General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRon Paul.
He's leaving me rather baffled. I don't know what to think. Is he evil, or is he awesome?
Will someone please set me straight?
(edit)
Yes, I am serious. I ask this from a state of total ignorance as to Ron Paul, apart from a couple articles and Wikipedia.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)liberalmuse.com
(58 posts)A) General non-intervention policy when it comes to war
B) Supports gay marriage
C) As quoted from Wikipedia: "As a free-market environmentalist, Paul sees polluters as aggressors who should not be granted immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability."
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)He also supports eliminating virtually all environmental regulations, as these would interfere with property rights.
You're either grossly misinformed, or trying to misinform others.
liberalmuse.com
(58 posts)Thanks for letting me know.
SixthSense
(829 posts)is that he doesn't want the question to be a federal one and that each state should decide the question on its own
So one person can interpret that as being pro-gay (if they're in a state that would legalize gay marriage) and another can interpret it as being anti-gay (if they're in a state that wouldn't) and both will be sort of correct and sort of incorrect.
Still, it's worlds better than the anti-gay jihad the rest of them would bring into office.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)TheWraith
(24,331 posts)"Do not allow the [AIDS] patient to drive or operate machinery due to mental impairment."
"Researchers admitted that they had been lying about the incidence of heterosexual AIDS to increase funding for homosexual programs."
"The ACT-UP slogan is "Silence = Death." But shouldn't it be "SODOMY = Death"?"
"Those who don't commit sodomy, get blood transfusions, or swap needles are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay."
"Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
"If you heard a certain behavior of yours caused a deadly disease, wouldn't you immediately cease & desist? Well, gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense. They have stopped practicing "safe sex." The rate of AIDS infection is on the increase again. From the gay point of view, the reasons seem quite sensible.
First, these men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners. These conditions do not make one's older years the happiest.
Second, because sex is the center of their lives, they want it to be as pleasurable as possible, which means unprotected sex.
Third, they enjoy the attention & pity that comes with being sick. Put it all together, and you've got another wave of AIDS infections, that you, dear taxpayer, will be asked to pay for."
All direct quotes from Ron Paul's newsletters.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)A) see http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=120626
B) horseshit, he supports DOMA
C) what?
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)to dismantle the EPA, and he most certainly does not support gay marriage .Are you cool with his racist beliefs?
LeftishBrit
(41,203 posts)writings. He believes in states rights, so probably thinks that gay marriage should be left up to the states not the federal government; but that doesn't mean he favours it.
He DOES advocate an end to the drug war, and he was against the Iraq war (not out of pacifism but out of isolationism and xenophobia, but still he was against the war); but in every other way he's a monster.
think
(11,641 posts)Maybe you could re-post it if you have it handy?
stevedeshazer
(21,653 posts)Lefta Dissenter
(6,622 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)mdmc
(29,048 posts)I'm a liberal and love him for these two stances.
Everything else is shiite..
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Sure, he opposes military intervention in foreign wars, but not out of a sense of decency or any position of pacifism. He wants to withdraw from the UN. Including humanitarian and peacekeeping operations. Foreign aid would disappear, and if you think "unstable" regions are bad now, imagine what they would be like with the double-edged sword of multinational (read: US) corporate interests moving unchecked throughout the developing world AND an absence of monitored unilateral military involvement in those regions. Paul's position isn't one of altruism; it's one of isolationism. Not that I'm an advocate of First World military involvement in foreign problems, but look at what isolationism has netted in the past.
And what would Paul do to end the war on drugs? What could he do as POTUS? Sure he could try to get DoJ to back off of federal busts while he was in the pretend office in his head, but what could he do about state and local laws? Oh right, STATE'S RIGHTS!! LIBERTY!! ATLAS SHRUGGED!!
think
(11,641 posts)you won't hear that mentioned on the MSM too often:
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)For serious? cool.
Even if he did and could, how does that end the drug war? Will he perpetually pardon all new convictions as they occur? Seems like a productive presidency.
think
(11,641 posts)you have to want to.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)ANTI-WAR!! LIBERTY! CONSTITUTION! END THE DRUG WAR! NWO! FLOURIDE! MAGIC OF THE MARKET! SELECT QUOTES OF THOMAS JEFFERSON!! FREEDOM!!
think
(11,641 posts)Here is a quick clip if you care of about 60 seconds of recent interview in regards to your questions:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/ron-paul-war-on-drugs-prohibition_n_1183353.html
I would love to see Obama take a more aggressive stance on the war on drugs but respect that it would be politically difficult for him to support such policies for many reasons. Most importantly he didn't run on this issue so he has no responsibility to take the political heat of such a controversial issue while those that voted for him look to other issues to be addressed.
At the same time our prisons are over crowded and our police forces are being pushed to the limit to uphold laws against non violent citizens. While we continue to flush money down the drain on prohibition and incarcerating our citizens at record levels the politicians do nothing and it is a shame.
Saving Hawaii
(441 posts)Nothing changes. Kids still sitting locked up for years because they grew the wrong kind of lettuce.
think
(11,641 posts)the criminalization of marijuana in states where they have voted to make pot legal for medical purposes. The war on drugs is a failed FEDERAL policy that is over riding the will of the people in those states. So it is obvious that in those states ending the war on drugs would help US citizens including kids from being incarcerated for smoking pot and doing drugs.
mdmc
(29,048 posts)..
Terra Alta
(5,158 posts)Anything else?
Ohio Joe
(21,729 posts)And much worse. Why on earth would anyone think that asshole is awesome?
liberalmuse.com
(58 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,610 posts)I'm thinking evil.
provis99
(13,062 posts)he reminds me of anonymous libertarian advocates in the Internet; puerile 16-year olds with fantasies about government "force" and "freedom".
Cerridwen
(13,252 posts)So they claimed.
Did you know the kkk delivered food baskets to people down on their luck? Yep. Yep.
That's how they recruited those who were so down anything appeared up.
Did you know there are some good lessons to be learned from reading parts of the Bible? Yep. Yep.
I suggest you start a search for ~false prophets~. Those lessons can be extrapolated to how confidence men run their cons. They tell you what you want to hear until they've got you hooked. Kinda like drug dealers handing out free samples...until you're hooked.
Yep. Yep.
Always read beyond the surface; beyond the facade and the facile. Judging a "book by its cover" is one of those things we've been warned about.
Yeppers.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Spazito
(50,165 posts)other than being a racist, homophobic, antisemitic, misogynist, isolationist POS, he's the awesomest!
liberalmuse.com
(58 posts)Thanks all for filling this gap in my knowledge.
BootinUp
(47,085 posts)I'm afraid thats all I have to say on the matter.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Texasgal
(17,040 posts)This poster is asking for advice! Good GAWD! The fangs are out!
DURHAM D
(32,606 posts)I was hoping that a kind DU'er would set her straight.
Why wouldn't it be a serious question? I ask questions all of the time. I ask my fellow DU'ers advice lot.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)that this is worth a serious discussion.
unionworks
(3,574 posts)Leading the youngand gullible away from a democratic party that has alienatet them, promising to ed the war on drugs and much else when he and everyone else in the GOP knows this will never, ever happen least of all under a republican administration
LeftishBrit
(41,203 posts)I shall avoid material where there is dispute about whether he actually wrote it, and provide excerpts from his speech 'A Republic if You Can Keep It', which he keeps on his website:
'On welfare and public services):
'There was no welfare state in 1900. In the year 2000 we have a huge welfare state, which continues to grow each year...
The modern-day welfare state has steadily grown since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The federal government is now involved in providing health care, houses, unemployment benefits, education, food stamps to millions, plus all kinds of subsidies to every conceivable special-interest group. Welfare is now part of our culture, costing hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It is now thought to be a "right," something one is "entitled" to. Calling it an "entitlement" makes it sound proper and respectable and not based on theft. Anyone who has a need, desire, or demand and can get the politicians' attention will get what he wants, even though it may be at the expense of someone else. Today it is considered morally right and politically correct to promote the welfare state. Any suggestion otherwise is considered political suicide.
The acceptance of the welfare ethic and rejection of the work ethic as the accepted process for improving one's economic conditions are now ingrained in our political institutions. This process was started in earnest in the 1930s, received a big boast in the 1960s, and has continued a steady growth, even through the 1990s, despite some rhetoric in opposition. This public acceptance has occurred in spite of the fact that there is no evidence that welfare is a true help in assisting the needy. Its abject failure around the world where welfarism took the next step into socialism has even a worse record...
,,, Today, there's no serious effort to challenge welfare as a way of life, and its uncontrolled growth in the next economic downturn is to be expected. Too many citizens now believe they are "entitled" to monetary assistance from the government anytime they need it, and they expect it. Even in times of plenty, the direction has been to continue expanding education, welfare, and retirement benefits. No one asks where the government gets the money to finance the welfare state. Is it morally right to do so? Is it authorized in the Constitution? Does it help anyone in the long run? Who suffers from the policy? Until these questions are seriously asked and correctly answered, we cannot expect the march toward a pervasive welfare state to stop, and we can expect our liberties to be continuously compromised.'
(On healthcare):
....It is now accepted that people who need (medical) care are entitled to it as a right. This is a serious error in judgment.'
(On women's rights, gays and the general limits of his libertarianism)
'Probably the most significant change in attitude that occurred in the 20th Century was that with respect to life itself. Although abortion has been performed for hundreds if not thousands of years, it was rarely considered an acceptable and routine medical procedure without moral consequence. Since 1973 abortion in America has become routine and justified by a contorted understanding of the right to privacy. The difference between American's rejection of abortions at the beginning of the century, compared to today's casual acceptance, is like night and day. Although a vocal number of Americans express their disgust with abortion on demand, our legislative bodies and the courts claim that the procedure is a constitutionally protected right, disregarding all scientific evidence and legal precedents that recognize the unborn as a legal living entity deserving protection of the law. Ironically the greatest proponents of abortion are the same ones who advocate imprisonment for anyone who disturbs the natural habitat of a toad.
....The welfare system has mocked the concept of marriage in the name of political correctness, economic egalitarianism, and hetero-phobia.'
(On World War II)
'....Any academic discussion questioning the wisdom of our policies surrounding World War II is met with shrill accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazi lover. No one is even permitted without derision by the media, the university intellectuals, and the politicians to ask why the United States allied itself with the murdering Soviets and then turned over Eastern Europe to them...'
The only good thing about Ron Paul is that he might cause splits in his party. Oh, and that even he is probably not quite as bad as his repulsive son!
icymist
(15,888 posts)Ron Paul is a snake in the grass, an old time racist and a huge homophobe. Read the above from the others. Any questions?
sfpcjock
(1,936 posts)The guy is such a phony. Chris Wallace or someone asked him if "he saw himself in the Oval office." He just said, "not really." OMG, what are we listening to his libertarian bullshit for then?
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)"Magic of the Market", my ASS. Ask the middle/working/poor classes what that "magic" Friedman crapcake has done to their disposable income.
And that's the LEAST loathsome of his "states rights" agenda.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)i.e., what he plans to do as President, how he feels about certain things. Then you realize that he's just a delusional right-wing nutcase and racist who appeals to the crowd that is obsessed with their guns, believes in New World Order or anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and listen to Alex Jones every night.
He's an unhinged lunatic. His son must not be any better, as the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.