Not even close to the cliffs and spewing hate doesn't help anything.

You can hate him if you want but I think he raised some important points, points that our government should address instead of ignore. It's much easier to just ignore the issues and make fun of the old guy with the racist newsletter, but it also doesn't get us anywhere.

A lot of these are mostly rhetorical but some are important and relevant issues that, in my opinion, are harming our country and the principles of liberty.

Yeah, most of those are really dumb. I will skip over the drug war stuff because I generally support it, but picking some out in no particular order:

Not being able to use gold and silver as currency is blatantly false.

People cant buy the lightbulb they want for the similar reasons to why you cant buy lead paint and asbestos insulation.

He specifically defends free markets but not civil liberties (outrage over Texas vs Lewis for example). His openly advocated position is that government taking away civil liberties from people is good provided it is the state government and not federal government.

Many policies are changed when parties are changed, its crazy to say nothing changes. The extent that even more policies dont change is due to the structure of the US government, for instance Obama would have closed Gitmo were it not for the party of Paul and even some in Obama's own party blocking him on that. He would change things like the tax structure and gone much further in healthcare and regulatory reform if he could have. The system isnt designed for a party to make huge changes by executive mandate by design. If parties could change a lot of things when they come to power then the system would be closer to a dictatorship than a democracy.

Banks got bailed out because deregulation made them too big to fail and more likely to fail (they basically did) and letting them go bust would have crippled the US and world economy guaranteeing a depression, middle classes werent bailed out because his party and him personally voted against all efforts to do so. This is linked to the previous point.

Most religions specifically talk about redistributing wealth and the use of war, his own for example. It is also irrelevant to everything.

He specifically sought power to force people to conform to his views on many subjects. The drug war he wants to end (which I agree with) is a prime example of this, as is the use of commodity currency and several other things he named in his speech (of which I didnt listen to all of it).

Saying that democracy is the enemy of the minority when he is personally against the supreme court allowing laws to be applied giving minorities equal rights and he is against acts like the voting act that guarantees minorities rights such as democracy is ****ing insulting.

The TSA exists because the free market failed spectacularly on September 11th 2001.

Cool thanks for the thoughtful response.

There's a difference between silver/gold being usable as currency and being legal tender, I'm not 100% sure but my understanding is that the courts won't enforce debts in silver/gold (or other currencies) since they're not legal tender in the US. Since dollars are legal tender then all private parties must accept dollars to satisfy debt.

Asbestos and lead paint are hazards to anyone exposed to them, but that's certainly not the case with halogen bulbs. I don't think that is a proper analogy. Personally I think people should be able to buy halogen bulbs if they prefer the light those produce, they pay for the extra power usage out of their own pocket.

I agree that Ron Paul dismisses some civil liberty issues by saying it's up to the states to decide, but I think he's a lot better than most politicians in this regard.

Re: things not changing when parties change, surely a few things change but it seems to me that far more things - important things - stay the same. And a lot of them are entirely within the realm of the executive branch. Off the top of my head, I can think of only 3 significant things that Obama did differently from what I'd expect a McCain admin or a 3rd Bush term to do: Ending don't ask don't tell, stopping waterboarding, and passing PPACA. The first two are definitely good, the third is at least better than the status quo, but the point is there are so many other significant things that did not change (and don't seem like they'll change in the foreseeable future).

The bank bailout thing is a really complicated issue and I don't have too many confident opinions about that, although it's unappealing to me on an ideological level that the government would bail out private banks at all. I'm interested though to hear how deregulation caused the banks to become "too big to fail," I've heard people blame deregulation for allowing the crisis to happen but not for allowing the banks to become "too big to fail."

To me the real problem with religion/war connection is that our government officials, including the last two presidents, have specifically invoked god in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's what I thought Paul was referring to, but you're right that religion specifically talks about war and redistribution.

I'm not very familiar with the voting act or instances where Paul was against giving minorities equal rights. I don't think he was referring to ethnic minorities when he said that "democracy is the enemy of the minority" (although that can certainly apply as well). I think in general our government and people are too quick to take away the rights of minority groups, whether that group is gays or even poker players.

What do you mean that the TSA is a result of a free market failure on 9/11? A lot of things went wrong that allowed or caused that disaster to happen, a lot of which was the government's responsibility. Regardless, it's certainly not justification for the TSA to subject everyone who flies to invasive x-rays or a crotch patdown. I think the TSA is a gigantic waste of time and resources that does little to nothing in actually keeping people safe. If you feel differently then please explain, but I'd be surprised if you (or anyone on this board) was actually in favor of the TSA in its current form.

A big reason why Paul is against the drug war is because it hurts minorities the most.

They even cut a ad to discredit this racist theory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4

Regarding gold and silver my understanding is that if you purchase gold, gold goes up and then you sell it, you have to pay taxes on the "profit" even though the dollar has devalued.

The reason Paul was against the civil rights act is because it's the government forcing for instance storeowners to serve people they don't want to serve.

The reason he talks about the federal government is not supposed to this and that and the states can is because of the constitution. He knows that you move power from the federal government to the states then to the localities and eventually to the individual.

The individual is the smallest minority.

Gold increasing in value doesn't mean the dollar has decreased in value.

Which is why libertarians support the federal government when it forces states to give freedoms to individuals.

I know that, but that does not change the tax burden.

If the states are breaking people's constitutional right then sure, federal government should step in.

This is nothing unique to gold. Inflation increases the dollar value of stocks that forces people to pay taxes on non real gains. This is easy to fix, just tax investment earnings - inflation gains. But has Paul actually said anything about that? Or does he just say gold silver derp derp?

Ron Paul disagrees

Remember when people in this thread thought Uncle Ron had a chance of winning any office higher than the one he already held?

That was funny.

There is absolutely nothing about Ron Paul that makes me believe he cares about the drug war for racial reasons. See how you pivot to reasons he is against the civil rights act helping minorities against racist treatment.

He is against the drug war because it is costly and ineffective. It being racist is just the tactic he uses to push the true agenda of stopping it for its cost.

Also dont talk about Ron and the constitution like he supports it. He has authored multiple bills designed to undermine freedoms given by the constitution by breaking the balance of powers written into the constitution to stop the trampling of civil liberties. There is no evidence he cares about the constitution any more than he cares about minorities, it is a means to an end.

It is amazing how much this man has fooled his supporters with his blatant propaganda.

Am I wrong to think Ron Paul would prefer to have no money spent on drug enforcement as well as no money spent on
rehabbing drug addicts? Seems like he just wants to save money and let addicts die instead of paying their room and board to me.

His answer in the primary last year on healthcare makes it clear he doesnt think drug addicts should have rehab funded by him in any way unless he donates to some charity that pays for the costs.

It is clear his biggest guiding principle is doing whatever it takes to make or save the most money for himself.

This is accurate.

You people really get a kick out of bashing libertarians. It's like religious people bashing atheists.

This balance of powers nonsense completely breaks libertarian principles. The govt is not some magical entity that can step in to right every wrong. This shows the difference between a minimal state libertarian and an anarchist. The libertarian will reflexively call on govt to do something, protect rights, etc.

Give it 6 months and you'll be an anarchist too =)

But that's the whole point. Government, whether it is at the federal, state or local level is not magic. Intelligent libertarians support the federal government when they force states to give rights to individuals and at the same time support states if they are giving new freedoms the federal government doesn't allow (ie pot) that Paul doesn't.....which leads reasonable people to think that he is not an intelligent libertarian.

Yes, libertarians are intelligent when they advocate statism. I got it.

You are an intelligent libertarian just like ron paul!

Haha, i consider myself a AC.

I'm just defending Mr. Paul and his point of view from the angry liberals.

I'm pretty sure that Mr Paul like most libertarians supports competing currencies.

Regarding taxes, i feel a consumption tax would be the best choice.

"Blacks and minorities who are involved with drugs, are arrested disproportionately. They are tried and imprisoned disproportionately. They suffer the consequence of the death penalty disproportionately. Rich white people don't get the death penalty very often. And most of these are victimless crimes. Sometimes people can use drugs and arrested three times and never committed a violent act and they can go to prison for life. I think there's discrimination in the system, but you have to address the drug war. I would say the judicial system is probably one of the worst places where prejudice and discrimination still exists in this country."


This quote is from a fox news debate.

Why do you have so much hate in your heart for a man who has fought for your civil liberties?

Your government can arrest you and detain you indefinitely, Mr Paul has fought against this. You should be grateful.

"Mr. Paul" is the one who is angry. I think right now is the absolute peak of humanity and things are only going to get better.

Lock this **** up.

I strongly disagree with his political platform, but at least he was offering a different view of the world, like it or lump it. I also think there is some merit to Phil's criticisms - but that's politics isn't it? It's hard for anyone in that environment to have a fully consistent and thought through platform.

It has been argued elsewhere on this forum quite well - his successor to the mantle and people of this political bent should abandon the Republican party and try to influence the Democrats on social freedom issues.

I think you have this backwards. Religious people bash atheists for being godless and amoral. But atheists bash religious people for being stupid, racist, and for believing in things based on faith, without evidence. In this thread we have the following claims:

-Ron Paul is an idiot, and by extension so are his supporters.
-Ron Paul is racist, and by extension so are his supporters.
-Ron Paul believes in the magic of the free market and the non-aggression principle on faith, without evidence.

Militant atheists also tend to know the Bible better than Christians, and this thread is full of people who LOVE Congressman Dr. Ron Paul, M.D. who don't know what Ron Paul actually believes. It's a pretty good analogy.