One Ron Paul Thread to Rule Them All, one thread to find him

[Grave_n_idle]

Utter rubbish.

To be fair, Gangland Chicago was very transparently corrupt.


Also, my former hometown of Hialeah, Florida had a mayor who managed to embezzle millions of dollars from the government.

He was convicted for it... but then when it came to the retrial, all the witnesses suddenly and inexplicably refused to testify. I don't think he even served time.

And, despite all this, he somehow got re-elected.

Incidentally, there's at least two businesses in Hialeah that everyone knows are grey markets. The owner of one was actually arrested for knowingly buying and selling stolen merchandise but he got a slap on the wrist.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for a smaller government to be more transparent or easily scrutinised - I'm saying it's utter rubbish to try to claim that smaller governments are necessarily more transparent or more easily scrutinised.

[Death Metal]

No disagreements there. I was making examples of how even if it were true, transparency =/= total lack of corruption.

[Terripin]

No disagreements there. I was making examples of how even if it were true, transparency =/= total lack of corruption.

Transparency helps sometimes. But if the populace is all "meh" about everything and watching it like a TV show it becomes something else. Nothing is going to work to solve corruption if there is a major lack of moral values.

[Xsyne]

Though if the war on drugs was ended, and it became a purely nominal state issue, I think you'd see most of America legalising. Or to put it differently- if you could buy weed in California over the counter, America would see a lot of road trips.

Every single state has laws on the books outlawing what the federal government outlaws. Hell, most drug charges are prosecuted on the state level.

[Free Soviets]

and circling back to his racist newsletters, apparently one of his former secretaries is going on record with the claim that he proofed the things himself:

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,” said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.

also,

Ed Crane, the longtime president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said he met Paul for lunch during this period, and the two men discussed direct-mail solicitations, which Paul was sending out to interest people in his newsletters. They agreed that “people who have extreme views” are more likely than others to respond.

Crane said Paul reported getting his best response when he used a mailing list from the now-defunct newspaper Spotlight, which was widely considered anti-Semitic and racist.

[Grave_n_idle]

and circling back to his racist newsletters, apparently one of his former secretaries is going on record with the claim that he proofed the things himself:

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,” said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.

also,

Ed Crane, the longtime president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said he met Paul for lunch during this period, and the two men discussed direct-mail solicitations, which Paul was sending out to interest people in his newsletters. They agreed that “people who have extreme views” are more likely than others to respond.

Crane said Paul reported getting his best response when he used a mailing list from the now-defunct newspaper Spotlight, which was widely considered anti-Semitic and racist.

I don't think anyone objective has any doubts that Paul had a direct hand in the newsletter issue. He didn't even try to distance himself from it until it became a liability... it's, best case, an appeal to (im)plausible deniability.

[Rhodesia]

Is this an official Ron Paul ad? I know it's based off of his very eloquent "imagine" speech....

Ron Paul is an admirable candidate (and sometimes a very eloquent one); I'm shocked that some of his supporters are intelligent. They stand out in the political puppet-show of elections in the US.

But Ron Paul will be (and already is) subject to ludicrous criticisms by the media (which, at least, is better than being outright ignored). In office, he will face widespread, bipartisan opposition (the Republicans will fight his anti-war policies, the Democrats will fight his economic liberalization, and everyone will defend the fed). The ecosystem of parasites dependent on the state will riot against any small policy he chooses to enact; he will have literally no political capital in office.

For libertarians, engaging the state is a hopeless pursuit...

This. Sigh.

[Allrule]

and circling back to his racist newsletters, apparently one of his former secretaries is going on record with the claim that he proofed the things himself:

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,” said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.

also,

Ed Crane, the longtime president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said he met Paul for lunch during this period, and the two men discussed direct-mail solicitations, which Paul was sending out to interest people in his newsletters. They agreed that “people who have extreme views” are more likely than others to respond.

Crane said Paul reported getting his best response when he used a mailing list from the now-defunct newspaper Spotlight, which was widely considered anti-Semitic and racist.

Sheeple! Sheeple! You're just blind to the Jewish-Zionist-American conspiracy by the Feds to stop Ron Paul from becoming President and dismantling the Fed, which has granted this conspiracy power for over 235 years!

[Ravineworld]

I've said this before, but the drug issue is the only thing I can agree with him on, and that's if you ignore that he will leave it completely up to the states where a more reasonable option would be to give it the same federal regulations as alcohol.

Which isn't to say sates shouldn't have any say, just as long as it's in addition to the federal rule and not instead of.


His other positions I find range from naive to asinine.

so you don't agree that we should have unlimited freedom of speech, no more useless war, and invasions of privacy?
That is what is naive to asinine

[Revolutopia]

so you don't agree that we should have unlimited freedom of speech, no more useless war, and invasions of privacy?
That is what is naive to asinine

Ron Paul doesn't believe in a right to privacy, and actively works to subvert that right.

[Bontivate]

Here's why Ron Paul is a nutcase.

1. He wants to slash as much welfare as possible.
2. He wants to privatize the school system.

Do you know what this leads to?

1. Poor people can't afford to send their kids to school.
2. Those kids can't get jobs.
3. Those kids grow up to become poor people.

It essentially keeps the bottom at the bottom and the top at the top. Which is great for someone like Ron Paul who is already at the top.

[Allrule]

Here's why Ron Paul is a nutcase.

1. He wants to slash as much welfare as possible.
2. He wants to privatize the school system.

Do you know what this leads to?

1. Poor people can't afford to send their kids to school.
2. Those kids can't get jobs.
3. Those kids grow up to become poor people.

It essentially keeps the bottom at the bottom and the top at the top. Which is great for someone like Ron Paul who is already at the top.

You're talking to the people who think Reagan's bullshit idea of the "welfare queen" is the average welfare recipient.

[Bontivate]

Here's why Ron Paul is a nutcase.

1. He wants to slash as much welfare as possible.
2. He wants to privatize the school system.

Do you know what this leads to?

1. Poor people can't afford to send their kids to school.
2. Those kids can't get jobs.
3. Those kids grow up to become poor people.

It essentially keeps the bottom at the bottom and the top at the top. Which is great for someone like Ron Paul who is already at the top.

You're talking to the people who think Reagan's bullshit idea of the "welfare queen" is the average welfare recipient.

True, I guess there's no point. But I still feel this strange desire to point out that Ron Paul is, as a great man on the Atari forums once said about an entirely different person, "a motherfucking fucktard." That's why the mainstream media hates him. He's a "motherfucking fucktard." And nothing will ever change this.

[Dukopolious]

Canadian Democrat (Your politics really are more interesting...)-

I am a strong supporter of Obama after his 2nd year in office, and I despise Gingrich, dislike Romney and recognize that Senator Santiago or whatever the hell his name is wont have a chance, so by far, if I had to pick a candidate, it would be Ron Paul.

After watching the Florida debate, I grew to really dislike Gingrich, and really like Ron Paul's ideals (Not as much as Obama, but still, by far the best of the Republicans).

I agree the government should slash administration, open better relations with Cuba, allow Porto Rico to be a state, should it's people wish that.

I also think slashing welfare would be good, if he would be willing to make healthcare more public.

[Weegee and Rick Steves]

Ron Paul has obviously played "Homefront" on his Xbox



I don't really like this ad. Like an earlier poster said, we don't ransack Germany. so you can't really relate what our troops do to what this ad says.

[Brasilya]

Ron Paul has obviously played "Homefront" on his Xbox.

Then he's got my vote, I loved that game.

I supported him anyway.

[Death Metal]

so you don't agree that we should have unlimited freedom of speech, no more useless war, and invasions of privacy?
That is what is naive to asinine

Ron Paul doesn't believe in a right to privacy, and actively works to subvert that right.

And there's just one thing you need to look at to prove that Ron Paul will piss on your privacy for a buck: The AUMF bill of 2001, which he voted for, that allows the exact same powers in the NDAA he claims to be against.

[Farnhamia]

Ron Paul doesn't believe in a right to privacy, and actively works to subvert that right.

And there's just one thing you need to look at to prove that Ron Paul will piss on your privacy for a buck: The AUMF bill of 2001, which he voted for, that allows the exact same powers in the NDAA he claims to be against.

Actually, all the 2012 NDAA did was reaffirm those very powers.

[51st State of the Moon]

I have one question About Ronnie. Does he really want to cut every government institute besides the Main Government Branches and the Military?

[Death Metal]

Yes. Among many, many other stupid things.

[51st State of the Moon]

Yes. Among many, many other stupid things.

Thank you.

[Death Metal]

And there's just one thing you need to look at to prove that Ron Paul will piss on your privacy for a buck: The AUMF bill of 2001, which he voted for, that allows the exact same powers in the NDAA he claims to be against.

Actually, all the 2012 NDAA did was reaffirm those very powers.

My point exactly.

Of course, Paulites will believe this is part of the Fox News conspiracy or whatever.

[Quelesh]

And there's just one thing you need to look at to prove that Ron Paul will piss on your privacy for a buck: The AUMF bill of 2001, which he voted for, that allows the exact same powers in the NDAA he claims to be against.

Actually, all the 2012 NDAA did was reaffirm those very powers.

The 2012 NDAA codified in statute the Bush/Obama administrations' dubious interpretations of their powers under the 2001 AUMF, interpretations which in many cases had never been subjected to a real test in the courts. Such a test has become more difficult under the 2012 NDAA, as parties can no longer argue that the administration's actions violate the text of the statute (they may have violated the 2001 AUMF, depending on interpretation, but they don't violate the 2012 NDAA); they must now argue that the statute itself violates the constitution.

[Death Metal]

Section 9 Article 2 of the Constitution says:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

So the issue is if the SCOTUS believes domestic terrorists are rebels, and foreign terrorists count as invaders.

[Dempublicents1]

And there's just one thing you need to look at to prove that Ron Paul will piss on your privacy for a buck: The AUMF bill of 2001, which he voted for, that allows the exact same powers in the NDAA he claims to be against.

Or you could look at the We the People Act, in which Ron Paul would do away with the right to privacy altogether.