The Top 10 Reasons Why Dr. Ron Paul Is the Only Rational Choice

Originally posted by The Old American
So you support corporations and corporatism, as well as the elimination of small business?

Try telling that to a family barely surviving on minimum wage. Apparently though, in your twisted world, somehow corporations favour keeping on minimum wage. I guess that's why they outsource 1000's of america jobs a year to cheaper countries.

But hey I get it, if we eliminate minimum wage, we'll keep more jobs here and pay americans $2 an hour to compete. Great idea, I'm sure you'll be able to campaign this policy well to the people in 2012.

Thank goodness Obama has you on his side.

I wasn't under the impression that Obama and myself were the only ones who opposed eliminating minimum wage.

His views are that they should be reworked since they're working so poorly now.

Ron Paul's stance of medicare was never really to "rework" it. Medicare along with medicaid has always been unconstitutional in his eyes. He's also compared it to slavery:

www.youtube.com...

Ron Paul believes the free market can do a better job of this than the government can. What's ironic however is that as of recent Ron Paul has changed his tune and so have his supporters. Many are now claiming he never intended to "abolish" it, that he just intends to "rework" it. So what's the matter? Really? Why doesn't Ron Paul just leave the markets to deal with the healthcare needs of the eldery? Why a different tune from Paulers?

I already heard one Ron Paul Libertarian admit that eliminating it would be devastating to many, after a long debate with him about how the free market cannot replace public healthcare completely.

The free market is the one and only, until you have to practice what you preach, then it's a different tune.

The 13th & 14th Amendments won't be repealed any time soon. So that argument is completely fallacious,

Just a thread back you admitted that this was exactly what you and Ron Paul supported, now all of sudden, you want to insist these two amendments won't be repealed. Can you make up your mind?

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by The Old American

 

So, given your definition, you support the rights of states to legalize slavery and racial segregation I suppose? I mean we are talking about the United States in literal terms right? You hear that folks? Fascism is A-ok so long as it's at the state level. We are the United States.

Yep, that's exactly, precisely what I've said in every one of my posts. Oh, and I support the Jim Crow laws, the abolition of suffrage for women, and bombing abortion clinics, too.

Oh yes, you were just being sarcastic right? I didn't spot that on your face so I had to take a wild guess? Is this your excuse?

Here is his stance on Roe v. Wade:

I already know what his stance is on Roe v. Wade, I didn't need an opinion piece from a libertarian website. And regarding the "federalizing of social issues", your damn straight it's a federal issue. Racial segregation was a social issue, it was a constitutional issue, it was the business of the federal government, as was slavery, as was interracial marriage bans. These state rules infringed upon the constitutional rights of americans, and states failed to uphold those constitutional rights.

If a woman is raped, and she's unfortunately faced with the decision over her own body and over pregnancy, what the hell does it have to do with you or the state government? What justification do you have for regulating her body? This is exactly why I call BS out to people like you who brag on about individual liberty and privacy, it's a cover for your own moral and social agenda.

I'm not going to bother with social security. He wants to remove it, you referenced me to another website confirming this, that's that.

The free-market system works just fine if allowed to

The mere fact we haven't seen a modern nation successfully work a free market system should be evidence as to how unrealistic it is. You do have some magical confidence that it will work, without ever seeing it successfully in action, so that's your belief and faith over the matter.

Which is exactly why we should elect Ron Paul.

The last two elections with Paul's 2% wins should have been evident enough as to how popular his views really are in public. This year will be not much different, but I am of the opinion that if Ron Paul loses once again, Paulers will be ready to with another long deep conspiracy to put their minds to ease. Thankfully though after this, the old hack will retire.

Originally posted by Maxmars
These require more amplification, unless you honestly contend that such characterizations are adequate representations of his demerits,

I am terribly sorry. Next time Ill tell people that eliminating minimum wage and medicare is a good thing so as to be sure I don't offend Ron Paul supporters such as yourself. (sarcasm, just to clarify here).

Would you be so kind as to elaborate on how you have come to accept the adequacy of these bullet points? I will understand if you should decline....

What inadequacy? You mean Ron Paul doesn't want to eliminate minimum wage? You mean Ron Paul doesn't believe medicare is unconstitutional and wrong? It sounds to me that your defense over my post is that I didn't anything positive about the policies I highlighted under Paul, that's it right? I should have represented your side of the view so as to no offend you?

What should I have said? Eliminating minimum wage is good because it's liberty? It's freedom?

And I thought political correctness was a liberal thing.

reply to post by TupacShakur


He makes Perfect Sense . Unfortunately, over Half this Country has None.........

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Maxmars
These require more amplification, unless you honestly contend that such characterizations are adequate representations of his demerits,

I am terribly sorry. Next time Ill tell people that eliminating minimum wage and medicare is a good thing so as to be sure I don't offend Ron Paul supporters such as yourself. (sarcasm, just to clarify here).

Would you be so kind as to elaborate on how you have come to accept the adequacy of these bullet points? I will understand if you should decline....

What inadequacy? You mean Ron Paul doesn't want to eliminate minimum wage? You mean Ron Paul doesn't believe medicare is unconstitutional and wrong? It sounds to me that your defense over my post is that I didn't anything positive about the policies I highlighted under Paul, that's it right? I should have represented your side of the view so as to no offend you?

What should I have said? Eliminating minimum wage is good because it's liberty? It's freedom?

And I thought political correctness was a liberal thing.

Ahhh. apparently you think this is an occasion where embedding derisive flavor and sarcasm to your responses qualifies as "discussing" the matter. I have always shown respect for your input, but apparently you feel that respect is only meant for you and those with whom you agree. Let me further simplify my questions so that should you decide to deflect them again you may complete the process of projecting yourself as beyond those who fail to simply accept your decrees.

Please don't tell us he wants to eliminate minimum wage and medicare... show us.

Your own satisfaction about your applied sarcasm loses all impact on the substance of the discussion when we stop being impressed about the singular wit of the speaker and return to the actual topic. Such tired tactics may work in the typical 'sports-fan' political theater, but here it remains... just an old tactic.

Now, in order to dispel the idea that my question was unreasonable, I will take the chance that you will reconsider your sarcasm, and actually expand on one or two things. I am hoping that I am correct that you are not simply a stereotypical partisan zealot. It is the reason I take time to engage you directly ... as opposed to those who get into these conversations for the sake of the 'noise' they get to make, and the self-aggrandizing posture they get to assume.

I couldn't help but notice that your protestations against Ron Paul in this thread seem to have evolved from...

1) The elimination of minimum wage.
2) His views of medicare, medicaid, and other essential federal assistance programmes
3) His intentions to give states back the powers they held before the 1860's, when slavery and racial segregation were states rights.
4) His intentions to remove or repeal Roe V Wade
5) His intentions to abolish social security
6) His delusions about the free market system

into this....

.... eliminating minimum wage and medicare is a good thing so as to be sure I don't offend Ron Paul supporters such as yourself. (sarcasm, just to clarify here).

(I can't resist the temptation to make clear that you cannot offend me unless I decide to allow myself to be offended by you...)

I suppose the refined two component list might be because of all the bullet points provided - these two demonstrate what you believe are the more defensible objections. I was inclined to say that is a wise approach, but I fear now that you would seize upon such a comment as an opportunity for more disrespectful sarcasm.

What I am trying to approach, with you, as opposed to against you, is that what you have provided for us in five words " eliminating minimum wage and medicare" can only be a highly inadequate simplification of his position. After all it is what most political animals do, they encapsulate and distill opposing ideas to make them 'absurd.'

For example... words like "give states back the powers they held before the 1860's, when slavery and racial segregation were states rights" and "delusions about the free market system" are very cute, but are clearly designed to be much more than "factual"... they are the memes of marketeers... of which there is a litany which applies to every candidate, or position, or for that matter, any person who dares to speak in generalities.

Let's get specific about you refined list of objections...." eliminating minimum wage"... which I believe has many repercussions, both potentially negative, and positive; and "eliminating medicare" which I can assure you I find worthy of detailed discussion as well....

I'm wondering if the old playbook "it’s because he’s a sociopathic corporate stooge" is going to surface? It's one of the few objections that the Madison Avenue/Hollywood marketing machine hasn't pumped into the conversation yet....

reply to post by Maxmars


Don't bother. Every post by Southern Guardian is the same. If you came on ATS and said, "I like to drink water", he would come back with, "So you fully support the fact that people in Africa are dying of thirst?" Dare to admit that you like women, his come back would be, "Why are you so against gay marriage?" Go back and read his post history, and you'll see. It's pretty sad, actually, that he has only derisive, and divisive, rhetoric.

/TOA

Originally posted by Maxmars
Please don't tell us he wants to eliminate minimum wage and medicare... show us.

Show you? Paulers are already well aware of his stances on these issues hence the reason they support him the first place. Nevermind, I'll list you sources:

Minimum wage takes away opportunities, especially for blacks.

www.ontheissues.org...

In 2006 dollars, the minimum wage was $9.50 before the 1971 breakdown of Bretton Woods. Today that dollar is worth $5.15. Congress congratulates itself for raising the minimum wage by mandate, but in reality it has lowered the minimum wage by allowing the Fed to devalue the dollar. We must consider how the growing inequalities created by our monetary system will lead to social discord.

Those who are denied employment opportunities as a result of the minimum wage are often young people at the lower end of the income scale who are seeking entry-level employment.

ronpaulquotes.com...

Libertarians in general seek the removal of minimum wage so it's predicable where Ron Paul would stand on the issue. In the view of folks like Ron Paul, minimum wage dictates what a business must do, it takes away opportunities for those kids to compete with adults trying to earn a living, it takes away the labour competitiveness of Americans against such foreign labourers as the Chinese. I mean, if we cut out minimum wage, imagine that? We can give it to the Chinese and show them how low we can really go.

But yes what's your rational? He doesn't actually want to eliminate minimum wage? He wants to leave it to the states to decide? You don't support the elimination of minimum wage?

As for Medicare, I already addressed this with the previous member. You can quote me there.

Now regarding the other points I made about Ron Paul and where he stands, your responses to them was either to deny that's what he really believes, or to insist I'm not explaining the full picture and complain about how I offended you. If you intend to support a candidate with such extreme views, you're going to have to get use to getting called out for them. Insisting we should not take what Ron Paul says "literally" or to somehow rationalize it for you is just a showing of you being unable to take criticism for the man's lunacies. This is in part why Ron Paul cannot even gain a showing within even within the Republican Party. Paulers can't take criticism, they only want to deny and dish criticism out.

If you think there's more to Ron Pauls stances, state your case.

reply to post by kristobal

Maybe in the next century, when we all have nanobot upgrades and life-extension modifications.

Ron Paul is as sharp as a tack. He's got the experience and knowledge we need. Not voting for him because he's older, in my opinion, would be ridiculous.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Oh yes, but he'll "end the wars" and "legalize pot", as if those are the core and overriding concerns that folks have these days

What nonsense. I have yet to see anything come from you anti-Ron Paul people that has any substance to it.....not one thing. It's hard to be effective in your efforts to bash him when you don't have a lot of negative material to work with, isn't it? Good luck with that.

Originally posted by NightGypsy
What nonsense. I have yet to see anything come from you anti-Ron Paul people that has any substance to it.....not one thing.

Anti-Ron Paul people? Is that what we're called now? While this is a thread about Ron Paul, my issues with him stem beyond merely his character and presidential run. If anything I'm anti-libertarian, anti-reaganomics, anti-bush tax cuts, anti-corportism, anti-free market. I'm anti-many things that are mainly advocated by those to the rightwing of the political spectrum.

The things I don't like Obama for? His support for the patriot act, his continuation of the military industrial complex including his involved in the Libyan war, it should have rightfully been left to the Libyan people. I don't like him for cracking down on medical marijuana centers. I don't like his healthcare bill, you cannot mandate people to buy private insurance. He's shown weakness in so many things and if he loses the 2012 elections, well he had it coming. Then again, I don't see much hope for the Republican party if this is the current batch of candidates they choose to model around.

It's hard to be effective in your efforts to bash him when you don't have a lot of negative material to work with, isn't it?

You're pritty dramatic. I'm criticizing his policies and you're complaining that I'm bashing him. If this is how you feel then how do you expect him to be a serious contender to the presidency? If you can't take the critics and what's thrown at him, he's not going to get far (as demonstrated in the last 2 elections). At ATS we talk about Obama needing to handle the heat in the kitchen, well it's a 2 way street.

Now, if somebody attacked Ron paul's family (unless his son, the senator, said something controversially political in public), or his middle name, or his personal religious beliefs, that would be bashing in my view.

Good luck with that.

I don't think I need that luck. Given Ron Paul's 2% showing in the last two previous elections, his going to need all the luck he gets. I hope he stays long enough in the 2012 elections, we need all the entertainment we can get.