Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Why not?

Why?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why?

Because America needs to be driven as far into the ground as possible.

Too old.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because America needs to be driven as far into the ground as possible.

So, there is no real reason?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, there is no real reason?

I assume the person who started the thread agrees with Paul's economic and/or social theories.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why?


Because he's not a fan of the NWO

The Narnian Women's Association?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The Narnian Women's Association?


something like that

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I assume the person who started the thread agrees with Paul's economic and/or social theories.

I wish the thread started had given a little more information. As it is, it just looks like a joke thread.

Paul is the one and only candidate to vote for.He was the only one in the elections who cares to change the world for the good of people and more importantly, was the only one that believes in the constitution of the united states.thats why they will make sure he wont get elected.Paul has the same ideas and visions that kennedy had which is returning the government to the constitution of the united states where the people had control over the government instead of all these big businesses and corporations that do now.Thats what got kennedy killed and thats why they will make sure Paul does not get elected in 2012.there is an awakening going fortunately.People like this thread starter are seeing Paul is our only chance to get our country back.Obama is just going to continue Bushs recession plan.

While I agree that Ron Paul is certainly better than what we had for the last 8 years and better than what we have now, I have my reservations about him, he's too libertarian. But the point is moot, he has 0% chance of ever becoming President simply he isn't part of the power elite which dominates both major political parties.

Too libertarian indeed. Not the guy I would want leading the U.S. in the midst of the current economy.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
While I agree that Ron Paul is certainly better than what we had for the last 8 years and better than what we have now, I have my reservations about him, he's too libertarian. But the point is moot, he has 0% chance of ever becoming President simply he isn't part of the power elite which dominates both major political parties.

yep.exactly.matter of fact after serving in the reagan white house as a republican and seeing how corrupt washington and both parties are he resigned and switched to an independent.he only ran on the republican ticket cause the independent never wins.

A discussion about Ron Paul eh?...Gives me a chance to roll out this pic again.

http://pleasedontreadthis.com/wp-content/ron-paul.jpg

he was banned from a debate after receiving more votes in Florida than, at the time, favorite Rudy Gulliani, who was at the debate.

It was fox, but still.

thats seems a little strange, if nothing else

EDIT: not banned, just not invited, difference I guess

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I wish the thread started had given a little more information. As it is, it just looks like a joke thread.
It wasn't a joke. I wanted to float the idea and then let people discuss is as they may. I did indeed, think Congressman Paul had some very radical ideas that would amount to some very serious "change" in washington. Be it good or bad, I wanted you guys to discuss and decide.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Too libertarian indeed. Not the guy I would want leading the U.S. in the midst of the current economy.

Why not? Which economic policy of his do you disagree with the most? How would it negatively impact the cureent economy?

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
While I agree that Ron Paul is certainly better than what we had for the last 8 years and better than what we have now, I have my reservations about him, he's too libertarian. But the point is moot, he has 0% chance of ever becoming President simply he isn't part of the power elite which dominates both major political parties.

Not being snarky, but what do you mean when you say, "too libertarian?"

Originally posted by tsscls
It wasn't a joke. I wanted to float the idea and then let people discuss is as they may. I did indeed, think Congressman Paul had some very radical ideas that would amount to some very serious "change" in washington. Be it good or bad, I wanted you guys to discuss and decide.

I think you have a seriously flawed view of how the US government works.

Originally posted by Robtard
Too old.

I don't think age is a relevant factor in determing a president. Look at Reagan and John Mcain who got 50 mill+ people to vote for him. I'd vote for a 98 year old who had sound policies that I was secure that he'd stick to after election. Common-sense knows no ageism. FDR was afflicted with Polio and was elected for how many terms? I'd also vote for a 40 year old if I felt that they had the right train of thought.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think you have a seriously flawed view of how the US government works.
How so? Because I wanted to float the idea of Ron Paul, a former candidate who I may or may not have supported, in a coversation about our next presidential election? Like I said before, I just wanted to initiate converastion on this topic. I think you have a seriously flawed view of what I've said, which is next to nothing.

Originally posted by tsscls
How so? Because I wanted to float the idea of Ron Paul, a former candidate who I may or may not have supported, in a coversation about our next presidential election? Like I said before, I just wanted to initiate converastion on this topic. I think you have a seriously flawed view of what I've said, which is next to nothing.

No because Ron Paul would be a useless president, not because of his policies but because of his lack of support in the government.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No because Ron Paul would be a useless president, not because of his policies but because of his lack of support in the government.
He would still have all of the powers of the executive office, and the power of the bully pulpit. You're saying that only an established DEM/REP should hold office, because they have more support from our corrupt goverment? I don't buy that. Plus, he's been a congressman for years, so he has some support, at least as much as Obama with his partial term as illinois senator.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No because Ron Paul would be a useless president, not because of his policies but because of his lack of support in the government.
Right now, I'd feel a little more comfortable with a President who wasn't supported by either of the two parties. That would mean there was less of an agenda when it came time to veto or not the bills that passed through his desk.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I assume the person who started the thread agrees with Paul's economic and/or social theories.

No, I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's eco/social theories. I also don't believe in his foreign policy. Just stay out of it. You just want to argue and troll.

Originally posted by tsscls
Right now, I'd feel a little more comfortable with a President who wasn't supported by either of the two parties. That would mean there was less of an agenda when it came time to veto or not the bills that passed through his desk.

But making vetoes would be the entirety of his power. The House, the Senate or the Supreme Court would still not be Libertarian.

Originally posted by tsscls
He would still have all of the powers of the executive office, and the power of the bully pulpit. You're saying that only an established DEM/REP should hold office, because they have more support from our corrupt goverment? I don't buy that. Plus, he's been a congressman for years, so he has some support, at least as much as Obama with his partial term as illinois senator.

You're making some wild leaps of logic. There's no good reason for anyone to support Paul until Libertarians are common enough to have at least some power in another branch. The US has this little thing called checks and balances that would make Paul powerless to effect any of his policies whether for good or ill.

Originally posted by tsscls
No, I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's eco/social theories. I also don't believe in his foreign policy. Just stay out of it. You just want to argue and troll.

Not really. I made a perfectly reasonable assumption based on the information I had at the time.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But making vetoes would be the entirety of his power. The House, the Senate or the Supreme Court would still not be Libertarian.



You're making some wild leaps of logic. There's no good reason for anyone to support Paul until Libertarians are common enough to have at least some power in another branch. The US has this little thing called checks and balances that would make Paul powerless to effect any of his policies whether for good or ill.



Not really. I made a perfectly reasonable assumption based on the information I had at the time.

Oh yes, executive orders mean nothing. The bully pulpit is a completely ineffective weapon, as Obama has shown. checks and balances are reserved for the different branches of government to retain their autonomy, not the the parties. Unless, you're arguing, that given a third party president, the congress or the senate would vote against him just because he's not one of them. If that was the case, they'd have a great deal of explaining to do to their constiuients.

Originally posted by tsscls
Not being snarky, but what do you mean when you say, "too libertarian?"

His views on government are very libertarian in that he supports very little government. While this sounds good at first consider this:

There are four main groups that want to take our freedoms away..

1)Government
2)Corporations
3)Religious fanatics
4)Organized crime syndicates and gangs

At least #1 can be used as a tool against the other 3 which if left to their own devices would make serfs of us all. Libertarians support mostly #2.

Originally posted by tsscls
Oh yes, executive orders mean nothing. The bully pulpit is a completely ineffective weapon, as Obama has shown. checks and balances are reserved for the different branches of government to retain their autonomy, not the the parties. Unless, you're arguing, that given a third party president, the congress or the senate would vote against him just because he's not one of them. If that was the case, they'd have a great deal of explaining to do to their constiuients.

Obama has the support of the Democrats (who now have a majority in Congress I believe). Congress and the Supreme Court wouldn't support Paul because they probably wouldn't agree with his policies due to not being Libertarians and having different beliefs, unless you think that Paul becoming President would suddenly make people convert to his beliefs.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Obama has the support of the Democrats (who now have a majority in Congress I believe). Congress and the Supreme Court wouldn't support Paul because they probably wouldn't agree with his policies due to not being Libertarians and having different beliefs, unless you think that Paul becoming President would suddenly make people convert to his beliefs.

Exaxctly as you said. And he'd have the power of veto! It would be exciting!

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Too libertarian indeed. Not the guy I would want leading the U.S. in the midst of the current economy.
The free market is exactly what we need during this current economic downturn.

Originally posted by BigRed
The free market is exactly what we need during this current economic downturn.

Communism is exactly what we need during this current economic downturn.

Fascism is exactly what we need during this current economic downturn.

Minarchism is exactly what we need during this current economic downturn.

Sacrifices to Chuthulu are exactly what we need during this current economic downturn.


Happily, none of those are likely to happen. Then afterward each group will claim that it would have been faster if we used their version and all of them will provide "proof" that they're right. Personally, I'll be laughing.

Originally posted by tsscls
Why not?
Umm, he won't be running for presidency anymore.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No because Ron Paul would be a useless president, not because of his policies but because of his lack of support in the government.

Bingo.


Tis a shame, though. I must say that I like more than 80% of his ideas.


Originally posted by tsscls
Exaxctly as you said. And he'd have the power of veto! It would be exciting!

And since he has the nickname of Senator "no" or "Dr. No" or something like that, I wouldn't doubt for a moment that he wouldn't vote no quite often.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
1)Government
2)Corporations
3)Religious fanatics
4)Organized crime syndicates and gangs

At least #1 can be used as a tool against the other 3 which if left to their own devices would make serfs of us all. Libertarians support mostly #2.

yes, but only #1 is able to allegate to itself the right to take these freedoms away, and it is the only one that can "legitimately" do violence to a person for non-compliance

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but only #1 is able to allegate to itself the right to take these freedoms away, and it is the only one that can "legitimately" do violence to a person for non-compliance

Who cares how it get's rationalized? And there's still less you can do against the other three.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Who cares how it get's rationalized? And there's still less you can do against the other three.

I think I disagree. I am not sure if I'm interpreting your statement correctly; but, yes, there is something you can against the other three in the U.S.

How many lawsuits are won each year against corporations? How many gang members are sent to prison each year?



Now, with those stupid religious fanatics, such as terrorists, we've been doing a pretty good job for our homeland since 9/11. But what about those seek to oppress others through majoritarianism? (My fellow brothers and sisters did this recently in California with Prop. 8.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think I disagree. I am not sure if I'm interpreting your statement correctly; but, yes, there is something you can against the other three in the U.S.

How many lawsuits are won each year against corporations? How many gang members are sent to prison each year?



Now, with those stupid religious fanatics, such as terrorists, we've been doing a pretty good job for our homeland since 9/11. But what about those seek to oppress others through majoritarianism? (My fellow brothers and sisters did this recently in California with Prop. 8.)

I was assuming a world/country where one of the four was in charge. Only governments are particularly beholden to the people (unless they become fascistic) because they're the only ones where the leadership changes regularly and at the behest of the population.

Also: lol at "majoritarianism"

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was assuming a world/country where one of the four was in charge. Only governments are particularly beholden to the people (unless they become fascistic) because they're the only ones where the leadership changes regularly and at the behest of the population.

You're referring to democratic systems and their various iterations, right?

Some of Paul's ideas rely too heavily on human altruism that simply doesn't exist in the amounts required for his ideas to work.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Also: lol at "majoritarianism"




Did I do something wrong.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Communism is exactly what we need during this current economic downturn.

Fascism is exactly what we need during this current economic downturn.

Minarchism is exactly what we need during this current economic downturn.

Sacrifices to Chuthulu are exactly what we need during this current economic downturn.


Happily, none of those are likely to happen. Then afterward each group will claim that it would have been faster if we used their version and all of them will provide "proof" that they're right. Personally, I'll be laughing.
True. Many people want to take advantage of a crisis to put forth their own agenda.

I personally wouldn't take joy in being proven right.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because America needs to be driven as far into the ground as possible.


Too late.

That's what I find terribly ironic.

"Oh no, with free market capitalism, the world will go to hell in hand basket."

Yet, with government involved in most things for decades now, society has been slowly crumbling and free market advocates certainly don't have their hands dirty.

http://eleanorstrousers.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/government-t.jpg