Do you like Ron Paul?
 

simple question... well, do you? :2 cents:

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.

I like paul markham

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

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!!.

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.

qft. I forgot to include that bit.



.

I don't know him :pimp

Ron Paul looks like a dirty old horny man.

Paul Markham looks like a dirty old horny man.

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.


.:2 cents:

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 ?

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

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.

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

Heh.

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 ?

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.

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

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.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/fi...oreDrugWar.jpg

the hippies luv him :1orglaugh

Yes i do, he is next president of US

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

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.

I don't like anything votable ...

no idea who is ron paul

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

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.

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.

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.

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-

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

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

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

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.

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:

and State worshippers and Neocons most likely don't :2 cents:

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

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.