The official Ron Paul thread

[RayOfLight]

that ^

 

[BathtubSkyPirate]

@a1pha
I'm curious, who you are going to vote for?

 

[RayOfLight]

whoever he votes for is going to be for maintaining the status quo, bankrupting america even further, continuing wars of aggression and stripping the american people of rights unless he votes for Ron Paul.

by not voting for Ron Paul you are effectively voting in favor of ~

War
patriot act/ loss of liberty
hyperinflation
war on drugs



and your voting against ~

upholding the constitution
personal liberty
sound money backed by gold

 

[olympus mon]

hey ray out of curiosity what do you think of Obama's character?

i really feel that man's heart is in the right place and feel he got a bum deal inherited. however its a good example of the amount of forces that will try to derail R.paul at all costs. i truly feel Obama is doing his best, he isn't perfect but i dont feel he is a shitbag politician like most.

keep in mind i dont at all follow politics. i just go with my feelings but obviously from my rants you can tell i have a big problem with fundamentalism Christian's. they disgust me with their hypocrisy and are the cause of more war and suffering than any terrorist group on the planet. my country is divided in an endless battle to keep theri beliefs out of our government and its an uphill battle.

your thoughts?

 

[RayOfLight]

well, I'm not supposed to talk about CT's here but its my personal belife that Obama is bought and paid for by the global elite.... I think he was chosen to be president by the banksters just like bush was.

just my opinion of course for what its worth. I actually think they are all bought and paid for except Ron Paul , I think Paul is truly a man of the people.

I encourage anyone interested to watch the Obama deception

 

[DMT Psychonaut]

so your saying that a lot of things that Ron paul would like to see happen will never happen because it will never get voted on in his favor , my question is how do you know the results of votes before they have happened?

Ray in your above quote you seem to be calling out someone about predicting results.

whoever he votes for is going to be for maintaining the status quo, bankrupting america even further, continuing wars of aggression and stripping the american people of rights unless he votes for Ron Paul.

Yet in this quote you seem to be doing the same thing you were calling out on.

I support Ron Paul and agree with you here, but a1pha hasn't even told us who, if anyone, he is voting for.

Just saying

 

[RayOfLight]

I predict Ron Paul will do what he says he will do based on his clean record of always sticking to his principals and never voting against the constitution as a congressman,

He has proven his honesty and saw the current collapse coming 30 years ago but your right , I shouldn't say I know 100% what WILL happen, I just have strong feelings.

 

[DMT Psychonaut]

Olympus, My opinion on Obama's character is that he is childish, I mean seriously, he threatened senior citizens with social security checks, trying to scare them into raising the debt ceiling so that he wouldn't have to worry about the deficit until after the 2012 elections.

It was something like

Blah Blah Blah, default, Blah Blah Blah, I can't garentee social security checks will go out, Blah Blah Blah, old people vote to raise the debt ceiling so I can spend the rest of my presidential term trying promote my 2012 campaign and securing my relection, rather than trying to solve our deficit problems right now.

Forgive me for not having the exact quote but I feel mine was more accurate to what he was trying to say, or atleast it was more antic to what he said

Besides there was plenty of other government programs that could've been cut to avoid default and raising the debt ceilling. However, this summers whole debt ceilling debacle seems to have just been a media distraction for the government introducing this so called "Super Congress". Which is really just the government comming out to the public and lettting them know we no longer have elected representives creating laws in this country. Now it's a committie of 12 members plus the president.

Well bye-bye Republic, Hello Oligarchy.

 

[Mitakuye Oyasin]

"by not voting for Ron Paul you are effectively voting in favor of ~

War
patriot act/ loss of liberty
hyperinflation
war on drugs"

Looks like someone drank the Ron Paul Koolaid and fell into the vat. Since you cannot vote for Ron Paul yourself are you not effectively voting in favor of War, patriot act/ loss of liberty, hyperinflation and the war on drugs?

Please do some additional research on those who oppose Ron and Rand Paul and their beliefs and policies. Research Ayn Rand and why her beliefs are destructive for modern day societies. Ron Paul is not the Savior that you think he is.

Peace brother.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

well, Ive already said that the things he wants to do need to be voted on, where we differ is that you already know how the voting will go and I think it should be voted on first before determining the outcome.

What are you talking about? If a president promises things that have to be voted on, those are, by definition, promises he can't make. The president can't change the budget, that's a congressional task...ending prohibition is a combination of Congress, the DOJ, DEA, and FDA...ending war is also congressional...so how can the president make any of these promises?

This is now the third full loop (and fourth or fifth partial loop) we've completed in this vein of threads...unless there's new information/arguments presented, I can see zero reason as to why this discussion should continue.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Olympus, My opinion on Obama's character is that he is childish, I mean seriously, he threatened senior citizens with social security checks, trying to scare them into raising the debt ceiling so that he wouldn't have to worry about the deficit until after the 2012 elections.

It was something like

Blah Blah Blah, default, Blah Blah Blah, I can't garentee social security checks will go out, Blah Blah Blah, old people vote to raise the debt ceiling so I can spend the rest of my presidential term trying promote my 2012 campaign and securing my relection, rather than trying to solve our deficit problems right now.

Forgive me for not having the exact quote but I feel mine was more accurate to what he was trying to say, or atleast it was more antic to what he said

Besides there was plenty of other government programs that could've been cut to avoid default and raising the debt ceilling. However, this summers whole debt ceilling debacle seems to have just been a media distraction for the government introducing this so called "Super Congress". Which is really just the government comming out to the public and lettting them know we no longer have elected representives creating laws in this country. Now it's a committie of 12 members plus the president.

Well bye-bye Republic, Hello Oligarchy.

:roll:

The oligarchy already existed.

The debt-ceiling had to be raised.

The only way out of recession/depression has already been demonstrated ~80 years ago with the new deal plan, increased government spending, economic stimulus, creation of jobs and ultimately greater job security for the American worker. Cutting spending does not stimulate the economy, trickle-down economics does not work...we could go on and on.

Liberal economic policies have failed in every country they've been implemented (there are perfect examples throughout Latin America and Africa). The US has never engaged in true liberal economics because we are insanely protectionist and use tariffs and "free-trade" agreements to guarantee our holdings.

 

[a1pha]

A1pha, why would you pick such a trivial reason for not voting for a canidate.

I never said I'm not going to vote for Ron Paul. I am simply presenting facts. I am, however, leery of voting for a candidate who denies basic scientific truths like evolution and has a strong voting record supporting Christian interestes.

In that video Ron Paul does say that he doesn't accept evolution as theory. He doesn't seem to say anything about the facts of evolution, as evolution is indeed a fact and theory.(There are particular facts that support evidence for evolution, yet it is still a theory as to what the exact mechanisms and causes for evolution are.)

Yes, evolution is a theory - but a politician supporting creationism in favor of evolution again makes me leery. Paul spoke to have creationism taught is public schools alongside evolution. If the US plans on fighting in a global economy with the wave of Indians and Chinese (amongst others) coming online then we need to start focusing more on the sciences and less on the sky-gods of Israel.

I may be just speculating here but it sounds more like he was trying to keep a neutral position while trying to answer a potentially biased question as not to dissuade potential Christian votes.

No, Paul is not neutral on this issue as he continually speaks in favor of Christian interestes while at the same time votes AGAINST making public schools 'green' and FOR drilling in ANWR. Support the religious right and drill baby drill? This doesn't seem like a solution to our woes. Neither does abolishing the Federal Reserve nor dismantling the Department of Education.

Even if he doesn't believe in evolution, What in the Hell does that have to do with his campaign?

Nothing - except that a potential 2012 presidential candidate denies years of scientific research on the matter.

You seemed to be calling out Ray so often about proving how Ron Paul is going to execute these "promises" and you so often tell Ray to post something better than a youtube video.

I must say up untill now, you've been doing a good job at holding your position and presenting valuable sources to this thread. But now you go and contradict yourself by doing the very thing you've been calling Ray out for and posting this video, a weak video at that, and it's about something completly irrelevant to what Ron Paul is running for anyway?
Just because the man has a certain belief, however ignorant it may be, he still seems to be one of the only candiates that is defending the constitution, and it's apparent to me that he has a better understanding of economics and the constitution than any of the other running canidates.

DMT Psychonaut, if you re-read the entire thread a number of us present points against Paul that Ray has yet to address. Most are far more relevant to our discussion than evolution v. creation. While not entirely on-topic, I remember my last vote for a religious right-wing republican from texas (Bush jr. 2000/2004) and what it did for our country. Also, I think a YouTube video is appropriate when it contains evidence of a candidate himself responding to a particular issue.

I think it's worth a try voting for him.

I said that about Bush Jr.

If you're not voting for him then for who, and why?

I don't know - it's August 2011 and there's a long road ahead. But lets remember, if Paul has any chance he needs to win the Republican nomination first.

If you're not voting at all, then why are you even trying to argue against Ron Paul?

I've voted in every election since 18. I tried avoiding this topic here at the NExus, but Ray keeps pushing it - and so my need to argue.

What are you trying to prove by that?

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'd actually prefer this thread be locked and Ray asked to not spread propaganda here. But it's not my forum.

whoever he votes for is going to be for maintaining the status quo, bankrupting america even further, continuing wars of aggression and stripping the american people of rights unless he votes for Ron Paul.

How do you know I'm not voting for Ron Paul? Don't assume, Ray.

 

[jamie]

I think that a level of creationism should be taught in schools as well, alongside evolution. But it would take me some time to explain what it is that I mean by "creationism"..I dont mean to imply an actaul "creator" or anything bordering on religion.

Science, and evolution the way it is taught to children is a stagnant and dead view of the universe IMO. There is something more magical and special about any of this being here and possible than can possibly be translated through the medium of hard science. This is why most indigenous peoples fight to keep mythologies intact I think. It is the way the story is told, not the actual content of the story.

If we could view creationsim as less of a religious thing, and exclude the idea of a god..and instead approach the topic of creationism as an expression of a state of profound elegance and awe that we can CHOOSE to move into in respect to the "mircale" of our own existance, the existance of the universe and our ongoing co-creative role within the universal process than I think "creationsim" in that sense would be a good thing. Science the way it is taught today serves to supply children with a mechanical understanding of the universe, but it is also a cold and inanimate understanding. It is useful..but not always empathically applicable.. If we can move beyond the focus on the mechanism, without loosing the mechanistic perspective and complement it with a more egalitarian view of life and cosmos os a sort of "sacred"(to us) than I think it would better equip future generations when it comes to respect for life, the planet and each other etc..

Creationism to me should be less about a creator, and more about living every moment in a sort of mythological marrage linguistically and emotionally with the beauty of our own journey as co-creators within the cosmos..it is about a more poetic approach that we have at some point abandoned. The metaphore of who we are has been lost to the mechanims of how we work. It should not have to be one or the other. If we had science teachers who could could teach in such a way as to filter a level of animism within the mechanistic approach, that would be my version of "creationsim".

The problem here is that a term like "creationism" is so vague that I dunno what someone means when they use it. I certainly dont know what Ron Paul means when he uses it..but the fact that he also opposes other things like stem cell research makes me wonder if his view of creationism includes religious dogmas about god etc..

Ron Paul also is supported financially bu nuclear power companies. He is bought and payed for in my opinion..maybe not to the degree of others, I cant really say.

 

[The Day Tripper]

I for one believe that if you believe in liberty as it was defined by our founding fathers, then its still religious (christian) tainted. I bet %90 of the founding fathers would be against abortion.

1796 Treaty with Tripoli

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.

This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.

Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.

Etc.

In retrospect, my statements were a bit assuming, i was merely saying that they would most likely be against it, being a domestic issue, for personal religious reasons. They might not try to encroach on the rights of a whole nation to do so though.

But treaties, really mean nothing. Our government has not respected their laws or treaties on multiple occasions. A treaty made by politicians long since gone, has very little power over those in power and willing to break the law to exercise their power. Nixion did it in laos, bombing the shit out of that country for really no good reason other than he couldn't bomb Vietnam. Theres still hundreds of thousands of active cluster bombs all over laos, killing many people there every year. He dropped them on civilian populations, with the same reasoning used in vietman to destroy villages/residents for supporting/harboring the vietkong. Basically dumping more bombs there than all other wars combined, and only for the reason of killing people on the ground. Almost all the bombs dropped there were antipersonell cluster bombs that were dropped across a wile swath of the country.

As well, Jhonny trudell most eloquently displayed the blatant violation of Native American treaties, along with the genocide committed on them. I believe we signed a treaty against that too, along with torture, but hey treaties were meant to be broken.

 

[MySmelf]

I think that a level of creationism should be taught in schools as well, alongside evolution. But it would take me some time to explain what it is that I mean by "creationism"..I dont mean to imply an actaul "creator" or anything bordering on religion.

Science, and evolution the way it is taught to children is a stagnant and dead view of the universe IMO. There is something more magical and special about any of this being here and possible than can possibly be translated through the medium of hard science. This is why most indigenous peoples fight to keep mythologies intact I think. It is the way the story is told, not the actual content of the story.

If we could view creationsim as less of a religious thing, and exclude the idea of a god..and instead approach the topic of creationism as an expression of a state of profound elegance and awe that we can CHOOSE to move into in respect to the "mircale" of our own existance, the existance of the universe and our ongoing co-creative role within the universal process than I think "creationsim" in that sense would be a good thing. Science the way it is taught today serves to supply children with a mechanical understanding of the universe, but it is also a cold and inanimate understanding. It is useful..but not always empathically applicable.. If we can move beyond the focus on the mechanism, without loosing the mechanistic perspective and complement it with a more egalitarian view of life and cosmos os a sort of "sacred"(to us) than I think it would better equip future generations when it comes to respect for life, the planet and each other etc..

Creationism to me should be less about a creator, and more about living every moment in a sort of mythological marrage linguistically and emotionally with the beauty of our own journey as co-creators within the cosmos..it is about a more poetic approach that we have at some point abandoned. The metaphore of who we are has been lost to the mechanims of how we work. It should not have to be one or the other. If we had science teachers who could could teach in such a way as to filter a level of animism within the mechanistic approach, that would be my version of "creationsim".

The problem here is that a term like "creationism" is so vague that I dunno what someone means when they use it. I certainly dont know what Ron Paul means when he uses it..but the fact that he also opposes other things like stem cell research makes me wonder if his view of creationism includes religious dogmas about god etc..

Ron Paul also is supported financially bu nuclear power companies. He is bought and payed for in my opinion..maybe not to the degree of others, I cant really say.

I'm sorry but "creationism" or "Intelligent Design" is just NOT science and should not be taught along side a real scientific theory like evolution. Doing this will only confuse students and undermine the integrity of science itself.
I don't see any problem teaching "creationism" under the subject of philosophy though but its just not science and trying to redefine it won't change that.

 

[RayOfLight]

A1pha, I read your post with the presidential powers link and after reading it I did address a lot of things.

I've also made some points that you've failed to address.

Politics aren't off the table for discussion here so I'm not quite sure why you want this thread closed....... it seems to me its generated a lot of good discussion and lots of members have weighed in on it. you can argue it should be closed because I don't give you answers that satisfy you but I really don't think that would be fair... after all you haven't given me answers that satisfy me so I guess we are even.

BTW Ron Paul Isn't against stem cell research, he thinks its very important, hes against aborting babies on purpose for the use of their stem cells witch is quite respectable imo. check out the clip if you want to hear him talk about it

A1pha you asked me how Ron Paul could incrementally work on the drug war, My answer to that is the president could pardon all non violent drug offenders witch Ron Paul promised to do, if that isn't taking a shot at the drug war I dunno what is.

 

[jamie]

"BTW Ron Paul Isn't against stem cell research, he thinks its very important, hes against aborting babies on purpose for the use of their stem cells witch is quite respectable imo."

Ok yes then that I can understand. I think stem cell research is important but we dont need to be aborting children to do that work.

 

[Agave]

As long as he identifies with the republican party I won't go near him.

 

[olympus mon]

My answer to that is the president could pardon all non violent drug offenders witch Ron Paul promised to do, if that isn't taking a shot at the drug war I dunno what is.

non violent drug offender's - so, what exactly does that mean? my guess and correct me pleae if im off base here is anyone caught possessing, buying, or selling drugs as long as no violence occurred during the violation as well as the convicted person not having a violent record. would you say thats about right?

i ask this because im not exactly sure that's a good thing. lets face it there are some pretty bad hombre's out there with out prior convictions selling some really dangerous substances that by them selves perpetuate violence and other related crimes ie fraud extortion, turf wars ext. so is setting everyone free really a good thing? also wouldn't you think there would be a significant raise in criminal activity and crimes without the decriminalization of drugs passing at the same time as this mass release of drug offenders. as long as there is a black market and underground demand there will be crime. thats a fact jack.

pardons are within presidential power but the rest of this equation will take the other branches of govt and if you ask me have little to no chance of happening in this decade. so the pardoning of hundreds of thousands of drug offenders is not only irresponsible its political suicide and im having a hard time believing R.Paul would actually follow through with this threat/promise.

am im talking crazy talk here? i just cant see this all working.

 

[RayOfLight]

yes , good points olympus mon, I'm not sure if its just people for simple possession, or maybe just possession of marijuana.... I'll have to look it up. I'm sure he wouldn't do anything too crazy though just based on the general wisdom of the guy.