PurdueDoubleE

This was originally going to be a PM to Xero, but since a lot of college age people seem to be vulnerable to the Cult of Ron Paul, I thought I'd post a thread to ask what I've been dying to know for some time: What is so great about Ron Paul? I keep hearing about how he is a "populist" and "Constitutionalist", but his ideas seem to be from 200 years ago, and completely incompatible with today's world. His views on economics and foreign policy are particularly baffling.

So, here we go. I'll list some reasons why Ron Paul is a stark raving loon who I wouldn't trust to run a concession stand, let alone the most powerful nation on earth:

OK, I don't want to hijack the thread, but wtf? Ron Paul is clearly a stark raving loon, for several reasons:

1) He wants to wipe out government agencies left and right, including the DOE (why, I'm not sure. I guess he's against providing scholarships to underprivileged kids?)

2) He wants to withdraw from international organizations like the UN and NATO, which, despite propaganda from the John Birch society, have allowed us to wield our influence to make great strides toward ensuring worldwide order and stability

3) He believes in paranoid crackpot conspiracy theories about the New World Order, North American Union, Amero... you name it. He frequently appears on Alex Jones' radio show and gives speeches as similarly-minded venues, further giving credence to these batshit crazy theories.

4) He apparently lacks the leadership to prevent racist, bigoted filth from being published in a journal with HIS NAME on it. Or, worse yet, he agrees with the material and tries to deny it when called out on it.

5) He wants to return to the gold standard. Enough said.

6) He wants to prevent the courts from hearing cases on church-state separation issues. I'm not sure why.

7) He was the ONLY member of Congress to vote against a bill that would force the Federal Gov't to divest from conducting business with corporations that do business with Sudan's genocidal regime. The vote was 418 to 1.

So, there's a start. Can some of Ron Paul's supporters comment on these?

xero

1. He wants to introduce a little known concept: Personal responsibility. Also, why should the government have to provide scholarships? There are plenty of private organizations that do that. Anything the government does, the private sector can to better, faster, and cheaper.

2. The UN is worthless. NATO, I dunno.

3. You must read digg. A lot of his fans believe in conspiracy bullshit, but not him.

4. All leaders have their crackpot dumbass followers. He can't control them.

5. Yeah, that's the only thing that I don't really like about him.

6. Where'd you hear that?

7. Again, gimme a source.

I guess what I really like about Ron Paul is that he wants to adopt a policy of non-intervention (not isolationism as all of the MSM likes to claim). Some idiots in a 3rd world country want to blow each other up? Let them! We're don't have to police the world. Let someone else do it.

He also wants to shrink the federal government back down to manageable levels and give state governments more power. Suddenly, issues like marijuana legalization and gay marriage are a lot less important. So Massachusetts decides to legalize gay marriage. Don't like it? Move somewhere else.

Basically, I like his stance of "If it's not in the constitution, it's none of our business."

__________________
Ron Paul for president in '08

SeaWolf

People are tired of being babied by the government?

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be in charge of my own finances, donate to who I want to donate to, and invest in my own retirement.

I don't understand why more people aren't mad that ~50% of their income ends up in the government's hands.

PurdueDoubleE

So who would that be in the case of the DOE?



Based on what? Has war between major powers not gone down significantly since its inception? It may have had problems with corruption under that crook Kofi Annan, would you actually advocate a return to the non-interventionist foreign policy that ended up leading to a world war larger in scope that one that just ended 20 years prior, and getting 400,000 Americans slaughtered in 3 1/2 years?



I don't read digg, but I know that followers of Ron Paul and Alex Jones ZEALOUSLY go on there to stifle anything that goes against their worldview.

Also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDXHbgpoI80
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8DpKKSmaa8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1udw...feature=related ("secret government"??)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ccx...feature=related

No... not a conspiracy nutter at all




Some attract FAR more than others. Maybe that should tell us something.



http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_key...3907&can_id=296

All I could find on short notice



Sure thing:
http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/show/1711



We don't have to police the world, no. If we want, we can withdraw to within our own borders and let dictators and despots fester until we can no longer avoid involvement, and we lose half a million or more men in 3 years. That's a HELL of a lot better than the present death toll we encounter from terrorists...



Some of that is admirable on principle, but as I've shown, he takes it to such a ridiculous level that he can never be taken seriously as someone capable of governing in the 21st century. 200 years ago, I might have voted for him.

PurdueDoubleE

False dichotomy: as much as I don't like ... wait, what, 50%?! I think I'll pay about 20-23% of my pay in state and federal taxes, but I digress... as much as I don't like paying so much in taxes, electing Ron Paul would do far more harm than good. The man is stark raving mad/ He would withdraw American power from the world, we'd lose our influence afforded by our forward positions around the globe (military bases, etc), we'd lose intelligence gathering capability, we'd lose the cooperation of many other governments, etc. Oh but don't worry, he'd bring back the gold standard. That would .. no wait, that's a crazy-ass idea too.

PurdueDoubleE

Sorry for the low quality of the video, but here is more on Ron Paul being a conspiracist loon

(Bonus: I think that's Alex Jones coming in with a question at the very end!)

SeaWolf

So what, 20-23% immediately off your paycheck? Factor in all the taxes that apply when you spend money. 40 - 50% of your income is going to the government. Welcome to America.

xero

We're well on our way to losing our position in the world. International opion of this country has plummeted. The dollar is dropping like a stone against the Euro. Things aren't exactly peachy.

I say we mind our own business. Let the all-powerful UN maintain order and civility.

__________________
Ron Paul for president in '08

xero

While we're on this subject, who else am I supposed to vote for if not Ron Paul? Let's look at the alternative:

Guiliani- Italian mafia man who has no other positions other than "9/11". The man just looks untrustworthy.

Huckabee- Think partisan politics is bad now? Just wait until he's elected. I'd like to see this country agree on something for once.

Who else am I supposed to vote for? I'd rather see Obama take office than Guiliani.

__________________
Ron Paul for president in '08

PurdueDoubleE

So.. 6% (sales tax) of ~70% (take home pay) = 20-30%?

PurdueDoubleE

On the Republican side, I could live with Fred Thompson or McCain. Thompson seems very level-headed and reasonable, and other than his class warfare rhetoric, McCain would be my 2nd choice.

On the Dem side, I could live with Obama or Richardson.

Every candidate has some drawbacks, but let's not get crazy and vote for a radical.

PurdueDoubleE

Where do you think the UN gets most of its leverage? If we withdrew from the UN it would lose any credibility or ability to do anything. We supply a quarter of the budget (22% now I think), and give it most of its clout. Remember how much of a failure the League of Nations was? Why do you suppose that was?

SeaWolf

You're probably the most ignorant person I've come across for discussing finances and the government.

If you think that the only taxes you're paying are those that are taken from your paycheck and the 6% on everything else, you're horribly mistaken. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

Here's a link to help http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-015.html

PurdueDoubleE

No, I know. There are taxes on gas, excise taxes, taxes on interest and dividends, "sin" taxes, capital gains taxes, and so on. What's your point? The travel of money is circular anyway. It's not like money goes to the government and is never seen again. I can afford quite a nice standard of living for someone my age, and I assume most people here can too.

Anyway, how is electing Ron Paul going to improve your situation? Will we all be better off when he bases our trillion dollar economy on 200 billion dollars worth of gold? Or when he withdraws from the NAFTA treaty that sent trade with Canada and Mexico through the roof and made Canada (not an OPEC nation) our leading supplier of oil? Will we be better off when we withdraw to within our borders and have organizations like the CIA put on a short leash? I don't really see the connection that makes Ron Paul a good candidate.

SeaWolf

Who are you advocating again? I bet I could come up with a "How is electing _________ going to improve your situation? ... " paragraph too.



How's your debt? Did your parents pay for your college education?

PurdueDoubleE

I'm not a strong advocate of anyone. I made this thread because, moreso than any other candidate, Ron Paul's supporters believe that he will be the savior of this country, and we are doomed to a bleak future under the tyrannical thumb of One World Government (TM) if he is not elected. And yes, each candidate has problems, but their ideas, if implemented in their entirety, would not be anywhere near as devastating as if Ron Paul was elected.

(...well, to be honest, the only really terribly bad part of his policy is his foreign policy (which would be disastrous), and his economic policy. Not many of the rest of his ideas are very good though)

SeaWolf

I think people are just sick of the Right and the Left, cause it's obvious that neither side knows what to do with the government.

PurdueDoubleE

Well, the Right and Left at least have enough sense to know that:

- the Gold Standard is no longer viable
- international organizations like NATO and the UN have been instrumental in mitigating international conflict to the point where we no longer have major military conflicts between major powers that wipe out entire generations
- looney conspiracy theories about the North American Union, One World Government, the New World Order (TM), etc, have no basis in reality

Sorry, but I want someone in the white house who doesn't live in a paranoid dream world, or in the 19th century. As terrible as the Republicans and Democrats are, they're not batshit crazy.

SeaWolf

"Crazy" might be a little overkill. There are more than a few ideas of Hillary's that I could call crazy...

Nobody said he was perfect. I just favor him over everybody else right now. At least he doesn't lie through his teeth every day.

And anyways, I still have some time to make my decision. If somebody else starts to stand up for things that I think are right, then I'll probably vote for them.

PurdueDoubleE

In Ron Paul's case, "crazy" is most assuredly not overkill.

Btw, did you see him go on his seemingly-preprogrammed rant at one of the recent debates? It was when they were discussing the incident in Iran.

http://www.thestate.com/presidentia...ory/281821.html

Casey

Getting the feds out of education would provide many benefits. For one, the cost would go down tremendously. Public and private schools of all kinds spend a lot of time and money filling out paperwork to comply with various federal mandates. Also, standards are better set at the state level.

Steady decline of the U.S. education system started with federal involvement and has accelerated every time the feds get more involved.

Widespread availability of federal student loans have dramatically driven up the cost of education. If the money's there, schools will happily increase their tuition to collect it.

These are just a few reasons why the federal DOE has done a lot more harm than good.

cheeseman

Remember a lot of the stuff Ron is for is taking it away from the Feds and giving them to the states. Its not like they have to disappear all together.

xinfernox

Preface: I did not write any of the comments or statements below, I am merely pasting something a friend of mine posted on another forum. Its an interesting read to say the least. My vote's still out on the presidency but I'm not voting for this guy...


I agree that Ron Paul is an attractive candidate (especially compared to his Republican colleagues). His talk of liberty, freedom, the constitution, and the founding fathers have young people everywhere hopping on the libertarian bandwagon. I think he's on the right track on a good deal issues, but I really don't think people realize the possible ramifications of his brand of idealism. Before I give you an excerpt from a little essay my friend Matt Bigler wrote, I want to make a few general comments.
1. A lot has changed since 1787-- Strict constitutionalists cannot be taken seriously. I've always been little curious why we treat the Founding Fathers like gods. They wrote in a time before any real scientific advancement (people went to hospitals to die--probably why there wasn't free health care), a time before the corporation and the factory (think labor rights), a time before inner city violence (think gun regulation), and a time before even the most ardent abolitionists thought that people of a different color might be as smart and capable as whites. C'mon people. By today's standards, the founding fathers were idiots
2. We've spent over 100 years trying to correct the excesses of laissez-faire ideology (something Paul subscribes to vehemently). You can quote free market theorists all you want, but did you know that even Adam Smith (father of capitalism) thought that a moral aspect (aka regulation) should be included in the capitalist system. You think no regulation is a good idea? Read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair.
3. Most of you people are college students. I don't know about you guys, but I probably wouldn't be going to college without the financial aid and subsidized loans provided by the government. I certainly don't think government intervention is always a good thing, but don't bite the hand that feeds you.

I guess my main criticism is this: Whether you consider yourself a libertarian, socialist, anarchist, democrat, republican, etc., you cannot base your entire platform on ideas from the eighteenth century (or the 1980s for that matter--reference to the Republican's infatuation with Ronald Regan). It doesn't matter how strongly you hold those ideas or how radical those ideas are compared to the mainstream, they are not progressive. You call yourselves artists, intellectuals, or freethinkers? Well, get creative already...

That's it for now...

and as promised..




Why the youth have no political power OR Campaign Catharsis --By Matt Bigler

I hate Ron Paul, or rather his enthusiastic horde of 16-30 yr. olds. Sure, he wants out of Iraq and to legalize pot but this guy is not a serious candidate by any meaning of the word. And every time I see a facebook poll that shows him getting 40% of support or a group full of high school and college kids slurping Paul it makes me sick. Twenty-somethings will never be taken seriously if they put their collective support behind someone who is not a serious candidate, but rather a demagogue who appeals to people with strong words but no real ability to act.

Why he's not serious:
Basically, he will lose because of Duverger's Law (check it out). Voting is studied as an economic decision by voters. To win, a candidate must appeal to the greatest number of voters and in order to reach that segment you need to be just a bit left or right of center. It makes for boring candidates and races at times but that's the system we have and it's not going to change any time soon.
Ron Paul supporters point to his exclusion from debates, low polling numbers, or less news coverage as proof of a bias or a conspiracy. He was in all of the Republican debates, has been on several talk shows, and is talked about regularly(if not always taken seriously by the talking heads) on talk radio and the cable news channels, not exactly putting him on the black list. But this much is true, he gets less attention than other candidates because HE WON'T WIN! How broad could the appeal be for a guy who takes the extreme position on everything be? Get out of Iraq immediately, Eliminate the IRS (and almost all federal spending), Legalize drugs, returning to a pure market approach to handle pollution .

Why his positions aren't exactly what they seem:

Bye-bye IRS:
Understand this, no taxes means no spending. Well there would still be tariffs and some other fees the federal government collects, but not enough to do much with. Goodbye national parks system(or extreme price increases) that consistently loses money for the benefit of Americans being able to go see some of the wonders of our land. The phrase "Federal highway money" will mean less when the federal government quits collecting very much money. Are you a Paul supporter in college? Do you get a subsidized Stafford loan? Do you know what makes it subsidized? Yes, the federal government pays money so you don't have to. Did you go to a public school in K-12? If so you enjoyed about 10% of your school funding from the federal government that won't be going there. Finally, all of those little thing the federal government pays for began for a reason and many provide a benefit that you don't realize, notice, or care about. Furthermore, there is a reason the Progressive movement around the turn of the century started the ball rolling on taxes and growing government. If somehow you have romantic notions of returning to the Social Darwinistic type of America we used to have you should research tenement houses, poverty, working class conditions, disease, and infant mortality from the early 1900's.

The War:
"War is hell," said General Sherman. Senseless war is worse, says me. Solution, leave it to the Iraqi's to settle their own affairs. This is the solution agreed upon by most of the Democratic candidates and Ron Paul. Only men like Paul and Kucinich, however, want that pull-out to happen post haste. Everyone else that is seriously talking about Iraq is talking about leaving methodically because those are REAL people over there getting REALLY shot with REAL bullets or REALLY being exploded by REAL bombs. Leaving immediately might make us feel better about getting our men and women home but the harm it would cause to the Iraqi people make it a moral imperative to leave without leaving a stage set only for the chaos to come.

Property rights to fight pollution:
You could teach a whole class on this topic but the method Paul supposes is misleading. He is correct to say that with stronger property rights a landowner could sue a polluter for messing up his land/air/water. Totally true and a truly conservative reading of property rights theory. BUT, how do yo do it? Do you sue the factory that pollutes 2000 feet over your head and how much do you get for it? If a factory has to pay off everyone their pollution hurts how far does it go? What if there are several factories in town and you can't tell whose pollution hurt you or your neighbor? What if you throw a cigarette butt out of the window, or a bag of White Castle? What if you do it on a highway, can the government sue you? How do you prove such cases? Most importantly, how in the world will the court system be able to adjudicate the number of disputes that will arise. Intuitively, there will have to be some kind of code written and administered to make it more efficient. But then again, you know how libertarians love bureacracy (if you don't know, libertarians don't love bureaucracy very much at all).
Paul's idea basically follows the Coase theorem that no matter how you organize the property rights in a no-cost decisionmaking world the result will be efficient if the property rights are strong. Just like with many other economic models, however, this theory is not practical because there are always transaction costs. The principle is true but the model does not translate to reality.

Closing:
Ron Paul is not a clown or moron. He is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and that should afford him a certain level of respect. However, the insinuation by the chuckleheads that so fervently support his campaign for the presidency demonstrate that they either lack the political sophistication to understand what Paul wants to do and how it would adversely impact them OR Paul is a great mobilizer of the fringe elements in this country and the enthusiastic supporters are dyed in the cloth believers. In any event, if our generation is to have any power as a bloc we cannot afford to flock to every appealling demagogue that comes by like we're 13 year old girls going to a Hannah Montana concert.



NOTE: If the Ron Paul movement was as strong as its supporters claim and is only being held down by the conspiracy, where are the hardcore, Ron Paul style, uber-libertarians in Congress (other than Paul of course)? If there is some groundswell of support we should see some big gains in Congress, governors, or state legislatures in the near future. I wouldn't bet the ranch on it though.

DRock

to put in my few cents...a large decrease in taxes would do NOTHING except make other things cost more.

and withdrawing from the rest of the world would do NOTHING except open up for all hell to break loose in a few years.

__________________
--DRock--
I love my wife