RON PAUL mature Discussion:

[sevit86]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by sevit86

Originally Posted by cguy610

Mods should lock this foolishness up if OP posts one more video.

By the way, being able to communicate your ideas clearly and thoughtfully is a necessary skill that will take you far in life. 

so do u have anything to add the the conversation, instead of belittling my intelligence?

I wasn't insulting your intelligence.  I was referring to the fact that you said "mature discussion" and only posted videos. 

There is an official Ron Paul thread already. 

Every few months there is a new Ron Paul thread in which the Paulbots will act as if they have uncovered a secret in Ron Paul, that will end all the world's problems and cure world hunger.  They will also blame the media for the reason why Ron Paul doesn't have that much support.  Wash, rinse, and repeat.

well if you've been following the election they have been google it. and just cause he becomes president doesnt mean change is gonna come immediately but its gonna help.  watch and read about his views with an open mind and dont just believe the main-stream media.  Obama's Campaign is funded by the same people Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich are funded by. Banks and Big Business

 

[jtplatnum]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by JTPlatnum

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

No, it's not a 50/50 chance. How did you make that logical leap? Few things in life are black and white and there is no exception in politics. There are various shades of grey. Obama might not be perfect and he might still appeal to the system in place. I don't however believe for a second that his politics are anywhere close to the corruption that was present in presidents such as George W. Bush or Ronal Reagan.
People like to dismiss his first term as a complete waste of time but if you actually look at the record, he's tried to accomplish a lot of what he campaigned on. A Republican dominated house doesn't help his cause of course. I'm not completely happy with Obama (no sane progressive could be) but he is the best man for the job right now. My views on politics tend to be shaped by foreign policy and a political shakeup right now would be incredible unsettling. Obama has responded well, so far, to the Syrian issue (by not committing troops) and it seems the drama with Iran is simmering down right now. I do acknowledge there is the fallout in Afghanistan and we need to pull out of that quagmire as soon as possible but that's not really an Obama administration fault now is it? I don't trust Ron Paul at all on foreign policy. I don't think we've ever had a president that can truly be called 'isolationist' (a misnomer) but Paul is about as close to one I've ever seen that actually supports that notion. Isolationism is not a policy I can get behind. 

yeah but remember, the first two years obama had a democratic dominated house and still couldn't get anything done...
not trying to instigate but i am interested...what is it exactly about his Ron Paul's foreign policy that you don't like? i try not to spend too much time thinking about foreign policy cuz i don't really think we're meant to police the world...

I disagree with the assertion that Obama didn't get anything done.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/22/1009420/--A-comprehensive-list-of-Obama-s-Accomplishments

I don't think we're meant to police the world either. Unfortunately, United States hegemony is ingrained in our nation's fabric and it's one of the direct reasons why we're the most powerful nation in the world (at least for now.) A lot of the flexing the United States does around the world would happen with either party at the helm. Ron Paul's foreign policy of non-intervention is utopian and unrealistic. Do I wish it were feasible? Sure. I'd LOVE a world in which the United States didn't intervene militarily or financially in other nations matters. Unfortunately that's not how this reality works. We're far too invested in different foreign interests and an exodus of these places would leave a power vacuum that would surely be filled by our "enemies." The powers that run the United States would never stand for that even if Ron Paul were president.

It's not so much that I think Ron Paul's foreign policy stance is "bad" so much as it is unrealistic. I feel like his supporters have a very simplified and narrow understanding of geopolitics and are drinking the utopian isolationist Kool-Aid. 

i like your answer on the foreign policy thing...i honestly pay no attention to that kind of stuff cuz i think we half step almost all of our choices foreign and it makes me wonder why we put in any effort overseas when we got the same problems here at home. but i can definitely see where your concern would be. 
as far as ron paul's stance (on just about EVERYTHING)...i agree with you that it is unrealistic. i think, even if he were to be voted in, there's no chance in hell he'd be able to do half the stuff he says he wants to. in any case, i think someone willing to take those chances can do a lot of good...not necessarily for the country but definitely for the mindset of 'hopelessness' that a lot of us feel is prevalent. i think...a big part of liberty and a big part of freedom is the freedom to make mistakes. i'm cool with mistakes because at least people can learn from them. doing nothing, on the other hand, teaches no one anything. 

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by JTPlatnum

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by JTPlatnum

yeah but remember, the first two years obama had a democratic dominated house and still couldn't get anything done...
not trying to instigate but i am interested...what is it exactly about his Ron Paul's foreign policy that you don't like? i try not to spend too much time thinking about foreign policy cuz i don't really think we're meant to police the world...

I disagree with the assertion that Obama didn't get anything done.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/22/1009420/--A-comprehensive-list-of-Obama-s-Accomplishments

I don't think we're meant to police the world either. Unfortunately, United States hegemony is ingrained in our nation's fabric and it's one of the direct reasons why we're the most powerful nation in the world (at least for now.) A lot of the flexing the United States does around the world would happen with either party at the helm. Ron Paul's foreign policy of non-intervention is utopian and unrealistic. Do I wish it were feasible? Sure. I'd LOVE a world in which the United States didn't intervene militarily or financially in other nations matters. Unfortunately that's not how this reality works. We're far too invested in different foreign interests and an exodus of these places would leave a power vacuum that would surely be filled by our "enemies." The powers that run the United States would never stand for that even if Ron Paul were president.

It's not so much that I think Ron Paul's foreign policy stance is "bad" so much as it is unrealistic. I feel like his supporters have a very simplified and narrow understanding of geopolitics and are drinking the utopian isolationist Kool-Aid. 

i like your answer on the foreign policy thing...i honestly pay no attention to that kind of stuff cuz i think we half step almost all of our choices foreign and it makes me wonder why we put in any effort overseas when we got the same problems here at home. but i can definitely see where your concern would be. 
as far as ron paul's stance (on just about EVERYTHING)...i agree with you that it is unrealistic. i think, even if he were to be voted in, there's no chance in hell he'd be able to do half the stuff he says he wants to. in any case, i think someone willing to take those chances can do a lot of good...not necessarily for the country but definitely for the mindset of 'hopelessness' that a lot of us feel is prevalent. i think...a big part of liberty and a big part of freedom is the freedom to make mistakes. i'm cool with mistakes because at least people can learn from them. doing nothing, on the other hand, teaches no one anything. 

It's important to be aware and educated about foreign policy (and the history of this nation's foreign policy) because foreign policy shapes domestic policy. The two are intertwined. I can go into this much further but that's for another thread. I made a thread about President Woodrow Wilson a couple weeks ago that touches on some of these topics. Cheers.

 

[coogi sweaters]

The major problem with Paul is his complete ignorance of institutional racism and inequality among minorities. Taking America "back to the beginning", is a libertarian way to taut the old "we're all equal if we just start at zero". The only people who were ever at zero in this country were white elites, everybody else couldn't even count.

Black folks and urban minorities will just become obsolete in his America, and when those people get poorer, you better believe that the rest of America is going to feel that pain in one way or another. Perhaps it would lead to some type of massive grassroots movement in the lower class communities, which I am all for.

 

[sevit86]

im curious if anyone watched a single one of the videos i posted before posting

 

[Senoj]

"Ron Paul still hasn't won a state blah blah blah"

http://abcnews.go.com/blo...a-good-day-for-ron-paul/

Winning primaries doesn't mean #%$% unless you're organized and the delegates are winner take all. Ron Paul has been cleaning up at caucuses at every states county/district conventions. Come the GOP convention with the possibility of a brokered convention he will have the overwhelming majority of delegates once they become unbound. I didn't understand his strategy at first but this is genius. Even if he doesn't win the nomination because im sure the GOP will pull some bs at the convention, he is preparing his young followers to take over the Republican Party. Chess not checkers. Smart move.

 

[theone2401]

Originally Posted by FrankMatthews

Do you have any original thoughts on this? Can you use your own thinking and logic instead of just posting youtube video responses?

I thought this was supposed to be a mature discussion?

What is that video supposed to tell me? His economic positions are nothing short of insane.
Gold standard? You gotta be kidding me! Are you sure you studied econ?

If he were elected and implemented the policies he talked about he would go down as the
worst president in the history of america when its all said and done.


Not that he doesn't make smart, insightful and often unpopular remarks on the current state of affair,
which for the most part I can agree with. It's the fact that his response to these situations is clearly
fluff for anyone familiar with the subject matter. Utopian at best.

He might not, but I do.

Ron Paul wants competing currencies that let the market decide what currency and money is.

What is insane about that?

It is way less insane then forcing people to save and spend in the same medium so that the "financial controllers" can control our behavior by manipulating interest rates.

Idealogically Ron Paul wants a strict gold standard instead of floating competing currencies. (You might ask what is different about that then what we have now. Gold is taxed and treated as a commodity not as currency and also the US Gov. will only accept FRN's to settle tax liabilities. These things would change and make a big difference) He wants a strict gold standard because it will hold our elected officials responsible for the malinvestment that inevitably happens when bureaucrats spend money. Attributing the problems that happen under a strict gold standard (Pegged to gold) to the gold standard itself is foolish. It is like saying "The politicians spent to much money because you told us to limit our spending not because we are reckless spenders who have no idea what is good for the economy". "Economists" who blame the gold standard for recessions are just monetarist propagandists. I personally do not prefer a peg because the market is better at setting the price of gold than the Government or Fed would be under any circumstances but a strict gold standard would at least hold Washington more accountable for its spending habits than it is right now.

 

[yg716]

Want to thank you all for educating me on Ron Paul. All I heard before was that this man was for legalizing dope and prostitution (in my ignorant voice). But Let's be real...
None of what Ron Paul wants or says he wants will ever come true. He will have to take a medium at BEST. Setting the stage for people to attack him with the same failed and broken promises they speak of about Obama x10. If Obama can't get simple ideas popular amongst congress I just cant see Ron Paul getting anything done. He looks like an extremest compared to other candidates past and present.

 

[jtplatnum]

Originally Posted by Coogi Sweaters

The major problem with Paul is his complete ignorance of institutional racism and inequality among minorities. Taking America "back to the beginning", is a libertarian way to taut the old "we're all equal if we just start at zero". The only people who were ever at zero in this country were white elites, everybody else couldn't even count.

Black folks and urban minorities will just become obsolete in his America, and when those people get poorer, you better believe that the rest of America is going to feel that pain in one way or another. Perhaps it would lead to some type of massive grassroots movement in the lower class communities, which I am all for.

srs questions....so what would u prefer? that he focus on institutional racism and inequality? what would u want a candidate, ANY candidate to do about institutional racism? 

 

[yg716]

Originally Posted by Adidas Freak

"Ron Paul still hasn't won a state blah blah blah"

http://abcnews.go.com/blo...a-good-day-for-ron-paul/

Winning primaries doesn't mean #%$% unless you're organized and the delegates are winner take all. Ron Paul has been cleaning up at caucuses at every states county/district conventions. Come the GOP convention with the possibility of a brokered convention he will have the overwhelming majority of delegates once they become unbound. I didn't understand his strategy at first but this is genius. Even if he doesn't win the nomination because im sure the GOP will pull some bs at the convention, he is preparing his young followers to take over the Republican Party. Chess not checkers. Smart move.

Its not even that deep. This politics. Its about whats popular. If its not going to fly now then its out the window. People not going to be holding on to Ron Paul ideas when Ron Paul is not around. 

 

[Jordan8]

Originally Posted by sevit86

im curious if anyone watched a single one of the videos i posted before posting

Youtube vids got dudes running around scared of triangles and got people donating millions to a public fapping cokehead 
Contrive your own ideas and opinions 

 

[acemaster193]

Funny how everyone dismisses Ron Paul in political talk. The only candidate fit to steer this country.

 

[frankmatthews]

Originally Posted by theone2401

He might not, but I do.

Ron Paul wants competing currencies that let the market decide what currency and money is.

What is insane about that?

It is way less insane then forcing people to save and spend in the same medium so that the "financial controllers" can control our behavior by manipulating interest rates.

Idealogically Ron Paul wants a strict gold standard instead of floating competing currencies. (You might ask what is different about that then what we have now. Gold is taxed and treated as a commodity not as currency and also the US Gov. will only accept FRN's to settle tax liabilities. These things would change and make a big difference) He wants a strict gold standard because it will hold our elected officials responsible for the malinvestment that inevitably happens when bureaucrats spend money. Attributing the problems that happen under a strict gold standard (Pegged to gold) to the gold standard itself is foolish. It is like saying "The politicians spent to much money because you told us to limit our spending not because we are reckless spenders who have no idea what is good for the economy". "Economists" who blame the gold standard for recessions are just monetarist propagandists. I personally do not prefer a peg because the market is better at setting the price of gold than the Government or Fed would be under any circumstances but a strict gold standard would at least hold Washington more accountable for its spending habits than it is right now.

Precious metals will never be currency again, ever!  It's impossible if for no other reason than too many people and not enough metals.
I made a very extensive argument against the gold standard in the silver thread which you can read here:  http://niketalk.com/topic/292734/Silver-to-250-an-oz?page=20http://niketalk.com/topic...ver-to-250-an-oz?page=20

I have no problem with the the concept behind a gold standard or gold currency, but unfortunately it is literally impossible to implement it at this point.
Any economist should know that I am positive that Ron Paul knows that.  The fact that he still preaches it tells me he intends his audience to be ignorant.

There's two sides to Ron Paul.  There's his criticisms of the current system and all it's problems.  For the most part he is spot on here.  Then there are
his solutions, which are complete fantasy.  He lures you in because you can clearly see what he's saying is true; the system is in disarray, spending is through
the roof, the economy is unstable.  All this is true.  So for someone who is not well versed in economics they might logically derive that his solutions are just as valid,
which they are not.  It's all just part of the political game.  Yes, he sees and talks about all the issues you will never hear another politician talk about, but it's all
just a political strategy.  I know this because I know that he knows its all BS.

 

[651akathepaul]

Originally Posted by Coolidge Effect

doesn't matter Obama is going to win.

Pretty much. It's almost disheartening. I like Obama, but I would love to see Ron get his shot because I agree with so much that he brings to the table. There would have to be an extreme movement to have Ron Paul elected.

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by AceMaster193

Funny how everyone dismisses Ron Paul in political talk. The only candidate fit to steer this country.

Perhaps contribute an original thought to the discussion? Why is he the only fit candidate?

 

[cwrite78]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by AceMaster193

Funny how everyone dismisses Ron Paul in political talk. The only candidate fit to steer this country.

Perhaps contribute an original thought to the discussion? Why is he the only fit candidate?

-waits for him to post video as response-

for a mature discussion, there isn't much discussion and too many videos.

 

[dieselg5]

Lol @ the hate on Ron Pauls stance on the economy. These guys probably are only aware of the Keynesian and Marxist non-sense economics they've been taught in school 

I seriously can't understand how capitalism has gotten such a bad rap in America over the past several years. Some of you dudes need to pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged.

 

[twozerosix]

Everyone who plans on voting for Obama again should get out for a mature discussion.

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by DieselG5

Lol @ the hate on Ron Pauls stance on the economy. These guys probably are only aware of the Keynesian and Marxist non-sense economics they've been taught in school 

I seriously can't understand how capitalism has gotten such a bad rap in America over the past several years. Some of you dudes need to pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged.

TEAM MIDDLE EAST
The irony is killing me.

 

[cruthik3]

As long as we get rid of Helicopter Ben Bernanke who keeps destroying the middle class. Ron Paul is the only person that would do that.

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by AceMaster193

Funny how everyone dismisses Ron Paul in political talk. The only candidate fit to steer this country.

Perhaps contribute an original thought to the discussion? Why is he the only fit candidate?

I came back to this thread hoping that there would be some actual new discussion on Ron Paul, only to find a bunch of blanket statements like the one quoted above.

Can any of you Ron Paul supporters actually explain why Ron Paul's policies would be good for this country? 

 

[dieselg5]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by DieselG5

Lol @ the hate on Ron Pauls stance on the economy. These guys probably are only aware of the Keynesian and Marxist non-sense economics they've been taught in school 

I seriously can't understand how capitalism has gotten such a bad rap in America over the past several years. Some of you dudes need to pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged.

TEAM MIDDLE EAST
The irony is killing me.

Right, because my middle eastern heritage and culture makes it "ironic" that I'm pro-capitalism American patriot. Makes sense bro.

 

[acemaster193]

What more is there to say? It's difficult to identify what his actual agenda will be when he's actually in office. However, all I can say is that when comparing him to Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum he's the only one that can't be bought. He's the only one looking to spear head the main economic issues and end the Fed. He has a proven track record and hasn't flip flopped on his stances exemplifying stability, and although I'm not placing complete trust on him, he's got my blessing.

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by DieselG5

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by DieselG5

Lol @ the hate on Ron Pauls stance on the economy. These guys probably are only aware of the Keynesian and Marxist non-sense economics they've been taught in school 

I seriously can't understand how capitalism has gotten such a bad rap in America over the past several years. Some of you dudes need to pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged.

TEAM MIDDLE EAST
The irony is killing me.

Right, because my middle eastern heritage and culture makes it "ironic" that I'm pro-capitalism American patriot. Makes sense bro.

It is ironic. No quotations necessary.
How do you feel about third world nations being exploited for natural resources and cheap labor? How do you feel about predatory lending to the poor that keeps them mired in debt?

 

[-Red-]

Originally Posted by FrankMatthews

Originally Posted by theone2401

He might not, but I do.

Ron Paul wants competing currencies that let the market decide what currency and money is.

What is insane about that?

It is way less insane then forcing people to save and spend in the same medium so that the "financial controllers" can control our behavior by manipulating interest rates.

Idealogically Ron Paul wants a strict gold standard instead of floating competing currencies. (You might ask what is different about that then what we have now. Gold is taxed and treated as a commodity not as currency and also the US Gov. will only accept FRN's to settle tax liabilities. These things would change and make a big difference) He wants a strict gold standard because it will hold our elected officials responsible for the malinvestment that inevitably happens when bureaucrats spend money. Attributing the problems that happen under a strict gold standard (Pegged to gold) to the gold standard itself is foolish. It is like saying "The politicians spent to much money because you told us to limit our spending not because we are reckless spenders who have no idea what is good for the economy". "Economists" who blame the gold standard for recessions are just monetarist propagandists. I personally do not prefer a peg because the market is better at setting the price of gold than the Government or Fed would be under any circumstances but a strict gold standard would at least hold Washington more accountable for its spending habits than it is right now.

Precious metals will never be currency again, ever!  It's impossible if for no other reason than too many people and not enough metals.
I made a very extensive argument against the gold standard in the silver thread which you can read here:  http://niketalk.com/topic/292734/Silver-to-250-an-oz?page=20http://niketalk.com/topic...ver-to-250-an-oz?page=20

I have no problem with the the concept behind a gold standard or gold currency, but unfortunately it is literally impossible to implement it at this point.
Any economist should know that I am positive that Ron Paul knows that.  The fact that he still preaches it tells me he intends his audience to be ignorant.

There's two sides to Ron Paul.  There's his criticisms of the current system and all it's problems.  For the most part he is spot on here.  Then there are
his solutions, which are complete fantasy.  He lures you in because you can clearly see what he's saying is true; the system is in disarray, spending is through
the roof, the economy is unstable.  All this is true.  So for someone who is not well versed in economics they might logically derive that his solutions are just as valid,
which they are not.  It's all just part of the political game.  Yes, he sees and talks about all the issues you will never hear another politician talk about, but it's all
just a political strategy.  I know this because I know that he knows its all BS.

On point.