or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Ron Paul is a Republican candidate for the Presidential Nominee Position
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ron Paul is a Republican candidate for the Presidential Nominee Position

post #1 of 149
Thread Starter 
Have you heard about this man called 'Ron Paul'?

He is a nominee for the Republican candidate in the Presidential election in the United States in 2013.

i think we need more threads about him.

Whom is he? From whence did he come? Whath is his position on 'abortoin'? How does he look like in a teddy? Like a lace one, a red lace 'teddy'?

What, come to that, is his 'starsign'?

I would vote for him were he a 'Virgo' or a 'Scoripoid'.

If I lived in America and were illegible to be a voter.
post #2 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Have you heard about this man called 'Ron Paul'?

He is a nominee for the Republican candidate in the Presidential election in the United States in 2013.

i think we need more threads about him.

Whom is he? From whence did he come? Whath is his position on 'abortoin'? How does he look like in a teddy? Like a lace one, a red lace 'teddy'?

What, come to that, is his 'starsign'?

I would vote for him were he a 'Virgo' or a 'Scoripoid'.

If I lived in America and were illegible to be a voter.


I think I heard of him once. His father was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #3 of 149
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I think I heard of him once. His father was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil.

BALDERDASH.

It is my opinion, and only my opinion, but they should take Lincoln, or Roosevelt, or Reagan, off from Mount Rushmore to make room for Doctor 'Ron' Paul. He is the SHIT!

I've seen him on flickr now wearing a negligé, a black lace teddy, and sort of Aladdin shoes. And he is AWESOME!

So take this 'dark side' stuff and STICK IT YOUR ARSE.

I'm going to start another thread about Ronald Paul.
post #4 of 149
The Force is strong with this one.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #5 of 149
The sun came up today. Ron Paul gain?

Discuss.
post #6 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Have you heard about this man called 'Ron Paul'?

He is a nominee for the Republican candidate in the Presidential election in the United States in 2013.

i think we need more threads about him.

Whom is he? From whence did he come? Whath is his position on 'abortoin'? How does he look like in a teddy? Like a lace one, a red lace 'teddy'?

What, come to that, is his 'starsign'?

I would vote for him were he a 'Virgo' or a 'Scoripoid'.

If I lived in America and were illegible to be a voter.



I had nothing to do with this.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #7 of 149
Ron Paul once roundhouse kicked Rudy Giuliani to the face so hard that he won all the internet polls.
post #8 of 149
He can also eat 62 bratwursts in 15 minutes flat.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #9 of 149
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #10 of 149
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #11 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Ron Paul talking on patriotism in Congress.

The way it is. 100%

Absolutely.

Quote:
Our government was originally designed to protect our liberties, but it has now, instead, become the usurper of those liberties.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #12 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post


Happy 30th Anniversary, Darth!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #13 of 149
Dr. Ron Paul once saved a basket of puppies, floating in a river, from going over a waterfall.

A Socialist threw them in.
post #14 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Dr. Ron Paul once saved a basket of puppies, floating in a river, from going over a waterfall.

AND...

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #15 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

AND...

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

All of which are, unfortunately, completely undermined by the ceaseless machinations of Paul Ron, evil twin.

Way to pick and choose your "facts", Jube.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #16 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

All of which are, unfortunately, completely undermined by the ceaseless machinations of Paul Ron, evil twin.

Way to pick and choose your "facts", Jube.

Huh? What picking and choosing? Those are the facts, jack!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #17 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Way to pick and choose your "facts", Jube.

Pick and choose? Tell me what I am leaving out then, all knowing one.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #18 of 149
It's so amusing... every time someone on the boards attacks Ron Paul, it's over some petty detail.

The anger, denial, etc., etc. keeps bubbling up from the left and the right, but the very issues Ron Paul brings up are undeniable, and they are based on philosophy that nearly anyone regardless of political view can agree on... more freedom, less government interference...

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #19 of 149
billybobsky's deflowering a virgin is Ron Paul's gain.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #20 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

It's so amusing... every time someone on the boards attacks Ron Paul, it's over some petty detail.

Yeah!

I hate when those nitpickers get on Ron Paul's case for trivialities like his desire to abolish all welfare and the federal income tax and eliminate most cabinet agencies.
post #21 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

...based on philosophy that nearly anyone regardless of political view can agree on... more freedom, less government interference...

Nearly anyone?

His idea of less government "interference" is minimalist to the point of absurdity. For instance, I want my government to "interfere" with businesses so they have rules and regulations requiring them to sell safe products, rather than letting the "marketplace work it" via death, disease, and injury -- patterns of problems consumer's might not even detect because of corporate-controlled media.

I haven't the slightest problem with the dreaded phrase... redistribution of income. (bum buh BAH!) Nothing draconian, but a well-enforced progressive taxation system is something we need. The free market is NOT PERFECT, nor is EVERY SINGLE government solution (as libertarian/free market extremists would have you believe) doomed to be worse than any problem it tries solve.

There are some problems which are better solved via cooperation than competition, and where government is the best vehicle for organizing the necessary cooperation.

I think that the kind of libertarianism Ron Paul represents is a useful force to have at work in the mix of forces which produce political outcomes -- when not carried to extremes, libertarian impulses are a necessary counterbalance other strong tendencies toward excessive spending, taxation, regulation, etc. Carried to Ron Paul's level, however, and acting with the power of the Presidency, that much libertarianism would probably be a disaster.

Of course, Ron Paul's biggest problem is this: reality.

Very, very few people actually would be happy with the results of minimalist government, no matter what they might dream when it's all hypothetical. Nearly every one is a member or beneficiary of at least one "special interest" group which wants the government to do something about their own special interests. The only way such a dynamic ever works out (short of imposing a dictatorship) is for everyone to compromise so that everyone gets a little of what they want government to do -- bye, bye, theoretically streamlined government.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #22 of 149
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Very, very few people actually would be happy with the results of minimalist government, no matter what they might dream when it's all hypothetical.

It's not hypothetical. It worked before, it'll work again.

Quote:
Nearly every one is a member or beneficiary of at least one "special interest" group which wants the government to do something about their own special interests.

More reason why we need Ron Paul.

Quote:
The only way such a dynamic ever works out (short of imposing a dictatorship) is for everyone to compromise so that everyone gets a little of what they want government to do -- bye, bye, theoretically streamlined government.

A Libertarian president would not appeal to the 2 parties in power, but it might be just the counter-balance we need to get the Republicans and Democrats back on track, doing what the country needs.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #23 of 149
[QUOTE=SpamSandwich;1086335]
Quote:

It's not hypothetical. It worked before, it'll work again.


yup. Worked fine.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #24 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

I hate when those nitpickers get on Ron Paul's case for trivialities like his desire to abolish all welfare and the federal income tax and eliminate most cabinet agencies.

I notice that you've mentioned these a couple of times in manner that suggests an assumption that we should all take for granted that these are bad things but have failed to provide any argument as to why. Perhaps because we should just assume (as you appear to be doing) that doing such things are obviously just bad. This way you don't actually have to demonstrate why they might bad.

Do you have any reasoning or logic or facts to support your apparent assumption that these would be bad moves?
post #25 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

For instance, I want my government to "interfere" with businesses so they have rules and regulations requiring them to sell safe products

You want. Fine. What gives you the right though to tell someone what they can make or sell?


Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

I haven't the slightest problem with the dreaded phrase... redistribution of income.

What about redistribution of income to corporations? Because this happens too with the power of government to tax people and give it to others. Some of those others are corporations. Is that kind of redistribution fine with you? This government thing is a double-edged sword and it is usually the very powerful (and, I would argue, corrupt) that are holding that sword.


Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

a well-enforced progressive taxation system is something we need.

Why do we "need" such a thing? Do you have any good reasoning? Facts? Or are you just telling us what you think, feel and believe and trying to pass it off as an unassailable "fact"?


Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

There are some problems which are better solved via cooperation than competition,

And freedom gives people the opportunity to cooperate as desired and needed and compete as desired and needed. There need not be any "forced cooperation" through the mechanism of state.


Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

and where government is the best vehicle for organizing the necessary cooperation.

Is this another case where you are trying to pass off your feeling and belief as an unassailable "fact"? Can you support this statement with any facts?


Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Very, very few people actually would be happy with the results of minimalist government,

Once again you've made a statement without anything to support it. Please try to. Otherwise we'll just have to accept these as your opinions and nothing more.


Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Nearly every one is a member or beneficiary of at least one "special interest" group which wants the government to do something about their own special interests.

So? Does this somehow justify using the mechanism of state to take things from other people in order to satisfy the desires or "needs" of each special interest group? This certainly cannot be a sustainable model long-term. Surely you must realize that eventually there are so many "special interest" groups taking money from so many people that it simply collapses. Or...only the very strongest and best connected special interest groups survive and succeed in taking from the rest of the people to meet their own desires and needs (which I thinOK is exactly what we have going on right now).


Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

The only way such a dynamic ever works out (short of imposing a dictatorship) is for everyone to compromise so that everyone gets a little of what they want government to do -- bye, bye, theoretically streamlined government.

I disagree. Freedom provides a great framework for people to get what they want or need (so long as they are not stealing it from others) in a voluntary and cooperative fashion. The reason the state is required is when some people cannot get what they want by voluntary and cooperative means and the only resort is to take it from others by force. If you do this through the mechanism of state, then it takes on the appearance of respectability. But it is theft no matter how you dress it up.
post #26 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by drm View Post

I notice that you've mentioned these a couple of times in manner that suggests an assumption that we should all take for granted that these are bad things but have failed to provide any argument as to why. Perhaps because we should just assume (as you appear to be doing) that doing such things are obviously just bad. This way you don't actually have to demonstrate why they might bad.

Do you have any reasoning or logic or facts to support your apparent assumption that these would be bad moves?

Let's see now, how about chaos, anarchy, and lack of governance to start with? Please show me a system of governance that doesn't have numerous forms of "taxation" to support itself, and impose some minimal semblance of order.

I guess we really don't need a transportation system (national, state, and local), an education system (ditto), a food supply system (ditto), a system of commerce (ditto), a system of protections (national defense, state, and local), a national energy policy, labor policies (national, state, and local), etceteras.

Nope, let's just abolish the federal, state, municipal, and local systems of governance!

Seems TOTALLY logical and rational to me!

Just say NO to Dr. No!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #27 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Let's see now, how about chaos, anarchy, and lack of governance to start with? Please show me a system of governance that doesn't have numerous forms of "taxation" to support itself, and impose some minimal semblance of order.

I guess we really don't need a transportation system (national, state, and local), an education system (ditto), a food supply system (ditto), a system of commerce (ditto), a system of protections (national defense, state, and local), a national energy policy, labor policies (national, state, and local), etceteras.

Nope, let's just abolish the federal, state, municipal, and local systems of governance!

Seems TOTALLY logical and rational to me!

Just say NO to Dr. No!

You are just hand waving and begging the question. You say things like "I guess we don't need..." and provide a litany of things that you seem to assume we would not have without the mechanisms of state. But you provide no facts to support this. We are meant to simply assume and agree with you that the only way these things could be provided would be through the mechanism of state.

Curiously you list a couple of things that aren't even provided by the state (food supply system and system of commerce). The fact is that there is no provable need for government intervention or control or provision of any of the things you have listed. In fact, there is an argument to be made that the government's provision of a national transportation system (the interstate highway system) was a short-sighted program that has encouraged and caused a much wider use of those dastardly carbon-emitting cars which seem to be vexing us now.
post #28 of 149
Well, one thing's for sure. Whenever classical capitalism rules the day, two industries boom: grave diggers and jail builders.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #29 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Well, one thing's for sure. Whenever classical capitalism rules the day, two industries boom: grave diggers and jail builders.

What in the world does that mean?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #30 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Well, one thing's for sure. Whenever classical capitalism rules the day, two industries boom: grave diggers and jail builders.

Clever. Cute. Of course this is true because you say it it so. Geez. You're doing just like this shetline person and simply trying to pass off your opinions and beliefs as unchallenged "fact" and hope that no one will notice.

I am not sure what you mean by "classical capitalism" but true free-market capitalism helps to raise the standard of living people. Free-market capitalism is based upon freedom. The word "free" is the operative one here. Market capitalism are simply the natural outgrowth of this freedom. Freedom to work. Freedom to trade. Freedom to enter into voluntary, collaborative and mutually beneficial arrangements. Freedom from coercion, force and violence by anyone (individual, corporations or government).
post #31 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

What in the world does that mean?

It doesn't mean anything. It is a rhetorical trick to simply dismiss the entire conversation without actually engaging it. It sounds cute and clever. It is great if you want to have a "sound bite" counter-"argument" which, of course, is the only argumentation approach used in this day and age.
post #32 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by drm View Post

You are just hand waving and begging the question. You say things like "I guess we don't need..." and provide a litany of things that you seem to assume we would not have without the mechanisms of state. But you provide no facts to support this. We are meant to simply assume and agree with you that the only way these things could be provided would be through the mechanism of state.

Curiously you list a couple of things that aren't even provided by the state (food supply system and system of commerce). The fact is that is no provable need for government intervention or control or provision of any of the things you have listed. In fact, there is an argument to be made that the government's provision of a national transportation system (the interstate highway system) was a short-sighted program that has encouraged and caused a much wider use of those dastardly carbon-emitting cars which seem to be vexing us now.

Any your "hand waving" is beyond obtuse!

Like I said, let's just abandon all forms off governance, since they are ALL clearly irrational and illogical.

But please, just to humor me, please point out just one group of people (numbering in the millions) within a territorial boundary that has NO form of governance?

Please do!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #33 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by drm View Post

It doesn't mean anything. It is a rhetorical trick to simply dismiss the entire conversation without actually engaging it. It sounds cute and clever. It great if you want to have a "sound bite" which, of course, is the only argumentation approach used in this day and age.

Oh, you mean it's a Giulianism.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #34 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Oh, you mean it's a Giulianism.

Exactly.
post #35 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by drm View Post

Clever. Cute. Of course this is true because you say it it so. Geez. You're doing just like this shetline person and simply trying to pass off your opinions and beliefs as unchallenged "fact" and hope that no one will notice.

I am not sure what you mean by "classical capitalism" but true free-market capitalism helps to raise the standard of living people. Free-market capitalism is based upon freedom. The word "free" is the operative one here". Market capitalism are simply the natural outgrowth of this freedom. Freedom to work. Freedom to trade. Freedom to enter into voluntary, collaborative and mutually beneficial arrangements. Freedom from coercion, force and violence by anyone (individual, corporations or government).

Unconstrained capitalism != Freedom
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #36 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Unconstrained capitalism != Freedom

I am talking about unrestrained freedom (with the obvious limitation that you are not free to infringe on other people's freedoms). The result of this freedom is market capitalism.
post #37 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by drm View Post

It doesn't mean anything. It is a rhetorical trick to simply dismiss the entire conversation without actually engaging it. It sounds cute and clever. It is great if you want to have a "sound bite" counter-"argument" which, of course, is the only argumentation approach used in this day and age.

And just do as Dr. No says "Just say no." is engaging the conversation?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #38 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Unconstrained capitalism != Freedom

Yes, that's capitalism that includes sole proprietorships and other small businesses... not just faceless, scary mega-corporations.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #39 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by drm View Post

I am talking about unrestrained freedom (with the obvious limitation that you are not free to infringe on other people's freedoms). The result of this freedom is market capitalism.

OxyMORON!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #40 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

And just do as Dr. No says "Just say no." is engaging the conversation?

Evidently, nothing was learned today.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Ron Paul is a Republican candidate for the Presidential Nominee Position