Ron Paul

SpAcEd OuT

I am just wondering if someone wants to shed some light on the whole internet fascination with Ron Paul.

From what I can gather he believes in creationism, is against gay marriage, believes christian prayers should be said before classes in schools, basically a step backwards for America

Am I wrong? Why does he have such a following on the internet?

Lirange

Summed up in three words: "Free the weed"

Also explains some of his support on Boards.

Manic Moran

The description you have is more one of the results of his position, than representing his position.

He's a Libertarian pretending to be a Republican. He believes in as little Federal interference in both the States or private individuals as possible. In a country where the majority population is jaded by the government of either side, this is quite appealing. For example, he's not so much in support of all schools saying prayers, but opposes the interference by the Feds which effectively says "Schools cannot choose to say or not to say prayers: They must not." He believes it should be up to the schools, or at least the States, to figure it out for themselves, and up to the students and parents to figure out if that's such a big issue for them that they should go to another school. As another example, he is staunchly pro-life, but refuses a Federal ban on abortion as he thinks that's not the Federal government's business. A philosophy of "Mind your own business, and I'll mind mine" does have its appeal.

NTM

ghostdancer

"stop the war right now"
"stop interfering with other countries"
"scrap the IRS"
"limited government"
"end the war on drugs"
"personal liberty"

when you get to utter those phrases on every single interview, you tend to develop quite a following with those who want to stick it to "the man".
that's really what captured the attention of many of his internet supporters. to the average voter on the ground though, they generally want to hear about healthcare and the economy, which, in the many interviews i've seen from him, he doesn't seem to put forward very much.

moe_sizlak

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

I am just wondering if someone wants to shed some light on the whole internet fascination with Ron Paul.

From what I can gather he believes in creationism, is against gay marriage, believes christian prayers should be said before classes in schools, basically a step backwards for America

Am I wrong? Why does he have such a following on the internet?

thats huckabee your referring to but that aside , name one american politician who is in favour of gay marriage publically

name one in ireland

moe_sizlak

ron paul is too ecentric to be electable

Akrasia

Ron paul is so visible because the young 'Libertarian' movement in the U.S. are just as evangelical as any other nutjob fringe group.

I reckon there were some wires crossed in their upbringing, they spent their whole lives being told that 'free markets' = freedom, and that freedom is the most important thing in the world and they worship that mantra now as though it was a god.

They were indoctrinated during the cold war, socialism is bad, capitalism is good and now they've just taken the next step to associate all forms of government with communism. They really are a sad bunch.

AngryHippie

Not really sure any of the candidates are electable, In the sense that they are all well connected and lobbied and will change feck all in the domestic scene. I'd imagine foreign policy and homeland security are in for a wee review regardless of the candidate, well at least some lip service and fist banging(no pun).:rolleyes:

cavedave

The point about Ron Paul is the things you disagree with him on are things he believes the federal governemnt should not control.

From what I can gather he believes in creationism

As far as I can gather he believes God created the world. But he does not think it a political issue. Schools would be allowed to teach creationism and they would be allowed pray.

is against gay marriage

I believe Ron Paul is personally against gay marriage but is also against the federal government being allowed tell states what contract they can enforce (with certain exceptions). So he would not affect a states ability to marry two gays.

believes christian prayers should be said before classes in schools,

He believes in prayer. He believes the state does not have the right to tell schools teachers etc that they cannot pray. Ireland allows prayer in schools.

*edited to be close to making some sense.

Dave!

cavedave wrote: »

As far as I can gather he believes God created the world. But he does not think it a political issue. Schools would be allowed to teach creationism and they would be allowed pray.

Does he mean public schools here?

cavedave

Does he mean public schools here?

Sorry I do not follow you. If you mean would public schools in Ireland be affected the answer is no.

edit:Sorry I understand your question now. He lays out some of his beliefs here. http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Education.htm

Even if Ron Paul wants children to pray in schools if the supreme court says children cannot be made pray in public schools then they cannot.

Dave!

I was more interested in the creationism point than the praying. Sorry bout the ambiguity of my question, I just see it now!

cavedave

Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?
* PAUL: Yes.

The question is extremely loaded. I know of no scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution. If they were to come to light they should be presented though.
Again this would come down to courts though. If creationism in its various guises is seen as religion then you could teach it wherever you could teach prayer.

This creationism/prayer thing is a side issue to the main point of libertarianism which is to restrict the governments role and intrusion upon your life.

donaghs

Interesting to have candidates who don't have to believe one entire set of ideas (e.g. "conservatism"), and reject another set (e.g. left "liberalism"). And visa versa.

He reminds me a bit of Barry Goldwater, and if wikipedia is to be believed he worked on a Goldwater campaign in the 60s. Goldwater interestingly had libertarian side to him, which became very visible in the 80s when he criticised the increasing religious influence in the Republican Party.

Bit if I had a vote he wouldn't get it!;)

Tea drinker

Akrasia wrote: »

Ron paul is so visible because the young 'Libertarian' movement in the U.S. are just as evangelical as any other nutjob fringe group.

I reckon there were some wires crossed in their upbringing, they spent their whole lives being told that 'free markets' = freedom, and that freedom is the most important thing in the world and they worship that mantra now as though it was a god.

They were indoctrinated during the cold war, socialism is bad, capitalism is good and now they've just taken the next step to associate all forms of government with communism. They really are a sad bunch.

Yep, religous fundamentalism has taken over the US way of life.
Also look at the way the media is used in western society! It's a joke! Completely biased and controlled by the state(s). Propaganda me arse.
Sure here in Ireland they have half the people convinced the downturn is caused by Doomsayers (defeatist talk?). I guess they caused the credit crunch (that train is still arriving) and the collapse of the US housing market. It's been reported Berties people are intimidating reporters at the tribunal..... dictatorship?
Get me away from them.

Catsmokinpot

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

I am just wondering if someone wants to shed some light on the whole internet fascination with Ron Paul.

From what I can gather he believes in creationism, is against gay marriage, believes Christian prayers should be said before classes in schools, basically a step backwards for America

Am I wrong? Why does he have such a following on the internet?

From where did you gather your information from? all of those sound like mike huckabee to me.

Yes he does believe god created the world, but he is all about individual liberties, that includes freedom of belief. and he is a strict constitutionalist, which means that he will abide by the law of separation of church and state in the constitution and that includes prayer in schools.

He also said that he could do make no law for or against it at a federal level.

As for gay marriage, He is for any voluntary contract between two people - this includes gay marriage. He was asked once if he agreed with the US Armies don't ask don't tell policy for gays, and he said that it wasn't a bad idea, but he also thought that it should be applied to heterosexual couples as well because it is discriminatory if it isn't.

There has even been a group formed called "Strippers for Ron Raul"! thats how liberal he is for a conservative.

Akrasia wrote:

Ron paul is so visible because the young 'Libertarian' movement in the U.S. are just as evangelical as any other nutjob fringe group.

I reckon there were some wires crossed in their upbringing, they spent their whole lives being told that 'free markets' = freedom, and that freedom is the most important thing in the world and they worship that mantra now as though it was a god.

They were indoctrinated during the cold war, socialism is bad, capitalism is good and now they've just taken the next step to associate all forms of government with communism. They really are a sad bunch.

I love the way people say Ron Paul is a Nutjob, you are just buying into what mainstream media are telling you. without actually looking at his views and analysing them yourself, although i agree with some of what you are saying to a certain extent.

You have no understanding of the current economic situation over in America, there are a lot of companies that can give you medical coverage over in America, but they are limited to seperate states, what Dr. Paul wants is an abolition of the borders, when you have competition, then prices will go down and you also have consumer groups that govern the prices.

Look at the computer industry for example. If you break those borders down, you will have more competition between companies, and prices go down.

As well as that, the conflicts overseas are putting a huge strain on the economy and it is devaluing the Dollar, this is also pushing prices up because people want to compensate for the low dollar.

Bringing home the troops will revalue the dollar and bring prices down. He seems to be the only candidate on either side that wants this.

"Socialised" medicine was Introduced in England + Europe after the war because Europe was devastated, and governments needed to appease the people for putting them through such a costly and horrible conflict.

America didn't go through that so they wont have the same mentality of the rest of Europe. maybe they will in the future, but at the moment they wont. a free market is the next best thing.

Before you go thinking I am against socialised medicine, i am not. i am completely for it, if it is done right. what i am saying is, what's good for the goose is not always good for the gander, different countries do different things. and i don't think America at this stage is ready for socialised medicine. What Dr. Paul is presenting is a good alternative.

moe_sizlak wrote:

ron paul is too ecentric to be electable

No he's not, he's just too nice. He goes into debates and everyone hops on him like rabid dogs. It's sickening how stupid the other candidates are, nobody sees how these other candidates are being lobbied by special interest groups (e.g. the military industrial complex and the medical industrial complex)

Instead of making a statement of why they think he is incorrect they just laugh at him. which makes the average Joe sub think "oh well he must be wrong" without actually studying and looking at his views logically.

Lirange wrote: »

Summed up in three words: "Free the weed"

Also explains some of his support on Boards.

Yes, but that is an extremely narrow analysis of his views and it is also not why the republican neo-conservative base is afraid of him.

/Rant

cavedave

Tea drinker
Sure here in Ireland they have half the people convinced the downturn is caused by Doomsayers (defeatist talk?). I guess they caused the credit crunch (that train is still arriving) and the collapse of the US housing market.

Ron Paul is an economist from the Austrian school which believes in backing money with gold. In this economic model inflationary printing of money (and thus credit crunches) is avoided.

Saying that the same thing that caused Ron Paul to be popular is what makes our economy a bubble is only true in the sense that Ron Paul seeks to stop such bubbles.

cavedave

cavedave wrote: »

Ron Paul is an economist from the Austrian school which believes in backing money with gold.

He is a medical doctor who adheres to the austrian school of economics. Not quite the same thing.

cavedave wrote: »

In this economic model inflationary printing of money (and thus credit crunches) is avoided.

The model however does not prevent anti-deflationary printings of money.

AngryHippie

cavedave wrote: »

Ron Paul is an economist from the Austrian school which believes in backing money with gold. In this economic model inflationary printing of money (and thus credit crunches) is avoided.

Well, he hasn't a hope so. The privately owned federal reserve bank will see to that

Hobbes

I think the main reason is if you listen to him in interviews. He tells it like it is and turns it back on the reporters who in the US media would much prefer to bury him.

For example one reporter had a go at him about accepting a donation from StormFront (who endorse Ron Paul btw). He went on and eventually not only said he would keep the donation but also had the reporter apologising to comparing him to StormFront.

But when you get into the nitty gritty of Ron Paul he doesn't make a good president. For example he has said to an audience that he does not believe in Evolution. He is also is against abortion.

Some his policies he claims he would put in I doubt would ever happen, and if they did would be interesting to watch from another country.

Still he has balls, which is more then what can be said for the other media whores running.

The man is 72. Isn't that too old to be in office? I mean, most people retire at 65, not think about running the country.

cavedave

illegalheadbutt
He is a medical doctor who adheres to the austrian school of economics. Not quite the same thing.

He has written enough and studied enough economics to be classed as an economist.
http://blog.mises.org/archives/007565.asp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LZyHoAPL3M
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/austrian-economics/2007/12/06/

The model however does not prevent anti-deflationary printings of money.

This is true (AFAIK) and something I have argued about with supporters of Ron Paul. Still saying Libertarians are responsible for the credit expansion is basically a contradiction in terms which was my original point.

Dr_Teeth

Hobbes wrote: »

But when you get into the nitty gritty of Ron Paul he doesn't make a good president. For example he has said to an audience that he does not believe in Evolution. He is also is against abortion.

Well, I think it's a little more complicated than that. I watched the full video of where he was asked about evolution and his main points were that the question wasn't important to him personally, and that it wasn't an issue he thought the president should deal with, as he is fan of limiting the power of the federal government.

Yes, he mentioned it being a "theory" which is incorrect, but he didn't say he believed what the Bible says either. He essentially dodged the question, as any politician would when a lot of his supporters fall into one camp or the other.

He could have easily said "I believe what the Bible says" to alienate one crowd, or said "Evolution by Natural Selection is the best explanation we have" and alienate the other crowd, but instead he waffled about it not being an important question to try and keep both camps happy, he's a fringe candidate who needs all the support he can get after all.

At any rate, regardless of his beliefs when it comes to evolution or abortion I believe the man can be trusted not to use the power of office to force people to do things his way. His main philosophy is limited federal government and states rights.

cavedave

Dr_Teeth
Yes, he mentioned it being a "theory" which is incorrect

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. As is the theory of gravity. The best theory being the scientific hypothesis that best/easily fits the facts. The theory of evolution gets refined and updates all the time. All scientific theories do. Most scientists would accept that our current understanding of the theory of evolution is not fully accurate, the same as they would say about the theory of gravity.

Just in case you think I am arguing for creationism or for Oden creating the world from his guts or whatever I accept the theory of Darwinian evolution as the best current explanation of the development of species.

pretty*monster

Ron Paul is both personally conservative while maintaining a strong conviction that it should not be the business of the federal government to meddel with the affiars of citizens, states or other countires where it is not absolutly necessary. As such he spaeks for a lot of people who have previously not been represented in American politics and it polling suprisingly well (eg trouncing Gulliani in the Iowa primary) as well as old-school republincans disgusted by the neo-con turn in the GOP.

It's almost inconcievable that he'll get the nominatian, his veiws aren't popular or understtod wee enough and the mainstram media don't like him. But he'll might run as the libertarian party candidate and if he does he'll do better than third party candidates usually do.

Hobbes

Dr_Teeth wrote: »

Well, I think it's a little more complicated than that. I watched the full video of where he was asked about evolution

Maybe its a different video we watched. The one I saw he was clearly asked do you believe in the Theory of Evolution and his answer was no.

cavedave

The one I saw he was clearly asked do you believe in the Theory of Evolution and his answer was no.

The question only matters if holding that opinion (about evolution) effects how you would act as president. Ron Paul's platform is to implement the constitution (a document that does not overly rely on the theory of evolution). Ron Paul's opinion on the theory of evolution does not effect his ability to implement the constitution. Thus Ron Paul's opinion on the theory of evolution does not effect his ability to act as president on the platform he puts forward.

Akrasia

cavedave wrote: »

The question only matters if holding that opinion (about evolution) effects how you would act as president. Ron Paul's platform is to implement the constitution (a document that does not overly rely on the theory of evolution). Ron Paul's opinion on the theory of evolution does not effect his ability to implement the constitution. Thus Ron Paul's opinion on the theory of evolution does not effect his ability to act as president on the platform he puts forward.

It does matter because it is an indication of his state of mind.

Would you elect a president who worshipped fairies and thought the world was flat?

A president is elected mostly for his judgement and ability to lead. Ron Paul has shown rubbish judgement and is running on a platform that he doesn't want to lead. (and on the issues that are important to him, would have zero ability to have those policies implimented... do you really think congress and the senate would allow him to scrap the IRS and the fed?)

cavedave

Would you elect a president who worshipped fairies and thought the world was flat?

I generally do not get much choice but to vote for cannibals who believe in parthenogenesis so Fairyists would make a refreshing change.

A president is elected mostly for his judgement and ability to lead. Ron Paul has shown rubbish judgement

As have all the other politicians who do not attempt to increase individual liberty. So the question is which is worse A Christian who will increase state intrusion or a Christian who will reduce state involvement.

metaoblivia

Ron Paul won't be getting my vote, but I respect that he's able to keep his personal beliefs separate from politics. His stance that it is not the job of the government to tell people what to believe and interfere with their lives, despite his personal beliefs, is far preferable to the evangelical Christians (Mike Huckabee) who seem determined to shove their lifestyle down the throat of every American. Ron Paul doesn't want to rewrite the Constitution, he wants to uphold it. After 8 years of Bush, I can understand why some Americans find that appealing.

Dr_Teeth

cavedave wrote: »

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. As is the theory of gravity. The best theory being the scientific hypothesis that best/easily fits the facts. The theory of evolution gets refined and updates all the time. All scientific theories do. Most scientists would accept that our current understanding of the theory of evolution is not fully accurate, the same as they would say about the theory of gravity.

Just in case you think I am arguing for creationism or for Oden creating the world from his guts or whatever I accept the theory of Darwinian evolution as the best current explanation of the development of species.

Erm, you're mis-understanding me. "Evolution" is not a theory, it's a fact, and there's plenty of observable evidence to back that up. Now as to the why and how of Evolution.. that's where the scientific theories come in, with the best being Natural Selection.

That's why I have a problem with being using phrases like "Theory of Evolution", as it mixes up the fact that it takes place with our attempts to explain why and how. It also lets those Creationist nutters say things like "oh it's just a theory", which doesn't help.. it's like if they disagreed with the "Theory of Gravity" they would expect things to stop falling downward!

Anyway, this is off-topic.. back to Ron Paul plx!

cavedave

here is an article here that investigates a newsletter of Ron Paul's

This describes articles that are racist, homophobic and conspiracy seeing to the point of weirdness. You could explain one article or even a single issue with an explanation of ,someone else wrote that and I did not get a chance to edit it before release, or some such but a series of issues cannot be easily explained this way.

Here is Andrew Sullivan explaining the problem

Gyalist

Sean Paul/Ron Paul

banquo

*Ron Paul 2008*

pretty*monster

Something for the conspiracy nuts: The sweet stench of electoral fraud.

1-7-08: Silvestro the Cat & New Hampshire Elections
UPDATE JAN 9 9am PST: TOWN OF SUTTON CONFIRMS RON PAUL TOTALS WERE 31, NOT ZERO.

I just got off the phone with Jennifer Call, Town Clerk for Sutton. She confirmed that the Ron Paul totals in Sutton were actually 31, and said that they were "left off the tally sheet" and it was human error.

This is not an acceptable answer, especially because one of the most common forms of fraud in a hand count system is to alter or omit results on the reporting sheet. Hand count is lovely, transparent. They then fill out another reconciliation sheet, often in front of witnesses, and it looks fine. Then they provide a summary or media sheet with the incorrect results.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

cavedave

Here is a video of Ron Paul discussing the contents of the magazine with his name on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvzsiESqVss

His basic point seems to be that he is not a racist and he is the only candidate that wants to remove racist drug laws.

SteveS

cavedave wrote: »

here is an article here that investigates a newsletter of Ron Paul's

This describes articles that are racist, homophobic and conspiracy seeing to the point of weirdness. You could explain one article or even a single issue with an explanation of ,someone else wrote that and I did not get a chance to edit it before release, or some such but a series of issues cannot be easily explained this way.

Here is Andrew Sullivan explaining the problem

That was disturbing. Even if he had nothing to do with writing the article, it shows that he has little oversight into 'his business' or that he surrounds himself with racist idiots. I really wanted to like him, but I don't think this would be a good trait in a president.

User45701

Well i heard about him a good while ago and hes been the one i want since i heard about him

Beer is Life

Akrasia wrote: »

It does matter because it is an indication of his state of mind.

Would you elect a president who worshipped fairies and thought the world was flat?

A president is elected mostly for his judgement and ability to lead. Ron Paul has shown rubbish judgement and is running on a platform that he doesn't want to lead. (and on the issues that are important to him, would have zero ability to have those policies implimented... do you really think congress and the senate would allow him to scrap the IRS and the fed?)

Can you tell me where Ron Paul has shown rubbish judgement and a lack of an ability to lead?

SteveS

Beer is Life wrote: »

Can you tell me where Ron Paul has shown rubbish judgement and a lack of an ability to lead?

Besides hiring racists and accepting campaign contributions from the head of Stormfront, he hasn't ever gotten a single piece of legislation to pass. He may have some good ideas, but it doesn't do anything if you can't get others to work wth you.

Beer is Life

SteveS wrote: »

Besides hiring racists and accepting campaign contributions from the head of Stormfront, he hasn't ever gotten a single piece of legislation to pass. He may have some good ideas, but it doesn't do anything if you can't get others to work wth you.

Whats he supposed to do, ask everyone he hires, "Are you a racist?". Obviously he doesnt have these sort of beliefs himself, he has NEVER campaigned on racist policies. He has talked positively about MLK, Rosa Parks and Gandhi for example. This video explains the stormfront issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcLSLGXypMY

If he has never gotten a single peice of legislation to pass, why has he been voted one of the 50 most effective members of congress by "Congress Quaterly"? His conressional voting record is second to none, heres a few examples: 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 and he does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

stevenmu

It's very refreshing to see someone run based on their own vision of what the government should do and how it should run, as opposed to 99.9% of other politicians who seem to run based on what they think will get them the most votes and make the best sound bites. We could really do with a few Ron Pauls here in Ireland.

Out last election was a joke, we had one side saying "we're doing great keep us in, those other guys will just mess it all up" and the other side saying "those guys are eejits, they're messing it all up, we'd be much better". I don't think I heard a single issue actually being addressed by either side.

SteveS

Beer is Life wrote: »

Whats he supposed to do, ask everyone he hires, "Are you a racist?". Obviously he doesnt have these sort of beliefs himself, he has NEVER campaigned on racist policies. He has talked positively about MLK, Rosa Parks and Gandhi for example. This video explains the stormfront issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcLSLGXypMY

If he has never gotten a single peice of legislation to pass, why has he been voted one of the 50 most effective members of congress by "Congress Quaterly"? His conressional voting record is second to none, heres a few examples: 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 and he does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

I haven't a clue why Congressional Quarterly voted him one of the 50 most effective members. Their website doesn't list this in any of their press releases and I am not a member, so I can't do a serach on their site. The only other reference is on Paul's site.

I am very familiar with his record. I have been hearing about him for over a decade and I like the fact that he has said no to a lot of stuff. That being said, as ,uch as I don't like paying income taxes, I don't see the wisdom in eliminating the IRS or the Federal Reserve. I also don't think returning to the gold standard is a great idea. You can check his record of proposed legislation. I haven't found anything that passed. I am not saying that none of it was good, but if he is unable to work with Congress or the Supreme Court, then nothing will get done.

Whats he supposed to do, ask everyone he hires, "Are you a racist?". Obviously he doesnt have these sort of beliefs himself, he has NEVER campaigned on racist policies. He has talked positively about MLK, Rosa Parks and Gandhi for example. This video explains the stormfront issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcLSLGXypMY

He is supposed to have some oversight into what goes into a newsletter with his name on it. If he doesn't agree, I'd expect him to fire the person that wrote the stuff. What has he said positive about MLK? He didn't exaclty sing the praises of MLK in this piece.

He also said the Civil War was not needed and blasted Lincoln. I am not some Lincoln apologist, but I can't think of a reputable historian that doesn't think the Civil War was ineveitable as long as the South adhered to the policies they did.

kaiser sauze

Ron Paul would be great for the US, but not really for the world.

His policies would be akin to the ticket the G Dub got in back in 2000 on, no nation building and minimal intervention. The only thing is that his is not lies like G Dub's turned out to be.

The question has been raised about his stance on gays and I can't find a direct answer on his site URL="http://www.ronpaul2008.com"]Ron Paul 2008[/URL, but I would be surprised if he was anti-gay as he has a very big civil liberties agenda and this could encompass gay rights.

Why would his presidency be bad for the world:

Withdrawal from NAFTA, IMF, World Bank, UN, ICC and pretty much every other worthy multi-national agreement.