Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Ed

Ron Paul

Recommended Posts

There's been an upsurge of talk about Ron Paul the last few weeks. I vaguely follow any of the running candidate's values, standings, ect, as they rarely, if ever, represent anything remotely close to my own. I would say Paul has probably the most out of any of them, or any politician I've seen in my lifetime.

I'm not exactly sold on Ron Paul though. His followers aren't exactly lukewarm, they're pretty die hard. There seems to have erected around him a cult-of-personality image to me. He comes across almost as a Christ-like figure in the center of a politicized cult. Whereas libertarians are critical of major news organisations being bias or one sided, the major libertarian public figures like Adam Kokesh and Alex Jones aren't exactly giving either side much leeway. Adopting policy verbatim and being so magnetized towards one single person's ability to enact those policies sounds like a recipe for trouble. It also seems illogical in a movement based on the importance of the individual.

I do have quite a bit of respect for someone that goes on the very front lines and tells the politicians what the people have been saying live and in their faces. Admittedly, when he's screaming to end the war and end the industrial military complex America has become, I get goosebumps.. I feel very much energized hearing that. In a way I feel it is what America needs to save it and what the word needs to save itself from America.

Is America ready for that kind of dramatic change? Or does he even have a chance? As of right now, he has my vote.

Share this post


Link to post

I cannot support someone who consistently votes against human rights, especially those of women and gays. To me, RP is just another member of the old boys club... a rich misogynistic Christofascist. And furthermore, as seen with Obama, having a radical agenda doesn't mean radical change, it simply means a spike in voter popularity.

A politician (and certainly not a President) isn't going to be what "saves" the USA. This is a trainwreck of a mindset that most people have. Of course, that doesn't stop politicians from completely fucking everything up either. The change is entirely in the hands of the people, and that doesn't mean by simply going out to vote.

Share this post


Link to post

Hard to know which information sources to trust nowadays, but I hope Ron Paul wins, based on all the memes that have entered my skull (mostly recent alex jones videos linked below).

The elite-owned (former) main stream media seems to be tactically and unfairly ignoring Ron Paul out of fear because he's the only one who isn't a bought and paid for shill/liar who never caves to special interest groups:
Look at the 2nd picture here ("You must register with the Bachmann registration table and vote before enjoying the free entertainment"):
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/media-admits-ignoring-ron-paul



2 multi-part series:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dov6fp8_mHw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhoV4O32Vp0

Stalin quotes:
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/138332.Joseph_Stalin

Here's Rick Perry trying to get religious votes from joe sixpackses:
http://richarddawkins.net/videos/642498-governer-rick-perry-texas-governor-speaks-at-the-response-august-6-2011

Share this post


Link to post
Eponasoft said:

I cannot support someone who consistently votes against human rights, especially those of women and gays. To me, RP is just another member of the old boys club... a rich misogynistic Christofascist.

Agreed.

But just to clarify his stance on gay marriage (which I know you didn't mention specifically, but it's the one I know most about in regards to him), he doesn't necessarily oppose gay marriage. He doesn't agree with it, but his stance is that the federal government shouldn't regulate marriage at all. States should. So if Colorado wants to support gay marriage, he's cool with that. If Texas does not, he's cool with that, too.

Mind you, I don't particularly like that stance. If I want to marry a woman, I don't want to have to go to a different state just to do it legally and get it recognized.

Enjay said:

I thought RuPaul was a drag queen...

Reminds me of this...

Share this post


Link to post

I'll vote for Ron Paul if he runs. I voted for Nader when he ran several elections ago. I have no affiliations.

Share this post


Link to post
Eponasoft said:

I cannot support someone who consistently votes against human rights, especially those of women and gays. To me, RP is just another member of the old boys club... a rich misogynistic Christofascist. And furthermore, as seen with Obama, having a radical agenda doesn't mean radical change, it simply means a spike in voter popularity.

Yeah, that's what I really don't like about him. His stances on the issues are still better than most of the Republicans, but you know none of the more radical things he suggests are ever actually going to happen.

Besides, I have to turn in my liberal socialist atheist babyeaters club card if I ever vote Republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Aliotroph? said:

A doctor who opposes universal healthcare is probably a money-hording scumbag.


Most doctors are already.

I may vote for Ron Paul. I'm up for anything that's not Obama and Palin.

Share this post


Link to post
gggmork said:

Look at the 2nd picture here ("You must register with the Bachmann registration table and vote before enjoying the free entertainment"):

Bread and circuses. It worked for the Roman Empire and I don't think human nature's changed much since then.

Share this post


Link to post
PRIMEVAL said:

Most doctors are already.

I may vote for Ron Paul. I'm up for anything that's not Obama and Palin.


Lest we forget psychoid Rick Perry tries to jump in and snatch the republican nominee... The only reasonable one of that bunch, Pawlenty, dropped out and now I don't what the fuck is going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
PRIMEVAL said:

Most doctors are already.


[citation needed]

I shadowed for a dentist in the winter of '08. My job was to sort through/file insurance and whatnot. What I found was that there are insurance companies out there that restrict the doctors you can see, or places you can get treatment. Furthermore, when it comes to dental insurance, most patients that are "well covered" can have up to three different insurance policies, with different insurance companies. And some of these require phone calls.

Lots of phone calls.

The worst was right before christmas eve, when I received a very distressed call from a patient that his insurance required a letter from the dentist to cover a pain medication required after oral surgery. I was on the phone for 45 minutes with an insurance "prescription negotiator" that had no real medical knowledge whatsoever, being told why the dentist's judgment was "faulty" and that "no person needs that dosage". Recall that this person is not a doctor, yet this asshole 300 miles away with maybe 6 months of whatever insurance companies make their workers do (kicking puppies?) is calling the shots of this patient's well-being.

Negotiating with insurance companies is like a really shitty interrogation scene in Law & Order, where some douche that really has no business making such decisions is towing the company line of "get away with paying as little as possible" for profit.

It's no wonder more and more psycicians are converting to a model that requires the patient to file his own insurance. It's because it's a friggin' nightmare.

Share this post


Link to post

I've heard what most people consider his whackjob views (marriage and science education, mainly) and I see someone who really isn't strong on those issues. Some of it's pandering, too. He likes to relegate things to the states, which is fine with me. For that reason, I think that he'd be more even-handed when it comes to the Presidency.

Csonicgo said:

Negotiating with insurance companies is like a really shitty interrogation scene in Law & Order, where some douche that really has no business making such decisions is towing the company line of "get away with paying as little as possible" for profit.

My girlfriend is dealing with this currently. She has bed teeth that need constant care. (Defective genes plus three kids equals calcium deficiency.) First, the insurance company needed the X-rays. Then they "lost them" and needed them again. Now they require some sort of letter of urgency for him, explaining why she'd lose her teeth without work done. I feel for the guy, with this stupid company having him jump through hoops, but I feel little sympathy because that's his job. He should try complaining to someone whose job DOESN'T suck.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll say go ahead and get Ron Paul elected, most USians these days learn the hard way and hopefully it will them realize that it is them they need to make the changes themselves for their own class benefits.

Better yet, a world revolution to shift our capitalist society to socialism and then finally shifts into communism after the world is socialist (the abolition of class society aka capitalism to create a egalitarian society devoid of class, sexism, racism, even the concept of hierarchy).

Share this post


Link to post

Wouldn't universal healthcare mean a bureaucratic bloated monopoly paid for by theft from tax payers, whereas the free market would mean actual competition for consumers which would drive innovation and increases in quality?

Share this post


Link to post
Jannak said:

Better yet, a world revolution to shift our capitalist society to socialism and then finally shifts into communism after the world is socialist (the abolition of class society aka capitalism to create a egalitarian society devoid of class, sexism, racism, even the concept of hierarchy).


........................

I'm probably the worst example of 'libertarian'. I'm in a class of narcissist that one would rarely admit being party to. The world that I inhabit only exists in my own conciseness and the idea of swaying my vote on the grounds of someone else's affairs that have little to do with my own is ridiculous. It sounds cruel in some ways, but so to is nature and before I would label myself a libertarian, I am 100% naturist.

It's because people like me that socialism will never work.

Share this post


Link to post
gggmork said:

Wouldn't universal healthcare mean a bureaucratic bloated monopoly paid for by theft from tax payers, whereas the free market would mean actual competition for consumers which would drive innovation and increases in quality?

Yes... because that's exactly what happened with the US Postal Service, FedEx and UPS.

Share this post


Link to post
gggmork said:

Wouldn't universal healthcare mean a bureaucratic bloated monopoly paid for by theft from tax payers, whereas the free market would mean actual competition for consumers which would drive innovation and increases in quality?

Tell me, so what is the point of medical quality and innovation when people are priced out of even basic services?

Share this post


Link to post

I think a truly free market with no government intervention might be a quasi intelligent system, like evolution, 'evolving' solutions that an individual like me couldn't forsee. In medicine, there'd be risk of quacks, but a niche would open up for other entrepreneurs to rate those practicing medicine. The raters would compete for their own consumers on who could rate the best etc. Maybe some entrepreneur would come along with a donation model or something for the poor/unfortunate. But wouldn't price be driven way down due to innovation/competition, thus making it more affordable? Plus everyone would be richer if the dollar didn't lose 95 or whatever % of its value and half of income wasn't lost through tax. Free market roads probably wouldn't have the 'street sweeper' hidden tax scam where you have to move your car twice a week to the opposite side or get a ticket.

James Mahoney from bank of america:
http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/events/2005/roundtable/images/20051025_press_conference.jpg
will help out rick perry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55l5cWTPy3o

Share this post


Link to post

A truly "free" market without government intervention just leads to the biggest corporations becoming their own government, like the time Rockefeller bought all the oil companies. Competition was zero and prices were high. This is why you have anti-trust laws. America already has too much of this. Microsoft managed to pull almost the same trick with OSes in the 90s.

There is no point considering these things as a neat ideal. They ahve been tested in the USA and elsewhere. Lots of countries have universal healthcare, higher taxes, and more corporate regulation (especially for banks). Canada is a nice example because we're next door. We're doing pretty well right now and most of us don't want to go anywhere near the corporate-ripoff chaos that is America's healthcare.

Universal healthcare was what let me have my left eye repaired twice this year without selling the house. Retinal detachment, you see, leads to surgeries that force you to do nothing for weeks. This would also get you fired from many American companies. So now you have to pay/have insurance, get told what doctor you can see, lose your job, and then hope you recover fast enough to dig your way out! What I had to do was pay $50 for some insane antibiotic eye-drops (why don't they cover that yet?), go to the hospital, show my card and get my eye put back together by a damn good surgeon. Then I had to recover for weeks, including a whole week where I could do nothing but stare at the floor.

I'll take the high income tax and I'll take the government regulation. Thinking like Ron Paul leads to a worse version of what America already has: cheap trinkets and fewer shared resources and infrastructure.

Share this post


Link to post
gggmork said:

I think a truly free market with no government intervention might be a quasi intelligent system, like evolution, 'evolving' solutions that an individual like me couldn't forsee.

Unlike biological evolution, human institutions like corporations have MO's. Your analogy is terrible.

In medicine, there'd be risk of quacks, but a niche would open up for other entrepreneurs to rate those practicing medicine. The raters would compete for their own consumers on who could rate the best etc. Maybe some entrepreneur would come along with a donation model or something for the poor/unfortunate.

Oh yeah, maybe, I suppose. Should we pray to god too? He might be able to help out.

But wouldn't price be driven way down due to innovation/competition, thus making it more affordable? Plus everyone would be richer if the dollar didn't lose 95 or whatever % of its value and half of income wasn't lost through tax.

OK, but why has that not happened yet? Medical costs are rising faster then inflation. And have been for some time. Why is that?

Free market roads probably wouldn't have the 'street sweeper' hidden tax scam where you have to move your car twice a week to the opposite side or get a ticket.

What?

A fantastic image that wonderfully proves your point.

Share this post


Link to post

You know, there's nothing which says the individual states cannot have their own health care system. And they would probably want to, in order to attract/keep taxpayers. Even better still, we would get to watch several different models operating at once, and this would allow us to see which implementations have merit and which don't. And if one of them turns out to be a total catastrophe, it is contained at that level, instead of spreading throughout the whole USA. Then it becomes simply an example of what not to do, instead of a complete nightmare situation. And if one of them does turn out badly, it is easier/quicker to identify and rectify the problem at a smaller scale.

The main thing about Ron Paul is he wants to return closer to the original model where most of the power rests within each individual state instead of a bloated central government that's so far removed from the local situations that it couldn't efficiently manage budgets even if it wanted to (and it doesn't even have an incentive to, if it can just kick the can down the road a bit longer...)

Share this post


Link to post

I'm pretty much sick of both the GOP and DEM's at this point. The fact that Ron is now running as a GOP candidate really makes me question if hes the guy for the job. The fact that he is involved with those tea party nut jobs makes me question him even more. If Ron can prove he still has a lot of Libertarian views and is willing to go agents the GOP party if need be, I'd vote for him in a heart beat. But, in my eyes he has not shown that to be the case.

At this point what we need more then any thing is a change in the norm. A third party president or even a DEM or GOP candidate that's willing to go against there own party for the greater good of the country. Both Clinton and Reagan where great presidents because they where willing to go against there own party's wishes to get the job done. Obama has shown a bit of this. I just wish he would stop pussy footing around.

Last but not least its time people in the states stop pointing fingers and start looking at things the way they are. Its not just the government and banks fault we are in this mess. The people of this country played a huge part in the events leading up to this crap. We impeached a President for screwing around on his wife. But, we didn't impeach one that squandered the surplus of funds our government had, while dragging us into another war under false pretenses. That shows how screwed up most peoples view on the government is. People need to remember the first rule of the any government is: Any government that is not policed by its people is a government that has been given the right to do what ever it wants. And just because you like to think they will do whats right by you, does not mean they will. More often then not they wont. If you want to know why country's like North Korea, Libya, Syria are so screwed up,there people didn't police there government.

A bank can't take out a mortgage loan for you and a mortgage loan can't default on its own. So many people who should have not even thought of using a mortgage to buy a house did. Forgetting the old saying "If its too good to be true, it probably is." Due to this idiotic idea that your self worth is measured in your possessions, so many people where willing to risk there financial future and the future of this country. Yes, your bad financial decisions can have a negative impact that goes way beyond your own pocket book. But, I don't expect any one to understand and accept that.

Share this post


Link to post
Aliotroph? said:

A doctor who opposes universal healthcare is probably a money-hording scumbag.

Like people opposing tax hikes must be rich bastards who have everything in the world and don't want to give any of their obviously ill-gotten wealth to the poor, poor oppressed poverty. Like any civilian opposing universal, "free" healthcare must be greedy assholes who want the poor, poor sick people to die instead of being treated at taxpayer expense. Like opposing big government ideals must mean you're an anarchist or paranoid or some rich conservative "retard" corporate CEO. Like opposing or saying anything remotely negative about Obama must mean you're racist.


Massive logical fallacy.

The insurance industry among many others are ridiculously over-expensive and shitty, yes. There's no denying that. Bloated and forced government mandates created by a power hungry federal regime aren't going to fix shit, no matter how many buzzwords, fallacies, and "help the 'needy' or FUCK OFF" statements are spewed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Xeros612 said:

Massive[/b] logical fallacy.

The insurance industry among many others are ridiculously over-expensive and shitty, yes. There's no denying that. Bloated and forced government mandates created by a power hungry federal regime aren't going to fix shit, no matter how many buzzwords, fallacies, and "help the 'needy' or FUCK OFF" statements are spewed out.


No, civilians who oppose universal healthcare are just ignorant fools. It works. Several countries who aren't America have proved this. You guys are the ones with the bloat. We spend half as much money per capita on healthcare as you and cover everybody. Non-doctors opposing this kind of system are just ignorant.

I stand by my assertion that doctors opposing it are greedy pricks. My olde dentist is like that. We have the misfortune of not having universal dental care and my dentist talked as if that's the only reason we have any good dentists. He's a prick. My eye surgeon and his buddies are damn awesome at what they do and they are making the same money as anyone else with their job. The dentist knows some of these guys, so he can see it isn't the ability to charge family-destroying prices that keeps them awesome.

And what was with the Obama thing? I said nothing of Obama, though I'm sure I've said in the past I'm not very impressed with the guy. He's unwilling to push for anything progressive even with the members of his own party and by Canadian standards he's frustratingly right wing.

Share this post


Link to post

hex11 said:
The main thing about Ron Paul is he wants to return closer to the original model where most of the power rests within each individual state instead of a bloated central government that's so far removed from the local situations that it couldn't efficiently manage budgets even if it wanted to (and it doesn't even have an incentive to, if it can just kick the can down the road a bit longer...)

Are you sure this wouldn't exacerbate the current situation, benefiting the bigger states economically while making many smaller states exacerbate religious tendencies and other extremisms in their governments, being bereft of previous grants from the Federal government, thus making even more people migrate from the poorer states to the richer ones, seeking health care, labor rights or job opportunities? Would the blue and purple states then not build walls around them to keep out the red state citizens, and not just the Mexicans?

The original model occurred in the 18th century, when the states were only staring to associate with each other, and before international communication and economic relations became as pervasive as they are now, through technological progress.

The Federal government may be aloof to many problems, and that may require new forms of social and political representation, some of which might need to be state-based or even municipal, but it doesn't look to me like having one's ideas stuck in conceptions from 200 years ago is an example of someone with his feet firmly planted on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Aliotroph? said:

A truly "free" market without government intervention just leads to the biggest corporations becoming their own government, like the time Rockefeller bought all the oil companies. Competition was zero and prices were high. This is why you have anti-trust laws. America already has too much of this. Microsoft managed to pull almost the same trick with OSes in the 90s.


That's the thing. One of the big indicators of the fact that the country is basically being run by the corporations is the fact that there haven't been any real anti-trust suits in a long time. The case against Microsoft was a bit of a joke itself, and only a couple years into it it became completely irrelevant due to changes in the computer industry (the rise of Linux and third-party software and the return of Apple as a serious competitor). Even at the time it was a bit silly because there were many worse cases for monopolies out there, and now there are even more even worse companies out there and the government just turns a blind eye. The last anti-trust case that actually had any sort of result was the one that broke up Bell in the early 80s.

Right now we're about as far from true capitalism as we can get without having a state-run economy or full-blown monopolies running absolutely everything. The market is completely anti-competitive and any newcomer is going to be completely smashed by the big guys as soon as they make any progress. The government won't do anything because the corporations have all their fingers in all the politicians' pies right now.

The Libertarians and Republicans cry about the threat of state-run business, but the VERY REAL problem right now is business-run state. This is why I hate politics anymore and think everyone who is talking about it is a fucking moron. Everyone's brains seem to be as far from the actual issues as anyone can get and people just argue about made-up bullshit fake problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Aliotroph? said:

And what was with the Obama thing? I said nothing of Obama, though I'm sure I've said in the past I'm not very impressed with the guy. He's unwilling to push for anything progressive even with the members of his own party and by Canadian standards he's frustratingly right wing.

An example of a logical fallacy similar to the other ones you and people like you have made and are still making. And if he's considered right wing by Canadians then I don't even want to know how far to the left Canadians must be because holy fucking shit is he as close to the right as a desk fan is to a volcano.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×