Obama 42%, Ron Paul 41%!

atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Obama 42%, Ron Paul 41%!

mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Honestly I find it hard to

Honestly I find it hard to believe.  Ron Paul couldn't beat McCain, or Romney, or Huckabee but he could beat Obama?  Color me doubtful.

 

And I say this as someone who stumped for Ron Paul in his disenchanted, idealistic youth Smiling

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
A libertarian who wants to

A libertarian who wants to put creationism in schools? Why rejoice again?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
I like Ron Paul, but this is

I like Ron Paul, but this is clearly a bad poll. Even Dr. Paul mentions that in the video. The man in unelectable. It is as simple as that. He is the only politician that I actually like though.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:I like

Jormungander wrote:

I like Ron Paul, but this is clearly a bad poll. Even Dr. Paul mentions that in the video. The man in unelectable. It is as simple as that. He is the only politician that I actually like though.

 

I like him as a person too, even though I think a lot of his ideologies are naive.  He sure doesn't seem to compromise (arguably a bad thing for a politician)

 

I would trust him over most though, to do what he says he will do.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:A libertarian

jcgadfly wrote:

A libertarian who wants to put creationism in schools? Why rejoice again?

 

the guy doesnt want the federal govt involved in education at all, he wants to get rid of the dept of education (both great things)

 

so he wouldnt be putting anything anywhere

 

he is a christian, but just about as far away from it and still be considered one

 

his devotion to liberty overrides whatever personal opinions he may hold, and thats whats important

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:I like

Jormungander wrote:

I like Ron Paul, but this is clearly a bad poll. Even Dr. Paul mentions that in the video. The man in unelectable. It is as simple as that. He is the only politician that I actually like though.

 

he always say that kinda thing in interviews, i def think he is electable, but thats my personal opinion i guess

his popularity and name recognition has spread by leaps and bounds since the 2008 presidential run, and the man can raise money

if people just voted for who they wanted, instead of holding their noses and voting for the least of 2 evils we wouldnt have this problem

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Jormungander

mellestad wrote:

Jormungander wrote:

I like Ron Paul, but this is clearly a bad poll. Even Dr. Paul mentions that in the video. The man in unelectable. It is as simple as that. He is the only politician that I actually like though.

 

I like him as a person too, even though I think a lot of his ideologies are naive.  He sure doesn't seem to compromise (arguably a bad thing for a politician)

 

I would trust him over most though, to do what he says he will do.

 

compromise is overrated, as is bipartisanship, all it leads is to bigger govt from both parties, a guy with some backbone who will actually uphold his oath of office is what we need

 

not sure what views of his you think of as naive, hes probably one of the smartest guys in congress with an ability to explain his message and give historical examples

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
btw, a ron paul-obama debate

btw, a ron paul-obama debate would be hilarious, obama would get ripped apart


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:btw, a

atomicdogg34 wrote:

btw, a ron paul-obama debate would be hilarious, obama would get ripped apart

 

You think?  Obama seems to handle himself well in debate.  You might not like him but the guy has a good education and a large amount of experience in public speaking.  I don't see him being 'ripped apart'.

 

As to your other point, I think people are scared of Ron Paul.  I speak with a lot of libertarians, and honestly I don't think most of them realize what would actually happen if this country was ruled by a Libertarian president and congress.  When I explain what would happen I gets lots of buts and maybes and qualifiers.  When the electorate at large was faced with what Ron Paul actually represents (a total overthrow of what we think of as government) I can't imagine him getting a large percentage of the vote.

His voters just want a fiscal conservative, and the closest they can get is Ron Paul.  But he comes with so much additional ideological baggage I agree with others, he is unelectable.

 

Personally (no data to back this up) I think Ron Paul's popularity is based on backlash for perceived wrongdoings in the government, not support of his policies (which I don't think most understand).

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:atomicdogg34

mellestad wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

btw, a ron paul-obama debate would be hilarious, obama would get ripped apart

 

You think?  Obama seems to handle himself well in debate.  You might not like him but the guy has a good education and a large amount of experience in public speaking.  I don't see him being 'ripped apart'.

 

As to your other point, I think people are scared of Ron Paul.  I speak with a lot of libertarians, and honestly I don't think most of them realize what would actually happen if this country was ruled by a Libertarian president and congress.  When I explain what would happen I gets lots of buts and maybes and qualifiers.  When the electorate at large was faced with what Ron Paul actually represents (a total overthrow of what we think of as government) I can't imagine him getting a large percentage of the vote.

His voters just want a fiscal conservative, and the closest they can get is Ron Paul.  But he comes with so much additional ideological baggage I agree with others, he is unelectable.

 

Personally (no data to back this up) I think Ron Paul's popularity is based on backlash for perceived wrongdoings in the government, not support of his policies (which I don't think most understand).

 

well im sure a television evangelist would appear to win a debate against a run of the mill scientist because public speaking is all they do, but when it comes to actual ideas ron paul would beat obama hands down, paul would punch holes in just about everything obama said

but if you wanted a real debate, good speaker versus good speaker (and admittedly paul isnt nearly as polished a speaker as obama) id say rons son rand would hold up well, or perhaps peter schiff, both know their stuff and speak very well

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:mellestad

atomicdogg34 wrote:

mellestad wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

btw, a ron paul-obama debate would be hilarious, obama would get ripped apart

 

You think?  Obama seems to handle himself well in debate.  You might not like him but the guy has a good education and a large amount of experience in public speaking.  I don't see him being 'ripped apart'.

 

As to your other point, I think people are scared of Ron Paul.  I speak with a lot of libertarians, and honestly I don't think most of them realize what would actually happen if this country was ruled by a Libertarian president and congress.  When I explain what would happen I gets lots of buts and maybes and qualifiers.  When the electorate at large was faced with what Ron Paul actually represents (a total overthrow of what we think of as government) I can't imagine him getting a large percentage of the vote.

His voters just want a fiscal conservative, and the closest they can get is Ron Paul.  But he comes with so much additional ideological baggage I agree with others, he is unelectable.

 

Personally (no data to back this up) I think Ron Paul's popularity is based on backlash for perceived wrongdoings in the government, not support of his policies (which I don't think most understand).

 

well im sure a television evangelist would appear to win a debate against a run of the mill scientist because public speaking is all they do, but when it comes to actual ideas ron paul would beat obama hands down, paul would punch holes in just about everything obama said

but if you wanted a real debate, good speaker versus good speaker (and admittedly paul isnt nearly as polished a speaker as obama) id say rons son rand would hold up well, or perhaps peter schiff, both know their stuff and speak very well

 

I imagine the idea that Ron Paul would factually defeat Obama is somewhat subjective, since political ideologies are not exactly concrete Smiling

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:if people

atomicdogg34 wrote:

if people just voted for who they wanted, instead of holding their noses and voting for the least of 2 evils we wouldnt have this problem

I know what you mean. I knew people who couldn't stand Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin and fretted about which to vote for or voted for one out of party loyalty despite their dislike of the candidate. They would not for one second consider voting 3rd party. I've been told (in so many words) that I'm an idiot who was wasting his vote by not just supporting whatever turd the Republicans or Democrats offered.

The joke's on all of us though. All California electoral votes were guaranteed to go to Obama no matter how I or anyone I knew voted. My district went for McCain. Our electoral votes were still sent to Obama anyways since Obama gets the whole state or none of it. So thanks to people who don't even live in my electoral district, Obama got our votes even though he lost the district. That system guarantees that 3rd parties can't get anything in the electoral college even if they get a sizable minority of the votes. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote and zero electoral college votes. Unless we abolished the electoral college, two parties are all that is going to ever matter.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander

Jormungander wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

if people just voted for who they wanted, instead of holding their noses and voting for the least of 2 evils we wouldnt have this problem

I know what you mean. I knew people who couldn't stand Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin and fretted about which to vote for or voted for one out of party loyalty despite their dislike of the candidate. They would not for one second consider voting 3rd party. I've been told (in so many words) that I'm an idiot who was wasting his vote by not just supporting whatever turd the Republicans or Democrats offered.

The joke's on all of us though. All California electoral votes were guaranteed to go to Obama no matter how I or anyone I knew voted. My district went for McCain. Our electoral votes were still sent to Obama anyways since Obama gets the whole state or none of it. So thanks to people who don't even live in my electoral district, Obama got our votes even though he lost the district. That system guarantees that 3rd parties can't get anything in the electoral college even if they get a sizable minority of the votes. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote and zero electoral college votes. Unless we abolished the electoral college, two parties are all that is going to ever matter.

 

Yea, that is crappy.  What is the defense of the electoral college?  I imagine there is one.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
"if people just voted for

"if people just voted for who they wanted, instead of holding their noses and voting for the least of 2 evils we wouldnt have this problem"

Why is the classic libertarian solution for voting for the lesser of two evils voting for the lesser of three evils?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:I like

Jormungander wrote:

I like Ron Paul, but this is clearly a bad poll. Even Dr. Paul mentions that in the video. The man in unelectable. It is as simple as that. He is the only politician that I actually like though.

Fucking... ditto to this!

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
On the other hand.

atomicdogg34 wrote:


well im sure a television evangelist would appear to win a debate against a run of the mill scientist because public speaking is all they do, but when it comes to actual ideas ron paul would beat obama hands down, paul would punch holes in just about everything obama said

but if you wanted a real debate, good speaker versus good speaker (and admittedly paul isnt nearly as polished a speaker as obama) id say rons son rand would hold up well, or perhaps peter schiff, both know their stuff and speak very well

Yet in the case of Ron Paul, we have no evidence whatsoever that Ron is going to stick to his guns 100 or even 90% of the time as Commander-in-Chief. He is uncharacteristically principled when it comes to Congressional votes, but that is all he has proven himself.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:btw, a

atomicdogg34 wrote:

btw, a ron paul-obama debate would be hilarious, obama would get ripped apart

He wasn't able to best McCain and Romney in a debate either....

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
nutxaq wrote:atomicdogg34

nutxaq wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

btw, a ron paul-obama debate would be hilarious, obama would get ripped apart

He wasn't able to best McCain and Romney in a debate either....

 

LOL

 

did you actually watch any of the debates? paul won every single one, and most of the polls backed that up (not that polls mean a whole lot)

and this despite the fact that he was given very little time to talk

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:atomicdogg34

Kapkao wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:


 

well im sure a television evangelist would appear to win a debate against a run of the mill scientist because public speaking is all they do, but when it comes to actual ideas ron paul would beat obama hands down, paul would punch holes in just about everything obama said

but if you wanted a real debate, good speaker versus good speaker (and admittedly paul isnt nearly as polished a speaker as obama) id say rons son rand would hold up well, or perhaps peter schiff, both know their stuff and speak very well

Yet in the case of Ron Paul, we have no evidence whatsoever that Ron is going to stick to his guns 100 or even 90% of the time as Commander-in-Chief. He is uncharacteristically principled when it comes to Congressional votes, but that is all he has proven himself.

 

the fact that anything hes ever said and every vote hes ever taken has been consistent with his principles IS the evidence

any atheist (dunno if you are one but im assuming) should know that, your basically arguing in a way a theist would when it comes to science

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:Kapkao

atomicdogg34 wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:


 

well im sure a television evangelist would appear to win a debate against a run of the mill scientist because public speaking is all they do, but when it comes to actual ideas ron paul would beat obama hands down, paul would punch holes in just about everything obama said

but if you wanted a real debate, good speaker versus good speaker (and admittedly paul isnt nearly as polished a speaker as obama) id say rons son rand would hold up well, or perhaps peter schiff, both know their stuff and speak very well

Yet in the case of Ron Paul, we have no evidence whatsoever that Ron is going to stick to his guns 100 or even 90% of the time as Commander-in-Chief. He is uncharacteristically principled when it comes to Congressional votes, but that is all he has proven himself.

 

the fact that anything hes ever said and every vote hes ever taken has been consistent with his principles IS the evidence

any atheist (dunno if you are one but im assuming) should know that, your basically arguing in a way a theist would when it comes to science

But are his principles Republican or Libertarian? That's the question I have.

Again, I'm back to why is voting for the lesser of three evils better than voting for the lesser of two?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
I agree that the poll

I agree that the poll probably means nothing in and of itself.... however (I'm Hoping) that it might signify more people feeling that neither party is serving their best interests right now... 


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:


 

well im sure a television evangelist would appear to win a debate against a run of the mill scientist because public speaking is all they do, but when it comes to actual ideas ron paul would beat obama hands down, paul would punch holes in just about everything obama said

but if you wanted a real debate, good speaker versus good speaker (and admittedly paul isnt nearly as polished a speaker as obama) id say rons son rand would hold up well, or perhaps peter schiff, both know their stuff and speak very well

Yet in the case of Ron Paul, we have no evidence whatsoever that Ron is going to stick to his guns 100 or even 90% of the time as Commander-in-Chief. He is uncharacteristically principled when it comes to Congressional votes, but that is all he has proven himself.

 

the fact that anything hes ever said and every vote hes ever taken has been consistent with his principles IS the evidence

any atheist (dunno if you are one but im assuming) should know that, your basically arguing in a way a theist would when it comes to science

But are his principles Republican or Libertarian? That's the question I have.

Again, I'm back to why is voting for the lesser of three evils better than voting for the lesser of two?

 

does it matter what label his principles fall under?

never said vote for the lesser of 3 evils, all i said is vote for who you want, not on who you think you should vote for because you dont think your guy has a chance

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:


 

well im sure a television evangelist would appear to win a debate against a run of the mill scientist because public speaking is all they do, but when it comes to actual ideas ron paul would beat obama hands down, paul would punch holes in just about everything obama said

but if you wanted a real debate, good speaker versus good speaker (and admittedly paul isnt nearly as polished a speaker as obama) id say rons son rand would hold up well, or perhaps peter schiff, both know their stuff and speak very well

Yet in the case of Ron Paul, we have no evidence whatsoever that Ron is going to stick to his guns 100 or even 90% of the time as Commander-in-Chief. He is uncharacteristically principled when it comes to Congressional votes, but that is all he has proven himself.

 

the fact that anything hes ever said and every vote hes ever taken has been consistent with his principles IS the evidence

any atheist (dunno if you are one but im assuming) should know that, your basically arguing in a way a theist would when it comes to science

But are his principles Republican or Libertarian? That's the question I have.

Again, I'm back to why is voting for the lesser of three evils better than voting for the lesser of two?

 

does it matter what label his principles fall under?

never said vote for the lesser of 3 evils, all i said is vote for who you want, not on who you think you should vote for because you dont think your guy has a chance

It matters because his votes have been straight line Republican with few if any exceptions. If his votes fall in line with his principles, he's a republican, not a libertarian.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:It matters

jcgadfly wrote:

It matters because his votes have been straight line Republican with few if any exceptions. If his votes fall in line with his principles, he's a republican, not a libertarian.

He IS a Republican. He doesn't just vote like a Republican, he is a Republican politician. Us libertarians get that. There are libertarian Republicans and Democrats. Libertarians are spread amongst the left, center and right wings of politics. Ron Paul is a right wing libertarian. The left libertarians don't like him and the Republicans are ambivalent. He has a 76% Republican voting record. That is hardly "with few if any exceptions." I looked at some Republican congressmen's voting records and found that they voted party line well over 90% of the time. So Ron Paul's 76% party line voting record means he is a particularly bad Republican. But he seems to vote in alignment with what he says, and that's all that matters. And as a right wing libertarian he more often than not votes in the way that a lot of Republicans are voting.

 

Bunch of stats:

"Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. Rated 76% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record.  Rated A by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record. Rated +30 by NORML, indicating a pro-drug-reform stance. Rated 30% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. Rated 89% by NTU, indicating a "Taxpayer's Friend" on tax votes. Rated 0% by the CTJ, indicating opposition to progressive taxation. Voted against war because Iraq was not a national threat. Voted YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq. Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days."

So he like free trade, gun rights, low taxes, no military aggression, get troops out of Iraq. Libertarians can get behind all that. He's a hell of a lot more libertarian than most politicians. But he is (in a bad way) right wing on some issues. So, like all things in life he isn't perfect. He is merely better than the others.

And I love that he (age 74) has an anti-senior voting record. I guess not pandering to the relatively wealthy elderly segment of the population by giving them a disproportionately large amount of the tax money that was gathered from the relatively poor younger portion of the population (ie. a very regressive tax situation) makes you anti-senior even while others claim that you are 100% anti-progressive taxation. Politics is awesome.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
i dont find him particularly

i dont find him particularly right wing on anything

what are right wing stances anyways?

abortion? he thinks the states should deal with it

marriage? he doesnt think the govt should be involved at all

economics? he def isnt right wing, hes a free market capitalist not a keynesian/corporatist

foreign policy? HA

drug war? wants to end it

 

the fact is, whatever label you want to give him, republican/constitutionalist/libertarian/etc, his votes follow exactly what he says, hes principles and honest, and to me is a breathe of fresh air

 

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:i dont

atomicdogg34 wrote:

i dont find him particularly right wing on anything

what are right wing stances anyways?

abortion? he thinks the states should deal with it

marriage? he doesnt think the govt should be involved at all

economics? he def isnt right wing, hes a free market capitalist not a keynesian/corporatist

foreign policy? HA

drug war? wants to end it

 

the fact is, whatever label you want to give him, republican/constitutionalist/libertarian/etc, his votes follow exactly what he says, hes principles and honest, and to me is a breathe of fresh air

 

Then why is he voting with the republicans three-fourths of the time? Or do you believe the repubs are states rights people also?

He has principles but doesn't like to vote them?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

i dont find him particularly right wing on anything

what are right wing stances anyways?

abortion? he thinks the states should deal with it

marriage? he doesnt think the govt should be involved at all

economics? he def isnt right wing, hes a free market capitalist not a keynesian/corporatist

foreign policy? HA

drug war? wants to end it

 

the fact is, whatever label you want to give him, republican/constitutionalist/libertarian/etc, his votes follow exactly what he says, hes principles and honest, and to me is a breathe of fresh air

 

Then why is he voting with the republicans three-fourths of the time? Or do you believe the repubs are states rights people also?

He has principles but doesn't like to vote them?

 

can you name 1 time where he didnt vote on principle?

your saying he voted with the repubs 3/4 of the time, do you know what those votes were taken on?

sounds like an ad hominem to me

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


radikal
Posts: 15
Joined: 2009-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Ron Paul is not a Libertarian.

Ron Paul is a social conservative and  state rights advocate. He is not libertarian in the traditional sense of the word. I guess you could call him a capitalist libertarian, but that kind of negates the purpose of being libertarian in the first place.

For example, Ron Paul is personally against gay marriage and would not be against a state imposing laws against gay marriage. A traditional libertarian would be against this because the state has no right to impose on an individuals freedom.  Ron Paul is also against abortions, which is a social conservative position.  A libertarian would see this as an attempt to interfere with a woman's right to control her own body. Libertarian's stress individuals rights over government interference.  libertarians are not the same as social conservatives. For instance, libertarians were for woman's right to vote, arguing that the government has no right to restrict women's freedoms. Ron Paul (aka the fake libertarian) would argue that it is up to the state to decide.

Sadly, Reagan and the republicans have created a myth of that being social conservative is the same as being libertarian. In the 1980's Ron Paul supported Ronald Reagan for president.  He often quotes Ronald Reagan in his campaign speeches, as do many of his followers. To say that Ron Paul is not affiliated with republicans is silly. Many conservative talk show hosts like Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter have publicly supported him. 

Im actually surprised he has support from secularists. Ron Paul has publicly stated he does not believe in evolution. He also does not believe in the government funding causes dedicated toward science. He doesn't believe in government funding scholarships either. You could argue that he does support it for state programs, but we know full well that many states cannot afford these programs. Clearly, this would be a horrifying scenario in terms of educating the public and expanding scientific knowledge.

 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

i dont find him particularly right wing on anything

what are right wing stances anyways?

abortion? he thinks the states should deal with it

marriage? he doesnt think the govt should be involved at all

economics? he def isnt right wing, hes a free market capitalist not a keynesian/corporatist

foreign policy? HA

drug war? wants to end it

 

the fact is, whatever label you want to give him, republican/constitutionalist/libertarian/etc, his votes follow exactly what he says, hes principles and honest, and to me is a breathe of fresh air

 

Then why is he voting with the republicans three-fourths of the time? Or do you believe the repubs are states rights people also?

He has principles but doesn't like to vote them?

 

can you name 1 time where he didnt vote on principle?

your saying he voted with the repubs 3/4 of the time, do you know what those votes were taken on?

sounds like an ad hominem to me

I never said he didn't vote on his principles - I just said that for at least 76% of the time (according to Jormungander) his votes sided with the republican corporatists.

So are his principles the same as republican corporatists or does he just go along to get along?

I iquestioned his principles and didn't insult him so it's no ad hominem.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
well paul doesnt think the

well paul doesnt think the govt should be involved in the marriage question at all, but a state by state approach is far better and can achieve atleast incremental progress whereas at the federal lvl this issue usually goes nowhere

ron paul on abortion and stem cell research:

 

a pretty nuanced stance is you ask me

i sure as hell dont want the govt deciding which scientific issues should get funded and which shouldnt, govt interference debauches the scientific endeavour

as for education, the federal govt has done nothing but fuck it up whilst spending more and more on the issue

i dont give a shit if he doesnt believe in evolution because he isnt trying to push that view on others, he keeps his religious ideas private where they should be

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

i dont find him particularly right wing on anything

what are right wing stances anyways?

abortion? he thinks the states should deal with it

marriage? he doesnt think the govt should be involved at all

economics? he def isnt right wing, hes a free market capitalist not a keynesian/corporatist

foreign policy? HA

drug war? wants to end it

 

the fact is, whatever label you want to give him, republican/constitutionalist/libertarian/etc, his votes follow exactly what he says, hes principles and honest, and to me is a breathe of fresh air

 

Then why is he voting with the republicans three-fourths of the time? Or do you believe the repubs are states rights people also?

He has principles but doesn't like to vote them?

 

can you name 1 time where he didnt vote on principle?

your saying he voted with the repubs 3/4 of the time, do you know what those votes were taken on?

sounds like an ad hominem to me

I never said he didn't vote on his principles - I just said that for at least 76% of the time (according to Jormungander) his votes sided with the republican corporatists.

So are his principles the same as republican corporatists or does he just go along to get along?

I iquestioned his principles and didn't insult him so it's no ad hominem.

 

you have no idea what those votes where on so i dont know where you get off saying something that ridiculous, if you could even come up with one concrete example of paul voting in such a way where he could be considered a corporatist it might help your argument

and if you knew anything about pauls economic philosophy youd know that even to infer such a thing (that hes a corporatist) is ridiculous

"go along to get along" LOL, paul has been the lone vote against pieces of legislation more than all other members of congress combined probably, the man isnt considered part of the establishment by anyone

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

i dont find him particularly right wing on anything

what are right wing stances anyways?

abortion? he thinks the states should deal with it

marriage? he doesnt think the govt should be involved at all

economics? he def isnt right wing, hes a free market capitalist not a keynesian/corporatist

foreign policy? HA

drug war? wants to end it

 

the fact is, whatever label you want to give him, republican/constitutionalist/libertarian/etc, his votes follow exactly what he says, hes principles and honest, and to me is a breathe of fresh air

 

Then why is he voting with the republicans three-fourths of the time? Or do you believe the repubs are states rights people also?

He has principles but doesn't like to vote them?

 

can you name 1 time where he didnt vote on principle?

your saying he voted with the repubs 3/4 of the time, do you know what those votes were taken on?

sounds like an ad hominem to me

I never said he didn't vote on his principles - I just said that for at least 76% of the time (according to Jormungander) his votes sided with the republican corporatists.

So are his principles the same as republican corporatists or does he just go along to get along?

I iquestioned his principles and didn't insult him so it's no ad hominem.

 

you have no idea what those votes where on so i dont know where you get off saying something that ridiculous, if you could even come up with one concrete example of paul voting in such a way where he could be considered a corporatist it might help your argument

and if you knew anything about pauls economic philosophy youd know that even to infer such a thing (that hes a corporatist) is ridiculous

"go along to get along" LOL, paul has been the lone vote against pieces of legislation more than all other members of congress combined probably, the man isnt considered part of the establishment by anyone

Actually, I'd have to give a damn first. All I ask is that those who worship at Paul's feet take a look at the man. Look him in the eyes not up his cock.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
radikal wrote:I guess you

radikal wrote:

I guess you could call him a capitalist libertarian, but that kind of negates the purpose of being libertarian in the first place.

I have never personally met a non-capitalist libertarian. I know that they exist on the internet, but most libertarians seem to be hard-core capitalists. I am a capitalist libertarian.

 

 

radikal wrote:

Ron Paul is also against abortions, which is a social conservative position.  A libertarian would see this as an attempt to interfere with a woman's right to control her own body.

Libertarians are split on this one. The logic of the antis being something along the lines of "women have control over their bodies, but that doesn't mean that they get to kill fetuses that are dependent on them, abortion=murder, the government can legitimately interfere in order to prevent murder." I do not subscribe to that logic. Sentience is where rights come from. Abortions early in a pregnancy violate no one's rights.

 

radikal wrote:

He often quotes Ronald Reagan in his campaign speeches, as do many of his followers.

There are some great Reagan quotes. Reagan failed to live up to them, but the quotes are great. I have no objection to using them. I think that my sig here was a Reagan quote for a while.

 

radikal wrote:

You could argue that he does support it for state programs, but we know full well that many states cannot afford these programs. Clearly, this would be a horrifying scenario in terms of educating the public and expanding scientific knowledge.

Those states could afford them if federal taxes were slashed and state taxes were increased.

 

radikal wrote:

Sadly, Reagan and the republicans have created a myth of that being social conservative is the same as being libertarian.

Completely untrue. They mean to say that FISCAL conservatism and small-government conservative ideology is a lot like libertarianism. If all conservatives were like Goldwater we'de be the best of political allies. Libertarianism is, broadly speaking, socially left wing and fiscally right wing. We all get it that the social conservatives are our political enemies. But liberals get a hard on from reckless spending and increased tax rates. So libertarians sometimes end up voting for conservatives in the hopes that they will actually follow through with fiscally conservative policies. Sadly they don't for the most part. But the libs are often worse. Oh well, what can you do?

 

radikal wrote:

All I ask is that those who worship at Paul's feet take a look at the man. Look him in the eyes not up his cock.

You think that this accurately describes anyone on this forum? I wouldn't say that were too busy sucking his cock to get it that he is flawed.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

i dont find him particularly right wing on anything

what are right wing stances anyways?

abortion? he thinks the states should deal with it

marriage? he doesnt think the govt should be involved at all

economics? he def isnt right wing, hes a free market capitalist not a keynesian/corporatist

foreign policy? HA

drug war? wants to end it

 

the fact is, whatever label you want to give him, republican/constitutionalist/libertarian/etc, his votes follow exactly what he says, hes principles and honest, and to me is a breathe of fresh air

 

Then why is he voting with the republicans three-fourths of the time? Or do you believe the repubs are states rights people also?

He has principles but doesn't like to vote them?

 

can you name 1 time where he didnt vote on principle?

your saying he voted with the repubs 3/4 of the time, do you know what those votes were taken on?

sounds like an ad hominem to me

I never said he didn't vote on his principles - I just said that for at least 76% of the time (according to Jormungander) his votes sided with the republican corporatists.

So are his principles the same as republican corporatists or does he just go along to get along?

I iquestioned his principles and didn't insult him so it's no ad hominem.

 

you have no idea what those votes where on so i dont know where you get off saying something that ridiculous, if you could even come up with one concrete example of paul voting in such a way where he could be considered a corporatist it might help your argument

and if you knew anything about pauls economic philosophy youd know that even to infer such a thing (that hes a corporatist) is ridiculous

"go along to get along" LOL, paul has been the lone vote against pieces of legislation more than all other members of congress combined probably, the man isnt considered part of the establishment by anyone

Actually, I'd have to give a damn first. All I ask is that those who worship at Paul's feet take a look at the man. Look him in the eyes not up his cock.

 

and there we have it

next time dont even bother posting

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

i dont find him particularly right wing on anything

what are right wing stances anyways?

abortion? he thinks the states should deal with it

marriage? he doesnt think the govt should be involved at all

economics? he def isnt right wing, hes a free market capitalist not a keynesian/corporatist

foreign policy? HA

drug war? wants to end it

 

the fact is, whatever label you want to give him, republican/constitutionalist/libertarian/etc, his votes follow exactly what he says, hes principles and honest, and to me is a breathe of fresh air

 

Then why is he voting with the republicans three-fourths of the time? Or do you believe the repubs are states rights people also?

He has principles but doesn't like to vote them?

 

can you name 1 time where he didnt vote on principle?

your saying he voted with the repubs 3/4 of the time, do you know what those votes were taken on?

sounds like an ad hominem to me

I never said he didn't vote on his principles - I just said that for at least 76% of the time (according to Jormungander) his votes sided with the republican corporatists.

So are his principles the same as republican corporatists or does he just go along to get along?

I iquestioned his principles and didn't insult him so it's no ad hominem.

 

you have no idea what those votes where on so i dont know where you get off saying something that ridiculous, if you could even come up with one concrete example of paul voting in such a way where he could be considered a corporatist it might help your argument

and if you knew anything about pauls economic philosophy youd know that even to infer such a thing (that hes a corporatist) is ridiculous

"go along to get along" LOL, paul has been the lone vote against pieces of legislation more than all other members of congress combined probably, the man isnt considered part of the establishment by anyone

Actually, I'd have to give a damn first. All I ask is that those who worship at Paul's feet take a look at the man. Look him in the eyes not up his cock.

 

and there we have it

next time dont even bother posting

Poor boy - did I disturb your worship service?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:the fact

atomicdogg34 wrote:
the fact that anything hes ever said and every vote hes ever taken has been consistent with his principles IS the evidence

any atheist (dunno if you are one but im assuming) should know that, your basically arguing in a way a theist would when it comes to science

Straw man.

Intellectual integrity isn't one of your strong points, is it?


Penalty! FOUR DOWN!

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
I think people know deep

I think people know deep down that people like Ron Paul are right. But then what happens during the campaign is that the other politicians promise guns and butter, a chicken in every pot, and something for nothing. All the morons that fall for scams like religion fall for these as well.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I think people

EXC wrote:

I think people know deep down that people like Ron Paul are right. But then what happens during the campaign is that the other politicians promise guns and butter, a chicken in every pot, and something for nothing. All the morons that fall for scams like religion fall for these as well.

 

Why do you exclude Ron Paul from making promises to get elected? Do you really think that he's the only one who would stand by his campaign pledges?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Why do you

jcgadfly wrote:

Why do you exclude Ron Paul from making promises to get elected? Do you really think that he's the only one who would stand by his campaign pledges?

Look at his voting record. So far he hasn't made empty promises. He will gladly be the lone dissenting vote in opposition to the rest of Congress. He really doesn't just go with the flow. He really does stick to his guns when it comes to making his voting record match his rhetoric.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Why do you

jcgadfly wrote:

 

Why do you exclude Ron Paul from making promises to get elected? Do you really think that he's the only one who would stand by his campaign pledges?

Then he wouldn't be sticking to his core values of what he knows is true. He'd be just another politician. Also he doesn't believe in spending money he doesn't have so he would not have to break any promises because there is no money to pay for the promises.

The percentage of voters with critical thinking skills is so low(90% theist for starters) that a politician like Ron Paul will be beaten every time by Republicans and Democrats that promise the constituents more entitlements them and higher taxes on someone else.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:atomicdogg34

Kapkao wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:
the fact that anything hes ever said and every vote hes ever taken has been consistent with his principles IS the evidence

any atheist (dunno if you are one but im assuming) should know that, your basically arguing in a way a theist would when it comes to science

Straw man.

Intellectual integrity isn't one of your strong points, is it?


Penalty! FOUR DOWN!

 

dont see how its any different, its equivalent to saying you cant disprove God therefore he exists, i cant disprove Ron Paul might do something else while in office if ever elected president but all the evidence seems to point that he wouldnt

how is calling attention to the similarity intellectual dishonesty?

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

i dont find him particularly right wing on anything

what are right wing stances anyways?

abortion? he thinks the states should deal with it

marriage? he doesnt think the govt should be involved at all

economics? he def isnt right wing, hes a free market capitalist not a keynesian/corporatist

foreign policy? HA

drug war? wants to end it

 

the fact is, whatever label you want to give him, republican/constitutionalist/libertarian/etc, his votes follow exactly what he says, hes principles and honest, and to me is a breathe of fresh air

 

Then why is he voting with the republicans three-fourths of the time? Or do you believe the repubs are states rights people also?

He has principles but doesn't like to vote them?

 

can you name 1 time where he didnt vote on principle?

your saying he voted with the repubs 3/4 of the time, do you know what those votes were taken on?

sounds like an ad hominem to me

I never said he didn't vote on his principles - I just said that for at least 76% of the time (according to Jormungander) his votes sided with the republican corporatists.

So are his principles the same as republican corporatists or does he just go along to get along?

I iquestioned his principles and didn't insult him so it's no ad hominem.

 

you have no idea what those votes where on so i dont know where you get off saying something that ridiculous, if you could even come up with one concrete example of paul voting in such a way where he could be considered a corporatist it might help your argument

and if you knew anything about pauls economic philosophy youd know that even to infer such a thing (that hes a corporatist) is ridiculous

"go along to get along" LOL, paul has been the lone vote against pieces of legislation more than all other members of congress combined probably, the man isnt considered part of the establishment by anyone

Actually, I'd have to give a damn first. All I ask is that those who worship at Paul's feet take a look at the man. Look him in the eyes not up his cock.

 

and there we have it

next time dont even bother posting

Poor boy - did I disturb your worship service?

 

 

LOL

you- "ron paul has the same corporatist values as the repubs because he voted with them 3/4 of the time" (atleast that was the definite inference)

me- "can you point to 1 specific vote where he didnt vote his principles?"

you- "well no but....."

 

 

 

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:how is

atomicdogg34 wrote:

how is calling attention to the similarity intellectual dishonesty?

ad34 wrote:
your basically arguing in a way a theist would when it comes to science (ed note:as well as the rest of that quirky, unwieldy post...)

Straw. Man. Straw-man!

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

i dont find him particularly right wing on anything

what are right wing stances anyways?

abortion? he thinks the states should deal with it

marriage? he doesnt think the govt should be involved at all

economics? he def isnt right wing, hes a free market capitalist not a keynesian/corporatist

foreign policy? HA

drug war? wants to end it

 

the fact is, whatever label you want to give him, republican/constitutionalist/libertarian/etc, his votes follow exactly what he says, hes principles and honest, and to me is a breathe of fresh air

 

Then why is he voting with the republicans three-fourths of the time? Or do you believe the repubs are states rights people also?

He has principles but doesn't like to vote them?

 

can you name 1 time where he didnt vote on principle?

your saying he voted with the repubs 3/4 of the time, do you know what those votes were taken on?

sounds like an ad hominem to me

I never said he didn't vote on his principles - I just said that for at least 76% of the time (according to Jormungander) his votes sided with the republican corporatists.

So are his principles the same as republican corporatists or does he just go along to get along?

I iquestioned his principles and didn't insult him so it's no ad hominem.

 

you have no idea what those votes where on so i dont know where you get off saying something that ridiculous, if you could even come up with one concrete example of paul voting in such a way where he could be considered a corporatist it might help your argument

and if you knew anything about pauls economic philosophy youd know that even to infer such a thing (that hes a corporatist) is ridiculous

"go along to get along" LOL, paul has been the lone vote against pieces of legislation more than all other members of congress combined probably, the man isnt considered part of the establishment by anyone

Actually, I'd have to give a damn first. All I ask is that those who worship at Paul's feet take a look at the man. Look him in the eyes not up his cock.

 

and there we have it

next time dont even bother posting

Poor boy - did I disturb your worship service?

 

 

LOL

you- "ron paul has the same corporatist values as the repubs because he voted with them 3/4 of the time" (atleast that was the definite inference)

me- "can you point to 1 specific vote where he didnt vote his principles?"

you- "well no but....."

 

 

 

Damn, you almost told the truth.

You forgot Jormundgander's "Ron Paul votes with the Republicans 76% of the time" and another's mentioning that some of the principals of Fox News endorsing the man. I didn't come up with that on my own.

Learn to lie a little better and you might pass as a Christian.

You remind me of those idiots who called Obama a progressive and anointed him their savior. Next you'll probably canonize Bob Barr. Hell, he at least ran as a Libertarian. Paul can't say that yet, can he?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

i dont find him particularly right wing on anything

what are right wing stances anyways?

abortion? he thinks the states should deal with it

marriage? he doesnt think the govt should be involved at all

economics? he def isnt right wing, hes a free market capitalist not a keynesian/corporatist

foreign policy? HA

drug war? wants to end it

 

the fact is, whatever label you want to give him, republican/constitutionalist/libertarian/etc, his votes follow exactly what he says, hes principles and honest, and to me is a breathe of fresh air

 

Then why is he voting with the republicans three-fourths of the time? Or do you believe the repubs are states rights people also?

He has principles but doesn't like to vote them?

 

can you name 1 time where he didnt vote on principle?

your saying he voted with the repubs 3/4 of the time, do you know what those votes were taken on?

sounds like an ad hominem to me

I never said he didn't vote on his principles - I just said that for at least 76% of the time (according to Jormungander) his votes sided with the republican corporatists.

So are his principles the same as republican corporatists or does he just go along to get along?

I iquestioned his principles and didn't insult him so it's no ad hominem.

 

you have no idea what those votes where on so i dont know where you get off saying something that ridiculous, if you could even come up with one concrete example of paul voting in such a way where he could be considered a corporatist it might help your argument

and if you knew anything about pauls economic philosophy youd know that even to infer such a thing (that hes a corporatist) is ridiculous

"go along to get along" LOL, paul has been the lone vote against pieces of legislation more than all other members of congress combined probably, the man isnt considered part of the establishment by anyone

Actually, I'd have to give a damn first. All I ask is that those who worship at Paul's feet take a look at the man. Look him in the eyes not up his cock.

 

and there we have it

next time dont even bother posting

Poor boy - did I disturb your worship service?

 

 

LOL

you- "ron paul has the same corporatist values as the repubs because he voted with them 3/4 of the time" (atleast that was the definite inference)

me- "can you point to 1 specific vote where he didnt vote his principles?"

you- "well no but....."

 

 

 

Damn, you almost told the truth.

You forgot Jormundgander's "Ron Paul votes with the Republicans 76% of the time" and another's mentioning that some of the principals of Fox News endorsing the man. I didn't come up with that on my own.

Learn to lie a little better and you might pass as a Christian.

You remind me of those idiots who called Obama a progressive and anointed him their savior. Next you'll probably canonize Bob Barr. Hell, he at least ran as a Libertarian. Paul can't say that yet, can he?

 

your real fucking thick arent you

so what if he voted with repubs 76% of the time, its what the votes are on that matters, and you cant point out a single vote that shows paul to be a corporatist or where he compromised his principles

im perplexed that some cant tell the difference

obfuscating at its best

 

edit: and who on fox news outside of judge napolitano endorses ron paul?  and even if the entire fox news crew endorsed him what would that prove? absolutely nothing, ad hominem anyone? fox news endorses him therefore hes bad/corporate/neocon/...?

 

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:atomicdogg34

Kapkao wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

how is calling attention to the similarity intellectual dishonesty?

ad34 wrote:
your basically arguing in a way a theist would when it comes to science (ed note:as well as the rest of that quirky, unwieldy post...)

Straw. Man. Straw-man!

 

so when someone asks how do i know if paul would do what he says if elected president (the insinuation being that i cant disprove that he wouldnt) and i point out that all the evidence up to this point shows he would (all his votes, everything hes ever said) isnt analogous to a theist saying that i cant disprove God therefore i cant make a judgement on it despite all the evidence up to this point shows  that he doesnt exist?

maybe people are missing the analogy, i dunno

edit: and apparently you dont even know what a straw man is, since i didnt attack a weakened version of his argument, i made an analogy between his argument and an argument of a different sort to point out the similarity of the 2 when it comes to the idea of proving a negative, perhaps i should have been more specific from the start when it came to the particular argument i was using as an analogy instead of just saying"science"

 

 

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:so when

atomicdogg34 wrote:
so when someone asks how do i know if paul would do what he says if elected president (the insinuation being that i cant disprove that he wouldnt) and i point out that all the evidence up to this point shows he would (all his votes, everything hes ever said) isnt analogous to a theist saying that i cant disprove God therefore i cant make a judgement on it despite all the evidence up to this point shows  that he doesnt exist?

maybe people are missing the analogy, i dunno

edit: and apparently you dont even know what a straw man is, since i didnt attack a weakened version of his argument, i made an analogy between his argument and an argument of a different sort to point out the similarity of the 2 when it comes to the idea of proving a negative, perhaps i should have been more specific from the start when it came to the particular argument i was using as an analogy instead of just saying"science"

You just don't know how to fuckin' argue your viewpoint(s), apparently. At that, I'm not particularly inclined to demonstrate 'how' for you. However...

Quote:
Yet in the case of Ron Paul, we have no evidence whatsoever that Ron is going to stick to his guns 100 or even 90% of the time as Commander-in-Chief. He is uncharacteristically principled when it comes to Congressional votes, but that is all he has proven himself.

...is just a simple statement of fact on it's face. You may not agree with the point I'm trying to make, but that doesn't negate the validity of my post content.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

i dont find him particularly right wing on anything

what are right wing stances anyways?

abortion? he thinks the states should deal with it

marriage? he doesnt think the govt should be involved at all

economics? he def isnt right wing, hes a free market capitalist not a keynesian/corporatist

foreign policy? HA

drug war? wants to end it

 

the fact is, whatever label you want to give him, republican/constitutionalist/libertarian/etc, his votes follow exactly what he says, hes principles and honest, and to me is a breathe of fresh air

 

Then why is he voting with the republicans three-fourths of the time? Or do you believe the repubs are states rights people also?

He has principles but doesn't like to vote them?

 

can you name 1 time where he didnt vote on principle?

your saying he voted with the repubs 3/4 of the time, do you know what those votes were taken on?

sounds like an ad hominem to me

I never said he didn't vote on his principles - I just said that for at least 76% of the time (according to Jormungander) his votes sided with the republican corporatists.

So are his principles the same as republican corporatists or does he just go along to get along?

I iquestioned his principles and didn't insult him so it's no ad hominem.

 

you have no idea what those votes where on so i dont know where you get off saying something that ridiculous, if you could even come up with one concrete example of paul voting in such a way where he could be considered a corporatist it might help your argument

and if you knew anything about pauls economic philosophy youd know that even to infer such a thing (that hes a corporatist) is ridiculous

"go along to get along" LOL, paul has been the lone vote against pieces of legislation more than all other members of congress combined probably, the man isnt considered part of the establishment by anyone

Actually, I'd have to give a damn first. All I ask is that those who worship at Paul's feet take a look at the man. Look him in the eyes not up his cock.

 

and there we have it

next time dont even bother posting

Poor boy - did I disturb your worship service?

 

 

LOL

you- "ron paul has the same corporatist values as the repubs because he voted with them 3/4 of the time" (atleast that was the definite inference)

me- "can you point to 1 specific vote where he didnt vote his principles?"

you- "well no but....."

 

 

 

Damn, you almost told the truth.

You forgot Jormundgander's "Ron Paul votes with the Republicans 76% of the time" and another's mentioning that some of the principals of Fox News endorsing the man. I didn't come up with that on my own.

Learn to lie a little better and you might pass as a Christian.

You remind me of those idiots who called Obama a progressive and anointed him their savior. Next you'll probably canonize Bob Barr. Hell, he at least ran as a Libertarian. Paul can't say that yet, can he?

 

your real fucking thick arent you

so what if he voted with repubs 76% of the time, its what the votes are on that matters, and you cant point out a single vote that shows paul to be a corporatist or where he compromised his principles

im perplexed that some cant tell the difference

obfuscating at its best

 

edit: and who on fox news outside of judge napolitano endorses ron paul?  and even if the entire fox news crew endorsed him what would that prove? absolutely nothing, ad hominem anyone? fox news endorses him therefore hes bad/corporate/neocon/...?

 

Well, let me see, pissant.

How about voting for the status quo on health care because what he wants can't be implemented immediately?

Or voting against stem cell research?

Wanting to repeal the income tax because he doesn't want to pay for government? I see him not voting for raises but not taking a pay cut.

Voting against helping the economy in the only way that has worked since the depression?

Is cool about people getting beaten or killed because of race or sexual preference (voted against hate crimes legislation)? 

Wants to give tax breaks to Christian schools that public schools won't get?

Doesn't seem to give a shit about getting off of foreign energy sources or helping to keep what air we have left for breathing?

Need more pissant? Can I pull you away from Paul's waistline to respond?

As for Fox News's endorsement, it doesn't mean Paul is a corporatist but when the corporatists back him - it gives me pause.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:atomicdogg34

Kapkao wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:
so when someone asks how do i know if paul would do what he says if elected president (the insinuation being that i cant disprove that he wouldnt) and i point out that all the evidence up to this point shows he would (all his votes, everything hes ever said) isnt analogous to a theist saying that i cant disprove God therefore i cant make a judgement on it despite all the evidence up to this point shows  that he doesnt exist?

maybe people are missing the analogy, i dunno

edit: and apparently you dont even know what a straw man is, since i didnt attack a weakened version of his argument, i made an analogy between his argument and an argument of a different sort to point out the similarity of the 2 when it comes to the idea of proving a negative, perhaps i should have been more specific from the start when it came to the particular argument i was using as an analogy instead of just saying"science"

You just don't know how to fuckin' argue your viewpoint(s), apparently. At that, I'm not particularly inclined to demonstrate 'how' for you. However...

Quote:
Yet in the case of Ron Paul, we have no evidence whatsoever that Ron is going to stick to his guns 100 or even 90% of the time as Commander-in-Chief. He is uncharacteristically principled when it comes to Congressional votes, but that is all he has proven himself.

...is just a simple statement of fact on it's face. You may not agree with the point I'm trying to make, but that doesn't negate the validity of my post content.

 

well your point is ridiculous, your basically asking someone to prove a negative

theres no way i can prove that he will stick to his principles as president except to point out that hes done so thus far, which IS evidence

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
*sniggers*Again, someone

*sniggers*

Again, someone doesn't like my opinion of their favorite political idol. So they flail their arms back and forth hoping to prove something that isn't even worth the time of day.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)