Things to Hate About Ron Paul

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Cleverboy, Feb 9, 2008.

  1. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #1
    I'm sure you could draft a juicy one of these for every candidate, though I kind of wonder how accurate a picture you're getting. I've been finding Ron Paul interesting, and I've expressed bewilderment that the rest of the Republicans don't jump on board with him. That said, I saw this list in a digg story the other day (in the comments).
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/5_01_The_February_12th_Obama_Money_Bomb

    I was pretty impressed. Only a few of those REALLY bothered me, many of them were way out of my territory on political issues though, although... if I got compulsive about it, I'm sure I could research them more and form an opinion.

    Basically, for the millionth time, a post about someone else had a Paul supporter inject a random non-sequitar about the glories of Ron Paul... and someone felt the need to "go off". Funny. It's amusing to hear interviews with people that decry McCain for not being conservative... but don't seem to realize Ron Paul even exists. Sometimes when asked, there's this physical reaction that doesn't seem connected with anything substantive. I've yet to hear a true conservative say anything particularly negative about Paul, aside from "electability". All a moot point now though, I guess.

    ~ CB
     
  2. wonga1127 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Location:
    Wishing for a magic bus.
    #2
    Obama voted for the border fence too.

    And yeah ROn Paul is a conservative, and he has fairly conservative values. And I'll admit, some of it I don't agree with, but with most stuff like health care and stem cell research, whatnot, none of that is in the Constitution, and you can't deny that. I do support a Constitutional amendment allowing the government to do the whole health care shebang (albeit I have a nearly unattainable wish for universal health care, thats besides the point).

    And most of the stuff on that list is just subjective stuff, none of it is really to hate, it just makes him not a candidate for someone who strongly believes in gun control or abortion. The fact that he pushes the envelope and thinks outside the box on some issues doesn't make him a bad candidate either. Yeah he thinks the Civil Right Act was bad legislation, but have you cared to find out why? Probably not, because society has engrained in our consciousness that the Civil Rights Act was good, when it actually may not have been the best choice of legislation (not the whole equal rights thing, just the body of the law).

    And yes, the DoE should be abolished. As someone who gets to live through the crap that they s*** all over the nations school I can say they haven't done anything good for me lately other than destroy the way my school works.
     
  3. NAG macrumors 68030

    NAG

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Location:
    /usr/local/apps/nag
    #3
    The only thing that annoys me about him is that being strict libertarian is somewhat delusional. Yeah, it would be great if we didn't need rules or governments to help people get along without killing or oppressing each other. Unfortunately, such utopian thinking doesn't work in real life.
     
  4. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #4
    Ron Paul has never had an original or inspiring idea in his entire life. He's simply a regurgitated version of every hateful libertarian that exists. Anyone who honestly thinks that he would effect change obviously is in a box.
     
  5. maestro55 macrumors 68030

    maestro55

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Location:
    Goat Farm in Meridian, TX
    #5
    I kind of liked him at first (anti-war really got my attention as did him wanting to get rid of the IRS, if we had a flat tax we wouldn't need the IRS) but after reading and reading I learned that there was no way I could support him. Sorry, but we need universal healthcare, we need human and civil rights, we need stem-cell research, we need separation of church and state (and the list goes on).
     
  6. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #6
    Exactly.

    Ron Paul has an 18th century platform.
     
  7. kainjow Moderator emeritus

    kainjow

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2000
    #7
    I like Ron Paul but I agree his ideas are too unrealistic for our country's current situation. I think his ideas on economics and the war are spot on though, and not many other politicians get that.

    A big thing that plays into politics is likability. Ron Paul doesn't have a lot of that. Whenever my family sees him on the debates, they don't like him. He doesn't say things that people want to hear, and he does come across as being angry (but I can understand why). He talks about things that people have no clue about and so people just ignore him.

    I think he'd do best as an advisor for the president on things like the economy and foreign policy.
     
  8. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #8
    Some of those are iffy..he doesn't support teaching Creationism...he thinks it should be up to the states...same time with pot, supports say he'd decriminalize it, but he'd really allow the states to out law it, if they please.


    Ron Paul is half great, half crazy!

    But Obama is a much better leader and uniter.
     
  9. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #9
    I like that idea...I like it a lot!

    I favored a Kucinich/Paul ticket(unlikely,as it seems)..since Kucinich would be able help us at home, and Paul could handle the foreign stuff(with Kucinich watching him, so we'd step in Darfur and other places which do need help)

    Oh well...Obama '08! He'll be a great president, he's a great uniter!


    (Also a real source on this article would be nice...not "I saw it in a digg comment"...truth isn't always found in digg comments.)
     
  10. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #10
    To the things to dislike about Ron Paul, add some of his nutty followers:

    This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy about libertarians. It's much easier (and morally superior) to cop an attitude and waste everyone's time than to get a reasonable-sized sticker and put it on your bumper, where it doesn't obstruct your view.

    "Driving while Republican." Puh-leeze. :rolleyes:
     
  11. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #11
    Typical libertarian....not giving a f**k about anyone else but themselves.

    What's he going to do when he plows into someone else's car because he couldn't see them? Blame it on the man and then shout "Ron Paul 2008!" to the officer taking the police report?

    They ought to just charge him with a DWI....driving while ignorant. Which I guess is the same thing as driving while republican :D

    2 of my friends are like that though, but once it was obvious to even the dumbest, most delusional of people that Ron Paul didn't have a chance, one came to his senses and started backing Obama, and the other jumped ship to McCain (no better than Paul though :D).
     
  12. Virgil-TB2 macrumors 65816

    Virgil-TB2

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    #12
    I usually agree with you, but ... "Ron Paul could handle the foreign stuff?" :eek:

    He is an admitted isolationist and avid non-interventionist. That doesn't qualify him to deal with US foreign relations in today's world does it?

    I'm not so sure Ron Paul would even send food aide to Africa, let alone troops to Darfur.
     
  13. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #13
    Over the last several years, I've come to appreciate the non-interventionist mindset. The U.S. military should not be sent in unless there is a direct war action against the United States. However, being opposed to intervention does not mean failing to provide other support - food can be supplied without intervening in a situation. Looking back no Iraq, entering may have been a bad idea (based on public information, it was; on classified, I don't know). but once you make a mess, you stick around to clean it up - no matter how long it takes. The smarter move there, would have been to pressure the Arab League into action. In Darfur, the AL and African Union need to be pressured into cooperation, and the Sudanese government into accepting their intervention. Bringing outsiders into that mess to act as "peacekeepers," and expecting it to go well will not happen. Unless you want to give the US authority to initiate engagements - which I don't think would be a positive.

    As for Paul and the long list - as has been pointed out, he simply wished to revert a substantial portion of the decision making authority to the states and take it away from the government. His philosophy, that the Constitution governs what it governs - and the states govern everything else, has long been debated since the founding of the Republic. Even a source that many church-state separatists rely on for support among the founding fathers - Thomas Jefferson - believed in that same strict construction of the Constitution.
     
  14. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #14
    When it came time to purchase Louisana from Napoleon, Jefferson knew that he would be unable to get the Constitution amended. So, he forced the bill through Congress. Hardly an indication of Jefferson's supposed "strict constitutionalism".

    The Constitution has become the holy grail of libertarians but what few will admit, is the Constitution was never treated "strictly" by those who created it. Especially when it meant they wouldn't be able to push through their pet projects.

    Jefferson's braying about the Constitution was mostly just that, a lot of hot air. He was a great president but to claim that he was a "strict constitutionalist" is rather lame.
     
  15. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #15
    Agreed. It would be easier to make a list of things to like about Ron Paul. At least the conversation would be more concise.
     
  16. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #16
    Lee--I'm pretty sure you MEANT the above but were just too nice to actually write it. ;)
     
  17. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #17
    you only need to get to point 1 to know he should never be allowed to be in office.
     
  18. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #18
    While I'm being mean then- does anyone think Ron Paul bears a striking resemblance to the creepy Lipitor guy?
     

    Attached Files:

  19. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
  20. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #20
    The Ron Paulies are the worst part about him. They act like angry liberals.
     
  21. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #21
    Uhh...no. They act like angry conservatives. Because that's what they are.
     
  22. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #22
    I know what they are, or claim to be. I said they ACT like angry liberals. Getting in people's faces, pushing their propaganda at people, forcibly preventing others from speaking when they do not like the presenter- as they did to Sean Hannity.
     
  23. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #23
    Excuse me, but anger is hardly limited to any one political persuasion. Ever see a bunch of whacked out religious freaks picketing funerals of dead soldiers? Talk about pushing your views on someone. I would hardly say those people act like angry liberals.
     
  24. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #24
    Oh, right--you mean the ones that try to prevent women from entering Planned Parenthood clinics?
     
  25. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #25
    Their tactics are liberalesque. Ever been to a demonstration? The World Bank/IMF demonstrations nearly always break down into violence and property damage.
     

Share This Page