Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Ron Paul Deception *

inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 11:42:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think Ron Paul is ok in some regards, but he is not a realistic politician. Unless the citizens of America overthrow the government, the incumbents, and the established will continue to rule over the naive and weak. His message hits home domestically speaking with a lot of people. But the numbers do not add up and that is because he does not have enough influnce. He does not cross racial lines or barriers, and he is too weak on National Security and Defense. Here we are on the verge of World War 3, and this guy is talking about the Middle East as if they are appeasers.
They are not ! A Christian is 10 times more likely to be beheaded by Islamic terrorists today than they were a decade ago. This comes from the uprising of Al Queda and the propagand being spewed by Anti Christian countries around the world. War is only necessary when needed and threats should not be taken lightly.
Race is and will always be an issue here in our country. So Ron Paul should not be adding fuel to the fire and claim himself as a closet Neo Con who is trying to be an Indepedent. Has he said he would run as one. Of course not. What do you think about this con artist here.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 11:48:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
No sh!t. Ron Paul is awful. His foreign policy and social values are disastrous.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 11:57:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 11:48:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
No sh!t. Ron Paul is awful. His foreign policy and social values are disastrous.

He is part of the Establishment as well. If he really believed in his own philosophies and ideologies, then he would run as an Independent. Coward.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 4:49:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
...What?

At 1/9/2012 11:42:57 AM, inferno wrote:
I think Ron Paul is ok in some regards, but he is not a realistic politician. Unless the citizens of America overthrow the government, the incumbents, and the established will continue to rule over the naive and weak. His message hits home domestically speaking with a lot of people. But the numbers do not add up and that is because he does not have enough influnce.

No matter how much influence he may be able to have in the White House, it will at least be a positive one.

He does not cross racial lines or barriers

What does that even mean?

and he is too weak on National Security and Defense. Here we are on the verge of World War 3, and this guy is talking about the Middle East as if they are appeasers.
They are not ! A Christian is 10 times more likely to be beheaded by Islamic terrorists today than they were a decade ago.

I'm pretty sure you made that statistic up, but really, the chance of dying in a terrorist attack is slim to nothing. Ron Paul is the only candidate that tries to understand the motivations behind those in the Middle East and use that understanding to strive for peace for all nations.

This comes from the uprising of Al Queda and the propagand being spewed by Anti Christian countries around the world. War is only necessary when needed and threats should not be taken lightly.

Al Qaeda is almost insignificant as a threat, but as we continue to bomb the Middle East, they will only grow in influence.

Race is and will always be an issue here in our country. So Ron Paul should not be adding fuel to the fire and claim himself as a closet Neo Con who is trying to be an Indepedent. Has he said he would run as one. Of course not. What do you think about this con artist here.

Closet neo-Con? Ron Paul? Are you drunk or something?
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 4:54:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
*Waits for Geolaurate*
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 7:12:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I was going to seriously respond to this, but then I realized that zero factual/substantial criticisms were raised against Ron Paul, so I decided not to. No real argument was made against him.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 7:15:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 11:57:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:48:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
No sh!t. Ron Paul is awful. His foreign policy and social values are disastrous.

He is part of the Establishment as well. If he really believed in his own philosophies and ideologies, then he would run as an Independent. Coward.

actually, Inferno makes an interesting point here. Do you have a refutation Jat or will you just sit bitterly that Paul does not impress anyone?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 7:25:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 11:57:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:48:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
No sh!t. Ron Paul is awful. His foreign policy and social values are disastrous.

He is part of the Establishment as well. If he really believed in his own philosophies and ideologies, then he would run as an Independent. Coward.

He's trying to get the Republican Party back to the ideals that it once stood for, small government and non-interventionism. Running as an independent would remove him from the debates, where he's able to raise important questions and shake up the establishment base. He may be part of government, but it's been said that he "marches to his own tune" and can legitimately run as an outsider.
PartamRuhem
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 7:27:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 7:15:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:57:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:48:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
No sh!t. Ron Paul is awful. His foreign policy and social values are disastrous.

He is part of the Establishment as well. If he really believed in his own philosophies and ideologies, then he would run as an Independent. Coward.

actually, Inferno makes an interesting point here. Do you have a refutation Jat or will you just sit bitterly that Paul does not impress anyone?

Why do you say anyone? If nobody was impressed, then he wouldn't have gotten a close third in Iowa....so STFU noob.

He doesn't run as an independent because nobody votes for third parties anymore. His message would be that much easier to block out. The moderate masses of America don't consider anything besides Republican and Democrats, so, naturally, he runs as Republican. I would do the same.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 7:34:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 7:25:20 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:57:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:48:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
No sh!t. Ron Paul is awful. His foreign policy and social values are disastrous.

He is part of the Establishment as well. If he really believed in his own philosophies and ideologies, then he would run as an Independent. Coward.

He's trying to get the Republican Party back to the ideals that it once stood for, small government and non-interventionism. Running as an independent would remove him from the debates, where he's able to raise important questions and shake up the establishment base. He may be part of government, but it's been said that he "marches to his own tune" and can legitimately run as an outsider.

Now you're just being dishonest. Republicans NEVER stood for small government and non-interventionism....They would purport the lie, and then do the opposite.

Nixon and Vietnam - It was LBJ's war, but he magnified the whole ordeal and invaded a NEUTRAL Cambodia!

Herbert Hoover and Market Crash - prior to the crash of 29' Hoover endorsed a series of protective tariffs that would block off European trade and push us into national depression

George W. Bush and War on Terror - The man started and heightened 2 of the longest wars in U.S history, added $4 trillion to the national deficit and stepped down with the U.S in financial collapse and onset of the Great Recession, a period of our history that will forever live in infamy.

Just off the top of my head. Its a load of BS to say or think that the Republican party ever actually stood for the things they trumpeted.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 7:42:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 7:15:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:57:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:48:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
No sh!t. Ron Paul is awful. His foreign policy and social values are disastrous.

He is part of the Establishment as well. If he really believed in his own philosophies and ideologies, then he would run as an Independent. Coward.

actually, Inferno makes an interesting point here. Do you have a refutation Jat or will you just sit bitterly that Paul does not impress anyone?

What's the interesting point? Au contraire, if Paul didn't believe in his own philosophies/ideologies he'd run as an independent, because then he'd have no shot at winning and would almost certainly hand Obama a victory. He's pragmatic in that sense. And he obviously thinks his policies are what America really needs to be fixed/restored. If he didn't, and was more concerned with just voicing a message, sure he'd run as an independent. So you've got it completely backwards on that one.

Also, he wants to bring the Republican Party back to its libertarian roots. For most of its history, it's stood for small government across the board - at home as well as overseas. There was even a significant amount of Republicans like this by the time Paul was voting, in the 1950s. One of his personal heroes is Robert Taft, who was known as Mr. Republican at the time. He represented Paul's views and yes he adhered to a non-interventionist philosophy. He remembers the generally libertarian platform upon which Ronald Reagan was elected... And he also remembers the more non-interventionist, anti-nation building platform that George W Bush was elected upon in 2000.

My two points can be summarized as follows: a) Ron Paul knows he could not realistically win as a third party candidate. This demonstrates how much he believes that his ideas are what America needs to solve its current problems. b) He wants to return the Republican Party back to its truly conservative, small government roots (and even some elements it contained in 1980 and 2000).

To have any problem with the fact that he's running as a Republican, not as an independent, is simply moronic. Paul represents what the Republican Party, and furthermore what conservatism has been throughout the vast majority of its history. So what's incompatible with Paul believing strongly in his philosophy and running in the Republican Party? Nothing.

Sorry dude, it was a stupid point.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 7:46:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 7:34:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/9/2012 7:25:20 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:57:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:48:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
No sh!t. Ron Paul is awful. His foreign policy and social values are disastrous.

He is part of the Establishment as well. If he really believed in his own philosophies and ideologies, then he would run as an Independent. Coward.

He's trying to get the Republican Party back to the ideals that it once stood for, small government and non-interventionism. Running as an independent would remove him from the debates, where he's able to raise important questions and shake up the establishment base. He may be part of government, but it's been said that he "marches to his own tune" and can legitimately run as an outsider.

Now you're just being dishonest. Republicans NEVER stood for small government and non-interventionism....They would purport the lie, and then do the opposite.

Nixon and Vietnam - It was LBJ's war, but he magnified the whole ordeal and invaded a NEUTRAL Cambodia!

Herbert Hoover and Market Crash - prior to the crash of 29' Hoover endorsed a series of protective tariffs that would block off European trade and push us into national depression

George W. Bush and War on Terror - The man started and heightened 2 of the longest wars in U.S history, added $4 trillion to the national deficit and stepped down with the U.S in financial collapse and onset of the Great Recession, a period of our history that will forever live in infamy.

Just off the top of my head. Its a load of BS to say or think that the Republican party ever actually stood for the things they trumpeted.

So Ron Paul isnt a real Republican because he actually stands by the rhetoric mouthed by the Republican party? That makes no sense. If anything, that makes him the goldenboy of the party, a true Republican.

.

.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 8:56:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 7:34:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/9/2012 7:25:20 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:57:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:48:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
No sh!t. Ron Paul is awful. His foreign policy and social values are disastrous.

He is part of the Establishment as well. If he really believed in his own philosophies and ideologies, then he would run as an Independent. Coward.

He's trying to get the Republican Party back to the ideals that it once stood for, small government and non-interventionism. Running as an independent would remove him from the debates, where he's able to raise important questions and shake up the establishment base. He may be part of government, but it's been said that he "marches to his own tune" and can legitimately run as an outsider.

Now you're just being dishonest. Republicans NEVER stood for small government and non-interventionism....They would purport the lie, and then do the opposite.

Nixon and Vietnam - It was LBJ's war, but he magnified the whole ordeal and invaded a NEUTRAL Cambodia!

Herbert Hoover and Market Crash - prior to the crash of 29' Hoover endorsed a series of protective tariffs that would block off European trade and push us into national depression

George W. Bush and War on Terror - The man started and heightened 2 of the longest wars in U.S history, added $4 trillion to the national deficit and stepped down with the U.S in financial collapse and onset of the Great Recession, a period of our history that will forever live in infamy.

Just off the top of my head. Its a load of BS to say or think that the Republican party ever actually stood for the things they trumpeted.

You do realize that you can't claim "never" and just use three examples, right? If you want examples of anti-war, pro-small government Republicans, try Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge off the top of my head.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 9:08:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 7:34:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
Now you're just being dishonest. Republicans NEVER stood for small government and non-interventionism....They would purport the lie, and then do the opposite.

Have you ever heard of Robert Taft?[1] How about the Old Right, for that matter?[2]

1 http://en.wikipedia.org...
2 http://en.wikipedia.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 9:41:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I can just see Ron Paul saying this "Peace in our time." once he reaches office.

It just so happens British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain said that after he made what thought would be a sweet peace deal with Hitler, months later came World War 2.

Lets vote for a man with real solutions: Newt Gingrich!
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 9:51:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 8:56:13 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/9/2012 7:34:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/9/2012 7:25:20 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:57:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:48:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
No sh!t. Ron Paul is awful. His foreign policy and social values are disastrous.

He is part of the Establishment as well. If he really believed in his own philosophies and ideologies, then he would run as an Independent. Coward.

He's trying to get the Republican Party back to the ideals that it once stood for, small government and non-interventionism. Running as an independent would remove him from the debates, where he's able to raise important questions and shake up the establishment base. He may be part of government, but it's been said that he "marches to his own tune" and can legitimately run as an outsider.

Now you're just being dishonest. Republicans NEVER stood for small government and non-interventionism....They would purport the lie, and then do the opposite.

Nixon and Vietnam - It was LBJ's war, but he magnified the whole ordeal and invaded a NEUTRAL Cambodia!

Herbert Hoover and Market Crash - prior to the crash of 29' Hoover endorsed a series of protective tariffs that would block off European trade and push us into national depression

George W. Bush and War on Terror - The man started and heightened 2 of the longest wars in U.S history, added $4 trillion to the national deficit and stepped down with the U.S in financial collapse and onset of the Great Recession, a period of our history that will forever live in infamy.

Just off the top of my head. Its a load of BS to say or think that the Republican party ever actually stood for the things they trumpeted.

You do realize that you can't claim "never" and just use three examples, right? If you want examples of anti-war, pro-small government Republicans, try Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge off the top of my head.

And as Reasoning and I both mentioned, Robert Taft, who was known as Mr. Republican. Mr. freaking REPUBLICAN. He was a huge influence in the Senate in the 1950s. He was very anti-war. Yeah, there's also Presidents Harding and Coolidge.

In terms of libertarianism in the Republican Party, let's not forget Barry Goldwater whose views are extremely similar to Ron Paul and who was the Republican nominee in 1964. President Reagan (1980-1988) once said the very "heart and soul" of conservatism is libertarianism... and though his administration ended up exploding the size of government, he was elected on a very libertarian leaning platform. (Which is why it makes sense than in 1976, during Reagan's second run for the nomination, Ron Paul was one of four congressman to endorse him.) I could go on and on.

The Republican Party has a long history of including strongly libertarian ideas. To in any way condemn Ron Paul for being aware of that history and wanting to return the GOP back to its truly small government roots, is nothing short of ridiculous. And to suggest that because he's running as a Republican and not an independent he doesn't really believe in his ideas - when there's no way he could ever win as an independent and when he's been a Republican for the last 20 years - is even more ridiculous.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 9:52:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 11:48:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
No sh!t. Ron Paul is awful. His foreign policy and social values are disastrous.

+1
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 9:54:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 9:52:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:48:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
No sh!t. Ron Paul is awful. His foreign policy and social values are disastrous.

+1

+2
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 10:10:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 9:54:45 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2012 9:52:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:48:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
No sh!t. Ron Paul is awful. His foreign policy and social values are disastrous.

+1

+2

Quite the arguments you guys are putting forth! You see, Ron Paul supporters are always willing to calmly and rationally debate their/Ron Paul's policies. I'm willing to wager that on average, Ron Paul supporters (and libertarians in general I guess) are far, far more intelligent than other GOP candidate's supporters. At least certainly in being aware of American history, political philosophy and economics.

His detractors, however, always seem to have a much harder time proving exactly why America would be destroyed if we followed a non-interventionist foreign policy for 4 years under a Paul administration.

They tend to have an even harder time proving exactly what would be so awful about, say, ending the bloody expensive and immoral epic failure that is the War on Drugs would be so terrible. And why his position on gay marriage - obey the law, let the states decide, get the federal government out of defining marriage - would be so disastrous.

The icing on the cake is that the "Paultards" then always get blamed for just being obsessed with Ron Paul and not offering substantial arguments, when they usually do; it's just that the other side has their mind totally made up and isn't listening. More often than not the other side does not even allow for the possibility that he might be right - or at least not 100% batshit crazy - on foreign policy.

Anyway, in regards to arguments against Paul's foreign policy (non-interventionism) and social policy (follow the Constitution, return that which is not expressly granted to the federal government to the states, let people do what they want with their own bodies).... put up or shut up, as they say. Because +1 and +2 doesn't quite cut it.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 10:18:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 10:10:30 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 1/9/2012 9:54:45 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2012 9:52:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:48:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
No sh!t. Ron Paul is awful. His foreign policy and social values are disastrous.

+1

+2

Quite the arguments you guys are putting forth! You see, Ron Paul supporters are always willing to calmly and rationally debate their/Ron Paul's policies. I'm willing to wager that on average, Ron Paul supporters (and libertarians in general I guess) are far, far more intelligent than other GOP candidate's supporters. At least certainly in being aware of American history, political philosophy and economics.

His detractors, however, always seem to have a much harder time proving exactly why America would be destroyed if we followed a non-interventionist foreign policy for 4 years under a Paul administration.

They tend to have an even harder time proving exactly what would be so awful about, say, ending the bloody expensive and immoral epic failure that is the War on Drugs would be so terrible. And why his position on gay marriage - obey the law, let the states decide, get the federal government out of defining marriage - would be so disastrous.

The icing on the cake is that the "Paultards" then always get blamed for just being obsessed with Ron Paul and not offering substantial arguments, when they usually do; it's just that the other side has their mind totally made up and isn't listening. More often than not the other side does not even allow for the possibility that he might be right - or at least not 100% batshit crazy - on foreign policy.

Anyway, in regards to arguments against Paul's foreign policy (non-interventionism) and social policy (follow the Constitution, return that which is not expressly granted to the federal government to the states, let people do what they want with their own bodies).... put up or shut up, as they say. Because +1 and +2 doesn't quite cut it.

he has bad social values:

It is bad as his stances on issues as abortion and gay marriage are weak. No pro, but weak. If he was pro then ok , I could still be for him, but his stances in those areas are not confident. Even if he was liberal socially it is ok s long as he actually has a good stance, that he can defend well and actually tries to fight for. That's why I am with rick.

Bad foreign policy:

John bolton crushed him on fox news for this, saying " his foreign policy is weak and maybe even worse then obamas" not a good thing to have worse then someone if obama will have 1 billion dollars of ads showing this.

Also he is against intervening in iran, and basically saying screw israel our only ally in the middle east. Sounds smart? no.

Also he is not crazy but is a little extreme.

Also his plan on the gold standard = bad

England tried it, it crashed their economy. History repeats itself.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 10:19:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 10:10:30 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 1/9/2012 9:54:45 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2012 9:52:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:48:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
No sh!t. Ron Paul is awful. His foreign policy and social values are disastrous.

+1

+2

Quite the arguments you guys are putting forth! You see, Ron Paul supporters are always willing to calmly and rationally debate their/Ron Paul's policies. I'm willing to wager that on average, Ron Paul supporters (and libertarians in general I guess) are far, far more intelligent than other GOP candidate's supporters. At least certainly in being aware of American history, political philosophy and economics.

His detractors, however, always seem to have a much harder time proving exactly why America would be destroyed if we followed a non-interventionist foreign policy for 4 years under a Paul administration.

They tend to have an even harder time proving exactly what would be so awful about, say, ending the bloody expensive and immoral epic failure that is the War on Drugs would be so terrible. And why his position on gay marriage - obey the law, let the states decide, get the federal government out of defining marriage - would be so disastrous.

The icing on the cake is that the "Paultards" then always get blamed for just being obsessed with Ron Paul and not offering substantial arguments, when they usually do; it's just that the other side has their mind totally made up and isn't listening. More often than not the other side does not even allow for the possibility that he might be right - or at least not 100% batshit crazy - on foreign policy.

Anyway, in regards to arguments against Paul's foreign policy (non-interventionism) and social policy (follow the Constitution, return that which is not expressly granted to the federal government to the states, let people do what they want with their own bodies).... put up or shut up, as they say. Because +1 and +2 doesn't quite cut it.

Right because you have proof that the majority of his supporters are not zombies that are so loyal to him and that its probably 20 or so people who spam Youtube. I say we go back to "Speak softly and carry a big stick." That is what we should do. Our national security is more important than "put up or shut up" and is just as important as internal affairs. If you had actually noticed when the UK and France had empires in places like Africa and the Middle East, you did not have crazy dictators threatening the world. Japan owned Korea, China was nationalist, and Dutch, British, and French kept rule in the far East at places like Vietnam and Malaya.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 10:45:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 10:18:59 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/9/2012 10:10:30 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 1/9/2012 9:54:45 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2012 9:52:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:48:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
No sh!t. Ron Paul is awful. His foreign policy and social values are disastrous.

+1

+2

Quite the arguments you guys are putting forth! You see, Ron Paul supporters are always willing to calmly and rationally debate their/Ron Paul's policies. I'm willing to wager that on average, Ron Paul supporters (and libertarians in general I guess) are far, far more intelligent than other GOP candidate's supporters. At least certainly in being aware of American history, political philosophy and economics.

His detractors, however, always seem to have a much harder time proving exactly why America would be destroyed if we followed a non-interventionist foreign policy for 4 years under a Paul administration.

They tend to have an even harder time proving exactly what would be so awful about, say, ending the bloody expensive and immoral epic failure that is the War on Drugs would be so terrible. And why his position on gay marriage - obey the law, let the states decide, get the federal government out of defining marriage - would be so disastrous.

The icing on the cake is that the "Paultards" then always get blamed for just being obsessed with Ron Paul and not offering substantial arguments, when they usually do; it's just that the other side has their mind totally made up and isn't listening. More often than not the other side does not even allow for the possibility that he might be right - or at least not 100% batshit crazy - on foreign policy.

Anyway, in regards to arguments against Paul's foreign policy (non-interventionism) and social policy (follow the Constitution, return that which is not expressly granted to the federal government to the states, let people do what they want with their own bodies).... put up or shut up, as they say. Because +1 and +2 doesn't quite cut it.

he has bad social values:

It is bad as his stances on issues as abortion and gay marriage are weak. No pro, but weak. If he was pro then ok , I could still be for him, but his stances in those areas are not confident. Even if he was liberal socially it is ok s long as he actually has a good stance, that he can defend well and actually tries to fight for. That's why I am with rick.

Sorry, that was pretty incoherent and didn't make much sense. You didn't give any arguments against Paul's stance on any issue, unless being "weak" (?) counts.

Bad foreign policy:

John bolton crushed him on fox news for this, saying " his foreign policy is weak and maybe even worse then obamas" not a good thing to have worse then someone if obama will have 1 billion dollars of ads showing this.

So you prove that his foreign policy would be bad for America by saying that John Bolton proved that his foreign policy would be bad for America by saying that Ron Paul's foreign policy would be bad for America. If that sounds confusing it's because your "argument" made absolutely zero sense.

You still haven't proven what would be bad about adhering to a non-interventionist foreign policy, if only for 4 years. Here are some pros of non-interventionism I'll throw out... A mini-case for non-interventionism if you will:

1) it saves a sh!tload of money which is important because our debt currently equals our GDP (our entire economy)
2) we have over 900 military bases in over 130 countries and clearly don't need them in places like Korea, Germany, and Japan,
3) it's immoral to go to war with any country that poses no threat to us, and if you could see through the war/fear mongering propaganda over at fox news for five seconds you'd realize NO country poses a serious threat to us right now.... America hasn't been attacked invaded in about 70 years for god's sake.

The things they're saying about Iran are exactly what they said about Iraq. Guess what, Ron Paul said there were no WMDs and that Saddam posed no real threat. Guess what, Fox News called him and others crazy for that. Ron Paul was right and Fox News was wrong. Iran poses no threat to America. Please, do you really think they're retarded enough to attack us when they know we could obliterate their entire country within an hour if they so much as touched us? They're not retarded.

4) Dealing with other countries with threats, violence, bombs, bullets, sanctions, etc. causes millions of deaths, directly and indirectly. This, believe it or not, tends to piss people off. Especially when their innocent friends and family die for no reason aside from "civilian casualties" and when the U.S. doesn't have to do a damn thing to even apologize about it. This creates something the CIA has called blowback, which both the CIA and the 9/11 commission report AND the 9/11 attackers themselves have said was a major cause of the 9/11 attacks. If we kill enough innocent people, we'll have to face some consequences at some point.

There. 4 positives for Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy. Now it's time for you or lordknuckle or historygenius or any other critic of Paul's foreign policy to either refute those or - gasp - add your own arguments.

Also he is against intervening in iran, and basically saying screw israel our only ally in the middle east. Sounds smart? no.

Intervening in Iran for what? They pose no threat to this country's national security. We haven't been attacked in 70 years, and compared to some enemies we've had over that time period... Like, idk, the USSR, who were our biggest enemies and had 40,000 nuclear weapons, Iran is a joke. We're fretting day and night about third world countries with no real army developing ONE nuclear weapon, when it hasn't even been proven that they have one yet! And even if they did, they'd never attack this country. As I said before, Iran would be non-existent or within complete U.S. control within 24 hours if they did that.

Regarding Israel, sure they're our ally, but as far as I know we have no treaty with them, and it's not our job to fight wars and give up American lives so they can be safe. Unless you think it is, in which case I urge you to leave this country and go to Israel, if you think Americans should be dying for their safety.

In 1981, almost the entire US government and the U.N. condemned Israel for striking some nuclear facility in Saudi Arabia. Ron Paul said hey guys, maybe we should let them do what they feel is right. Same thing happened in 2005, but this time America actually forced Israel not to bomb a nuclear facility they wanted to bomb. Like he said in 1981, Ron Paul said Israel should be free to do what it thinks is best on foreign policy. However, EVERY other candidate disagree and thinks we should be dictating Israeli policy from Washington.

So I ask you, who's the real pro-Israel candidate?

Also he is not crazy but is a little extreme.

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" - Barry Goldwater upon accepting the Republican nomination in 1964. Calling something extreme doesn't make it bad.

Also his plan on the gold standard = bad

England tried it, it crashed their economy. History repeats itself.

Ron Paul wants to legalize competing currencies such as gold and silver, he would not push for the gold standard as President. He's said this many times. While he thinks a gold standard his ideal, it's not anywhere near his top priorities, and even so, he thinks there should be a transitioning phase until we achieve a gold standard.
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 9:07:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 7:46:02 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/9/2012 7:34:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/9/2012 7:25:20 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:57:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:48:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
No sh!t. Ron Paul is awful. His foreign policy and social values are disastrous.

He is part of the Establishment as well. If he really believed in his own philosophies and ideologies, then he would run as an Independent. Coward.

He's trying to get the Republican Party back to the ideals that it once stood for, small government and non-interventionism. Running as an independent would remove him from the debates, where he's able to raise important questions and shake up the establishment base. He may be part of government, but it's been said that he "marches to his own tune" and can legitimately run as an outsider.

Now you're just being dishonest. Republicans NEVER stood for small government and non-interventionism....They would purport the lie, and then do the opposite.

Nixon and Vietnam - It was LBJ's war, but he magnified the whole ordeal and invaded a NEUTRAL Cambodia!

Herbert Hoover and Market Crash - prior to the crash of 29' Hoover endorsed a series of protective tariffs that would block off European trade and push us into national depression

George W. Bush and War on Terror - The man started and heightened 2 of the longest wars in U.S history, added $4 trillion to the national deficit and stepped down with the U.S in financial collapse and onset of the Great Recession, a period of our history that will forever live in infamy.

Just off the top of my head. Its a load of BS to say or think that the Republican party ever actually stood for the things they trumpeted.

So Ron Paul isnt a real Republican because he actually stands by the rhetoric mouthed by the Republican party? That makes no sense. If anything, that makes him the goldenboy of the party, a true Republican.

.




.Ron Paul is an isolationist and a pacifist. The Republicans said it right, but their influence is dead.
.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 9:16:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 9:54:45 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2012 9:52:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:48:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
No sh!t. Ron Paul is awful. His foreign policy and social values are disastrous.

+1

+2

+3
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 12:55:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 9:16:22 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/9/2012 9:54:45 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2012 9:52:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:48:39 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
No sh!t. Ron Paul is awful. His foreign policy and social values are disastrous.

+1

+2

+3

-10
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
SirFoLLy
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 2:12:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The way I see it, Ron Paul is the only chance our nation has to radically transforming the many crises that our nation is facing today. In regards to his foreign policy, why don't more people realize that other nations hate us at LEAST partially because we have troops with heavy weapons in their effing backyard! Think about it like this, if we had Middle Eastern soldiers walking up and down our street, wouldn't you too be like OK I hate these guys, my sense of security, my basic LIBERTY, is threatened, get them out of here!

WHYYY don't more people realize that taking our 9XX bases out of 1XX countries of the world would be such an illuminating approach toward peace and unity. We need to fix OUR country before we can help fix OTHER countries.

Ron Paul is a DOCTOR (and therefore took the hippocratic oath, but I'm not going to get into why that's important). He's extremely intelligent, HATES large corporations and big businesses, and would ALWAYS think about the general welfare of every individual in his country. He is GENUINE. You can see it in his eyes. Ron Paul is the only candidate without a background of corruption and political BS. And even if you catch one or two things that may seem contradictory or hypocritical in his record, that is MINISCULE compared to the records of the other candidates. Just LOOK at Gingrich and Santorum!

Why do you think that Ron Paul has thousands of our troops in other countries supporting him, giving him more money than all of the other candidates combined, INCLUDING OBAMA? Why do you think the majority of college students (in my opinion is going to be the most intelligent generation, as we grew up with the internet, etc.) support Ron Paul? Every thing that come out of his mouth makes so much sense, I don't understand how people don't like him. His ideas are EXTREMELY RADICAL. YES, but this is EXACTLY what our country needs. When he gains more publicity, he will easily captivate the majority of citizens in this country. Just watch. The garbage we see on television is so biased. News stations don't even report on him because they know they're screwed if he becomes president.

I would LOVEEEEEEEE to see Ron Paul against Obama, that would be so awesome haha. An old, wise guru versus someone who has been blamed for plenty of our countries problems in the past few years. It would be very interesting. I agree that Romney doesn't stand a chance. I don't agree that Ron Paul doesn't. He's rallying more and more support every single day, slowly creeping up on Romney, MOSTLY THROUGH THE USE OF THE INTERNET!!!. You'll see, as soon as he's able to put more money into advertising and spreading his ideals (LIBERTY!!), he's going to gain an even larger following. To get in 2nd or 3rd in the recent polls in New Hampshire and Iowa is absolutely mind boggling when thinking about how underfunded he is.

Trust me, I know plenty of what I say is pure speculation (judging Gingrich and Santorum by their faces, character, etc), and even though I could argue that such things are important (psychology and intuition), I'm really just trying to get people to wake up and realize this is exactly what our country needs. It is easily the best step in the right direction.
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 2:21:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 2:12:16 PM, SirFoLLy wrote:
The way I see it, Ron Paul is the only chance our nation has to radically transforming the many crises that our nation is facing today. In regards to his foreign policy, why don't more people realize that other nations hate us at LEAST partially because we have troops with heavy weapons in their effing backyard! Think about it like this, if we had Middle Eastern soldiers walking up and down our street, wouldn't you too be like OK I hate these guys, my sense of security, my basic LIBERTY, is threatened, get them out of here!

WHYYY don't more people realize that taking our 9XX bases out of 1XX countries of the world would be such an illuminating approach toward peace and unity. We need to fix OUR country before we can help fix OTHER countries.

Ron Paul is a DOCTOR (and therefore took the hippocratic oath, but I'm not going to get into why that's important). He's extremely intelligent, HATES large corporations and big businesses, and would ALWAYS think about the general welfare of every individual in his country. He is GENUINE. You can see it in his eyes. Ron Paul is the only candidate without a background of corruption and political BS. And even if you catch one or two things that may seem contradictory or hypocritical in his record, that is MINISCULE compared to the records of the other candidates. Just LOOK at Gingrich and Santorum!

Why do you think that Ron Paul has thousands of our troops in other countries supporting him, giving him more money than all of the other candidates combined, INCLUDING OBAMA? Why do you think the majority of college students (in my opinion is going to be the most intelligent generation, as we grew up with the internet, etc.) support Ron Paul? Every thing that come out of his mouth makes so much sense, I don't understand how people don't like him. His ideas are EXTREMELY RADICAL. YES, but this is EXACTLY what our country needs. When he gains more publicity, he will easily captivate the majority of citizens in this country. Just watch. The garbage we see on television is so biased. News stations don't even report on him because they know they're screwed if he becomes president.

I would LOVEEEEEEEE to see Ron Paul against Obama, that would be so awesome haha. An old, wise guru versus someone who has been blamed for plenty of our countries problems in the past few years. It would be very interesting. I agree that Romney doesn't stand a chance. I don't agree that Ron Paul doesn't. He's rallying more and more support every single day, slowly creeping up on Romney, MOSTLY THROUGH THE USE OF THE INTERNET!!!. You'll see, as soon as he's able to put more money into advertising and spreading his ideals (LIBERTY!!), he's going to gain an even larger following. To get in 2nd or 3rd in the recent polls in New Hampshire and Iowa is absolutely mind boggling when thinking about how underfunded he is.

Trust me, I know plenty of what I say is pure speculation (judging Gingrich and Santorum by their faces, character, etc), and even though I could argue that such things are important (psychology and intuition), I'm really just trying to get people to wake up and realize this is exactly what our country needs. It is easily the best step in the right direction.

Ro Paul is the rest of the establishment. He says what you want to hear. But will deliver false and damaged goods.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 6:24:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 2:21:22 PM, inferno wrote:
At 1/10/2012 2:12:16 PM, SirFoLLy wrote:
The way I see it, Ron Paul is the only chance our nation has to radically transforming the many crises that our nation is facing today. In regards to his foreign policy, why don't more people realize that other nations hate us at LEAST partially because we have troops with heavy weapons in their effing backyard! Think about it like this, if we had Middle Eastern soldiers walking up and down our street, wouldn't you too be like OK I hate these guys, my sense of security, my basic LIBERTY, is threatened, get them out of here!

WHYYY don't more people realize that taking our 9XX bases out of 1XX countries of the world would be such an illuminating approach toward peace and unity. We need to fix OUR country before we can help fix OTHER countries.

Ron Paul is a DOCTOR (and therefore took the hippocratic oath, but I'm not going to get into why that's important). He's extremely intelligent, HATES large corporations and big businesses, and would ALWAYS think about the general welfare of every individual in his country. He is GENUINE. You can see it in his eyes. Ron Paul is the only candidate without a background of corruption and political BS. And even if you catch one or two things that may seem contradictory or hypocritical in his record, that is MINISCULE compared to the records of the other candidates. Just LOOK at Gingrich and Santorum!

Why do you think that Ron Paul has thousands of our troops in other countries supporting him, giving him more money than all of the other candidates combined, INCLUDING OBAMA? Why do you think the majority of college students (in my opinion is going to be the most intelligent generation, as we grew up with the internet, etc.) support Ron Paul? Every thing that come out of his mouth makes so much sense, I don't understand how people don't like him. His ideas are EXTREMELY RADICAL. YES, but this is EXACTLY what our country needs. When he gains more publicity, he will easily captivate the majority of citizens in this country. Just watch. The garbage we see on television is so biased. News stations don't even report on him because they know they're screwed if he becomes president.

I would LOVEEEEEEEE to see Ron Paul against Obama, that would be so awesome haha. An old, wise guru versus someone who has been blamed for plenty of our countries problems in the past few years. It would be very interesting. I agree that Romney doesn't stand a chance. I don't agree that Ron Paul doesn't. He's rallying more and more support every single day, slowly creeping up on Romney, MOSTLY THROUGH THE USE OF THE INTERNET!!!. You'll see, as soon as he's able to put more money into advertising and spreading his ideals (LIBERTY!!), he's going to gain an even larger following. To get in 2nd or 3rd in the recent polls in New Hampshire and Iowa is absolutely mind boggling when thinking about how underfunded he is.

Trust me, I know plenty of what I say is pure speculation (judging Gingrich and Santorum by their faces, character, etc), and even though I could argue that such things are important (psychology and intuition), I'm really just trying to get people to wake up and realize this is exactly what our country needs. It is easily the best step in the right direction.

Ro Paul is the rest of the establishment. He says what you want to hear. But will deliver false and damaged goods.

What a detailed, factual response. Um, actually Ron Paul is the only politician I've ever heard of who will say what you DONT want to hear. He never panders. He'll tell what he believes is the truth even if it doesn't sound pretty and even if it will get him boos from an audience. One time he was talking about how American interventionism abroad causes what the CIA has called blowback, and he got a ton of boos from the crowd, and spoke over them and said that he was simply educating the people and telling the truth.

So no, you're wrong. And maybe it's just because I'm a big Ron Paul supporter, but I find it immensely fvcking annoying that you consistently have zero facts or sources in any of your posts. I know it's the forums, but you literally just state your opinion - which is almost always just ad hom attacks and strawmen, and flat out incorrect. Just today I saw a thread where you accused ALL Republicans of hating women, the poor, blacks, gays etc. NO facts, just a blanket accusation. Sorry, that's an argument fit for a 5 year old.

This is a debate site. If you're just going to state your opinion and refuse to bring up any facts or sources and consistently spout ridiculous, factually incorrect bullcrap, try getting a diary.