School Me on Ron Paul
Options
Comments
-
how smart can ron paul be if he doesnt believe in evolution?
-
One thing i know is that he will never be president, he doesn't have the campaign funds, not many people outside of the internet even know about this guy, nobody is really c/s him.
-
The good thing about Ron Paul is the fact he seems against wars and military spending. He's against the war on drugs and some other things..
But he has some disastrous ideas....
Most notably that the free market solves everything. Meaning that you should trust consumerism more than democracy.
If a company discriminates against a certain race of people in the real world that is illegal, and the people who are discriminated against can sue. So companies are forced to not be racist.
In ron pauls world the same racist company would be legally be able to discriminate. The only way people could change this is if people were to boycott that company. So, if you live in a racist part of the country where people are ok with racism there could legally be segregated movie theaters, restaurants or busing....
This all seems fishy to me, but if all this is true (which I kind of doubt), then yes Ron Paul's policy in this regard would be problematic.gift from ? to America?
Have you ever read the Bible? Do you know that its a sin for you to set a white man over you as your king?
Do you know that ? is in the processing of judging America aka Babylon the Great to destruction in the book of Revelation?
Ron Paul is a devil illuminati member just like the rest of them. It would be wise to see the bigger picture. He is CONTROLLED opposition just like Obama was controlled opposition to Bush UNTIL he got in office.
Psalm 2
1Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.
5Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
Wow, what is this? Be easy dude, it was just a saying. This is not a religious debate, and I'm not interested in dubious conspiracies.also being anti regulation is kind of ? .
It's like being anti bathing. Like it may suck sometimes but you have to understand why you have it.
Sorry I don't know too much about this. Could you explain?earth two superman wrote: »how smart can ron paul be if he doesnt believe in evolution?
1. You can easily be very "smart" and also not believe in evolution at the same time.
2. Perhaps the belief or disbelief in evolution is entirely irrelevant. I'm trying to vote for a politician, not a scientist.
3. MY personal opinion is to say shame on Ron Paul if he completely rejects evolution. I'm not too big on evolution, but if he completely rejects it, then he loses there. He may just be a product of Texas. Regardless, I'd like to know more about his views on evolution (besides that oen video where he says that he sees it as a mere theory) not because I think it's important politics-wise but because I'm just curious.One thing i know is that he will never be president, he doesn't have the campaign funds, not many people outside of the internet even know about this guy,
true.nobody is really c/s him.
I would say that this, however, is certainly not true. He gets lots of love on internet, tv shows, etc. -
One thing i know is that he will never be president, he doesn't have the campaign funds, not many people outside of the internet even know about this guy, nobody is really c/s him.
i dont know about that. didnt he raise 1 million dollars a couple different times all in one day. .
i dont trust none of these folks. . .ron paul is different than our average candidate. . .i think he shouild be in the white house somewhere. have some control of modeling federal finances .. .
all this shyts smoke and mirrors in the end. i dont believe in this media controled system.
dont think things will positively change no matter what efforts put into it
just cant give up too at the same time -
eddie2time wrote: »i dont know about that. didnt he raise 1 million dollars a couple different times all in one day. .
i dont trust none of these folks. . .ron paul is different than our average candidate. . .i think he shouild be in the white house somewhere. have some control of modeling federal finances .. .
all this shyts smoke and mirrors in the end. i dont believe in this media controled system.
dont think things will positively change no matter what efforts put into it
just cant give up too at the same time
you need more than 1 million dollars to run lol.Advertise. Create commercials to inform people of your views and why you're the best candidate. Pay to get the commercials on television. An effective advertising campaign will cost you around $150 million dollars. Following these steps, you can at least get on the presidential ballot of the United States. How you run the campaign will decide if you win or not.
Read more: How to Run for Office of the President of the United States | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_2304337_run-office-president-united-states.html#ixzz1W3tdXZdN
I don't think he has that type of money or knows anybody who will be willing to put that behind him.
Having the media in your side is a very essential part of winning in this country. -
His son holds this idea too
he compares letting black people in a store to allowing people to carry a gun in a store. -
This all seems fishy to me, but if all this is true (which I kind of doubt), then yes Ron Paul's policy in this regard would be problematic.
He disagrees with part of the civil rights act of 1964...
http://www.morellilaw.com/our-blog/discrimination-civil-rights-lawsuits-and-ron-paul -
His son holds this idea too
he compares letting black people in a store to allowing people to carry a gun in a store.
good drop, but in my opinion, I think that your "analysis" of the interview is oversimplified and misleading. -
He disagrees with part of the civil rights act of 1964...
http://www.morellilaw.com/our-blog/discrimination-civil-rights-lawsuits-and-ron-paul
Yes, he does, and I understand his reason in doing so. And I don't think that reason is particularly racist or ridiculous. -
Yes, he does, and I understand his reason in doing so. And I don't think that reason is particularly racist or ridiculous.
I don't think ron paul is racist. I think ron pauls ideology would lead to a racist climate like the 50's.
Think of it like this if I have a store and I refuse to serve black people and more white people decide to go to my store whats going to stop my store from being racist? And if the other stores in the area start competing with me for the racist white buyers, we'd end up with the same issues that MLK and so many others were fighting against.
Businesses were not segregated because they were forced to by law. They were segregated because it was profitable to do so.
When you make profits the only indicator of who they are going to do business with what's really stopping them from discriminating?
You have to understand that. -
good drop, but in my opinion, I think that your "analysis" of the interview is oversimplified and misleading.
it's not really over simplified. If anything rand paul has an over simplified idea of civil rights. The profits of business's should not trump simple individuals rights to not be discriminated against...
also the civil rights act basically says if you are a business that serves the public you have to actually serve the public. -
earth two superman wrote: »how smart can ron paul be if he doesnt believe in evolution?
Powerful post -
Ron Paul Addresses Hurricane Irene, Says 'There's No Magic About' FEMA (VIDEO)
Posted: 8/27/11 04:42 PM ET
React
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul told NBC News on Friday that "there's no magic about" the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). He said that he doesn't see the need for a federal response to Hurricane Irene as the powerful storm makes its way up the east cost.
"We should be like 1900, we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960," said the Texas congressman in weighing in on the matter during a stop in New Hampshire. He regarded FEMA as a "great contribution to deficit financing."
The presidential contender explained that he lives on the Gulf Coast back in the Lone Star State. He said, "We deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district."
The Hill notes:
A catastrophic storm hit Galveston in 1900, killing thousands.
"We should be coordinated, but coordinated voluntarily with the states," Paul explained. "A state can decide. We don't need somebody in Washington."
---
seriously, i still cant see why ppl like this guy. the fact that tupacfan35 supports him speaks loud, ? volumes. -
he's a ? idiot
there, schooled -
1. You can easily be very "smart" and also not believe in evolution at the same time.
2. Perhaps the belief or disbelief in evolution is entirely irrelevant. I'm trying to vote for a politician, not a scientist.
1. a doctor who doesnt believe in science is a sad thing indeed.
2. if there was a scientist or engineer in every seat in congress and in the white house, no matter what party they were affiliated with, you can bet that a lot of ? would get solved pretty quickly. -
earth two superman wrote: »1. a doctor who doesnt believe in science is a sad thing indeed.
2. if there was a scientist or engineer in every seat in congress and in the white house, no matter what party they were affiliated with, you can bet that a lot of ? would get solved pretty quickly.
word.
expand on what you are saying please. -
I'm not a fan, personally. Not sure any polititians can be considered honest. Even when they think they're telling the truth they end up lying because of the BS surrounding them in office. None of them can really be trusted.
-
I don't think ron paul is racist. I think ron pauls ideology would lead to a racist climate like the 50's.
I highly disagree, for the most part. I think that even though Ron Paul's ideology may lead to more and new freedoms for all peoples, including racists, that doesn't necessarily mean that we will all of a sudden "revert" back to the 50s race-wise. I think that we have made significant progressions since the 50s that are still very compatible with this modern age today.Think of it like this if I have a store and I refuse to serve black people and more white people decide to go to my store whats going to stop my store from being racist?
Perhaps nothing will stop your store from being racist. That's the double edge sword of freedom and liberty. But there would be more to that story, such as the fact that your store would have to be private in order for you to refuse to serve blacks. I personally wouldn't care or try to go to a store that doesn't serve my race. Let them do them, and I'll do me. I'm sure there are other stores that would serve people like me. I'll concentrate on supporting those kinds of stores instead of breaking my back in order to fight for a "privilege" to shop at a store that doesn't respect me in the first place. Doesnt make sense to me. Sounds kind of petty and egocentric to me.And if the other stores in the area start competing with me for the racist white buyers, we'd end up with the same issues that MLK and so many others were fighting against.
I would argue that those issues arent exactyl the same. I think that the biggest distinction here is that most, if not all, of those issues involved public businesses. If I'm not mistaken, the bus transportation that was boycotted was public, not private. We are talking about private owned businesses if I'm correct? Although I think that MLK would have a problem with racist private businesses, his attacks largely focused on public businesses such as public buses, public schools, etc. MLK did not attack racist private jet businesses, if there were such possible businesses during that time.
And let's not forget that even with this current system, racism thrives today in business, even legally. I would think that Ron Paul's ideology could serve to just make matters more real, and get rid of covert racism and let us know where we stand in addition to giving private owners the right to conduct their business the way they want to because it's their right if they are not breaking the law. And let's not get hyperbolic and say that if Ron Paul's ideology was put in effect then the world will go to hell. Either the world is already in hell, or simply, some private businesses (and I would guess, a very few amount of them, especially the big ones) would choose to be racist and most would not. Not every white private business owner is going to suddenly turn their business into a racist one. And who's to say that some private black businesses would not choose to refuse whites? But let's say that some white businesses would be racist, what would happen? That might just give black businesses and black folk and American society at large more power and responsibility to support non racist private business and thus propogate a more progressive society at large. Who knows?Businesses were not segregated because they were forced to by law. They were segregated because it was profitable to do so.
I think that that's actually false. Many, if not all, racist businesses during the time were fundamentally segregated by law. I'm sure that you know about the Jim Crow laws? Racism and segregation were implemented legally after the 1890s until the 1960s by state and local governments. I was just talking to a professor of American history about this some time ago.
I think that I might know what you are talking about when you're talking about profit but that doesn't make too much sense. More customers equal more profit. And especially in today's world, many businesses wouldn't care if it's black or white. As long as they get that money. Racist white restaurants in the old days would also serve blacks too, although they were segregated. Why? For profit. They would also agitate any black owners from starting their own restaurants. Why? For profit. But Ron Paul's ideology does not prevent black enterpreneurs from running thier own restaurants. A big reason why the Montgomery Bus Boycott was successful was because the Buses lost profits because their black customers refused to ride them.When you make profits the only indicator of who they are going to do business with what's really stopping them from discriminating?
I don't know for sure what youre saying here. To be honest, that sentence is grammatically ? up. So I'll just hold my peace.You have to understand that.
I think that I did understand most of that, but I understood it as mostly wrong? -
it's not really over simplified.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. I just thought that when you said "he compares letting black people in a store to allowing people to carry a gun in a store", you were trying to discredit Paul by implying that he compares blacks to objects or that he devalues black people or people in general. And I thought that that was shady.If anything rand paul has an over simplified idea of civil rights.
I disagree? I don't quite understand what you are saying though. Could you perhaps explain Paul's alleged oversimplification of civil rights? Because I personally think that he has an excellent understanding of "American" civil rights in general, a better understanding than most people I've known and most politicians I've seen on TV actually. He is pretty much a libertarian after all. I mean, how much more of an advocate of civil rights do you have to be?The profits of business's should not trump simple individuals rights to not be discriminated against...
That's interesting. I think that if you take a look at the world today, you'd see that very ideal taking over every facet of American life today. Let's face it, it's all about money and nothing more. I don't see how you think that Ron Paul's ideology is going to possibly make things worse. I actually think that it will make things better for reasons I have already stated. But yes, I agree with you, the commodification of life in general is sickening.
I also find it interesting that you still somehow see Ron Paul's ideology as a hindrance to individual rights. I see this exact opposite. How is advocating for the ability of an individual to exert his right to run his private business the way he wants to a hindrance to individual rights? Yes, the way he might want to run his business may prevent others from partaking but all that stems from his original right. In the same way, a man who owns a house may want to throw a house party. Does that mean that he has to invite everybody? No. Because he privately owns that house. Remember, this still does not change the rules as they apply to public businesses which is open to all peoples simply because they are public. Public means open to all. Private can mean something very contrary to the meaning of public.also the civil rights act basically says if you are a business that serves the public you have to actually serve the public.
Yes, I agree!. And I think that Paul agrees also. What you have said pertains to public institutions, not private ones. Paul is not against the civil rights act per se. I personally think that he is for the civil rights act more than the civil rights act is for the civil rights act. He wants to amend it so that it will be more faithful to America and cvil rights in general. And that only includes raising a point of contention about a small porting of the acts. He is fine with mostly all that the acts have to say.
Let me try to better drive my point about private ownership. Brigham Young University suspended one of it's basketball stars because he had pre-marital sex. Now that might seem silly to us all, but that might also seem wrong to us all just as it would seem wrong for a private business to refuse service to Hispanic peoples. So why is what BYU did acceptable (I'm not saying that it's morally right) in America? Because BYU is privately owned and privately owned by a religious group that frowns upon pre-marital sex. A state school such as Utah State University would not and could not technically do what BYU did because it is a public school. Bottom line, you should be able to dictate how you want to run what you privately own as long as it is not against the law. -
earth two superman wrote: »Ron Paul Addresses Hurricane Irene, Says 'There's No Magic About' FEMA (VIDEO)
Posted: 8/27/11 04:42 PM ET
React
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul told NBC News on Friday that "there's no magic about" the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). He said that he doesn't see the need for a federal response to Hurricane Irene as the powerful storm makes its way up the east cost.
"We should be like 1900, we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960," said the Texas congressman in weighing in on the matter during a stop in New Hampshire. He regarded FEMA as a "great contribution to deficit financing."
The presidential contender explained that he lives on the Gulf Coast back in the Lone Star State. He said, "We deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district."
The Hill notes:
A catastrophic storm hit Galveston in 1900, killing thousands.
"We should be coordinated, but coordinated voluntarily with the states," Paul explained. "A state can decide. We don't need somebody in Washington."
---
What was your point here? That newstory seems pretty slanted and rhetorical but I didn't think that it was necessarily truthful in what I think that it was implying. Nor do I think that what Ron Paul said was as ridiculous as what they wanted it to seem like.
So again, please tell me, what was your point here?earth two superman wrote: »seriously, i still cant see why ppl like this guy. the fact that tupacfan35 supports him speaks loud, ? volumes.
That's odd. I can come up with several upon several good reasons why people genuinely like him. As for tupacfan35, I don't know him so I can't speak for him. Regardless, I doubt that he "speaks for" every Ron Paul admirer/supporter. -
Jonas.dini wrote: »Powerful post
Hmm, I thought that it was a rather "weak" post myself for reasons that I've already stated.@My_nameaintearl wrote: »he's a ? idiot
there, schooled
Brilliant observation sir! I'm looking forward to reading more of your cogent analyses.Manik Sona wrote: »I'm not a fan, personally. Not sure any polititians can be considered honest. Even when they think they're telling the truth they end up lying because of the BS surrounding them in office. None of them can really be trusted.
I agree but that doesn't change the fact (or opinion) that there are politicians that are more honest, and thus "better", than others. And I think that Ron Paul is easily one them. I can't imagine how anyone can't see this. The man is so secure, well spoken, and reasonable that it makes your average politician look clearly stupid as hell. And it's his libertarian ideas of placing more emphasis and responsibility on the people of America that scares, ironically enough, the people of America, and also the media of course. What Paul is advocating can be roughly synonymous with "power to the people", yet what happens when you talk about Paul to someone who is supposedly all about empowering the people? He becomes scared of real change and flip flops. -
earth two superman wrote: »1. a doctor who doesnt believe in science is a sad thing indeed.
If this is a response to my statement #1, I don't see the relation. Nevertheless, I think that saying that Ron Paul is a doctor who doesnt believe in science and saying that Ron Paul is a doctor who doesnt believe in evolution are two very different things. Your hyperbole is funny but also a bit misleading if you intended it to be true.
Again, I would say that I would like to know more about his complete stance on evolution, just because I'm curious and want to know more so that I could possibly make a more educated criticism of his anti-evolution stance, and not because it's enitrely relevant as far as actual politics go. I'm also curious about whether it's a Texas thing.earth two superman wrote: »2. if there was a scientist or engineer in every seat in congress and in the white house, no matter what party they were affiliated with, you can bet that a lot of ? would get solved pretty quickly.
Perhaps, I don't know about that. I hope you're not being biased when you say that. But honestly, I would find it unlikely. Politicians, even if they are scientists or doctors, worship the almighty dollar when it comes down to it. That and the fact that they pander to the masses for votership even when the masses are dead wrong, and they usually are. It wouldnt make no difference that they were book smart in the field of engineering or science. Any politician can be bought.
But I agree in theory, scientists and engineers seem to be very disciplined and definite in their fields especially when you consider the scientific method, so it only makes sense that issues would be resolved scientifically and matters would simply progress. But when you add in politics, it ideal gets a little hazy to me. -
lol son is jumping through hoops to defend Ron Paul
-
lol son is jumping through hoops to defend Ron Paul
Hello, my name is Plutarch, and I'm very opinionated. And I like to be thorough and considerate when I'm arguing with others. Nice to meet you too.
So you call that jumping? I do that in my sleep bruh. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by jumping through hoops but if you think that I'm reaching with what I'm saying then please, by all means, explain how.
And I wouldn't exactly put too much emphasis on my defense of Ron Paul, it's rather what he's advocating that I defend so thoroughly. Imo, he advocates a lot of truths in a truth forsaken environment. It's largely irrelevant that this ideology just happens to come from Ron Paul. Many others share similar versions of this ideology. -
Hello, my name is Plutarch, and I'm very opinionated. And I like to be thorough and considerate when I'm arguing with others. Nice to meet you too.
So you call that jumping? I do that in my sleep bruh. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by jumping through hoops but if you think that I'm reaching with what I'm saying then please, by all means, explain how.
And I wouldn't exactly put too much emphasis on my defense of Ron Paul, it's rather what he's advocating that I defend so thoroughly. Imo, he advocates a lot of truths in a truth forsaken environment. It's largely irrelevant that this ideology just happens to come from Ron Paul. Many others share similar versions of this ideology.
Wow you are so defensive. Idc what you have to say about Ron Paul (be it reaching or not) simply due to the fact i do not agree with the ideology.
And by jumping through hoops it means going to great lengths to defend your ideology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ61qYT3Pe8
