you're just a flamer. You have presented no clear evidence showing Ron Paul is a so called "fascist".
I said he's teaming up with fascists, i.e. courting the fascist vote. This is evidenced by the support coming to him from Stormfront, and his attendance of events thrown by the far right, like VDARE, or neo-Confederate outfits. This is a much more nuanced position because it can mean one of many things:
1) he's a cryptofascist (which is not that far-fetched considering some of his positions regarding women's rights, homosexuality, and his belief in a myriad of far right conspiracy theories that mostly got popularized by Christian Reconstructionists, Christian Identity and Aryan Nation, i.e. the New World Order, Federal Reserve, IRS, and North American Union). Evidence is circumstancial at best.
OR
2) he's not squicked out by them, which belies either a lack of judgement (which should disqualify him from office) or a sort of marriage of convenience with fascist elements which is dangerous in and of itself. You would think a genuine libertarian wouldn't be actively courting fascists by going to their events.
OR
3) he's just your regular conservative right-wing guy, except that he's been mainstreaming the nutso elements' conspiracy theories and arguments, which basically normalizes American fascism by confusing it in the public mind with conservativism. In this case, he'd be just like another Fox News, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh, i.e. a transmission belt of ideas coming from the fringe Right and invading the mainstream discourse.
Anyway, I assume that you're some kind of leftist (anarcho-syndicalist, maybe?) and that your opposition to Ron Paul comes from his support of corporations.
If I was going to attack him on his economic policies that's what I would have done.
Do you regard him as a fascist because he is a Christian?
My brother is a fascist (and I don't mean it as 'I don't like his right-wing politics', I mean he has a freakin' Italian fascist flag in his bedroom) and he's pagan. Some of his crowd are pagans, some are Christians (both Protestant and Catholic). I have no illusion that only Christians are fascists or that all Christians are fascists. I also have no illusion about the allure of fascism, and how it camouflages itself by mascarading as other philosophies, either libertarianism or socialism.
Ron Paul to me has the stench of a cryptofascist, but I am willing to entertain the idea that he's just using them as 'useful idiots' just like Marxists always try to do with us anarchists. What I'm unwilling to do is forget about the newsletters he sent under his name, ghostwritten or not, or the crowd he hangs out with. At best one can say he has very bad frequentations and that is enough to disqualify him as a serious candidate.
I heard Fox News (very anti Ron Paul) just held a cellphone text message poll, which can't be hacked or spammed, and he came in close second with 25%.
XarkangeX, your post are so redundant it's annoying. It's like a broken record saying "no no no he's terrible, evil, AND stupid!" and you clearly don't even know your facts.
EDIT: I'm not saying I know all my facts either, but I'm not trying to make it sound like I do.
Cellphone polls are terrible statistics though, as only those who care the most to support their candidate (like most Ron Paul people) phone in. In reality, the average meh voter is not gonna call in or vote for Ron.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone
To the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.
Oh, okay. Is it possible to get more accurate polls, or will any poll you make end up being inaccurate because you're unable to focus on the "meh voters" which will actually determine the results you're trying to predict?
I guess what you're trying to say is that the president is going to be chosen by people who don't care very much, and/or who don't have access to cellular technology.
I heard Fox News (very anti Ron Paul) just held a cellphone text message poll, which can't be hacked or spammed, and he came in close second with 25%.
Somebody already said that these polls are completly non-representative.
A representative poll would be, you know, an actual polling group calling random people asking them who they'd vote for (that's the simplified version, these people know for instance how to draw up statistically relevant lists from which to randomly poll).
XarkangeX, your post are so redundant it's annoying.
I *also* wish I didn't have to repeat the same facts everytime somebody asked me, again, why exactly I don't think Ron Paul's poo smells like roses. Maybe if people actually read my posts and the corraborating information I link to, I wouldn't have to.
Well, phone polls in general aren't reliable. I would guess that cellphone polls are worse, not better.
If you're asking "is there some tiny fraction of a possibility that Ron Paul could be elected" then yes, he could. If you're asking, "what are his chances/is it reasonable to assume that he has a good/decent chance of becoming President" then that's a different question, and personally the one I was responding to. A cell-phone poll doesn't prove that one.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
Oh, okay. Is it possible to get more accurate polls, or will any poll you make end up being inaccurate because you're unable to focus on the "meh voters" which will actually determine the results you're trying to predict?
I guess what you're trying to say is that the president is going to be chosen by people who don't care very much, and/or who don't have access to cellular technology.
Dewey defeats Truman, am I right? Truely accurate statistics are insanely hard to come by, as pure random sampling is a difficult and expensive process.
Actually, the people who are meh and just vote because they can are a huge factor against Ron Paul, as are the people without cell phones. These are the people most likely to be media biased.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone
To the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.
Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance. The election will come down to waiting on one last state to report in. After the verdict is in Giuliani will beat Clinton 51% to 49%.
I don't mind Ron Paul but his odds are really bad and Frankly most the people who I talk to have never heard his name before , much less know he is a canidate.
Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance. The election will come down to waiting on one last state to report in. After the verdict is in Giuliani will beat Clinton 51% to 49%.
I don't mind Ron Paul but his odds are really bad and Frankly most the people who I talk to have never heard his name before , much less know he is a canidate.
Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance. The election will come down to waiting on one last state to report in. After the verdict is in Giuliani will beat Clinton 51% to 49%.
I don't mind Ron Paul but his odds are really bad and Frankly most the people who I talk to have never heard his name before , much less know he is a canidate.
Thanks, I'm sure that political science degree you have helped you figure this out amirite? I mean, I have trouble predicting where I'll go for lunch today, but you've figured out the exact results of a major election more than a year in advance, bravo. It's not like it's the longest campaign in American history, and it's not like anyone else will win those primaries, I mean, since noone has ever lost a primary unexpectedly at the last minute or anything, and noone has ever had a scandal during an election and noone has ever screamed into a monodirectional mic.
In regards to XdarkangelX's repeated insinuations that Ron Paul is racist, I'd like to post a quote I heard today. Ron Paul said this on April 18th 2007.
"We should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and start thinking in terms of individual liberty."
He said this amongst several other anti-racism pro-individualism comments, but I found this one to be the most salient. I hope you can stop painting Ron Paul as a racist, because if he were, he would say so. He always says what he feels. If you continue to insist that Ron Paul is racist, you're showing yourself to be either ignorant or needlessly slanderous.
And to everyone else who has NOT done their homework on Ron Paul (there are a few here!) and want to be informed on multiple angles (open-mindedness and willingness to hear multiple angles should be a hallmark of members in this forum imo), please watch the following clip:
It's a bit showy (trying to appeal to everyone, I guess) but it has a bunch of good info. For everyone who watches all 9 minutes, I'll watch an equal amount of any clip you choose. It's only fair!
Clinton didn't really have to run against 3 big name candidates, 1 in his own party. I have a hard time thinking any Republican can win this election to, given how the past 8 years have panned out.
Take into account that those 'big 3' (media darling authoritarians) are virtually identical in all the major stances. The 'frontrunners' merely split the prowar vote, diluting it to a level that a polar opposite (constitutionalist, fiscally conservative antiwar libertarian) can certainly make a splash.
Also, Billary is so utterly polarizing that many Dems don't like her, let alone Republicans current and prior (Ron's demographic-the disillusioned).
Rancored Elf, great pick.
He certainly has a shot. Leno appearance isn't hurting, tops alk candidates in military and veteran donations (like myself) and internet saturation and grassroots support. The opposition is scared.
Good points, Shink. Agreed - the opposition is scared. Even since I started this thread, Ron Paul has gone from "are you kidding, he's insane" or "who?" to "he's leading online, near the top in contributions, and kicking ass in many debates". I think a lot of people are starting to hear the message, and like he says, the message of liberty is a flawless one.
The best part about him is that the more people learn, the more they tend to like him. With other candidates, it's best to follow them blindly and not ask questions. With Ron Paul, he's been 100% unwavering in his stance for 20 or 30 years. Go read the books he wrote in the 80s, go see his old speeches - he's been right for a long long time.
I sure wish I could send him money and/or vote. I'm scared about what's going to happen to Canada and the rest of the world if he doesn't win.
EDIT: Nobody got any videos for me to watch, in exchange for watching mine? I'm open to hearing all sides, and learning! Are you?
I have a question for the Ron Paul fanbois here;
If Ron Paul is such a non-racist and non-fascist etc., while being completely honest about all his views etc., why doesn't he come out and say he does not support white supremacy and facism and whatnot. He must know about his wide base of racist support. Why doesn't he do anything to end the support of racists and whoever?
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
I have a question for the Ron Paul fanbois here;
If Ron Paul is such a non-racist and non-fascist etc., while being completely honest about all his views etc., why doesn't he come out and say he does not support white supremacy and facism and whatnot. He must know about his wide base of racist support. Why doesn't he do anything to end the support of racists and whoever?
Where are you getting from that his voter base is totally made up of racists?
I mean, are you referring to middle America? Because it's kinda lame to generalise that the whole, even the majority of middle America is racist.
Also, I mean, just because people don't agree with his anti racism views doesn't mean that they hate all of his views or ideas.
I mean all the websites XdarkangelX posted that support Ron Paul. Seems like a lot of extremist groups support Ron Paul, and I think that if he isn't a supremist/neo-facist, he should voice his disagreement with these suppporters of him.
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
If Ron Paul is such a non-racist and non-fascist etc., while being completely honest about all his views etc., why doesn't he come out and say he does not support white supremacy and facism and whatnot.
I had to look up fascism because it's not a word I hear used. Apparently, it's "an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the interests of the state." Now knowing what it is, I don't feel the need to respond to your suggestion, because Ron Paul is pretty much the opposite of that. He's all about the individual, and personal rights - not single-mindedly focussed on what's best for the greater good.
As for why he doesn't come out and say that he doesn't support racism, would you? Would you call a press conference to say "excuse me, I just want to say, I'm a non-racist! :)" Doubtful. But go ahead and ask him yourself, he'll give you his answer - he's not racist. I've already linked to videos and quotes that support this. If you can link to anything supporting the fact that he's racist, please do, because I'd be interested in seeing it. Thanks.
He must know about his wide base of racist support. Why doesn't he do anything to end the support of racists and whoever?
A few things wrong with that.
1) If you have a racist view, you're not allowed to support anyone?
2) Ron Paul DOESN'T have a "large base of racist support". So your question is rigged from the start.
3) As he has said himself, I quote, "Just think what it would be like if I could only go on the TV stations that agree with me... all the major networks agreed with the war - that means I'd never be able to be on any major TV network. People that I associate with, I don't endorse their views, they come and associate with me to endorse MY views.... I don't have to agree with everything they stand for or promote."
In other words, hundreds of thousands of people believe in Ron Paul's message of small government, no income tax, the end of war, and personal rights. Ron Paul doesn't necessarily believe in everything they believe.
That alone should shut up those with the flimsy&debunked racism charge as their only desperate means of downplaying the logic of Ron's stances. Where were the darling 'frontrunners'? Are they racists now? See? Bad ad hominem.
Feel free to debate his stances, but your racism ad hom is a pitiful example of discussion.
Even since I started this thread, Ron Paul has gone from "are you kidding, he's insane" or "who?" to "he's leading online, near the top in contributions, and kicking ass in many debates".
Perspective is necessary here. He is doing astonishingly well, particularly financially, but he's still nowhere near the head of the pack.
I think a lot of people are starting to hear the message, and like he says, the message of liberty is a flawless one.
The best part about him is that the more people learn, the more they tend to like him. With other candidates, it's best to follow them blindly and not ask questions. With Ron Paul, he's been 100% unwavering in his stance for 20 or 30 years. Go read the books he wrote in the 80s, go see his old speeches - he's been right for a long long time.
Refreshingly honest he may be, but his message is far from "flawless". You just have to look over this and other threads about him to see that many people, even those with libertarian leanings, take issue with some of his policies.
I sure wish I could send him money and/or vote. I'm scared about what's going to happen to Canada and the rest of the world if he doesn't win.
Don't be melodramatic. Among the Republicans, McCain is good people, Thompson seems to be astoundingly laid back, and Romney's a born pragmatist; only Giuliani looks like he might have jingoistic tendencies. And the Democrats, of course, are Democrats (Lieberman not being in the running).
I sure wish I could send him money and/or vote. I'm scared about what's going to happen to Canada and the rest of the world if he doesn't win.
Why, exactly? I noticed that the videos don't tend to play up any free trade angles- he seems quite isolationist. Obviously that is not necessarily bad in foreign policy, but does it also translate to protectionism? That's what I would be the most worried about as far as Canada is concerned, and no one seems to be talking up free trade in this election.
Why, exactly? I noticed that the videos don't tend to play up any free trade angles- he seems quite isolationist. Obviously that is not necessarily bad in foreign policy, but does it also translate to protectionism? That's what I would be the most worried about as far as Canada is concerned, and no one seems to be talking up free trade in this election.
Very wrong. Ron Paul is an Austrian school economist. He's far more free market/capitalist than anyone else running. He's written several books on economics and foreign policy(his new one is big on Amazon). NONINTERVENTIONISM=/="ISOLATIONISM."
Cool, thanks. Hadn't seen that one yet. The intro was long and annoying, but Paul's responses were good. And yeah it definitely would shut up anyone crying "rracist" if they were to watch it.
Perspective is necessary here. He is doing astonishingly well, particularly financially, but he's still nowhere near the head of the pack.
Hmmm, okay, thanks for the perspective. A lot of people are planning rallies and fund raising on November 5th (as in V for Vendetta) so if that goes well, perhaps we'll see more mainstream attention soon.
Why, exactly? I noticed that the videos don't tend to play up any free trade angles- he seems quite isolationist. Obviously that is not necessarily bad in foreign policy, but does it also translate to protectionism? That's what I would be the most worried about as far as Canada is concerned, and no one seems to be talking up free trade in this election.
As Shink has said, Ron Paul is strongly for making trades and friendships with other nations but is against entangling alliances, policing the world, and nation-building. One thing I've heard him say many times is "we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year maintaining an empire overseas while our country's economic situation is in shambles - it's not working." So no, I don't think Ron Paul is isolationist, but he's anti-intervention.
One of the reasons free trade (NAFTA etc) isn't being talked about much is a lot of people aren't happy with it, imo. Ron Paul (and a lot of people who back him) are worried about what NAFTA and CAFTA and other systems are leading toward, such as National ID cards, the Trans-Texas-Corridor, and eventually a North American Union.
That, combined with the fact that I think Clinton or Giuliani as president would basically mean continued war and economic downturns for the US - and therefore probably Canada as well - is why I'm afraid of Ron Paul not winning.
I said he's teaming up with fascists, i.e. courting the fascist vote. This is evidenced by the support coming to him from Stormfront, and his attendance of events thrown by the far right, like VDARE, or neo-Confederate outfits. This is a much more nuanced position because it can mean one of many things:
1) he's a cryptofascist (which is not that far-fetched considering some of his positions regarding women's rights, homosexuality, and his belief in a myriad of far right conspiracy theories that mostly got popularized by Christian Reconstructionists, Christian Identity and Aryan Nation, i.e. the New World Order, Federal Reserve, IRS, and North American Union). Evidence is circumstancial at best.
OR
2) he's not squicked out by them, which belies either a lack of judgement (which should disqualify him from office) or a sort of marriage of convenience with fascist elements which is dangerous in and of itself. You would think a genuine libertarian wouldn't be actively courting fascists by going to their events.
OR
3) he's just your regular conservative right-wing guy, except that he's been mainstreaming the nutso elements' conspiracy theories and arguments, which basically normalizes American fascism by confusing it in the public mind with conservativism. In this case, he'd be just like another Fox News, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh, i.e. a transmission belt of ideas coming from the fringe Right and invading the mainstream discourse.
If I was going to attack him on his economic policies that's what I would have done.
My brother is a fascist (and I don't mean it as 'I don't like his right-wing politics', I mean he has a freakin' Italian fascist flag in his bedroom) and he's pagan. Some of his crowd are pagans, some are Christians (both Protestant and Catholic). I have no illusion that only Christians are fascists or that all Christians are fascists. I also have no illusion about the allure of fascism, and how it camouflages itself by mascarading as other philosophies, either libertarianism or socialism.
Ron Paul to me has the stench of a cryptofascist, but I am willing to entertain the idea that he's just using them as 'useful idiots' just like Marxists always try to do with us anarchists. What I'm unwilling to do is forget about the newsletters he sent under his name, ghostwritten or not, or the crowd he hangs out with. At best one can say he has very bad frequentations and that is enough to disqualify him as a serious candidate.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
XarkangeX, your post are so redundant it's annoying. It's like a broken record saying "no no no he's terrible, evil, AND stupid!" and you clearly don't even know your facts.
EDIT: I'm not saying I know all my facts either, but I'm not trying to make it sound like I do.
.
I guess what you're trying to say is that the president is going to be chosen by people who don't care very much, and/or who don't have access to cellular technology.
.
Somebody already said that these polls are completly non-representative.
A representative poll would be, you know, an actual polling group calling random people asking them who they'd vote for (that's the simplified version, these people know for instance how to draw up statistically relevant lists from which to randomly poll).
I *also* wish I didn't have to repeat the same facts everytime somebody asked me, again, why exactly I don't think Ron Paul's poo smells like roses. Maybe if people actually read my posts and the corraborating information I link to, I wouldn't have to.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
.
If you're asking "is there some tiny fraction of a possibility that Ron Paul could be elected" then yes, he could. If you're asking, "what are his chances/is it reasonable to assume that he has a good/decent chance of becoming President" then that's a different question, and personally the one I was responding to. A cell-phone poll doesn't prove that one.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Dewey defeats Truman, am I right? Truely accurate statistics are insanely hard to come by, as pure random sampling is a difficult and expensive process.
Actually, the people who are meh and just vote because they can are a huge factor against Ron Paul, as are the people without cell phones. These are the people most likely to be media biased.
I don't mind Ron Paul but his odds are really bad and Frankly most the people who I talk to have never heard his name before , much less know he is a canidate.
Great analysis. Really top notch.
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
Thanks, I'm sure that political science degree you have helped you figure this out amirite? I mean, I have trouble predicting where I'll go for lunch today, but you've figured out the exact results of a major election more than a year in advance, bravo. It's not like it's the longest campaign in American history, and it's not like anyone else will win those primaries, I mean, since noone has ever lost a primary unexpectedly at the last minute or anything, and noone has ever had a scandal during an election and noone has ever screamed into a monodirectional mic.
mtg - satire - photoshoppery - strategy - arcade - PMO - chat
He said this amongst several other anti-racism pro-individualism comments, but I found this one to be the most salient. I hope you can stop painting Ron Paul as a racist, because if he were, he would say so. He always says what he feels. If you continue to insist that Ron Paul is racist, you're showing yourself to be either ignorant or needlessly slanderous.
And to everyone else who has NOT done their homework on Ron Paul (there are a few here!) and want to be informed on multiple angles (open-mindedness and willingness to hear multiple angles should be a hallmark of members in this forum imo), please watch the following clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
It's a bit showy (trying to appeal to everyone, I guess) but it has a bunch of good info. For everyone who watches all 9 minutes, I'll watch an equal amount of any clip you choose. It's only fair!
.
Take into account that those 'big 3' (media darling authoritarians) are virtually identical in all the major stances. The 'frontrunners' merely split the prowar vote, diluting it to a level that a polar opposite (constitutionalist, fiscally conservative antiwar libertarian) can certainly make a splash.
Also, Billary is so utterly polarizing that many Dems don't like her, let alone Republicans current and prior (Ron's demographic-the disillusioned).
Rancored Elf, great pick.
He certainly has a shot. Leno appearance isn't hurting, tops alk candidates in military and veteran donations (like myself) and internet saturation and grassroots support. The opposition is scared.
RON PAUL
R[ƎVO˩]UTION
The Philosophy of Liberty
The best part about him is that the more people learn, the more they tend to like him. With other candidates, it's best to follow them blindly and not ask questions. With Ron Paul, he's been 100% unwavering in his stance for 20 or 30 years. Go read the books he wrote in the 80s, go see his old speeches - he's been right for a long long time.
I sure wish I could send him money and/or vote. I'm scared about what's going to happen to Canada and the rest of the world if he doesn't win.
EDIT: Nobody got any videos for me to watch, in exchange for watching mine? I'm open to hearing all sides, and learning! Are you?
.
If Ron Paul is such a non-racist and non-fascist etc., while being completely honest about all his views etc., why doesn't he come out and say he does not support white supremacy and facism and whatnot. He must know about his wide base of racist support. Why doesn't he do anything to end the support of racists and whoever?
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
Where are you getting from that his voter base is totally made up of racists?
I mean, are you referring to middle America? Because it's kinda lame to generalise that the whole, even the majority of middle America is racist.
Also, I mean, just because people don't agree with his anti racism views doesn't mean that they hate all of his views or ideas.
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
I had to look up fascism because it's not a word I hear used. Apparently, it's "an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the interests of the state." Now knowing what it is, I don't feel the need to respond to your suggestion, because Ron Paul is pretty much the opposite of that. He's all about the individual, and personal rights - not single-mindedly focussed on what's best for the greater good.
As for why he doesn't come out and say that he doesn't support racism, would you? Would you call a press conference to say "excuse me, I just want to say, I'm a non-racist! :)" Doubtful. But go ahead and ask him yourself, he'll give you his answer - he's not racist. I've already linked to videos and quotes that support this. If you can link to anything supporting the fact that he's racist, please do, because I'd be interested in seeing it. Thanks.
A few things wrong with that.
1) If you have a racist view, you're not allowed to support anyone?
2) Ron Paul DOESN'T have a "large base of racist support". So your question is rigged from the start.
3) As he has said himself, I quote, "Just think what it would be like if I could only go on the TV stations that agree with me... all the major networks agreed with the war - that means I'd never be able to be on any major TV network. People that I associate with, I don't endorse their views, they come and associate with me to endorse MY views.... I don't have to agree with everything they stand for or promote."
In other words, hundreds of thousands of people believe in Ron Paul's message of small government, no income tax, the end of war, and personal rights. Ron Paul doesn't necessarily believe in everything they believe.
.
Make sure to watch the other parts.
That alone should shut up those with the flimsy&debunked racism charge as their only desperate means of downplaying the logic of Ron's stances. Where were the darling 'frontrunners'? Are they racists now? See? Bad ad hominem.
Feel free to debate his stances, but your racism ad hom is a pitiful example of discussion.
RON PAUL
R[ƎVO˩]UTION
The Philosophy of Liberty
No, they're really not. The mudslinging is all at Giuliani, Romney, and Clinton.
Perspective is necessary here. He is doing astonishingly well, particularly financially, but he's still nowhere near the head of the pack.
Refreshingly honest he may be, but his message is far from "flawless". You just have to look over this and other threads about him to see that many people, even those with libertarian leanings, take issue with some of his policies.
Don't be melodramatic. Among the Republicans, McCain is good people, Thompson seems to be astoundingly laid back, and Romney's a born pragmatist; only Giuliani looks like he might have jingoistic tendencies. And the Democrats, of course, are Democrats (Lieberman not being in the running).
Well, here's two minutes and forty-two seconds of your time. Learn away!
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Why, exactly? I noticed that the videos don't tend to play up any free trade angles- he seems quite isolationist. Obviously that is not necessarily bad in foreign policy, but does it also translate to protectionism? That's what I would be the most worried about as far as Canada is concerned, and no one seems to be talking up free trade in this election.
Very wrong. Ron Paul is an Austrian school economist. He's far more free market/capitalist than anyone else running. He's written several books on economics and foreign policy(his new one is big on Amazon). NONINTERVENTIONISM=/="ISOLATIONISM."
RON PAUL
R[ƎVO˩]UTION
The Philosophy of Liberty
Cool, thanks. Hadn't seen that one yet. The intro was long and annoying, but Paul's responses were good. And yeah it definitely would shut up anyone crying "rracist" if they were to watch it.
Hmmm, okay, thanks for the perspective. A lot of people are planning rallies and fund raising on November 5th (as in V for Vendetta) so if that goes well, perhaps we'll see more mainstream attention soon.
Slightly off-topic, and VERY nerdy, but cool. Thanks
Darn. I'll try again tomorrow. Thanks for the link.
As Shink has said, Ron Paul is strongly for making trades and friendships with other nations but is against entangling alliances, policing the world, and nation-building. One thing I've heard him say many times is "we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year maintaining an empire overseas while our country's economic situation is in shambles - it's not working." So no, I don't think Ron Paul is isolationist, but he's anti-intervention.
One of the reasons free trade (NAFTA etc) isn't being talked about much is a lot of people aren't happy with it, imo. Ron Paul (and a lot of people who back him) are worried about what NAFTA and CAFTA and other systems are leading toward, such as National ID cards, the Trans-Texas-Corridor, and eventually a North American Union.
That, combined with the fact that I think Clinton or Giuliani as president would basically mean continued war and economic downturns for the US - and therefore probably Canada as well - is why I'm afraid of Ron Paul not winning.
Sorry, I hadn't finished editing my post when you replied.
.
Why exactly are you scared for the world if Ron Paul doesn't win?
Made by Topher at Aether.
Come Praise Jesus!
Official Godfather of Team Faerie Mafia.
Current Decks
FM Thresh
Vial Horror