Ron Paul is not all that...why can't the majority of Paul supporters get that?

Ron Paul is a constitution supporter. That is all fine and dandy but the reality is the constitution is merely a a phoney piece of paper with no real legal jurisdiction. It's been undermined by new laws since it's conception.

I am for a constitutional republic that stands but that's not the real issue with Ron Paul. He proposes a gold standard. That's an epic failure waiting to happen. Those that have the gold will own the government. It doesn't work...Does he propose a better solution? Nope...His magical theory is that ending the federal reserve and adopting a precious metal backed currency will restore economic prosperity to all.

Those that hold the gold and silver will be those in power...It's a thousand year old principal and Ron Paul show's his old age.

Ron Paul advocates a real free market system. How does a free market system work? Nobody in the history of the American Republic has figured out. If industry is free of all laws and regulations you better believe your children will be getting worse water and air quality.

In the early days of the old west there was no regulation. What did we get out of it? The river systems of California are still polluted from the Gold Rush days.

Ron Paul has a very limited platform. He has not proposed how a free market system will enable environmental cleanliness. You can't have a coal industry without regulations...You can't have a nuclear industry without regulations...You can't possibly think a world without labor laws is a good thing?

The bottom line is that Dr. Paul is neither revolutionary nor the intelligent candidate. I personally don't know who would be the best. I have so much distrust. Ron Paul is a Republican and that says a lot. The Republican party stands for nothing...Don't get me started about the Democrats...

I will say this Dr. Paul is a civil debater, he does not change positions, and he is of good character. He does not get my vote because I don't vote. If I did vote I would probably write in Jesus Christ. I'd rather have a fictional hero be written in than vote for a living delusion.

Originally posted by RightWingAvenger
He proposes a gold standard.

Obama proposes a lot of things that don't get passed.

Him bringing the troops home from around the world and getting ridding of 5 departments of government is good enough to get the vote.

No?

It is actually very likely that Ron Paul does not want your vote. He prefers the voter be educated, and not follow ANYONE, or any party.
When you take the time to actually study the issues, what he has said in his own words as opposed to what the media says about him...his actual belief that the money should be backed by something like Gold, and not issued by private bankers that charge interest on paper money backed by nothing....nada, zero.
You will find he actually makes a lot more sense than you do OP.

I think this is more of a rant than anything else.....
I don't think Mr. Paul is asking for deregulation (that's not what free market stands for). He's asking for return of the power of the States to regulate themselves as each is different and requires different regulations/laws to let them prosper. The one glove fits all Federal Government is a failure. He's saying companies (ie banks) that fail in the markets do not deserve bailouts...just as the local grocer who goes belly up doesn't receive one now.

Also if you truly believe the Constitution is null and void I suggest you build a time machine and send you're self to 1935 Germany, or Stalin's Russia or any other Dictatorship that you please as the constitution was put in place to prevent exactly those rules and regulations that Dictatorships are born out of.

I'm not even American and I can respect their Constitution...

Originally posted by RightWingAvenger
I am for a constitutional republic that stands but that's not the real issue with Ron Paul. He proposes a gold standard. That's an epic failure waiting to happen. Those that have the gold will own the government. It doesn't work...Does he propose a better solution? Nope...His magical theory is that ending the federal reserve and adopting a precious metal backed currency will restore economic prosperity to all.

Those that hold the gold and silver will be those in power...It's a thousand year old principal and Ron Paul show's his old age.

The big difference here is you cannot print more gold. It is finite, and with that being said the value remains more balanced than a printable piece of worthless paper backed by a hope and a prayer. Those that have gold will be just as influential as they are today right now. Your theory is severely flawed. All it would do is create a more stable currency that is actually worth something.

reply to post by RightWingAvenger

He proposes a gold standard. That's an epic failure waiting to happen. Those that have the gold will own the government. It doesn't work...Does he propose a better solution?

Actually, he does not propose a gold standard. What he proposes is a combination of precious metals and commodities. We need some type of standard, and what he proposes is the best proposition on the table, but if you have a better idea, we'd all love to hear it!

Ron Paul advocates a real free market system. How does a free market system work? Nobody in the history of the American Republic has figured out. If industry is free of all laws and regulations you better believe your children will be getting worse water and air quality.

Actually, I agree with you here to a certain extent. We can never have a truly Free Market, and as long as we have some regulations it will never be fair. But, Ron Paul has good ideas, and our system can be improved as much as possible. We'll never be truly free market, and we'll never be truly socialist, but Ron Paul seems to have the best plan on the table. Again, if your's is better, please share and we'll give it a thorough look!

Currently our regulations benefit big corporations and restrict little guys. After a corporation reaches a certain amount of assets it becomes immune to much of the regulation and able to buy or manipulate its way out of the others. At the very least, Ron Paul intends to level the playing field so a little guy can compete.

Ron Paul is a Republican and that says a lot. The Republican party stands for nothing...Don't get me started about the Democrats...

True, and yet, without the support of one party or the other, it is impossible to get elected. So, a candidate is forced to choose, or be inconsequential. Do you have a better solution?

I will say this Dr. Paul is a civil debater, he does not change positions, and he is of good character. He does not get my vote because I don't vote. If I did vote I would probably write in Jesus Christ. I'd rather have a fictional hero be written in than vote for a living delusion.

So this was all a lesson in futility? You'd rather right in Jesus Christ than support a candidate that you admit is honest, and that seems to at least have his constituents best interests at heart?

So, after trying to tear down Ron Paul's stances, and offereing none of your own, your solution it to not vote?

What can I say to that?

actuallt he gets the most support because its pretty obvious hes the only one who has real solutions rather than spending money thats not there.. phoney? wow not only have you actually lost track of what it really is, and no crap so they can overthrow it and do what they want...

reply to post by Vardoger


The constitution is a joke at best. The bill of rights is a joke at best. Did the constitution and bill of rights ever apply to red or brown skinned people? It didn't...If I went back in time to the rise of the Nazis I would not bother traveling to Germany. I would travel back into the states and tell the corporate bankers and corporations who intend to finance the war that they will be responsible for the famine and death of millions.

The great delusion that the US fought the Nazis for the good of humanity is absurd. Many American companies that are still thriving today made products intended to be used for the Nazis or US troops...anything to make a buck. It went too far. America did not liberate itself from Nazi misrule. The US was the biggest liar in the game...

If the US did not institute it's policies the way they did...Hitler might not have gotten so angry as to do something about it. You can be a revisionist historian all you want. But the fact remains...America was a participant and financier of the Nazi party.

Originally posted by RightWingAvenger
How does a free market system work? Nobody in the history of the American Republic has figured out.

So, you haven't figured out how a free market system works, therefore nobody has? It's not too complicated, to sum it up: supply and demand. For instance, lets take your example of water quality. One hundred or so years ago, the extend of damage caused by pollution was not known as well and there simply wasn't a demand for a cleaner environment, so the market didn't punish polluters. Today, many more people are aware of such things and you had better believe that if it were discovered that a company was polluting a water source they would lose a lot of business and risk losing money or going under, this is obviously bad business practice and would therefore be avoided. The free market isn't perfect, and I will admit that it would be quite possible for things to go awry, but as the level of education rises, I believe that better decisions will be made and that the market will be a better regulatory body than the government could ever hope to be.

reply to post by RightWingAvenger

He proposes a gold standard. That's an epic failure waiting to happen. Those that have the gold will own the government. It doesn't work...Does he propose a better solution? Nope...

I see someone hasn't been doing their homework. As already mentioned, he proposes competing currencies to let the market determine what will happen to the dollar, and as such forcing it to get competitive and maintain some value.

Also, he doesn't do this to magically cause prosperity, he does it to prevent the government from devaluing the currency by merely gaming various systems, printing, borrowing, and otherwise expanding our monetary base and driving the nation further into debt, and hence - robbing its citizens.

Ron Paul advocates a real free market system. How does a free market system work? Nobody in the history of the American Republic has figured out. If industry is free of all laws and regulations you better believe your children will be getting worse water and air quality.

In the early days of the old west there was no regulation. What did we get out of it? The river systems of California are still polluted from the Gold Rush days.

Ron Paul has a very limited platform. He has not proposed how a free market system will enable environmental cleanliness. You can't have a coal industry without regulations...You can't have a nuclear industry without regulations...You can't possibly think a world without labor laws is a good thing?

You might want to look into Paul's own discussions on this issue, and his firm belief in property rights - just as your neighbor cannot harm your or steal from you, they also cannot pollute your property and you rightfully have recourse to address the source of any such pollution to hold it firmly accountable for any damage to you or your property and to stop the pollution.

And then again, this is a non-argument anyway. Yes, Paul has his views on these subjects, just like we all do - but where does the president have much say over environmental issues like this anyway, other than as a driver of public opinion via the bully pulpit of the presidency? You'd do well to study the office of the presidency and realize what powers are given to it, and stop making silly arguments about non-issues that don't really involve the president anyway - I'm not aware of Paul having proposed any cut of the EPA or involved departments as part of his budget, even though it might be a good idea since the states are NOT as incapable of handling these things as some seem to like to think they are - which apparently is driven either by ignorance or a dishonest desire to frighten people into thinking a certain way.

Which is the case in your example?

The bottom line is that Dr. Paul is neither revolutionary nor the intelligent candidate.

Look, I'm tired of constant governmental aggression. I'm tired of constant governmental intrusion. I'm tired of constant government ineptitude. I'm tired of government hypocrisy. Paul will - and has been - actively work to address all of these. He's genuine, knowledgeable, revolutionary despite your claim (insofar as advocating a return to the things that made this country great in the first place and trusting the people of this modern era of knowledge to handle things better than the bureaucrats have), and I would argue is also the intelligent candidate (for these reasons, and you yourself cannot even suggest another current option - suggesting that Paul apparently IS the most intelligent candidate available, if you have no other pick in the field beyond him).

You're entitled to your opinion, and are free to express it. Don't expect any of us to consider it by any means valid, however, when it's rife with a lack of other viable options and not rooted in awareness of the realities of either the office involved or the arguments of the candidate himself.

reply to post by nesta


nesta your kidding me right? 100 years ago the big oil industry didn't know that benzene or lead would do damage? Your telling me a bunch of guys coughing up their lungs from coal was an unknown? The Ron Paul free market rhetoric is not a solution.

The problem with Dr. Paul is that he insists on America's greatness. His attitude of American values is very one sided and very much Republican in nature.

If American life continues to sustain its consumption with a modest growth rate there will be terrible environmental consequences. But for Dr. Paul having a free market is most important. The free market does not care about equality or long term consequence.

Get over it...Ron Paul does not have any plan for a future America. He wants to restore America to it's former past. That former past of America was a prosperous economy at the expense of human rights around the globe. Jobs that were created in America were artificially inflated with the resource exploitation of other nations.

Wen the glorious post world war industry gave Americans a solid middle class the rest of the world suffered. Ron Paul has never addressed reality. He is a delusional Republican hellbent on re-creating the American dream.

The American dream is bollocks...

I think some of his ideas are okay...but I watched the Republican Forum Saturday night and, I'm sorry, I think he would make an awful president. Nice guy...but no. I'm almost ready to change my vote, after seeing the candidates actually answering questions, stating their positions and defending their ideas (not like the debates that degenerate into name-calling, finger-pointing and sniping!).

However, all I really care about is that the GOP nominates someone that can...well...BBO!!!

reply to post by RightWingAvenger

Ron Paul has a very limited platform. He has not proposed how a free market system will enable environmental cleanliness. You can't have a coal industry without regulations...You can't have a nuclear industry without regulations...You can't possibly think a world without labor laws is a good thing?

The following is from Wikipedia

Free-market environmentalism As a free-market environmentalist, Paul sees polluters as aggressors who should not be granted immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability. Paul argues that enforcing private property rights through tort law would hold people and corporations accountable, and would increase the cost of polluting activities—thus decreasing pollution.[229] He claims that environmental protection has failed due to lack of respect for private property: The environment is better protected under private property rights ... We as property owners can't violate our neighbors' property. We can't pollute their air or their water. We can't dump our garbage on their property ... Too often, conservatives and liberals fall short on defending environmental concerns, and they resort to saying, "Well, let's turn it over to the EPA. The EPA will take care of us ... We can divvy up the permits that allow you to pollute." So I don't particularly like that method.[230] He believes that environmental legislation, such as emissions standards, should be handled between the states or regions concerned. "The people of Texas do not need federal regulators determining our air standards."[231]

This is probably one of the lamest attempts at discrediting Ron Paul. Why dont you actually read his positions and then argue your case.

I'm dont recall him offering anarchy as his platform. But look at the explosion of the internet in the last 20years with NO regulation.

Originally posted by Jansy
I think some of his ideas are okay...but I watched the Republican Forum Saturday night and, I'm sorry, I think he would make an awful president. Nice guy...but no. I'm almost ready to change my vote, after seeing the candidates actually answering questions, stating their positions and defending their ideas (not like the debates that degenerate into name-calling, finger-pointing and sniping!).

However, all I really care about is that the GOP nominates someone that can...well...BBO!!!

Hi Jansy -

I have to agree, I was a bit disappointed with Paul's presentation in the forum myself.

From a policy/belief standpoint, could you clarify why you think he would be an awful president? Or is there something else behind your opinion here? Speaking for myself, I don't see anyone else in the field working on my primary concerns (seriously addressing the growing US military-industrial complex, our counterproductive and failed foreign policy, failed drug policy, taking serious steps to address our fiscal woes or one of the root causes - the Federal Reserve [as a lender of last resort and manipulator of interest rates, leading to poor investments and risky undertakings], recognizing limitations on governmental authority and intrusion into the liberties of the people, and so forth)...I simply don't like what we've enabled the nation to become, and most of the other option seem to be happy with all too much of it.

And lastly - what exactly is BBO?

As far as a general election goes, once again we're in the same position we were in back in 2007/2008 - Paul is the only one who can outflank both the republicans from the right AND Obama from the left - he's willing to slaughter the sacred cows on both sides to bring the best points of each party to the fore. Sure, this means some significant changes in the paradigm, but that's something I yearn for at this point. Things simply aren't working with the courses we've taken for quite some time now.

It is a waste of time trying to educate people who think they know everything.

reply to post by RightWingAvenger


i agree with you that the constitution is a peice of paper that has been ignored since it's conception, but i know Ron Paul, if elected president wants to change that and use it as a guide for maintaining american freedoms which i agree firmly with

Originally posted by RightWingAvenger
and he is of good character.

If this were all he had, this would be enough for me. But luckily, he also has his stance on ending war, unlike Gingrich, Romney, Perry, Cain, Bachmann, and Santorum. Oh, and our sitting dictator.

He does not get my vote because I don't vote.

Then you have wasted electrons with this whole post. Either suggest an alternative, or don't bother the thinking community.

/TOA