Ron Paul, the choice for people who respect integrity when integrity means unequal democratic voting power for "some people" compared to "other people", a history of running a newsletter business that would be considered the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic were people not obsessed with how racist they were and who has repeatedly tried to undermine the separation of powers created by the constitution for reasons including gay people getting married and if he had his way his state of Texas would be free to outlaw gay sex.

If Ron Paul is the solution and he still cant win an election (or even steal it) its clear the problem cant be so bad.

Also I am merely calling him a fascist because of the actions of his supporters, its possible he tried to stop them from stealing the election for him and I missed that in the news.

How can he be a facist, election stealer (Michigan) and anti-gay when we already elected Barrack Obama.

Lol, are you calling Obama a fascist, anti gay and claiming he stole an election in Michigan?

Even for a Paulbot, or whatever you are nowadays, that is just hilarious. Compared to pro fascist small government Ron Paul Obama is a libertarian and a champion of civil rights, just like everyone else who is a Democrat.

Paul is one of the only members of the government who has been so outspoken against the war on drugs as being completely racially biased. How can you call him racist in that light?

From what I gather, he's mostly just a strict constitutionalist. Limit the government to what it was meant to do, and nothing more.

If Barack is so pro-liberty, what's up with the NDAA and flying drones over our own land? (Yes, I agree that he is probably a fraction more pro-liberty than the standard GOP schmucks, just that he can't hold a candle to RP.)

And, yes, RP has very conservative personal beliefs when it comes to gay marriage, abortion, etc.... However, those personal beliefs do not factor into his political voting record. As a pro-liberty man, he wants people to have the right to decide whatever they want to do as long as it doesn't harm their neighbor. Don't let the federal government dictate what you can and cannot do.

Sorry I don't mean to knock Barack, I'm sure your reasons for supporting him are quite valid as well. That's the beauty of America.

RP newsletters ftw

Broad brushing it slightly but the federal government is the source of the positive things in America when it comes to liberty and freedom. States are the source of the negative things.

The right for the majority of Texans to dictate what kind of sex the minority of Texans are legally allowed to do is no freedom and liberty I and many other recognise.

Also he 100% is not a constitutionalist. He has authored several bills that attempt to undermine the constitutional protection of Americans' liberty by the supreme court rendering the balanced separation of powers worthless. He has personal beliefs and wants to restrict the federal government so he can stomp the rights of minorities who do things he doesnt agree with.

There is a reason why Ron Paul has more policies in common with the leaders of far right hate groups like Stormfront than he does with just about everyone else in politics.

lol @ people who keep bringing up the debunked newsletters, which RP stated dozens of times over the years... were not written by him, and were not read by him until 10 years later when someone dug them up. At the time they were published (early 90s), he had retired from politics for awhile and was a fulltime OB/GYN.

On the record, he has said that he disagreed with what was said in those newsletters that had his name on them.

Now, let's move past all the words/fluff, and back to the real actions: how can you call him a racist based on his actions/voting record?

Good, I'm glad we can get past this lunacy of flinging the racist word back and forth.

Dude, you said he has integrity. He has zilch.

Stamping your name to those type of things shows how foolish he is whether he is a racist, or not. It is essentially stating he is a whore for publicity in either the lowest common denominator vein method or he doesn't read what he signs. Neither seems like something people with real integrity do.

His so-called constitutionalism is laughable when you listen to his neo-confederate stuff.

You bring up a good point. Which is why I applaud you for voting for Obama. You've done your homework, and found the man/party that reflects your beliefs in what the federal government should do. (I mean that sincerely, no sarcasm.)

That said, there are a lot of Americans who skew towards socially conservative values. I'm not sure where the endpoint will be when it comes to the majority establishing liberty for the minority. It's an interesting discussion. I'm 50/50 on whether I'd like the states to vote their own way on these social laws. So I might be sort of anti-RP on that side of things. (See, I don't just drink koolaid and say RP is 100% God on everything, heh.)

Please stop trying to take this discussion and turn it back into a grade school fight where people are either 100% right or wrong. According to most anybody (Washington politicians especially), RP is much more a constitutionalist than others. I doubt any other politician actually knows the constitution as much as he does (at leas anybody in the GOP, as witnessed by those debates.)

But I would like to know what these bills are that he introduced that show that he is 100% against the constitution. My God, he is amazing that he has deluded so many intellectuals into believing he embraces the constitution!

I guess I define integrity by a lifetime of lining up actions with words. Not over a handful of newsletters that someone attached your name to 20 years ago while you weren't in politics. Yes, he effed up by either 1) condoning what was said in the newsletters (which he denies), or 2) not reviewing the newsletters thoroughly before they were sent out (which shows he's not very good at controlling people under him... which isn't a very good trait for someone seeking the presidency.

Can you link the neo-confederate stuff? I honestly never delved into all those accusations, since he dismissed them offhandedly. I was more focused on the big things like balancing the budget and bringing troops home... you know, stuff that both the GOP and DEMs have promised to do for the past 10 years but never come close to.

People with integrity don't put their name all over a newsletter they don't read.

I don't think he is actually a racist. But his sense of history is rather strange.

I have been an independent voter for the past 8 or 10 years. I am not fond of either of the parties.

So are you saying that because of a goof-up in some early 90s newsletters, we can trash his entire voting record? I disagree.

He is a doctor who put his name on newsletters that spread false information about AIDs. He's a pretty disgusting person because of that. This is not a singular mistake. He is a life long snake oil salesman who would like to pretend he was not a part of something so terrible and racist that even the republicans don't want anything to do with him.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...wsletters.html

This is functionally the same vote.

It wasn't a "goof up" lol. It was a million dollar operation that went on for years. Are you telling me that if an organization with your name on it makes you a million dollars, you would never ever ever look at it and see how they were making that money?

Sorry you had to come to this trainwreck of a thread. The anti RP folks here are some of the most pathetic users on 2+2. It's really tragic. There are plenty of ways you can criticize RP's positions, but these guys really have no understanding at all of public policy and so they harp on the distractions non stop. The Case Closed types of this thread stand for NOTHING. They can't critique Ron Paul's view on foreign policy or monetary policy because their brains are devoid of any information on these matters. Their insecurities of their ignorance on public policy display themselves in their utter obsession with trashing RP in this thread. It's so so so lame.

Moving on....

Except the convention uses our money.

Thanks for the link. Had to wikipedia the Spooner abolitionist that he was referring to. I guess Spooner's (and RP's) stance on slavery was that the constitution was actually anti-slavery, and that slavery should be abolished via legislature. But Spooner was also staunchly against the notion that war should be carried out to return the southern states to the union. He was pro-secession, as the states had the right to secede from the government.

I guess you can sort of see that in RP's rants as well... he is terribly anti-war, whether civil or overseas. Unless it means defense of the nation, he's not a big proponent of war. And he is also terribly slanted towards states' rights against the federal government.

Thanks again, I've learned a lot in the past hour.

Oh, people can critique RP's fiscal policy well...

WATCH

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLZ Gold Standard

The paper standard is doing wonders.

It's a fine line. The RNC used the money/power to exclude the voice of the libertarians that are infiltrating their party. However, in so doing, they're losing a s***-ton of votes (yes, it's a mere 2% or so of the nation, but that's perhaps enough to sway an election.) Instead of playing nice with the newcomers, they played hardball (probably because the Paulbots played hardball as well, and are known to NEVER negotiate on their stances.)

Apparently Newt said during the RNC that 90% of the Paulbots would vote for Romney in the end, out of disgust of Obama. But I'm pretty sure that number is closer to 10% than 90%. Newt's gonna Newt.

Jfc Phill stfu. You're hurting your brain and everyone elses when you try to talk.

Phill isn't arguing honestly. It's sad that people need to be reminded of this so constantly.