The Ron Paul Thread

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Tachosomoza

He's on the Libertarian Party ticket.

I don't give a fuck. It's not true libertarian philosophy.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Psych

What the fuck you talking about? Johnson agrees with NAFTA for fucksakes. He wants to keep guantanamo open. He wants to continue to give foriegn aid to israel. How can you even claim that to be libertarian? Libertarian my ass. Johnson just like the moniker libertarian because it gets him votes in new mexico.

So? That doesn't invalidate his libertarian positions. He's the libertarian candidate for a reason. He's not 100% libertarian, sure, but neither is Paul.

He supports due-process on Guantanamo, which is the libertarian position.

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Rust

So? That doesn't invalidate his libertarian positions. He's the libertarian candidate for a reason. He's not 100% libertarian, sure, but neither is Paul.

He supports due-process on Guantanamo, which is the libertarian position.

Paul's much closer than Johnson could ever be conceived. If you believe in due process of law then you believe that Guantanamo bay has no reason for existing in the first place.

[Tachosomoza]

Originally Posted by Psych

I don't give a fuck. It's not true libertarian philosophy.

Nobody's a purist, Psych. You obviously know very little about politics.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Psych

Paul's much closer than Johnson could ever be conceived. If you believe in due process of law then you believe that Guantanamo bay has no reason for existing in the first place.

Guantanamo is a military base on U.S. soil. It existed long before any war on terror. Its use as a prison isn't against due process of law in and of itself. What is against due process of law is something like indefinite detention, which Johnson is against.

Oh, and on NAFTA, it seems you were wrong there as well:

http://www.jeremyryan.org/news/blog0...de=27115242011

P.S. I find it ironic that you attack Gary Johnson for being the libertarian candidate "to get votes in New Mexico", when you claim that Ron Paul is a better libertarian... and he's taking the "Republican" moniker to get votes!

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Tachosomoza

Nobody's a purist, Psych. You obviously know very little about politics.

I wish upon a star.

[Tachosomoza]

Originally Posted by Psych

I wish upon a star.

Satan wishes for ice water, but he'll never have any.

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Rust

Guantanamo is a military base on U.S. soil. It existed long before any war on terror. It's use as a prison isn't against due process of law in and of itself.

Uh sure.. if that's what you want to believe. In reality it's interrogation camp in Cuba. Used for terrorist and unfriendly political allies alike.

Oh, and on NAFTA, it seems you were wrong there as well:

http://www.jeremyryan.org/news/blog0...de=27115242011

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Gary...Free_Trade.htm

P.S. I find it ironic that you attack Gary Johnson for being the libertarian candidate "to get votes in New Mexico", when you claim that Ron Paul is a better libertarian... and he's taking the "Republican" moniker to get votes!

That is ironic.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Psych

Uh sure.. if that's what you want to believe. In reality it's interrogation camp in Cuba. Used for terrorist and unfriendly political allies alike.

It's a fact that it's a military base, and it's a fact that it existed long before the war on terror. It is, as you say, now being used to imprison and interrogate people indefinitely. But Johnson is against that. That's the point.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Gary...Free_Trade.htm

Yeah, notice the relevant article is from more than a decade ago. His positions are clearly better explained in the video I posted, which was very recent.

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Rust

It's a fact that it's a military base, and it's a fact that it existed long before the war on terror. It is, as you say, now being used to imprison and interrogate people indefinitely. But Johnson is against that. That's the point.

He's for keeping the base open, which is the same as endorsing torture in my mind. It has no reason for existing otherwise. What? The US needs a foreign base 100 miles from florida? Please.

Yeah, notice the relevant article is from more than a decade ago. His positions are clearly better explained in the video I posted, which was very recent.

So the guy is a flip flopper. All the more reason to discount him as candidate for libertarians.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Psych

He's for keeping the base open, which is the same as endorsing torture in my mind. It has no reason for existing otherwise. What? The US needs a foreign base 100 miles from florida? Please.

You can debate whether the US needs the base or not but that's a different from it being un-libertarian. That's the point. The libertarian issue lies on indefinite detention and torture, and Johnson is against both.

So the guy is a flip flopper. All the more reason to discount him as candidate for libertarians.

At worse he changed his mind, at best he refined his position from that original one-line response.

But again, being in contradiction with the libertarian position on one issue does not mean he's not a libertarian. No libertarian candidate is going to be perfect. Including Paul, who supported federal legislation on abortion, for example.

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Rust

You can debate whether the US needs the base or not but that's a different from it being un-libertarian. That's the point. The libertarian issue lies on indefinite detention and torture, and Johnson is against both.

You act like if it continues to exists, no one will ever get tortured there. Get real. His endorsement of it staying open is his endorsement of foreign political prisoners getting tortured.

At worse he changed his mind, at best he refined his position from that original one-line response.

But again, being in contradiction with the libertarian position on one issue does not mean he's not a libertarian. No libertarian candidate is going to be perfect. Including Paul, who supported federal legislation on abortion, for example.

So flip flopper.

And the only Paul thing I've known him to flip flop on is the death penalty, which his reasoning explains well. The justice system isn't competent enough to execute people. Not that murderers don't deserve execution. Just that he doesn't trust the government with who is guilty and innocent. Which is a true libertarian philosophy, no? They deserve to die for murder but we can't trust the state to determine that he did commit murder in the first place.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Psych

You act like if it continues to exists, no one will ever get tortured there. Get real. His endorsement of it staying open is his endorsement of foreign political prisoners getting tortured.

No, I act as what the fact says: He's against the torture and against the indefinite detention. Unless you can refute those facts, my point is made.

So flip flopper.

And the only Paul thing I've known him to flip flop on is the death penalty, which his reasoning explains well. The justice system isn't competent enough to execute people. Not that murderers don't deserve execution. Just that he doesn't trust the government with who is guilty and innocent. Which is a true libertarian philosophy, no? They deserve to die for murder but we can't trust the state to determine that he did commit murder in the first place.

And apparently Paul is a "flip-flopper" as well.

Again, even if we make this as a point against him, the same applies to Paul. Paul's support of federal legislation on abortion is un-libertarian. Why does Paul get a pass and not Johnson? Because Paul's support is largely a fad.

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Rust

No, I act as what the fact says: He's against the torture and against the indefinite detention. Unless you can refute those facts, my point is made.

Ok in your eyes apparently as long as it stays open no one will ever be tortured again. Johnson only supports it staying open to appease his overlords. Otherwise Guantanamo has no reason to exist.

And apparently Paul is a "flip-flopper" as well.

Again, even if we make this as a point against him, the same applies to Paul. Paul's support of federal legislation on abortion is un-libertarian. Why does Paul get a pass and not Johnson? Because Paul's support is largely a fad.

Because the issue of abortion isn't cut and dry. Libertarian could be allowing a life that is already developing to continue it's existence as a person. It fits. I don't necessarily agree but you can see how an obstetrician could be forced to put lines in the sand. And really who knows? That's not a true libertarian principle. Abortion can go either way. It's a question of when a person is a person. That's outside the libertarian perspective.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Psych

Ok in your eyes apparently as long as it stays open no one will ever be tortured again. Johnson only supports it staying open to appease his overlords. Otherwise Guantanamo has no reason to exist.

No, in my eyes Johnson has stated that he's against indefinite detention and tortute, and if Paul gets to have his word taken as true, and so does Johnson.

If you get to speculate wildly like you are about what's supposed to happen on Guantanamo, why can't I do the same with Paul's policies? Stop having a double standard.

Because the issue of abortion isn't cut and dry. Libertarian could be allowing a life that is already developing to continue it's existence as a person. It fits. I don't necessarily agree but you can see how an obstetrician could be forced to put lines in the sand. And really who knows? That's not a true libertarian principle. Abortion can go either way. It's a question of when a person is a person. That's outside the libertarian perspective.

The issue of when life starts isn't cut and dry, yes, but the issue of Federal legislation forcing a mandate on states, is.

That was the point. Nobody is a perfect libertarian candidate. Paul's views on abortion are not just philosophically different than most other libertarians, but he has gone to the point where he supported Federal legislation to force that view on states. That is absolutely against the libertarian position.

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Rust

No, in my eyes Johnson has stated that he's against indefinite detention and tortute,

Ok, good for you. You think Guantanamo has a legitimate purpose, I disagree.

That was the point. Nobody is a perfect libertarian candidate. Paul's views on abortion are not just philosophically different than most other libertarians, but he has gone to the point where he supported Federal legislation to force that view on states. That is absolutely against the libertarian position.

O Rly? I thought we were arguing who was the more ideal libertarian. In which case Paul best Johnson by a wide margin.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Psych

Ok, good for you. You think Guantanamo has a legitimate purpose, I disagree.

No. I'm not arguing my position. I'm stating the facts regarding Johnson's position.

O Rly? I thought we were arguing who was the more ideal libertarian. In which case Paul best Johnson by a wide margin.

Yes, we were, and the examples you gave didn't really work. I pointed out how he doesn't support NAFTA as you claimed, and he's against indefinite detention and torture. To this you said that he was a "flip-flopper" on the issue of NAFTA... while admitting Paul was a flip-flopper on an issue of his own.

I'm pointing out how there is not going to be a perfect candidate, and that even if we count NAFTA against Johnson, you can count Paul's Federal legislation on the issue of abortion against Paul.

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Rust

Yes, we were, and the examples you gave didn't really work. I pointed out how he doesn't support NAFTA as you claimed, and he's against indefinite detention and torture. To this you said that he was a "flip-flopper" on the issue of NAFTA... while admitting Paul was a flip-flopper on an issue of his own.

I'm pointing out how there is not going to be a perfect candidate, and that even if we count NAFTA against Johnson, you can count Paul's Federal legislation on the issue of abortion against Paul.

I wouldn't count his anti-abortion state against Paul. I would argue that abortion is an issue that transcends libertarian/authoritarian politics.

And you claiming Johnson is against NAFTA is debatable.

Originally Posted by Gary Johnson

"So much of the legislation that we pass isn't really free market at all. It's touted as free market when the reality ends up to be very corporate. That the reality ends up to be corporatism where one business gets advantage over another. This was something that I witnessed as governor of New Mexico. I'd like to think that I vetoed that kind of legislation. That I was always looking at legislation, business legislation, from the standpoint of having it affect everyone equally as opposed to big business being further advantaged than what they are already are. So I think that so many of these treaties, NAFTA being one, and I can't speak specifically to it, but I think the criticism of NAFTA should be rooted in the fact that big business became even bigger business.”
Mar. 25, 2011

So wtf is this guy really saying?

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Psych

I wouldn't count his anti-abortion state against Paul. I would argue that abortion is an issue that transcends libertarian/authoritarian politics.

And you claiming Johnson is against NAFTA is debatable.

Again, the issue is not his stance on abortion/life itself (though in that he is against the majority of libertarians), the issue is the Federal mandate on the states. That is absolutely not an issue that transcends libertarian politics. He could defend the idea of being pro-life from a libertarian stand-point even though that defense isn't popular, but he can't defend the Federal legislation mandating that view on states.

So wtf is this guy really saying?

He's saying that some legislation, like NAFTA, has been passed off as "free trade", but in reality aren't.

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Rust

Again, the issue is not his stance on abortion/life itself (though in that he is against the majority of libertarians), the issue is the Federal mandate on the states. That is absolutely not an issue that transcends libertarian politics. He could defend the idea of being pro-life from a libertarian stand-point even though that defense isn't popular, but he can't defend the Federal legislation mandating that view on states.

Uhh... Ron Paul doesn't enforce his view of pro-life onto the states. He's against a federal mandate with or against abortion. It's a state issue to him. If Johnson agrees then it's moot.

He's saying that some legislation, like NAFTA, has been passed off as "free trade", but in reality aren't.

Is that how you read it? I saw a waffler trying his best not to say that NAFTA isn't necessary and is in fact a front on the sovereignty of the state.

And all of this talk is essentially pointless because Johnson endorsed Paul already. The honest candidate, which is who you, Rust, want to endorse all along.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Psych

Uhh... Ron Paul doesn't enforce his view of pro-life onto the states. He's against a federal mandate with or against abortion. It's a state issue to him. If Johnson agrees then it's moot.

No. Ron Paul has supported Federal legislation on abortion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

And all of this talk is essentially pointless because Johnson endorsed Paul already. The honest candidate, which is who you, Rust, want to endorse all along.

No he didn't. In fact, Ron Paul's former running mate has endorsed Johnson.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...ul-109498.html

http://www.independentpoliticalrepor...cript-follows/

I don't understand the last part, because I sure as hell don't want Ron Paul.

[nshanin]

Fuck the voters, man. I wish Carl Cox would just start the revolution party already.

[nshanin]

But really, can you argue with him for trying to use political position and prowess to pre-empt the dialectic of "the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 [which] amended 1 U.S.C. § 8 to provide that legal personhood includes all Homo sapiens who are 'born alive'."

[Malice]

I found an interesting video of a former fed economist in favor of competing currencies and ending the fed:

John Stossel: SPEAKS TO EX-FEDERAL RESERVE EMPLOYEE - YouTube

John Stossel: SPEAKS TO EX-FEDERAL RESERVE EMPLOYEE - YouTube
Video: click to display

Edit: Woah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_R._Barker

arker’s book, Welcome to Free America,[5] describes life in the former United States after the collapse of government.If describes a difficult period of transition, but eventually private companies take over functions previously performed by governments, such as security,dispute resolution, production of money and infrastructure, and national defense.The result is a society that is prosperous and secure, but different in many ways from current society

An-caps of the world, unite!

[Sopio]

Ron Paul is dead.

[Malice]

This isn't about Ron Paul, it's also a place to post general libertarian material.

[Haiti's Space Agency]

did u hear ron pauls audit the fed thing passed the hosue

[Malice]

The bill passed 327 to 98; [b]all but one Republican and 89 Democrats[ voted yes/B]

Goddamn Democrats.

[JeffreyH]

Originally Posted by Malice

Goddamn Democrats.

I wonder what their reasoning was. Just a childish "lol, Republicans proposed it so we will vote 'no'" kind of thing?

[Malice]

More on the depression of 1921, which was brought up before:

http://menghusblog.wordpress.com/201...us-keynesians/

[asilentfire]

Is Ron Paul still trying to win 2012?

[Psych]

Reality Check: GOP refuses to seat Maine delegation unless they agree to "Compromise"? - YouTube

Reality Check: GOP refuses to seat Maine delegation unless they agree to "Compromise"? - YouTube
Video: click to display

[Malice]

Watching this now:

Peter Schiff Mortgage Bankers Speech Nov/13/06 - YouTube

Peter Schiff Mortgage Bankers Speech Nov/13/06 - YouTube
Video: click to display

He may have made some mistakes with his predictions in other sectors, or at least got the timing wrong, but he perfectly predicted what was going to happen in the housing sector.

[JeffreyH]

Originally Posted by Malice

He may have made some mistakes with his predictions in other sectors, or at least got the timing wrong, but he perfectly predicted what was going to happen in the housing sector.

In what way?

His long-term (5-10 year) predictions make a lot of sense to me, which I cannot say about those that predict otherwise.

[JeffreyH]

Originally Posted by Malice

Watching this now:

Peter Schiff Mortgage Bankers Speech Nov/13/06 - YouTube

He may have made some mistakes with his predictions in other sectors, or at least got the timing wrong, but he perfectly predicted what was going to happen in the housing sector.

Also, here's a video from 2001 (!):

Ron Paul: "This real-estate bubble will burst, as all bubbles do" (part 3) - YouTube

Ron Paul: "This real-estate bubble will burst, as all bubbles do" (part 3) - YouTube
Video: click to display

[Malice]

Well, right off my head I think he was wrong about yields going up on government debt and inflation, timing wise.

[Psych]

GOP Establishment Fears Ron Paul Upset at the Convention - YouTube

GOP Establishment Fears Ron Paul Upset at the Convention - YouTube
Video: click to display

Ben Swann; A real journalist.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Psych

GOP Establishment Fears Ron Paul Upset at the Convention - YouTube

Ben Swann; A real journalist.

You imbeciles still think Paul can be the nominee?

The GOP Establishment by no means "fears" a Paul upset, if anything they're afraid they will boo parts of Romney's speech.

At this rate it will be November before you guys drop this "Ron Paul can still win!!1!" meme.

[mizled]

Originally Posted by Cory

You imbeciles still think Paul can be the nominee?

The GOP Establishment by no means "fears" a Paul upset, if anything they're afraid they will boo parts of Romney's speech.

At this rate it will be November before you guys drop this "Ron Paul can still win!!1!" meme.

..there's still the Democratic convention.

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Cory

You imbeciles still think Paul can be the nominee?

The GOP Establishment by no means "fears" a Paul upset, if anything they're afraid they will boo parts of Romney's speech.

At this rate it will be November before you guys drop this "Ron Paul can still win!!1!" meme.

You just read the title and assumed it was about how Paul had a chance of winning. What an imbecile.

You obviously did not watch the video. It is about how the RNC keeps changing the rules to keep Paul out. Watch it, it's interesting journalism that you can't really find on the CNN's. They've pretty much ignored all these changes that are going on.