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

[Burgicis]

If Ron Paul was liberal, I would be his biggest fan.

[Aquophia]

If Ron Paul was liberal, I would be his biggest fan.

He pretty liberal for the party that he is running on.

[Milks Empire]

If Ron Paul was liberal, I would be his biggest fan.

He pretty liberal for the party that he is running on.

False. He's more conservative. He wants to undo the fucking civil rights movement, for fuck's sake!

[Laissez-Faire]

He pretty liberal for the party that he is running on.

False. He's more conservative. He wants to undo the fucking civil rights movement, for fuck's sake!

By giving the responsibility to individuals? Hardly.

[Noobubersland]

False. He's more conservative. He wants to undo the fucking civil rights movement, for fuck's sake!

By giving the responsibility to individuals? Hardly.

It's a governments duty to protect it's citizens against threats to their well being whether they be foreign or domestic

[Aquophia]

He pretty liberal for the party that he is running on.

False. He's more conservative. He wants to undo the fucking civil rights movement, for fuck's sake!

Myth.

Also, if you define "liberal" as being pro-abortion and taxing the rich, then you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Liberal is the opposite of Conservative. Conservative's root word in latin means "to preserve" or "to go back to." So that would mean "liberal" would be "to change." and clearly Ron Paul wants change just as much as any liberal i've ever seen. Just because he doesn't want your type of change doesnt make him a conservative.

[Laissez-Faire]

By giving the responsibility to individuals? Hardly.

It's a governments duty to protect it's citizens against threats to their well being whether they be foreign or domestic

And how good of a job does it do? You know collectivism is in the cycle when we need an added authority at maximum capacity to serve the people in something that is already in their own individual interests.

[United Dependencies]

False. He's more conservative. He wants to undo the fucking civil rights movement, for fuck's sake!

Myth.

Also, if you define "liberal" as being pro-abortion and taxing the rich, then you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Liberal is the opposite of Conservative. Conservative's root word in latin means "to preserve" or "to go back to." So that would mean "liberal" would be "to change." and clearly Ron Paul wants change just as much as any liberal i've ever seen. Just because he doesn't want your type of change doesnt make him a conservative.

Actually the phrase that I would use for Ron Paul and the Repubs is reactionary..

[Noobubersland]

It's a governments duty to protect it's citizens against threats to their well being whether they be foreign or domestic

And how good of a job does it do? You know collectivism is in the cycle when we need an added authority at maximum capacity to serve the people in something that is already in their own individual interests.

Well seeing as we do it and we're doing most things besides military spending better then you, Sweden used state capitalism and interventionism to industrialize, Norway and Denmark did the same. I would say that forcing people to do something to help themselves or their fellow man is fairly good in the long run

[Laissez-Faire]

And how good of a job does it do? You know collectivism is in the cycle when we need an added authority at maximum capacity to serve the people in something that is already in their own individual interests.

Well seeing as we do it and we're doing most things besides military spending better then you, Sweden used state capitalism and interventionism to industrialize, Norway and Denmark did the same. I would say that forcing people to do something to help themselves or their fellow man is fairly good in the long run

Wrong.

People perform best when they are individually responsible. The growth of world economies has largely been constrained into single power entities by subsidization, and although the dynamic of such Nordic countries has, by any observer, been greatly successful (thanks to their implementation of fairly lax constrains on the free market and a good tax code), this is due to the element of the free market, not the element of government oversight.

Japan heavily subsidized it's industry, along with several Asian nations which have traditionally used heavy amounts of government-backed economic infrastructure (China is quite the rule rather than the exception in many cases). Japan and other Asian nations felt the full force of a wave of economic fallbacks largely due to the inflexibility of growth in their economies. China is at it's crest right now because the government has dedicated itself solely to GDP growth.

Perhaps it had the future interests of China in mind. Perhaps it was lust for greed and wealth. However, serving the interests of the people was not successful. Sustainable free markets create this situation, and is honestly why the same "status quo" won't work in America either.

[Crogach]

I would be open to a public audit of the Fed, and if it shows significant dishonesty and irresponsibility I would be open to replacing it with a publicly owned and operated banking system (local, state, and federal banks with a mandate to invest in community projects). As far as tariffs on imports go, that's the only way I can think of to begin the process of bringing jobs back to America and raising the wage of the average worker. If he's not going to work to address one of the major causes of long-term unemployment and wage losses then I fail to see how it's a good idea to vote for him.

I'd also like to see a great deal more clarification from Mr. Paul on which sets of regulations he considers outside the constitutional jurisdiction of the government and which ones he considers vital reforms that need to stay in place. Honestly, given his rhetoric on the matter I don't know what to believe and I don't want to believe he's one thing only to find out the hard way that he's another. I want the Patriot Act gone and the TSA dismantled, and I think he and I can agree on that. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley vote is a good sign but until I can square that with his rhetoric and get an actual platform from the man I'm not going to consider voting for him.

His comments on the EPA scare the shit out of me; Essentially most of eastern North Carolina stinks to high heaven because of hundreds of millions of gallons of pig crap from factory farms is being let to marinate in open-air lagoons and/or sprayed into the air as an aerosol. It's actually gotten to the point of ruining something like nine or ten waterways and causing China-esque air quality problems. What really takes the cake, though, is the leaky nuclear waste dump in Andrews County, Texas that happens to be sitting on the aquifer that provides drinking water to seven different states. This is the kind of crap the EPA belongs fighting, and eliminating the one agency that wants to clean up the environment is an enormous step in the wrong direction.

On top of that his talk of flat taxes and imposition of the gold standard makes me profoundly uncomfortable. A flat tax is by its very nature a regressive tax, and in order to bring in the same revenue as the current system it would have to take the difference out of the hides of the people who can afford it the least. He also wants to tax capital gains (essentially money created without any actual work being done to earn it) at a lower rate than regular income, which is just plain incentivization of laziness on the top end. As far as the gold standard is concerned, the first thing you learn in economics 101 is that credit needs to be relaxed rather than tightened to deal with a recession, and moving to a gold standard would pretty much strangle credit at the time when that would hurt us the most. Once again, bad policy.

Besides, the man's apparently a young-earth creationist. That pretty much tears it for me. I don't care what else he is, if he deliberately shuts his eyes to basic science (whether it's to pander to the religious right or, even worse, if that's an accurate reflection of where he stands) there's no way in hell I'm going to trust him with the country. If the man decides that continually verified truth doesn't matter because it conflicts with his beliefs then on some level something has gone very wrong.

Bringing the troops home is fine and dandy, but we're already well on our way to doing that; we'd basically pulled all of our troops out of Iraq by the end of December 2011, and I'm willing to bet that we're going to have all of our combat people out of Afghanistan by sometime in 2014.

So far, I see a man who's gotten one, maybe two things right (his no votes on Gramm-Leach-Bliley and S.1867, and his desire to put the Fed under a microscope). However, those two things are pretty small when you consider the number of things he seems to be promising to get wrong as president.

[Cromarty]

If Ron Paul was liberal, I would be his biggest fan.

He pretty liberal for the party that he is running on.

ikr. running, writing, printing and making millions off a series of racist, sexist, homophobic newsletters is inherently liberal.

[Wikkiwallana]

If Ron Paul was liberal, I would be his biggest fan.

He pretty liberal for the party that he is running on.

He was rated the most conservative person in Congress.

[Wikkiwallana]

Well seeing as we do it and we're doing most things besides military spending better then you, Sweden used state capitalism and interventionism to industrialize, Norway and Denmark did the same. I would say that forcing people to do something to help themselves or their fellow man is fairly good in the long run

Wrong.

People perform best when they are individually responsible. The growth of world economies has largely been constrained into single power entities by subsidization, and although the dynamic of such Nordic countries has, by any observer, been greatly successful (thanks to their implementation of fairly lax constrains on the free market and a good tax code), this is due to the element of the free market, not the element of government oversight.

Japan heavily subsidized it's industry, along with several Asian nations which have traditionally used heavy amounts of government-backed economic infrastructure (China is quite the rule rather than the exception in many cases). Japan and other Asian nations felt the full force of a wave of economic fallbacks largely due to the inflexibility of growth in their economies. China is at it's crest right now because the government has dedicated itself solely to GDP growth.

Perhaps it had the future interests of China in mind. Perhaps it was lust for greed and wealth. However, serving the interests of the people was not successful. Sustainable free markets create this situation, and is honestly why the same "status quo" won't work in America either.

No sane country wants to be like China. The country is set to implode horribly in the near future.