What do you think of Ron Paul?

[Wikkiwallana]

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/22/ron_paul_and_his_racist_newsletters/

Those things are fakes,

I'm curious, how does one fake a six minute C-Span interview?

and even in the incredible case he was effectively racist, who gives a fuck since only racist authoritarians are dangerous for minorities. How a libertarian/classical liberal president could lead racist policies?

By removing civil rights protections.

By the way Wikki, you are an annoying paranoid when the discussion comes on Ron Paul,

I heavily dislike him, but I'm not paranoid, I know he doesn't have a chance.

face it: you say he's racist,

No, I simply pointed out that he knew what was being printed in his newsletter. He may not have written it himself, but he made no effort to prevent it from happening. That could just be racial apathy, rather than actual personal racism.

he hates liberty

No, I said his ideas of liberty are antithetical to actual liberty. I have no doubt he believes that implementing his policies would lead to some sort of free wonderland, he's just very, very wrong.

and he wants theocracies in the US.

He does, and his legislative record proves it. Do I need to get out the We the People Act, the Sanctity of Life Act, the Marriage Protection Act, and the Lew Rockwell article again?

Don't you think it's a bit of an insane load of horsecrap?

No, but I do think his policies are insane loads of horsecrap. And not just a bit, either.

Seriously, you can criticize RP on his foreign and economic policies with your liberal arguments, but those crazy attacks are just going to kill your credibility more than his.

Linking to bills he has sponsored and pointing out what their full effects would be is not a "crazy attack".

[Wikkiwallana]

RP is an authoritarian.

If you advocate:

- Complete economic freedom
-The abolition of the Patriot Act
-The sanctity of private property
-The end of the war on drugs
-The stop of military interventions
-The abolition of death penalty
- And if you consider that regulation of the gay marriage is none of the government's business

... you'll be labeled authoritarian .

Dear Sir Dyakovo, will you explain me

What

The

Fuck?

State based authoritarianism instead of Federal based authoritarianism is still authoritarianism. He whole heartedly supports letting individual states trample over any rights they please, except the ones his religion supports such as the right to pray in schools, with their citizens having no recourse to the Federal government to fix overbearing laws.

[Revolutopia]

- And if you consider that regulation of the gay marriage is none of the government's business

Something that Paul does not support, so how is that relevent.

[Misterfisher minions]

Something that Paul does not support, so how is that relevent.

He supports gay "marriage" as a voluntary association, while he personally sees marriage more like a religious institution

[Revolutopia]

Something that Paul does not support, so how is that relevent.

He supports gay "marriage" as a voluntary association, while he personally sees marriage more like a religious institution

Yet, he supports state governments have the ability to outlaw it and forbidding gays from take the issue up as a vilation of the federal consitution. Along, with him supporting and wanting to strength DOMA seems like Romney is not the only one talking out both sides of his mouth.

[Dyakovo]

- And if you consider that regulation of the gay marriage is none of the government's business

Not a position that Dr. Goldbug holds.
He supports DOMA.

[Grave_n_idle]

Something that Paul does not support, so how is that relevent.

He supports gay "marriage" as a voluntary association, while he personally sees marriage more like a religious institution

It's easy to see why you are confused, since he contradicted himself in that link. Listen to it again - he creates two different categories - voluntary associations, and marriages - and he thinks the second should be controlled by state authoritarian influence, rather than federal authoritarian influence. He skirts around his position on whether homosexuals should be allowed to engage in the second kind of marriage, but he gives a clue by saying that marriage is already defined so there's no need for Constitutional amendment.

In other words, Paul is arguing there should be no gay marriages, and definitely not at the federal level. His argument is that individual states should be allowed to ban such unions without inhibition from the Constitution of the US.

Which is typical Ron Paul, really. He only cares about the Constitution when he thinks it suits his agenda.

[Misterfisher minions]

Not a position that Dr. Goldbug holds.

Why do liberals always feel like being arrogant is necessary?

Anyways, fuck the DOMA and fuck the ridiculous gay marriage stances on both sides:
Stupid right wing stance: it's evil.
Stupid left wing stance: it's so cool.
Sane centrist stance: i don't give a shit.

[Grave_n_idle]

Not a position that Dr. Goldbug holds.

Why do liberals always feel like being arrogant is necessary?

Anyways, fuck the DOMA and fuck the ridiculous gay marriage stances on both sides:
Stupid right wing stance: it's evil.
Stupid left wing stance: it's so cool.
Sane centrist stance: i don't give a shit.

There's nothing inherently sane or centrist about allowing people to be deprived of their rights.

[Revolutopia]

VN

Not a position that Dr. Goldbug holds.

Why do liberals always feel like being arrogant is necessary?

Anyways, fuck the DOMA and fuck the ridiculous gay marriage stances on both sides:
Stupid right wing stance: it's evil.
Stupid left wing stance: it's so cool.
Sane centrist stance: i don't give a shit.

Nice for you to admit you don't really care about actural civil rights, so why do think people should about any other issue?

[Dyakovo]

Not a position that Dr. Goldbug holds.

Why do liberals always feel like being arrogant is necessary?

Where was I being arrogant in that post? Do you even know what the word means?

having or showing feelings of unwarranted importance out of overbearing pride

[Misterfisher minions]

Which is typical Ron Paul, really. He only cares about the Constitution when he thinks it suits his agenda.

Broadly true, but he has much more respect for the constitution than any of his crazy colleagues, democrats and republicans.

I would say he's a conservative libertarian, who has very religious views of jusnaturalism. But yet, it's the original spirit of the jusnaturalist movement, so i would say he's, once again, consistent.

[Dyakovo]

Which is typical Ron Paul, really. He only cares about the Constitution when he thinks it suits his agenda.

Broadly true, but he has much more respect for the constitution than any of his crazy colleagues, democrats and republicans.

Bullshit.

I would say he's a conservative libertarian, who has very religious views of jusnaturalism. But yet, it's the original spirit of the jusnaturalist movement, so i would say he's, once again, consistent.

And on that note you would be wrong.

[Wikkiwallana]

Which is typical Ron Paul, really. He only cares about the Constitution when he thinks it suits his agenda.

Broadly true, but he has much more respect for the constitution than any of his crazy colleagues, democrats and republicans.

Hah, no.

I would say he's a conservative libertarian, who has very religious views of jusnaturalism. But yet, it's the original spirit of the jusnaturalist movement, so i would say he's, once again, consistent.

What the hell is jus naturalism?

[Misterfisher minions]

There's nothing inherently sane or centrist about allowing people to be deprived of their rights.

The sane position is eventually to be neutral on other people's sexual orientation and to give them their individual right. I was pointing the fact that gay-reluctant or gay-enthusiastic positions are both appalling.

[Wikkiwallana]

There's nothing inherently sane or centrist about allowing people to be deprived of their rights.

The sane position is eventually to be neutralon other people's sexual orientation and to give them their individual right. I was pointing the fact that gay-reluctant or gay-enthusiastic positions are both appalling.

The only people who have "gay-enthusiastic" positions are gay people. The rest of what you described is the standard liberal position.

[Misterfisher minions]

What the hell is jus naturalism?

It's the way you can prevent this world to become hell, dude. See? It's the true name of the natural law

[Misterfisher minions]

Bullshit.

What?
If you compare Ron Paul with the Neo-Cons and the liberals, you'll see he's way more likely to represent the spirit of the constitution, which is about limitation of governmental power and complete freedom for the people.
Crazy things like the Patriot Act or the FED printing madness, for example, are unconstitutional.
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers, including my fellow countryman Mr LaFayette, would be appalled looking at Obama or Bush's policies.

[Wikkiwallana]

What the hell is jus naturalism?

It's the way you can prevent this world to become hell, dude. See? It's the true name of the natural law

That listed 11 variations of natural law. Whose are you using? And doesn't the fact that there are so many interpretations of it show that it really isn't all that self-evident or natural?

[Misterfisher minions]

The only people who have "gay-enthusiastic" positions are gay people. The rest of what you described is the standard liberal position.

Ok sorry, i sometime mistake the american left for the french left . One day, a french journalist said he would feel sad if he's only son was gay ( which he's a normal human reaction, you know ) and he was treated nearly like a fascist criminal by the batshit crazy rest of the media. That would certainly not have happened in the US.

That listed 11 variations of natural law. Whose are you using? And doesn't the fact that there are so many interpretations of it show that it really isn't all that self-evident or natural?

I'm using the British and American jurisprudences. Which are relying on the rational world, not on an imaginary being ( see the christian and islamic laws ) or on some flawed collectivist ideologies.

[Wikkiwallana]

Bullshit.

What?
If you compare Ron Paul with the Neo-Cons and the liberals, you'll see he's way more likely to represent the spirit of the constitution, which is about limitation of governmental power and complete freedom for the people.

Show me where those things are in the constitution.

Crazy things like the Patriot Act

He isn't the only one to oppose it, there are far saner people who object to it.

or the FED printing madness,

Does not exist

for example, are unconstitutional.
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers, including my fellow countryman Mr LaFayette, would be appalled looking at Obama or Bush's policies.

They'd also be appalled at interracial marriage and women voters , so their opinion doesn't really matter anymore.

[AiliailiA]

Go Ron Paul! Go you good thing go!

If Paul wins the Iowa primary it will be a three-ring circus. It will be absolutely hilarious.

I want to see his supporters. I want to see them rallying in the streets, heckling the chair at the Republican Convention. Marching on Washington!

It would quite simply be hilarious.

[Misterfisher minions]

Does not exist

Not exactly printing yet, but madness indeed

They'd also be appalled at interracial marriage and women voters , so their opinion doesn't really matter anymore.

Yes, because Lafayette was part of an horrible racist organization called " the Black People's friends " which goal was to abolish slavery, though women's right to vote was also on his agenda.
You should know that! And any of this founding father's positions is still relevant.
Same thing for Jefferson or Madison.

By the way, why do you think that from 1776 to nowadays, never has the US turned into a dictatorship? Because of its sane constitution and because of the l influence of the european classical liberal culture.

[Wikkiwallana]

Does not exist

Not exactly printing yet, but madness indeed

Economics isn't my forte, but I'm giving to understand quantitative easing is effective in a "desperate times call for desperate measures" sort of way.

They'd also be appalled at interracial marriage and women voters , so their opinion doesn't really matter anymore.

Yes, because Lafayette was part of an horrible racist organization called " the Black People's friends " which goal was to abolish slavery, though women's right to vote was also on his agenda.
You should know that! And any of this founding father's positions are still relevant.
Same thing for Jefferson or Madison.

There were a lot of Founding Fathers and their various opinions were all over the place.

By the way, why do you think that from 1776 to nowadays, never has the US turned into a dictatorship? Because of its sane constitution and because of the l influence of the european classical liberal culture.

Or maybe because they knew they'd have another revolution on their hands if they tried.

Edit: fixed tag

[Misterfisher minions]

Economics isn't my forte, but I'm giving to understand quantitative easing is effective in a "desperate times call for desperate measures" sort of way.

Well, the 1900 and the 1920 crisis were dealt with austrian methods ( succesfully ), while the 1929 one was dealt with Quantative easing and monetary policies in the US and in Europe. This policy's success brought that piece of enjoyment to europeans

and their various opinions were all over the place

Yes, and Jefferson was even slightly anti-democracy. I'm not going to blame him for willing to avoid the election of the above " piece of enjoyment "

Or maybe because they knew they'd have another revolution on their hands if they tried.

And maybe because the constitution warned them about that ( a certain right to uprise against tyranny is written inside ). Also, another gift from Jefferson and Co to the american people: the second ammendment.
I love to imagine the nazis occupy france during WW2, if my people had had such a right.