Vampire_Hunter_Bob
Cats are great
Uriel said:
Who is # 1? Ben Hur?
Ron Paul in 2008
- Thread starter Escalus
- Start date
Who is # 1? Ben Hur?
S
Sanguinius
Guest
Well okay maybe my response to GnM 1st post was a insulting, but come on he just enters the thread and calls my posts sanctimonious and leaves it at that. If I jumped into a thread and said nothing else other than insulting the person posting in the thread like that I imagine they'd be annoyed too, and call me a troll.
Is there a problem with posting a lot? It doesn't even add to my post count so I don't know why that would be a problem, also I was just answering questions and trying to defend Ron Paul from what seemed to be baseless attacks. The problem I had with this thread was that people attacked Ron Paul but never stated any policy he supports or any action of his from his personal or professional life to validate the criticism. Now when CnC disagrees with Ron Paul over his stance on abortion because he thinks it should be at the federal level, that's fair enough, that's a clear difference on an important issue so that's reason to not like him.
Well if you didn't mean to be insulting that wasn't at all obvious to me, personally I seen myself as being on the defensive on this thread not the aggressor. I always tried to to tell as much about Ron Paul as possible and have a serious discussion. So no trolling was never my intent, I'd also like to point out that I have talked about things like this before here. During the French Presidential election I tried to persuade Aazealh that Nicolas Sarkozy whilst very very far from perfect, was the best of a bad bunch in the French Presidential election.
I don't actually mind if you do put up photoshop jobs of Ron Paul as long as you also give some more serious criticisms of him in the same post. As for the state thing, well as he understands the Constitution that is what the Constitution says so in his eyes it's not even a matter of what he want or doesn't want, it's the law. I think you have to realise how widespread that belief is, he's not just saying it for abortion, he says the same for drugs, that it's a state issue and if states want to legalise drugs they should be able to. As for the foreign policy there are two reasons why he keeps returning to it 1. He is standing for President of America not Dictator if he did by chance win he cannot bring great reform to domestic policy on his own but he can in Foreign policy. 2. The fact that so much money is spent on the military gives him room to use that money by having a "humble foreign policy" to use his term and use that money to reduce the deficit, cut taxes and provide welfare. He will still use the existing welfare programmes to help those who have been taught to be dependant on it, whilst allowing young people to withdraw from social security and invest their money privately rather than having compulsory government programmes. The point of that is that while he thinks the welfare programmes should not have been created, since they have been created and people are utterly reliant on them those people should continue to get the welfare but that this is just a transition period.
Don't get me wrong, I like GnM posts too, I have in the past gone through his past posts just to read them and even looked up his old account to read those posts and see the imagines he has created there, because he is funny.
That 1st link is inaccurate and seems slightly hostile to Ron Paul. Whilst obviously I like Ron Paul they say his position is unstated on a large number of issues which I know he has stated his position on, so they're clearly inaccurate on those points. As for the 2nd link I can't open it, I'm not sure if the problem is with your link or to do with the fact that I am currently in China behind the online "bamboo curtain".
.Griffith No More! said:
Is there a problem with posting a lot? It doesn't even add to my post count so I don't know why that would be a problem, also I was just answering questions and trying to defend Ron Paul from what seemed to be baseless attacks. The problem I had with this thread was that people attacked Ron Paul but never stated any policy he supports or any action of his from his personal or professional life to validate the criticism. Now when CnC disagrees with Ron Paul over his stance on abortion because he thinks it should be at the federal level, that's fair enough, that's a clear difference on an important issue so that's reason to not like him.
Well if you didn't mean to be insulting that wasn't at all obvious to me, personally I seen myself as being on the defensive on this thread not the aggressor. I always tried to to tell as much about Ron Paul as possible and have a serious discussion. So no trolling was never my intent, I'd also like to point out that I have talked about things like this before here. During the French Presidential election I tried to persuade Aazealh that Nicolas Sarkozy whilst very very far from perfect, was the best of a bad bunch in the French Presidential election.
CnC said:
I don't actually mind if you do put up photoshop jobs of Ron Paul as long as you also give some more serious criticisms of him in the same post. As for the state thing, well as he understands the Constitution that is what the Constitution says so in his eyes it's not even a matter of what he want or doesn't want, it's the law. I think you have to realise how widespread that belief is, he's not just saying it for abortion, he says the same for drugs, that it's a state issue and if states want to legalise drugs they should be able to. As for the foreign policy there are two reasons why he keeps returning to it 1. He is standing for President of America not Dictator if he did by chance win he cannot bring great reform to domestic policy on his own but he can in Foreign policy. 2. The fact that so much money is spent on the military gives him room to use that money by having a "humble foreign policy" to use his term and use that money to reduce the deficit, cut taxes and provide welfare. He will still use the existing welfare programmes to help those who have been taught to be dependant on it, whilst allowing young people to withdraw from social security and invest their money privately rather than having compulsory government programmes. The point of that is that while he thinks the welfare programmes should not have been created, since they have been created and people are utterly reliant on them those people should continue to get the welfare but that this is just a transition period.
Escalus said:
Don't get me wrong, I like GnM posts too, I have in the past gone through his past posts just to read them and even looked up his old account to read those posts and see the imagines he has created there, because he is funny.
Aazealh said:
That 1st link is inaccurate and seems slightly hostile to Ron Paul. Whilst obviously I like Ron Paul they say his position is unstated on a large number of issues which I know he has stated his position on, so they're clearly inaccurate on those points. As for the 2nd link I can't open it, I'm not sure if the problem is with your link or to do with the fact that I am currently in China behind the online "bamboo curtain".
Griffith
With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Sanguinius said:
Who?
Me?Anyway, that and the rest you said to me is all fair enough, but know I didn't just mean to take a crap on you, I was "motivated" by the surprise that there was like 20 more posts in this thread than I thought, it was more an exclamation of that than anything. And when I call you the aggressor, I don't mean it in a bad way, just that you're the one pushing the issue, so of course you'll also get the most flack at the forefront, it's not necessarily people ganging up on you. Also, thinking about it on my way to class, I think a clique of me, CnC, and Bob is the lamest clique ever. =)
Or we would be, if you hadn't perceptively recognized us as the "big members" clique.
S
Sanguinius
Guest
Griffith No More! said:Who?
Anyway, that and the rest you said to me is all fair enough, but know I didn't just mean to take a crap on you, I was "motivated" by the surprise that there was like 20 more posts in this thread than I thought, it was more an exclamation of that than anything. And when I call you the aggressor, I don't mean it in a bad way, just that you're the one pushing the issue, so of course you'll also get the most flack at the forefront, it's not necessarily people ganging up on you. Also, thinking about it on my way to class, I think a clique of me, CnC, and Bob is the lamest clique ever. =)
Or we would be, if you hadn't perceptively recognized us as the "big members" clique.
Well I thought for a second about what I should call it, I thought either that or senior or special members clique but big members clique sounded the funniest. As for being the aggressor, in that sense I guess I am but I don't see that as a bad thing. If nobody "pushed" into a thread there would't be very many threads, at least not very interesting ones.
Sanguinius said:
Maybe for the sake of discussion and informative conversation it'd be good for you to back up what you're saying with extensive proof and detailed explanations, don't you think? Because anybody can say "this is wrong, and I'm right".
Sanguinius said:
It's on your side. Among other things it contains a long list of everything Paul's put through congress. Stuff like this.
S
Sanguinius
Guest
Aazealh said:
Fair enough.
Ron Paul is a supporter of "alternative medicine" and has sponsored legislation accordingly.
Ron Paul believes that the FDA has too much power, and that the FDA is under the sway of international organizations like the United Nations who want to prevent United States citizens from having access to "alternative medicine", "nutritional supplements", and the like.
Ron Paul is apparently an opponent of genetically modified foods, although this is stated indirectly.
Ron Paul opposes mandatory vaccinations, even in the case of national emergencies such as smallpox outbreaks.
Ron Paul does not state a policy regarding national health insurance.
This is what it says is his policy on health care 1. He believes in individual choice, this list implies that he refutes conventional medicine by stating he supports "alternative medicine" and "nutritional supplements". That's not true he does believe in conventional medicine he just thinks people should have whatever medical care they choose to have. He has also stated very clearly his position on national health insurance, namely that he opposes a federal policy for national health care. He wants to end all federal health care programmes but will support those currently dependent on existing policies while encouraging and allowing young people to opt out of government run social programmes.
Ron Paul is a strong supporter of home schooling and has sponsored legislation accordingly.
Ron Paul says he will veto any legislation which would create educational standards for home school students or parents.
Ron Paul says he is committed to making sure that high school diplomas earned through home schooling are treated the same as other high school diplomas.
Ron Paul does not state any policies on his web site regarding the nation's public schools, or any education issues other than those relating to home schooling.
Similar to the health issue Ron Paul believes in individual choice. He is not pushing nor obsessed with home schooling as this list implies. The 2nd point is also inaccurate as he opposes FEDERAL standards on home schools just as he does for private and public schools. He considers education to be a matter to be resolved in each state and that the Federal gov. has no right to get involved in it. What he believes in is competition and choice whether it's in health care or education or any other aspect of a person's economic or social life.
S
Sanguinius
Guest
All those youtube links I gave have him speaking in person about those very subjects, is his own mouth not definitive enough? But here is a fairly thorough panel questioning him about a lot of subjects and it's very recent, he gave this on November 7th this year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx2vLUMmSiA&feature=related
That's part 1 of 6, the other parts are shown in the related videos section.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx2vLUMmSiA&feature=related
That's part 1 of 6, the other parts are shown in the related videos section.
Sanguinius said:
Once again it sounds nice on paper, but theres no real way to get there. HOW is going to put incentives on young people so they "opt out" of retirement money? WHAT "choices" is he going to provide for the health care system? And HOW in the hell is he going to reduce defense spending when it so so unbelievably entrenched in our political system?
Thats just some of the domestic stuff. I know he wants out of Iraq, but how? Just get everyone on the ship and leave? What's the plan?
And how is he going to convince anyone of his stance on Israel?
His opinions on American isolationism are a tad off, too. He insists he doesn't want an isolationist nation, citing continued talks and trade with all interested countries (but we did that when we were more isolationist, as well). If his definition is strictly regulated to the military, then fine, just say that.
It's nice to see someone outside the country take such a personal stake in a candidate running here, Sang, but I think you're missing some of the finer details in the "message".
S
Sanguinius
Guest
CnC said:
Well that link I gave one post above yours has an interview were he answers pretty much all those questions. However if you want me to summarise them here I will and I'm not missing the finer points of the message I know the message quite clearly. The US president has direct powers over the positioning of US troops in that interview he outlines that within 4-6 months of winning an election he would have the troops out of Iraq, the 4-6 months is merely the time he estimates to safely withdraw the troops. He would announce their withdrawl as soon as he won. He would also as I said previously pull US troops out of Germany; Japan; S. Korea and many other countries all over the world and close down the more than 700 military bases outside of US territory. I'm not sure what you mean by his stance on Israel? He has said he intends to end the financial aid that the USA sends to Israel and many other countries in the world. That's another way he'll save money by ending military and economic financing of middle eastern governments and other governments. He also wants to end the drug war in Columbia for example, but then as I said he things drugs is a state issue and the federal gov. should not have anything to do with it. He never calls himself an isolationist that's something his opponts say to smear him. He supports free trade and talks/diplomatic relations with all countries including Cuba, to give 1 example. He believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy, basically that means the USA should not try and change the internal politics of other countries and limit themselves to friendship and trade and war only in direct self defence.
As for how to get young people to opt out of social security, that's simple, you forget gov. has no money other than what it takes from the people. So in order to get people to opt out of Social Security they're given the option of keeping their contribuations into the social security system and allowed to invest this money themselves in whatever way they judge best for themselves.
All this can be seen in 2 of the links I gave were this comes from his own mouth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx2vLUMmSiA&feature=related
That's part 1 of 6, the other parts are shown in the related videos section.
Vampire_Hunter_Bob
Cats are great
CnC said:
I'd like to know what incentive he's going to convince me to opt out of retirement money or what he's going to do with health care? Is he going to leave health care up to the states? I know my county [Howard county, Maryland] is going to introduce free health care for everyone that lives here, doesn't mean Baltimore City can afford it. Then seeing how the Federal government doesn't want to give free health care for children [which I assume is because we lack the funds to do so] I can only assume Ron Paul is going to say it's up to the states. The same with abortion, he just leaves it by saying it's up to the states to decide.
He's not going to reduce defense spending, it's going to look like he is only because he's going to pull out of Iraq, [maybe] Afghanistan and various military bases around the globe. Which is going to cost less, but he's not going to decrease military spending just trim it down. Even then he's going to face the same problems Eisenhower faced and congress is never going to give it to him.
Ron Paul also hasn't denounced the support he's getting from neo-nazis, the klan and other groups like stormfront.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/25/rpb1/
There's more there, but it's a waist of time since you're going to over look it and post a picture of him hugging a black baby announcing his support of abortion only on states level.
Sanguinius said:
The mouth of a politician in an electoral period isn't particularly reliable. Besides, I'm not sure what he said in those videos really contradicts what's in the links I posted. It's just too bad you can't read the second one, because I find it interesting.
S
Sanguinius
Guest
Aazealh said:
While that's generally true I don't accept that for Ron Paul I find it absurd to suggest he is pandering to the base whenever the Republican party has tried to have him excluded from their nominee debates because of the position he takes. Together with this he has been arguing for the same things since the 1970's, non-interventionist foreign policy; return to the gold standard; reduction in the power of the executive and the Federal government. I am amazed that as 1 of only 2 Republican Congressmen who voted against the Iraq War when Congress debated it, and who has been isolated in his party and in Congress for so long for the accusation of deceitful populism to be layed at his feet. Research even a little into him and you'll see if anything he is like a broken record, he has been utterly consistent in saying the same things for decades.
Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
Well the link I just gave up there lists his plans on foreign policy and health care and education and all that, watch him say it rather than me interpret it for you. As for this suggestion of Nazi or racist support I could give examples of his work with non-whites but I wasn't going to. I tried to look up a video I had seen on youtube when Fox News tried to criticise him because a man who owned a strip bar publicly supported him and turned his bar into a pro Ron Paul venue. In that Ron Paul just said that he wasn't aware of this individual's actions but that under the Constitution people have freedom of speech and expression and it wasn't his place to tell people how to live their life. That covers freedom of speech, as for racist beliefs whilst Ron Paul is strongly against illegal immigration and wants to end welfare mandated support for illegal immigrants from the federal government. He supports immigration into the USA and openly says how beneficial and necessary immigrants are to the US economy and how they're being used as scapegoats by politicans today.
Here is that link again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx2vLUMmSiA&feature=related
He explains his positions quite clearly here you really don't need me to pass along his views here when you can listen to him there.
Also as for what CnC said earlier, I am not getting overly occupied on one man, Ron Paul is just a man like any man, it's the message he stands for that I support and I'd support moral people with sensible policies whereever they're in the world. As I said earlier I once tried to defend Sarkozy during the French Presidential election with Aazealh, not that I thought Sarkozy was a good candidate, but compared to the other two candidates he was the only one I'd list as even remotely sensible.
Vampire_Hunter_Bob
Cats are great
Sanguinius said:
You're right it isn't his place to tell people what to do with their lives, but doesn't mean he should accept money from racist organizations. Either the guy supports their ideals and doesn't want to scare away his supporters or just likes the donations.
Sanguinius said:
In your defense the message itself misses a lot of the finer points. So don't blame yourself.
Sanguinius said:
Sounds nice. I really don't think that's as easy as he says. But sure, why not give him this one.
Sanguinius said:
Easier said than done. That's a huge source of contention, stateside. I don't see him actually coming close to accomplishing this (but I think he's being rather cleverly vague on it).
Sanguinius said:
See above.
Sanguinius said:
My point was regarding his definition of isolationism.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html
His stances are _very_ similar to isolationism. Thats just by the pure definition of the word (without all that spin that his opponents put on it).
Sanguinius said:
Yes Yes, I watched the videos. No need to keep posting them over and over again. I've already said I don't like all of his responses (showing me those responses again isn't going to convince me).
Theres a lot of good intentions here, and I like that. But like I said I don't buy the answers he provides outright.
Sanguinius said:
Sure you are. Your occupation of this thread says that. But I get it that you really, REALLY, like him.
S
Sanguinius
Guest
CnC said:
I see, I thought people weren't looking at the videos because they kept raising new issues which he address in the videos. Why don't you stop being vague however, tell me what these "finer points" are, in that video above he even clearly states the limits on his power even if he did win the Presidential election. I really don't see how he is being opaque or deceitful, give me some actual examples of how he is rather than just saying he is. As for the Isolationist issue, it depends how you look at it, he is a military isolationist. However in terms of diplomatic relations and trade you tell me what other candidate clearly states their desire to end the embargo on Cuba and have normal economic relations with that country?
Again for the Nazi thing, most donations to Ron Paul are made online through informal channels, and he and his team do not filter their donations. I've not heard this Nazi thing mentioned from anywhere else but Ron Paul does support 2 things, free speech and the 2nd amendment so I guess that'd be things that neo-nazis and the like also support.
Sanguinius said:
Like I said I like the general idea of what he's saying but HE hasn't provided me with the realistic ways of achieving this. I'm not offering to provide those details FOR you.
I grow tired of repeating that, perhaps I should find a youtube video I can cut and paste every other post.
Sanguinius said:
I'm not talking about Cuba, you were. I doesn't really apply to my point, as I don't really find the embargo placed on Cuba to be related to whether or not Ron Paul is an isolationist (by the definition of the word).
Vampire_Hunter_Bob
Cats are great
Sanguinius said:
Individual voter donations is one thing, but he should have sent back the 500 from stormfront the minute he found out who gave it to them.
S
Sanguinius
Guest
CnC said:Like I said I like the general idea of what he's saying but HE hasn't provided me with the realistic ways of achieving this. I'm not offering to provide those details FOR you.
I grow tired of repeating that, perhaps I should find a youtube video I can cut and paste every other post.
I'm not talking about Cuba, you were. I doesn't really apply to my point, as I don't really find the embargo placed on Cuba to be related to whether or not Ron Paul is an isolationist (by the definition of the word).
Give me an example of what you consider a "realistic way of achieving" anything, I don't know what this means. His objectives seem clear, to me anyway, and as to how he'd get them he'd use the powers that are vested in the office of President to achieve them or to work towards their achievement. How else does any politician anywhere in the world achieve anything? The Cuba thing is a single demonstration of his desire for friendly relations with countries that even people who you seem to think are not isolationists deliberately isolate themselves from.
As for the stormfront thing I've not heard anything about this where did you hear this from? I'm constantly asked to produce evidence for everything I say about Ron Paul how about some of you who criticism him start giving sources and evidence for your criticisms of him, only fair surely.
Vampire_Hunter_Bob
Cats are great
Sanguinius said:
http://www.skullknight.net/forum/index.php?topic=8453.msg143371#msg143371
It's towards the bottom.
Sanguinius said:
On a lot of the minutia he brings it back to broad concepts. On convincing the courts and congress, he expects his election to resonate and change all their minds, etc.
Like I said, just because he can't answer for his claims doesn't mean I have to do it for him to challenge them. So if that still confuses you, sorry, but I've exhausted my ability to explain that the burden to provide those details rests with him. Telling me that he intends to use the power of the presidency to make change happen isn't enough, because thats the same line EVERY (literally) politician running for the office says.
S
Sanguinius
Guest
CnC said:
Yes it is but their objectives are different, that's what makes him different, his objectives.
P.S. I'll add that I am unaware of any campaign were anyone running for office had more "concrete" plans. Give me an example of someone who has had these "detailed" plans in any election anywhere.
As for the Nazi thing again those websites seem pretty obscure, if it's so why haven't more renowned news agencies reported this? Even if it is as they have said, I don't see why he needs to screen donations that come to him, and I'd hardly call a 500 dollar donation from an individual, this "Don Black" an example of lobbists buying him out. He's had over 12 million dollars in donations and they call him up on a 500 dollar donation from a man called Don Black? What kind of screening process do you think they implement to people giving them money.
I don't really give two shits about any candidate that's thrown their hat into the ring so far, so don't consider this an attack on Mr. Paul. However, I think it's uncanny how much Ron Paul has been getting his name into the mix in the past few weeks. This guy was a relative unknown (still is, really), but just this week I've literally seen his name plastered, spoken and typed across nearly every branch of communication the world has to offer.
This weekend I was doing some last-minute shopping at a popular mall area near Nashville (Cool Springs, to anyone who knows it), and there were nearly 40-50 people waving Ron Paul campaign signs in snowy weather at one of the most trafficked intersections.
"Who the fuck is Ron Paul?" I asked myself. "Oh yeah, he's that guy with a thread on my forums. So who the fuck is Ron Paul?" I asked one of the campaigners as I pulled over to the side of the street.
His answer wasn't exactly earth-shaking, but I don't blame him for that, he likely wasn't paid very much by Mr. Paul to be out in freezing rain.
"Why should I vote for him if hes Pro-Life?" I asked.
The guy's answer was something along the lines of "he's worked as an OBGYN and he knows his shit."
CNN has a new article about the man that jsut cropped up AS I TYPED THIS ENTRY. I shit you not, this man has got connections: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/18/paul.fundraising/index.html
Yet, he still comes off as benign to me. One of the million William Jennings Bryans that will be long-forgotten by next election year.
This weekend I was doing some last-minute shopping at a popular mall area near Nashville (Cool Springs, to anyone who knows it), and there were nearly 40-50 people waving Ron Paul campaign signs in snowy weather at one of the most trafficked intersections.
"Who the fuck is Ron Paul?" I asked myself. "Oh yeah, he's that guy with a thread on my forums. So who the fuck is Ron Paul?" I asked one of the campaigners as I pulled over to the side of the street.
His answer wasn't exactly earth-shaking, but I don't blame him for that, he likely wasn't paid very much by Mr. Paul to be out in freezing rain.
"Why should I vote for him if hes Pro-Life?" I asked.
The guy's answer was something along the lines of "he's worked as an OBGYN and he knows his shit."
CNN has a new article about the man that jsut cropped up AS I TYPED THIS ENTRY. I shit you not, this man has got connections: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/18/paul.fundraising/index.html
Yet, he still comes off as benign to me. One of the million William Jennings Bryans that will be long-forgotten by next election year.