Why Won't You Vote for Ron Paul?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]storey420 wrote:
You gotta admit that it is funny that all of the objections are ideological in nature. If you started a thread about each one of the remaining candidates, the objections would be based on voting records, previous actions, poor judgement in office more so.

Either way Weasel, the bottom line is that people are going to make you feel young and undereducated and therefore your understanding of the way politics works is naive and that is why you support someone that matches ideals you think are important. Basically you have to let them feel smug about how “right” they are as they continually elect the status quo and the same people in different clothing. Do what you feel is right and if the current trend continues, you probably won’t want to be here in America much longer anyways.

[/quote]

storey,

Serious question: Have you been paying attention to the 2008 race?

If you have, I’m surprised you are vomiting up the “status quo” crap.

Let’s start from the top: John McCain. Political Maverick, war hero, oldest potential President.

barack obama: One of the youngest potential candidates, the first viable minority candidate.

rodham: The first viable female candidate.

I’m well aware that you moRon’s often try to claim “objective” thinking. I assume it’s a way to feel “special.” However, this election cycle, that tag-line rings pretty hollow.

If one dug deeper, one could propose that you are taking your cue from your hero. It’s ron paul who maintains that he has the one, true interpretation of the Constitution. Is it any wonder that his sycophants claim to be the all-knowing, all-seeing portion of the electorate?

JeffR

42

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I’m well aware that you moRon’s often try to claim “objective” thinking. I assume it’s a way to feel “special.” However, this election cycle, that tag-line rings pretty hollow.
[/quote]

I don’t think any of us have ever claimed being objective. I know I am not objective when it comes to my freedom. It’s all or nothing, no compromises. That isn’t objective.

43

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Weasel42 wrote:

That is pretty interesting, I had no idea.

If Ron Paul supporters were honest, the above statement would be inserted into nearly every post.[/quote]

collectivist.

44

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Weasel42 wrote:

That is pretty interesting, I had no idea.

If Ron Paul supporters were honest, the above statement would be inserted into nearly every post.[/quote]

Let’s compromise — I’ll be the Democrat and you can be the mainstream Republican. I’ll propose to ruin the country, you cut a deal to get a part of the action, then put the statement after every post.

That’s your idea of an ideal political setup, right? Should work here…

45

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Jack_Dempsey wrote:
I am currently reading “The Great Challenge: The Myth of Laissez-Faire in the Early Republic” by Frank Bourgin.

I think there are a lot of facts about the Founders the Ron Paul brigade would find interesting (in a bad way), but have no idea about.

Is there a coloring book version available for Ron Paul supporters?

[/quote]

Okay General Pershing, time to stop letting the rear end of your horse speak.

46

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

collectivist.[/quote]

That is meaningless, but then, when I have ever considered any of your low-grade, fairweather analysis meaningful?

And, you just said you can’t be objective - so true, and that was my point: not objective about the Constitution, not objective about actual American history and political thought, not objective about real-world politics.

Ron Paul supporters should have to say “I had no idea” for exactly the reason you stated - they can’t otherwise come to the argument objectively.

You know, like children - more specifically, like children who suddenly are infatuated with Hannah Montana.

Ron Paul supporters = children

Ron Paul = Hannah Montana

Ron Paul supporters’ political opinions = crazed, immature fandom of latest mediocre pop star

47

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Okay General Pershing, time to stop letting the rear end of your horse speak.[/quote]

C’mon, HH - after your trainwreck about “CCCs” and “Ronald Reagan”, you really want to try and make a defense here?

48

[quote]belligerent wrote:
For everyone who is inclined to call Ron Paul a nutjob, I implore you- can you please explain how the American people will be injured if they are allowed to keep the fruits of their own labor instead of having their incomes forcibly removed by that federal extortion racket called the IRS? Can you please explain why exactly it would be nutty to stop printing money out of thin air and spending hundreds of billions of dollars that we don’t have? And can you please explain why the federal government shouldn’t have to obey the law just like everyone else? Thanks[/quote]

The gold standard would be a horrible idea. This has been discussed ad nauseum - use the search function. One of the reasons we’ve smoothed out the economic cycles since the Depression, and particularly since the collapse of Bretton Woods, has been good use of monetary policy. It could be better - but it has been an improvement over what we knew previously.

Otherwise, a lot of your post is useless. Many people dislike the IRS - what’s your alternative? Mine would be a flat tax - there would still be an IRS, but it would have much less to do. Separately, any taxes on capital gains need to be indexed for inflation, but that’s another issue. The government needs to collect revenue - even staunch Libertarians believe the government needs to fund national defense, law enforcement and court systems. The vast majority of people believe the government should do more than that - and the argument is generally about how much more…

Who’s running on the platform that massive deficits are good in and of themselves? Spending is an issue - and there are relative priorities on what is important and how much should be spent - see above. Of course, as a percentage of GDP, the current budget deficits aren’t particularly high - which is probably why a lot of people don’t get overly exercised on the issue. And what exactly could President RP do to erase the deficit? Would he dismantle Social Security and Medicare by himself? How might that be accomplished? Focusing on specific issues might help you out: For instance, the “stimulus package” was a ridiculous return to Carter-nomics. I hope McCain would have disagreed with it.

Also, exactly who is running on the platform that the federal government should be able to ignore the law? There are arguments over what certain laws mean, and whether certain laws are valid - but really, who is holding the government isn’t bound by the law?

49

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I’m well aware that you moRon’s often try to claim “objective” thinking. I assume it’s a way to feel “special.” However, this election cycle, that tag-line rings pretty hollow.

I don’t think any of us have ever claimed being objective. I know I am not objective when it comes to my freedom. It’s all or nothing, no compromises. That isn’t objective.[/quote]

lifty,

There is no perfect freedom. It doesn’t exist. By definition, there must be compromises on freedom.

For instance, I want your things. To me, you telling me no, would be a limit on my freedoms. To you, freedom is having your own things free from interference. See how that works?

JeffR

50

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

collectivist.

That is meaningless, but then, when I have ever considered any of your low-grade, fairweather analysis meaningful?

And, you just said you can’t be objective - so true, and that was my point: not objective about the Constitution, not objective about actual American history and political thought, not objective about real-world politics.

Ron Paul supporters should have to say “I had no idea” for exactly the reason you stated - they can’t otherwise come to the argument objectively.

You know, like children - more specifically, like children who suddenly are infatuated with Hannah Montana.

Ron Paul supporters = children

Ron Paul = Hannah Montana

Ron Paul supporters’ political opinions = crazed, immature fandom of latest mediocre pop star[/quote]

The transitive property of ron paulism.

JeffR

51

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The gold standard would be a horrible idea. This has been discussed ad nauseum - use the search function. One of the reasons we’ve smoothed out the economic cycles since the Depression, and particularly since the collapse of Bretton Woods, has been good use of monetary policy. It could be better - but it has been an improvement over what we knew previously.
[/quote]

This is not true at all.

Smoothed out the business cycle? Credit expansion actually makes them worse. There were never business cycles as bad as this before the creation of central banking. Central banking just creates a delay in when they happen, they will always happen naturally.

Hello, inflation. Gold and silver money keep price inflation from happening naturally as long as the money supply isn’t diluted – much harder to do with gold or silver.

A gold standard would stop government spending because money can’t just be printed – there actually has to be money available to spend. This is a good thing.

When will you accept sound economic theory – one based on axiomatic principle and not on positivist dogma?

52

Why I won’t actually vote for him? The newsletters concern me too much. Otherwise, his is the best Conservative platform. So, I’ll be looking to vote for a Conservative, which means I won’t vote for any of the Republicans. I’ll wait and see who the Constitution Party is running, and mostly likely for him.

53

[quote]JeffR wrote:
For instance, I want your things. To me, you telling me no, would be a limit on my freedoms. To you, freedom is having your own things free from interference. See how that works?
[/quote]
I have the freedom to protect my life and property and you would find yourself sucking on the barrel of a shotgun…problem solved. Just because I would have to kill you dead doesn’t mean I am not free. Just the contrary. I am more free.

Freedom needs to be protected and defended. It doesn’t just exist on its own merit. Just as everything else we want needs to be earned so does freedom. It is not a right. Those are reserved to your life and everything you can produce with it.

As usual, you are wrong. Absolute freedom can exist – but with it comes responsibility.

54

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

collectivist.

That is meaningless, but then, when I have ever considered any of your low-grade, fairweather analysis meaningful?

And, you just said you can’t be objective - so true, and that was my point: not objective about the Constitution, not objective about actual American history and political thought, not objective about real-world politics.

Ron Paul supporters should have to say “I had no idea” for exactly the reason you stated - they can’t otherwise come to the argument objectively.

You know, like children - more specifically, like children who suddenly are infatuated with Hannah Montana.

Ron Paul supporters = children

Ron Paul = Hannah Montana

Ron Paul supporters’ political opinions = crazed, immature fandom of latest mediocre pop star[/quote]

See what I mean Weasel? You will learn soon enough that T-Nation is an awesome source for training articles but the political forums are basically a playground for name calling. Notice that if you look at someone outside of the “golden 3” now that = status quo or worse, you are called a child or ignoramus, uneducated, etc.

Funny how the ones spouting this BS are supposed to be the Republicans who, from my recollection, think that teh Democrats are intellectual snobs.

55

[quote]JeffR wrote:

storey,

Serious question: Have you been paying attention to the 2008 race?

If you have, I’m surprised you are vomiting up the “status quo” crap.

Let’s start from the top: John McCain. Political Maverick, war hero, oldest potential President.

barack obama: One of the youngest potential candidates, the first viable minority candidate.

rodham: The first viable female candidate.

I’m well aware that you moRon’s often try to claim “objective” thinking. I assume it’s a way to feel “special.” However, this election cycle, that tag-line rings pretty hollow.

If one dug deeper, one could propose that you are taking your cue from your hero. It’s ron paul who maintains that he has the one, true interpretation of the Constitution. Is it any wonder that his sycophants claim to be the all-knowing, all-seeing portion of the electorate?

JeffR

[/quote]

I mean status quo in policy Jeff. Meaning that I think that these three will say or do anything to get elected and then will flop and do what suits their agenda best. Trust me I think the idea of finally having a president of another race or gender is great but sure as hell not these two scumbags. These remaining three candidates, in my opinion, will offer up more of the same or even worse.

56

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
The gold standard would be a horrible idea. This has been discussed ad nauseum - use the search function. One of the reasons we’ve smoothed out the economic cycles since the Depression, and particularly since the collapse of Bretton Woods, has been good use of monetary policy. It could be better - but it has been an improvement over what we knew previously.

This is not true at all.

Smoothed out the business cycle? Credit expansion actually makes them worse. There were never business cycles as bad as this before the creation of central banking. Central banking just creates a delay in when they happen, they will always happen naturally.

Hello, inflation. Gold and silver money keep price inflation from happening naturally as long as the money supply isn’t diluted – much harder to do with gold or silver.

A gold standard would stop government spending because money can’t just be printed – there actually has to be money available to spend. This is a good thing.

When will you accept sound economic theory – one based on axiomatic principle and not on positivist dogma?[/quote]

You really should stop posting.

57

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You really should stop posting.[/quote]

And you should learn some economics.

58

[quote]storey420 wrote:

See what I mean Weasel? You will learn soon enough that T-Nation is an awesome source for training articles but the political forums are basically a playground for name calling. Notice that if you look at someone outside of the “golden 3” now that = status quo or worse, you are called a child or ignoramus, uneducated, etc.

Funny how the ones spouting this BS are supposed to be the Republicans who, from my recollection, think that teh Democrats are intellectual snobs.[/quote]

More crying from the Paul supporters.

Fact is, Paul supporters are full of ad hominem, always have been - there have been no tears shed for “neocon”, “collectivist”, “fascists”, whatever attempted slur is visited upon someone who questions the Glorious Leader. And that has been fine. Dumb, but fine.

Turn the tables, start baring your fangs at the lunacy and stupidity that seems to pervade Paul’s moronic level of support around here, and all of a sudden, Ron Paul supporters are aghast at the insults and have to retire to a fainting room to recover.

Storey, here is some good advice - grow a pair. The PWI forums have always been spirited, but generally full of good, intelligent debate. Enter the Ron Paul troops, and objective, smart debate fizzled out so fast it could be clocked with an egg timer. Instead, we get conspiracy idiocy, rah-rah cheerleading backed by a junior high level of politics, and half-literate trolling as the order of the day.

Don’t stumble in here and complain that PWI is nothing but a “playground for name calling” when the Ron Paul twits are the ones who poured the sand in and offered little other than the standard half-informed “you’re a neocon owned by the military-industrial complex!” jibberish.

Want a better PWI? You and your fellow Ron Paul troglodytes will need to up your game. Till then, any requests to be handled with kid gloves will go ignored.

59

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Don’t stumble in here and complain that PWI is nothing but a “playground for name calling” when the Ron Paul twits are the ones who poured the sand in and offered little other than the standard half-informed “you’re a neocon owned by the military-industrial complex!” jibberish.
[/quote]
Spirited?

You collectively call people who support Ron Paul twits yet you claim to want “grown up” debate…?

You are the main offender when it comes to trivial “analysis”. Name calling is the only thing you offer. You can’t debate sound argument so you attack the person. Before you forget, I once argued the merits of communistic principles – therefore everything I write now and in the future must be not worth your time to respond to.

Yes, we Ron Paul supporters are indeed junior high students. Give me a break! At least we have an excuse – what’s yours, oh informed one?

60

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
The gold standard would be a horrible idea. This has been discussed ad nauseum - use the search function. One of the reasons we’ve smoothed out the economic cycles since the Depression, and particularly since the collapse of Bretton Woods, has been good use of monetary policy. It could be better - but it has been an improvement over what we knew previously.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This is not true at all.

Smoothed out the business cycle? Credit expansion actually makes them worse. There were never business cycles as bad as this before the creation of central banking. Central banking just creates a delay in when they happen, they will always happen naturally.

Hello, inflation. Gold and silver money keep price inflation from happening naturally as long as the money supply isn’t diluted – much harder to do with gold or silver.

A gold standard would stop government spending because money can’t just be printed – there actually has to be money available to spend. This is a good thing.

When will you accept sound economic theory – one based on axiomatic principle and not on positivist dogma?[/quote]

I’m not having the exact same conversation all over again… you can find my opinions here, mostly starting from page 7: http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=1793518&pageNo=6