abortion were made illegal it would still take place ? under unsanitary conditions that would endanger additional lives.

However, a rational evaluation of abortion must be built upon one single question: When exactly does human life begin? At conception, at birth or somewhere in between?

Not even the most radical feminist would find it okay to tear apart a recently-born baby just because it is not wanted by its mother. All other considerations aside, the only reason many individuals can support abortion with a good conscience is because they believe it?s not murder? and that unborn babies do not count as human beings.

Ron Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He believes that human life starts at conception, and that casual elimination of the unborn leads to a careless attitude towards all life.

Recalling his personal observation of a late-term abortion performed by one of his instructors during his medical residency, Ron Paul stated, ?It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.?

In an Oct. 27, 1999 speech to Congress, Ron Paul said:

?I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.?

During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Ron Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, ?If you can?t protect life then how can you protect liberty?? Additionally, Ron Paul said that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is ?an act of aggression? against a fetus.

At the GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate on Sep 17, 2007, Ron Paul was asked what he will do to restore legal protection to the unborn:

?As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there?s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there?s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.?

At the GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida, on Nov 28, 2007, Ron Paul was asked what a women would be charged with if abortion becomes illegal and she obtains an abortion anyway:

?The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don?t need a federal abortion police. That?s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that?s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don?t think that should be up to the president to decide.?

For many years, Ron Paul has been speaking up for babies? rights. He passionately defends those who cannot speak for themselves because they haven?t been born yet.

In order to ?offset the effects of Roe v. Wade?, Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a ?barbaric procedure?.

At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.


.

[pornmasta]

Explain why it is not interventionism to prevent people to kill each other ?

or why full freedom is ok in the economy and why it is ok to stop people to kill each other ?
Why this limit of freedom ?

[Ayla_SquareTurtle]

1. Ron Paul's pseudo power to the people "states rights" stance on abortion makes perfect sense if you are an idiot who thinks that clumps of cells are people. What my doctor does to my body and the things inside it are none of his business.

2. The issue of late term abortion is a red herring.

3. Fuck Ron Paul

[raymor]

I didn't like him, but he's starting to grow on me.
Actually seeing some of Ron Paul, listening to him answer questions, I like him a bit more than when I only heard what people said about him.

[Coup]

I'd rather he be my grandpa, telling me stories about 'them good ol days', than he being my president doing the same.

Heh.

[pornmasta]

and why it is ok to let people starve:
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news...emand-20100628

because you give nothing to their parents to feed them, while in the same time you know that the jobs are gone in china, because less you have money and more you need cheap stuffs ?


And why it is not ok to let the babies die ?

[porno jew]

his appeal is to computer nerds (ie: libertarians) who think all social, economic and political issues can be solved like finishing off a level in a video game.

real politics, like real life, is messy, full of compromises and imperfect solutions. that is why ron paul has no support outside of youtube and is not a serious candidate.

[pornmasta]

Originally Posted by porno jew

his appeal is to computer nerds (ie: libertarians) who think all social, economic and political issues can be solved like finishing off a level in a video game.

http://www.gamertell.com/technologyt...in-sim-city-4/

[Shotsie]

Originally Posted by pornmasta

ron paul is against abortion (that's pretty strange for a libertarian)

That's because Ron Paul is not a libertarian, he's an anti-federalist. I posted this in this thread here: https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1042436

He doesn't mind if states allow abortion, he just doesn't think the federal government should have a say in it. Along with any other policies individual states might implement. Something for you Ron Paul fans in the bible belt to think about.

[cherrylula]

the hippies luv him

[seeandsee]

Yes i do, he is next president of US

[SwirlsGirl]

I Love Ron Paul.....nothing can stop an idea who's time has come

[kane]

Ron Paul has some good ideas and I like that he isn't afraid to speak his mind. All of the current crop of republicans have some pretty whacked out ideas on things and if asked about them they sidestep or sugar coat it to make it look more mainstream. Paul at least has the balls to stand by his convictions.

That said, I think some of his ideas are just too radical. He is one of those guys who will say something you really like and agree with. Then he says two other things and you find yourself wondering WTF he is thinking.

[CaptainHowdy]

I don't like anything votable ...

[drmadcat]

no idea who is ron paul

[Barry-xlovecam]

I hope he runs as an independent. (He will draw the fringe vote away from the Rebublicans).

[Redrob]

I like most of what Ron Paul stands for. At least he has thought through his positions and he sticks with them. That way, you know what you are voting for or against.

[Fletch XXX]

well, i like a lot of stuff he says, ya know, like about income tax, and the FED etc... he at least HAs a position. Other people seem to go whichever way their religion or voters tell em.

i believe more in the constitution than any religion, the gov does so much that they simply do not have authority to do, yet "We The People" cant do much about it.

[$5 submissions]

I like some of what he says. Actually, a large part of his economic message makes sense for the country I live in. I live in the Philippines. Almost all our economic problems can be traced to one source - over reliance on the (corrupt) government.

[glamourmodels]

Facts or it did not happen. I call bullshit. If you are basing that on him wanting to close the EPA that's a red herring. He has already stated he would roll up critical programs to other departments and consolidate them. He wants to get rid of the department of the interior as well. There is a lot of overlap there, you could easily merge the two. I can almost certainly guarantee I am more of an environmentalist than you and can say without hesitation your post is bs-

Originally Posted by porno jew

no. a ron paul presidency would be a disaster for the enviroment and your average joe blow as well as we should be looking to the future at this point not the past.

[MediaGuy]

I like Ron Paul.

I like libertarian values.

However - the implicit, Ayn-Rand trust in basic human goodness in these so-called values, and their imposition on the social, moral values of "Mr X" or "Ms X" is really what bugs me.

First of all, we've seen what "Reagenomics" or voodoo economics does; all these bailouts and permissions and breaks to the rich have not helped the economy, though they've helped job booms and the economies of foreign countries.

We've seen that even slight tax impositions on the 99% by the Democrats have caused surpluses almost without exception.

Does the prevention of abortion and other human freedoms help the bottom line?

The very belief in the human soul is a religious concept; the definition of the beginning of Life, already hazy, is a personal belief, as yet unproven by science or religion..

To remove a person's right to do with their life/future and personal self/body based on moralistic/religious beliefs is against liberterian values as far as I'm concerned.

To confuse this with collective social "responsibilities" is an error, I think.

After all, the postal service, garbage pick-up, changing the bulbs in streetlamps and more are all socialistic activities that I think nobody would vote against government taking on as a civilized and social responsibility.

Yet the Libertarians and Republicans accept this.

So when it comes to "big government" it seems there's no real difference between the size/volume of government between the two sides of the fence, just on where this volume is going to be imposed - and abortion is just a sliver of what right-wing/republicans/libertarians seek to achieve.

One side seeks to impose their laws/rules/values in your personal life, the other seeks to do so on an economic basis.

Yet the economic basis, and it's proven, has some rationale: reduced crime, reduced violence, egalitarian access to public/social services such as medical support, job-seeking support, educational support, and so on....

The right-wing or whatever Americans call it wants to pull all that and impose moral/religious/philosophical beliefs on the population who if they act against these belief-impositions are willing to legislate them, at a cost to everyone.

So the difference seems to be in socialism systems: will it be economic socialism, or moralistic socialism?

Once any society becomes big enough, socialism (NOT communism for the knee-jerkers among you) becomes inevitable, it seems...

:D

[glamourmodels]

[pornmasta]

Originally Posted by Shotsie

That's because Ron Paul is not a libertarian, he's an anti-federalist. I posted this in this thread here: https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1042436

in 1988:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberta...tial_elections

[SwirlsGirl]

Love Ron Paul and anybody with him.....hate the bankers and pseudo bankers and anybody with them

[Pornwolf]

I like most of what he says. He is the best of the Republicans. It would be great if he ran against Obama if only to bring a real conversation into the campaigns instead of the standard lies, half truths and meaningless banter that will be in it if anyone other than Paul runs.

[AtlantisCash]

Originally Posted by porno jew

no. a ron paul presidency would be a disaster for the enviroment and your average joe blow as well as we should be looking to the future at this point not the past.

if this statement comes from a real jew, i have to call it a frustration unless it's just a nick name.

Yes, without a doudt His presidency would be a real disaster for keynessians, welfare parasites and the wrest who can't stand on their feet and ask nanny gov to take care of thems, but would be a prosperous and a freer society for the productive ones.

a politition even Rp himself can do this? i doudt, but still somethings might be twoards that and he deserves a chance :3 cents:

[AtlantisCash]

Originally Posted by cherrylula

the hippies luv him

and State worshippers and Neocons most likely don't

[CurrentlySober]

Q: Do you like Ron Paul?
A: No... I like Poo...

[Bill8]

He's the best republican seeking nomination, which isn't saying all that much.

He's not a libertarian, he's a republican with some libertarian views in his policies.

I rather like him. But, he is hated by the professional republican class - and if by some populist miracle he was elected, he could accomplish almost nothing that reflected those libertarian views, because the professional politicians of both parties could not allow it.

So lets see how the republicans and fox news sabotages him.

[AtlantisCash]

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

I like Ron Paul.

I like libertarian values.

However - the implicit, Ayn-Rand trust in basic human goodness in these so-called values, and their imposition on the social, moral values of "Mr X" or "Ms X" is really what bugs me.

First of all, we've seen what "Reagenomics" or voodoo economics does; all these bailouts and permissions and breaks to the rich have not helped the economy, though they've helped job booms and the economies of foreign countries.

We've seen that even slight tax impositions on the 99% by the Democrats have caused surpluses almost without exception.

Does the prevention of abortion and other human freedoms help the bottom line?

The very belief in the human soul is a religious concept; the definition of the beginning of Life, already hazy, is a personal belief, as yet unproven by science or religion..

To remove a person's right to do with their life/future and personal self/body based on moralistic/religious beliefs is against liberterian values as far as I'm concerned.

To confuse this with collective social "responsibilities" is an error, I think.

After all, the postal service, garbage pick-up, changing the bulbs in streetlamps and more are all socialistic activities that I think nobody would vote against government taking on as a civilized and social responsibility.

Yet the Libertarians and Republicans accept this.

So when it comes to "big government" it seems there's no real difference between the size/volume of government between the two sides of the fence, just on where this volume is going to be imposed - and abortion is just a sliver of what right-wing/republicans/libertarians seek to achieve.

One side seeks to impose their laws/rules/values in your personal life, the other seeks to do so on an economic basis.

Yet the economic basis, and it's proven, has some rationale: reduced crime, reduced violence, egalitarian access to public/social services such as medical support, job-seeking support, educational support, and so on....

The right-wing or whatever Americans call it wants to pull all that and impose moral/religious/philosophical beliefs on the population who if they act against these belief-impositions are willing to legislate them, at a cost to everyone.

So the difference seems to be in socialism systems: will it be economic socialism, or moralistic socialism?

Once any society becomes big enough, socialism (NOT communism for the knee-jerkers among you) becomes inevitable, it seems...

:D

even though i believe Your post was done with a good intention2hidh which sounds me so, i should correct 2 miss understood points:

1. any real Libertarian can't support bailouts in any mean and call Him/Herself is a Libertarian, Because it's totally wrong when You look at from anarchocapitalist aka Free market economics aspect.

2. what You do Your body or what you do to it is Your business not other's, the only discussion here is are You a pro life or a pro choice when it comes to abortion issue?

However either side's arguements mostly comes from "when Life actually starts" discussion as far as i know.

so saying the otherwise is wrong since Libertarianism is known to be havving the most pro choice ideas between clasical Liberal based ideologies

[Shotsie]

Originally Posted by pornmasta

in 1988:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberta...tial_elections

Right around 1988 Ron Paul voted for the strategic defense initiative otherwise known as 'Star Wars' during the Reagan administration, possibly one of the biggest money wasting military industrial complex programs of all time. You know, the lasers that were, in the words of Ronald Reagan, supposed to ?render these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.?


Texas is ranked second among states in the value of defense contracts won -$39,480,651,081 in 2007. Third this year. What state is Ron Paul in again?


So aside from government money for defense contracts it's every man for himself.


Ron Pauls motto should be: United in war we stand, Divided in peace we fall.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Shotsie

Ron Paul fans in the bible belt to think about.

Are there Ron Paul fans in the bible belt? I would think that his libertarian stance about drugs (which I agree with) would pretty much alienate any religious nuts who want to rule our lives from morning 'til evening.

[Frank21]

Yes back to common sence.

[nation-x]

Ron Paul runs for President for one single purpose... fundraising. His anti-government rhetoric appeals to a lot of people. Every time he runs, the party fucks him over... but he will never run as an independent and he has been clear on hundreds of occasions that he is a Republican. He is not a Libertarian and never has been... he is a John Birch Society/Ayn Rand variety Republican pure and simple. He just isn't the typical Corporate Republican (Romney) or Evangelical Fundamentalist (Perry, Santorum and Bachmann) or a Paranoid Delusional Republican like Gingrich. He also isn't a pandering bitch like Herman Cain who takes every side of every issue.

Ron Paul couldn't win the Presidency... his positions on the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and 'states rights' is a giant red flashing light for anyone who knows anything about desegregation... and the majority of Americans are not neo-liberals.

[Shotsie]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Are there Ron Paul fans in the bible belt? I would think that his libertarian stance about drugs (which I agree with) would pretty much alienate any religious nuts who want to rule our lives from morning 'til evening.

Sure, haven't you ever seen a tea party rally?

[AtlantisCash]

Originally Posted by Shotsie

Sure, haven't you ever seen a tea party rally?

You must be kidding me, Tea party movement is poppilist, not Libertarian, as far as i know they oppose gay and lesbian couples to be married and actually conservative, So unfortunately You're wrong

[spazlabz]

Yes and No, I believe he is one of the last politicians with any amount of integrity. He honestly believe what he thinks is correct for the country. I just happen to disagree with his political views. I am an extreme liberal whereas he is a libertarian

[Shotsie]

Originally Posted by AtlantisCash

You must be kidding me, Tea party movement is poppilist, not Libertarian, as far as i know they oppose gay and lesbian couples to be married and actually conservative, So unfortunately You're wrong

The tea party likes to think they're libertarians. Unfortunately, most of them couldn't even tell you what it means to be a libertarian. Libertarianism is a selfish idealogy. It is a selfish, mean spirited philosophy doomed to failure, any culural anthropologist will tell you that all people within a society are interdependent upon one another. Life is a balancing act and calls for checks and balances to keep it healthy. Sometimes calls for a focus on the individual to effectuate the greatest good. Other times call for a bolstering of the health of the collective to keep things humming in the general direction toward progress. Make one the ultimate master of the other and a shit storm will follow.


It promotes division between the haves and have-nots. The only welfare offered by the quintessential libertarian is that in times of need, pray harder and good luck. Economically it is survival of the fittest, and ignores the fact that humanity is endowed with more than a lizard?s brain. Love and compassion for humanity and our planet don?t fit into the libertarian minset from what I can tell.


Unless you're a fucking multi-millionare you shouldn't be a libertarian, and even then you should question your morals, really evaluate yourself and think about what kind of legacy you'd like to leave behind when you die.

[pornmasta]

Originally Posted by Shotsie

You know, the lasers that were, in the words of Ronald Reagan, supposed to ?render these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.?

honnestly i still like the idea.