Why Should I Vote For Ron Paul?

reply to post by spiderpuppy


You should vote for him, because he is 100 percent more likely to address those things in the future than any other candidate (the rest never will). Paul is somewhat conspiracy minded, but you and I both know if he mentioned those it would completely destroy his bid for president. Get him in and out of office and see what he says.

You know that is why he can't say anything. Don't hold that against him. He openly commented on the "fema camp" possibility. You can see that on youtube.

reply to post by eagleeye2


As sheepish as he sometimes appears ( i know he can get fired up though, i've seen it) he has more balls on that issue than any candidate out there.

reply to post by NowIsThe


I love it. Why are Newt and Santorum off the ballot in those states?
You just got me excited.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


LOL Noam Chomsky.. he's an anarchist and libertarian socialist.
He's one of those advocate it because it works when I think about it guys.

I'm not American, but I hope you'll consider my position.

The way I see it, you have one time only to prove Ron Paul right, which equals a constitutional approach to politics and freedoms, or prove him wrong which ratifies the theory of the POTUS being a controlled position.

Vote any other way and Ron Paul loses the Presidency, but you lose the chance of really knowing what could have been. For four years? 8 years? 12 ... Forever? Does the US, on it's current path, have this time to waste on a 'more of the same' president?

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Noam Chomsky Is not a US Libertarian, which is wildly different to what the rest of the world means when they say Libertarian.

Ron Paul is Christian Objectivist. And that's a hyper-scary combo or delusional and hypocritical.

well you're disenfranchised... we all are. we all know what these people say on stage will never come true... however... Ron Paul's been one of those consistent sob's who knows the the inner workings of the US government. He's always stood by his word unlike the other clowns on stage who are only saying what people want to hear and carry on like its an episode of American idol or jersey shore. In America its all about he said she said and the drama in between that ferments into the 'show' we call the presidential elections.

I would like for once... just once... that everyone used their brain instead rooting for the status quo... and Ron is not status quo. He's a man of principle... the others... liars, cowards, and con-men.

reply to post by ugie1028


You're so wrong. Ron Paul is selling a utopian dream just like the rest of them. Sure, selfishness sounds great in theory, but it really means might = right. You know this thing where we go into third world countries and bomb them, and we're "right" cause we have the biggest guns...? That's the outcome of a US Libertarian policy. The government, whose original goal in creating a society was for the greater good of ALL members of the society, will be stripped of it's basic power, to ensure basic protections. Survival of the fittest writ large.

This has been in other threads, but it should be here as well.



Listen to Chomsky's ACCURATE description of what US Libertarian is and then see if that's what Ron Paul says publicly.

It's not.

He talks abut the constitution (something he willfully misrepresents) and "liberty" and "personal freedom". What he doesn't explain is how this freedom for you would actually result in freedom for bullies too.

It's a scary and un-American vision and it should scare you #less.

But his appeal to your selfishness makes you think he's a good guy with awesome principles. He's not and they aren't.

Ron Paul has uncontrollable flatulance, and generally smells like a combination between raisins and ranch dressing.

This is something I have heard from several seperate sources who have met the man first hand.

That being said, one reason why everyone loves Ron Paul is because he just makes sense. He doesnt have to use political "pandering" or answer debate questions by whatever is deemed "the most politically correct stance"

Essentially, he calls it like he sees it. Everyone loves to see someone who has nothing to lose, nothing to gain, get up on their soapbox and just start calling people out. He has a lot of good ideas, although some of them may sound good in theory but would be almost impossible to execute.

Lets keep in mind, leaders like Jimmy Carter, and most recently Obama, who are generally not very intimidating figures, and generally dislike violence. They both were elected on a platform that they would pull troops out of foreign countries, not go to war anymore etc....

Remember how many times Obama promised his "first order of business would be to end both the Iraq and Afghan wars, bring home the troops, and close down Guantanamo Bay.

Then he gets elected, and reneges on those promises. I suppose there is information that Presidents are privvy to, that most of us would have no clue about. I can imagine Obama's first day at work, opening up his dossiers marked "For your eyes only" and saying to himself:

"Well, I guess I cant close Guantanamo after all..."

reply to post by WhiteDevil013


This kind of post is why it must suck to be a politician. Obama never promised to end the Afghan war...as a candidate.
www.politifact.com...

He did promise to bring home 33K troops by the summer of 2012.

philadelphia.cbslocal.com...

He also did end the war in Iraq.

So... No broken promises there.

The Gitmo thing has a lot more to do with Bush's massive #-up than Obama's will. Gitmo has made a LOT of terrorists out of innocent people... if they let them go... well, terrorism... if they try them, they'll have to let them go... so...

It's a bad situation.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


No dude, You're wrong. Being a libertarian isn't scary... since when has freedom and self reliance been scary? Whats so bad about being able to do what you want as long as it doesn't harm another human being? what is so wrong about a sound currency? what so bad about making peace instead of war? whats so bad about recognizing individual rights rather than cater to a couple peoples right? Whats so bad about creating a level platform?

I am not even going to go on. You are wrong on so many levels and you not being scared about who's in charge now makes me think that you live in a fantasy utopia yourself. If you are blind with the few examples i just provided above... then you are lost.

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

 

No dude, You're wrong. Being a libertarian isn't scary... since when has freedom and self reliance been scary? Whats so bad about being able to do what you want as long as it doesn't harm another human being? what is so wrong about a sound currency? what so bad about making peace instead of war? whats so bad about recognizing individual rights rather than cater to a couple peoples right? Whats so bad about creating a level platform?

I am not even going to go on. You are wrong on so many levels and you not being scared about who's in charge now makes me think that you live in a fantasy utopia yourself. If you are blind with the few examples i just provided above... then you are lost.

You're just spouting rhetoric.

What would a Libertarian government do if a company was dumping toxins in a river?

What would it do it a single company tried to buy all the media?

Hmm..?

What good is your freedom if someone's else freedom matters more because they have more wealth and power?

It's truly delusional to think that "liberty" is going to protect your interests when a 800lb gorilla decides in in it's interest to # you over.

Individual rights as an issue is a smoke screen for stripping away the governments commitment to society and replacing it with who ever is strongest.

The people that want this "liberty" don't care about you and they'll not care if their "liberty" destroys yours...

Originally posted by EvolEric
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

Thanks for posting!
Due to my dial up connection...
I cannot watch that video...

but from what you said...
Consistency... I like that in a politician..

Star for your response

You want consistency in a President?
Ill show you consistency:



Bam! Thats a consistent President.
Now where is my star

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Spitting rhetoric?

I think those are questions, and you didn't answer any.

company dumps toxic waste... hmmm well since libertarians are not anarchists... we would actually look at the constitutional laws and on property rights. the government would have the authority in that case to step in and stop the company because it would be the governments job to defend peoples rights.... and in this case right to their property, or nearby properties.

your neighbor... lets just say he is disposing chemicals in his backyard... because of the hazard of this waste, you would have a right to petition, or request the government (file a report) stating that your neighbor was violating your rights (property rights.) because he was dumping that in his yard. yes it may be his property, but in this instance it would also pollute yours as well and the government would be OBLIGATED to step in because they are supposed to 'protect your rights.' because it would be LAW.

I don't know why your going on a tirade and causing the ATS censors to pick up your foul language. perhaps you should vent your frustration doing something constructive... like reading a book... instead of getting half-truths from the internet and youtube.

and to think, as someone as impolite as you are would try and debate others thinking they would take you seriously.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

 

No dude, You're wrong. Being a libertarian isn't scary... since when has freedom and self reliance been scary? Whats so bad about being able to do what you want as long as it doesn't harm another human being? what is so wrong about a sound currency? what so bad about making peace instead of war? whats so bad about recognizing individual rights rather than cater to a couple peoples right? Whats so bad about creating a level platform?

I am not even going to go on. You are wrong on so many levels and you not being scared about who's in charge now makes me think that you live in a fantasy utopia yourself. If you are blind with the few examples i just provided above... then you are lost.

You're just spouting rhetoric.

What would a Libertarian government do if a company was dumping toxins in a river?

What would it do it a single company tried to buy all the media?

Hmm..?

What good is your freedom if someone's else freedom matters more because they have more wealth and power?

It's truly delusional to think that "liberty" is going to protect your interests when a 800lb gorilla decides in in it's interest to # you over.

Individual rights as an issue is a smoke screen for stripping away the governments commitment to society and replacing it with who ever is strongest.

The people that want this "liberty" don't care about you and they'll not care if their "liberty" destroys yours...

The problem with your post is that like the pro-Paul people you criticise, you just use one definition of libertarianism to defend your view.
Thje roll of government differs between the different libertarian views. Ron Paul just wants government to be there for things like when businesses dump their wast in the rivers and when one or two businesses want to buy all the media. (Like it is now by the way)
Libertarianism and liberterianism isn't always the same thing, there are differances in the philosophy. Like socialisme isn't the same as communisme, even though most Americans might say they are.

reply to post by ugie1028


You know what you're saying is actually contradicted by the Libertarian Party Platform and website?

reply to post by GrouchyGrouch


Actually the Libertarian website specifically says it will not stop monopolies. So Ron Paul and his party would allow media monopolies. Which is pretty obvious.

OTher things that Libertarians and Objectivists promote:

The removal of child welfare laws
The removals of child labor laws
The end of free public education

Sounds like liberty to me. The freedom for the poor to go without an education, for children to return to the shop floor and for parents to abuse their kids if it suits their ideology.

Don't have time to read the whole thread now, sorry for the hit and run. Or if it was already mentioned. There is only one reason to vote for anyone. If their principals resonate with you, and their past actions show they are not just BS empty words. That is my opinion. Have a good day

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


based on a small minority who 'claim' they are libertarian.

dude, just stop trying to act like your right... you have not proven anything.