-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
The official Ron Paul thread
- Thread starter RayOfLight
- Start date
lol - no. I'm well aware of Paul's website and his positions. I'm asking Ray to back up his points with his own words and some critical thinking. Same thing I've asked since the beginning of this thread (YouTube videos DO NOT count as critical thinking).easyrider said:
From Page 1:
a1pha said:
Sorry, but such blanket dismissals of the points raised by Noam Chomsky (leading American scholar and most-cited living author) combined with continued rhetoric and a lack of engagement with the issues/problems presented prior indicate that there is no merit to further discussion here.
easyrider
Rising Star
SnozzleBerry said:
I still don't see how non-interventionism equates to ultra-nationalism. Are the many indigenous tribes of the world nationalistic because they don't intervene in foreign affairs? Also, I don't see how being a scholar has anything to do with this. Martin Heidegger was one as well, and also was a proponent of the NSDAP.
RayOfLight
Rising Star
SnozzleBerry said:
hiding behind credentials isn't going to make Mr Chomsky's remarks any less abhorrent. Sorry bud.
ok..now this does merit further discussion...what here is abhorrent?RayOfLight said:
It seems that basically, people tend to support ron paul, the occupy or teaparty movement because they´re fed-up with traditional political movements and the people representing them. Not because mr paul himself has such great points. Ray even admitted this. I think i could summarize his main argument for his support of paul with the words: 'paul is a whacko, but all of the others are even worse'.
...to which I would reply, Paul is clearly at least as bad as his peers.
RayOfLight
Rising Star
Chomsky seems to think that the UN is a body of goodness when in fact its a body of shit, a corrupted tool used by america and isreal for world domination. This literally makes me want to throw up.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:RayOfLight said:
wow, you really don't know Chomsky at all...perhaps read some of his work?
being fed-up with a political system is generally speaking, not a good foundation to base a political ideology on.
It´s easy to say that america would be better of without the federal reserve bank. Especially because it´s not going to get abolished anyway.
It´s easy to wave away any criticism of such highly impractical ideas by pointing at the great looters at wall street and all the wrongs in the financial world.
But not only to paul supporters, but also to the OWS and teaparty movement i would say: if the financial system would be dismantled in it´s entirety today, you would have a total economic meltdown tomorrow.
The world isn´t simple and there are no simple solutions either.
It´s easy to say that america would be better of without the federal reserve bank. Especially because it´s not going to get abolished anyway.
It´s easy to wave away any criticism of such highly impractical ideas by pointing at the great looters at wall street and all the wrongs in the financial world.
But not only to paul supporters, but also to the OWS and teaparty movement i would say: if the financial system would be dismantled in it´s entirety today, you would have a total economic meltdown tomorrow.
The world isn´t simple and there are no simple solutions either.
And the problem with this is...?polytrip said:
Industrial civilization (and the modern economy as focused on GNP/GDP/consumption) is inherently unsustainable...it WILL meltdown...the only question is, "when?"
RayOfLight
Rising Star
a1pha said:
point 1- whatever takes its place will be much better than what you've got now, some horrible things are comming your way when the dollar collapses.
point 2- I think that the other option of leaving troops all over the place killing people and making enemies all over the world is much worse than whatever anarchy would ensue if they left. People need to figure out their own problems when they are ready.
point 3- in all honesty I think some regulation is needed as a realist. as an idealist I would like to think the free market would regulate itself. there is tons of corruption in the regulatory system in place now that I've already posted about but I really think it boils down to the old phrase' shit happens ' no matter what you try and do.
point 4- how can an honest politician rise to the top? I dunno if he can ,thats probably why he wont win the nomination. Its really too bad the american people are interested in who has a better haircut or who ' looks and sounds more presidential' rather than honesty but in the end people always get what they deserve.
Thats really the best I can do on your questions a1pha, this is honestly how I feel about it, I'm sorry if my answers don't fit into your mold of what I 'should' think but its the truth about how I feel, it may not be 'the truth' as you see it but we are all different and I still respect you and your views.
Rhetoric. No reasoning (premises) for this conclusion. So, you'd rather Option B when you don't even know what Option B is or the resulting consequences?RayOfLight said:
Rhetoric. No reasoning for this conclusion. So, you suggest we transition the Middle East to a state of anarchy irregardless of certain chaos?RayOfLight said:
Rhetoric. No reasoning for this conclusion. Did you skip over the comment above, how the current mess we're in is a RESULT of removing certain regulations (specifically on the lending)?RayOfLight said:
Categorical statement of /all/ Americans (and quite frankly insulting and ignorant). No reasoning for this conclusion.RayOfLight said:
-----
So far, the only mold I've set up is one of logic. It would do you some good to study (not just glance) at the following article from Stanford: Informal LogicRayOfLight said:
Stanford said:
ChaoticMethod
Eye of the Beholder
RayOfLight said:
I think you are stating yourself the main problem some people have with your views right here.
You FEEL about Ron Paul, instead of THINKING about him (and politics).
easyrider
Rising Star
a1pha said:
He wouldn't necessarily abolish the Federal Reserve the first day of his presidency. He would phase is out through competition, since the Fed does possess a monopoly on money in America. He would legalize gold & silver as money, and through attrition of competition, the Fed would ultimately collapse. As for something taking its place -- well, that just wouldn't happen; he is an opponent of central banking.
a1pha said:
Being the guardians of the world was not authorized by the constitution.
a1pha said:
He believes the market would regulate itself, as pointed out by RayOfLight. Had the banks and businesses been allowed to have gone bankrupt, the crisis would sort itself out by the elimination of bad business models.
a1pha said:
Is this not a categorical statement describing all politicians as dishonest?
RayOfLight
Rising Star
ChaoticMethod said:
I think your right about this. I also think its the 'thinking' about the poor people of the middle east living every day of their lives wondering when a cruise missile is going to kill or main them instead of 'feeling' what that must be like is the main reason you don't vote for Ron Paul.
While you wait for a leader that fills every single requirement necessary for Americans to maintain their decadent lifestyle AND stop the wars people are dying. This is an outrage and flies in the face of everything I've learned through DMT. war is not acceptable.
The murder needs to stop as a first order of business everything else is secondary to that and if you cant understand that simple fact I'm not even going to argue with you, you don't deserve my anger or contempt , you deserve my sympathy and prayers.
you guys need to put you empathy hats on.
The problem with a total economic meltdown would be...A lot of money disapearing into thin air, an acute halt of all electronic transactions including wages, etc.SnozzleBerry said:
It´s not nice when it happens. Look at greece. People are realy suffering there. That´s nothing compared to what a real meltdown would look like.
An aversion to central banking, or the believe that having silver and gold as currency would actually change things for the better is primitive and only based on a dislike of the current system instead of having any roots in rational thinking.
You actually see that within this very discussion: ray actually says: i don´t care what will happen, any possible outcome would be better than what we currently have.
Basically what that means is: 'i hate the current system so much that all i realy want is a total destruction of it and i would even prefer hitler, stalin or mao over our current government'.
I think that such things are always easy to say, living still in the relative luxury of economic afluence and relative political freedom.
The best test for a political ideology would be to try to look at it from a distance and without emotions affecting your judgement, and to ask yourself whether it all still makes any sense without these heated emotions.
In the case of ron pauls believes, the answer would clearly be 'no'.
polytrip...my point is that what you describe will happen...one day the "money" will disappear into thin air and the structures and institutions we know now will crumble into dust. This is inevitable.
For some reason, Ron Paul fanboys seem to believe all sorts of things about him/the presidential powers/the socio-political structure that simply hold no water when examined with any sort of critical thinking. Again, I would cite the earlier dismissal of the US's (and possibly the world's) foremost political dissident as strong evidence of this, as well as the complete and utter inability for them to cite any evidence or actually explain the real world steps that Paul would take to accomplish his least outlandish claims.
Throw into this their repeated inability to come to grips with the fact that RP takes money from people they claim he doesn't, supports causes they claim he doesn't and generally doesn't fit into the narrative they like to paint of him when you examine his actions...and I think I agree with your assessment in the vein that this is blind allegiance in disregard of all the facts.
For some reason, Ron Paul fanboys seem to believe all sorts of things about him/the presidential powers/the socio-political structure that simply hold no water when examined with any sort of critical thinking. Again, I would cite the earlier dismissal of the US's (and possibly the world's) foremost political dissident as strong evidence of this, as well as the complete and utter inability for them to cite any evidence or actually explain the real world steps that Paul would take to accomplish his least outlandish claims.
Throw into this their repeated inability to come to grips with the fact that RP takes money from people they claim he doesn't, supports causes they claim he doesn't and generally doesn't fit into the narrative they like to paint of him when you examine his actions...and I think I agree with your assessment in the vein that this is blind allegiance in disregard of all the facts.