Why do people like Ron Paul?

So you're going to judge a candidate and millions of his supporters over what 5 people irresponsibly did to you? I agree with you in this sense that they sounded like a bunch of dicks and were saying ignorant crap, but 5 isn't "most" of his supporters. Ron Paul himself has tried to make it a point to not insult his competitors. He tells them their policies are wrong, but he doesn't go after their beliefs or scandals or bicker like Romney/Perry. He's the only candidate that seems to actually sympathize with the Occupy movement.

The info he was spreading was misconstrued, ignored the bigger issues at hand that only Ron Paul was offering compared to other candidates, and fell into stereotypes like calling it a "cult", acting like an old man, calling his economic views "feudalism". Ron Paul is very healthy and runs a few miles every day. The Federal Reserve has destroyed the economy and benefited the elite. It was very biased.

I'm not familiar with the AmazingAtheist, you're right. But it almost sounded like he was channeling his insecurities when he was talking in this video. Just an observation. You have the right to say I'm wrong on that particular thing, as it is a judgment.

Ever since Kennedy's death. Just look at Nixon's drug war alone.

If you've looked into Ron Paul enough, though, you'd know that he makes it a point for his personal faith to not be the focus of his debates. He only talks about it when he's specifically asked or when he's at a Value Voters conference, to which he goes to so he can reach a wider audience.

Can't say the same for the other candidates that flaunt it. Or they use Christianity as a facade to do evil works such as continuing the foreign wars.

I'm a Christian myself, friend. A Christian hippie. You need to be more respecting towards people of faith. I admit a lot of people have hypocritically misused their beliefs to benefit themselves, but that isn't true for everyone. The Bible itself, in fact, talks against that. Ron Paul's a modest dude running for President. There's no ties. Even Timothy Leary held a fundraiser for him in '88.

 

Don't get me started, friend...:smoking:

ZW :daisy:

 

Ron Paul has been consistent in his desire to defund and prohibit stem cell research. He voted against the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 as well as other similar legislation.

More Ron Paul shit...

• Businesses should be allowed to refuse service to blacks and other minorities

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/poli...uld-have-opposed-civil-rights-act-1964/37726/ http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2...asic-freedoms-come-second-to-property-rights/

• Would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/poli...uld-have-opposed-civil-rights-act-1964/37726/ http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/...hts-act-of-1964-and-against-segregation-laws/ http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2...asic-freedoms-come-second-to-property-rights/and much more...

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Ron_Paul

ZW

 

The next President is going to have his/her hands full just trying to get us out of the hole we're in, so the more controversial issues that divide us with no clear majority have little practical value other than to distract from the major issues which we should be giving our full attention.

 

yea they are making cows that produce human like milk and goats that have been mxied with spiders to make a silk milk. Maybe soon they will be doing stuff like this with people too.

I think it is wrong to mess with nature.

 

He's against government funding of any research, so calling him out for being against stem cell research is not proof that he's a bad guy.

He would have voted against the civil rights act, not because he's racist, but because he doesn't like anyone forcing anyone else to run their business in a specific way; he believes that that opens the door to abuse and treading upon civil/property rights. This has all been debated and debunked many times before. He is the ONLY presidential candidate that doesn't want to continue our wars against brown people of a different religion, and the ONLY candidate that wants to end the federal war on drugs (which is a racist war in and of itself, targeting black people in a disproportionate percentage), and the ONLY guy that is more concerned with ensuring the individual liberty of everybody rather than the collective 'rights' of whatever subset (at the expense of the rights of another subset).

I have no problem with scientific research, I think it's nifty keen. But I sure don't want my government in charge of it, not when it's become this monstrous machine that steps all over its citizens in order to perpetuate its own agenda.

 

Unless you've got a good example, this is just rhetorical nonsense.

ZW

 

I don't know a lot about Libertarian policy, but from what I do understand it would be great IF everybody had a certain moral fiber that 75% of the population don't seem to have.... without this morality I see it degenerating into anarchy pretty rapidly. (Not saying what we have now is great, and it too is degenerating into something..... fascism)

I also understand wanting to make the federal government smaller, but at this point in time leaving everything up to the States, which are broke, seems like any and all services will just stop completely and immediately. Again we are heading in that direction with what we have, I just don't see Ron Paul as being able to save anything and make it better.

Flame me if you want, but I don't see a way out of this mess with any options available at this time. And backing a guy just because he says he would legalize drugs is lame, he won't be able to do that anyways once he got in there.... (Not saying that is your reason, kashta, but for a lot of people that reason alone would buy their vote)

 

I've provided plenty of examples here - http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7090920&postcount=46

I'm not supporting him because he would 'legalize drugs'. Right, he couldn't do that...though pardoning nonviolent offenders would effectively cut the balls off the DEA. I'm supporting him more for his stance on wars and his unlikelihood of perpetuating more civil rights abuses.

But I'm done arguing you guys make up your own mind, and I've enjoyed the discussions.

 

:seeya:

 

Kashta

But as pointed out the main arguement in that post was that all government intervention is wrong and that the 'free market' should decide But the problem with this is that in fact it was government intervention in Europe that made prices rise, that was in large part a reaction to the oil shocks of the 1970’s when European governments realised they needed to cut down their intake of oil and the best means of doing that was to manipulate the market and artificially rise the price of oil through taxation.

In other words you have your argument the wrong way around rather than too much government intervention - the US would have been better off with the much more government intervention that happened in Europe.

Also there was a move by many governments in Europe to improve their public transport infrastructure such as the electric powered TGV (high speed train) in France developed and state owned rail company SNCF. Which is more government intervention.

 

Me too