Like what, for example? Weigh them.
Firstly, his stupid bloated website is not working, so I cannot list the ‘issues’ simply.
I’ll just hit the highlights that are inane:
isolationism
gold standard
abolish the Federal Reserve
abolish the IRS
Other’s I recall but cannot verify at the moment:
abolish public education
he’s pro “natural” corporate monopolies, see Ingenium’s thought above about the Gilded Age
So, the only thing he’s said that hasn’t irked me is his immigration policy, but even then I am for a form of amnesty for some of them based upon certain conditions. As for the “scales” of my opinions, it doesn’t matter. I disagree with him on too many issues. He’s a statistical outlier, and both his numbers and supporters demonstrate it clearly.
The center-libertarians have Nader, the right-libertarians have Paul. You can have him, I’m not interested in the “Ron Paul Revolution.”
You’ve got the first one on your list wrong. He’s not a isolationist. As for the rest, can you make a case as to why they’re inane?
You’re right about the department of education. He’s old school republican in that aspect.
Glad to see some new faces in this thread, it’s quite refreshing! It’s interesting that after reading through the replies, my point as found justification again and again: the dialogue in relation to politics has yet to move past “this is dumb, these people are dumb, those ideas are dumb, etc.” Let’s see some real arguments that involve facts, historical evidence, and statistics instead of ad hominem, ad popularum, etc.
I’ll hold your hand through this one. Why not? Give specific examples.
I agree with this to an extent. It is a similar situation it Christianity; there are those who interpret the Bible as a message of peace, love, and prosperity, and those who use it as the foundation of justice, vengeance, hatred, etc.
But the constitution is different in that it doesn’t have directly conflicting messages, as far I know about. There is justification in the Bible for hating gays, and justification for being non-judgemental and loving gays as you would a brother. There is no justification in the Constitution for declaring war when it’s not approved by Congress or we’re not being threatened, nor is there justification for treating men unequally.
Agreed. Stop getting hung up on the Ron Paul issue. I think Ron Paul represents a set of ideas, and some I agree with, some I do not. Whenever I try to discuss these ideas, people, being the programmed androids that they are, just start blabbing about Ron Paul’s lunacy, his supporters fanaticism, Republican this, Democrat that. Let’s talk about ideas for once, and leave all the unimportant shit in the garbage where it belongs.
Stereotypes carry no weight in this discussion. You’ve yet to prove your rationality and my unreasonableness, so you’re obviously not doing something right.
In the “war on drugs,” one would expect to find that the more money is spent on this government program, over time, there would be a steady decline or reduction in drug use; however, this is not the case. Drug use has fluctuated over the decades:
I was surprised that this chart has didn’t include legal drug use, as we’ve been reminded time and again that abuse of over-the-counter drugs has been gaining popularity. So if we are spending billions of dollars on the “war on drugs,” and don’t have an enormous statistical improvement to show for it, I would classify it as a failure. Perhaps this is because drug use shouldn’t be classified as a criminal problem, but rather a psychological issue, just as alcoholism is treated. If we just label drug users as criminals, it’s not touching a probable underlying issue.
Ah, the truth surfaces; you clearly haven’t delved into researching the issues he discusses in-depth. Isolationism and non-intervention are two very different policies. I disagree with isolationism, I agree with non-intervention.
The gold standard I’m torn about, and honestly, I don’t have enough knowledge of the economy to make a good decision one way or the other. I’m guessing 99.9% of Americans don’t either.
This applies to abolition if the Federal Reserve as well, in my humble opinion. What I do know is the Fed was created to control inflation, and the CPI has gone up sharply only in the past 75 or so years, suspiciously after the creation of the Fed. Again, I’m not knowledgeable enough to know if they are the only cause.
As for abolishing the IRS, Glen Beck confirms that returning national spending levels to those of ten years ago would eliminate the need for the IRS (I’d love to see the data myself, but I’m sure if this were untrue, people would be all over it). I think we could cut back national spending levels in a lot of ways that would eliminate the need for income to be collected from our paychecks to support programs and wars that are frankly abhorrent.
Now, back to the discussion at hand, because all of these points are irrelevant to the opening post and the topic; however, my curiosity has been quenched as to whether or not your ideas, more or less, are any more valid than those of young earth creationists. I will be pleased to continue the discussion with anybody else, or with you if you realize the error of your argumentative ways.
He is an isolationist who believes in the policy of “non-interventionism.” That is an isolationist FP, and I don’t care how you wish to semantically frame it or argue it.
No. I disagree with him, almost across the board on all of his “issues,” and that’s all you really need to know as far as the “scales” go.
His entire diatribe of the founders is mostly predicated on the myth of the founders, and not the reality. Scroll up to see my point.
George Washington has more in common with Napoleon, than he does with Ron Paul.
Our discussion here was not about why you disagree with him. It was about why you think the issues he maintains are “wacky.”
Let’s hear it. Why are the issues Paul champions wacky?
He’s an isolationist with respect to war. He thinks we should get our hands off other countrie’s sovereignty…pretty wacky, right?
I guess it would be if you didn’t know what sovereignty meant. eg. youtube.com/watch?v=mi49tvs8jp8
No, I said he holds some wacky views, and his method of expression and argumentation is unreasonable. Look, I like that Dr. No does his thing, but he’s not my guy.
We have not formally “declared war,” since 1942. I’ll let you discover which country it was upon on your own time.
It begins with a “B”.
That’s right, wacky ideas, as I said. We are on the same page.
I am not interested in proving it. It’s my opinion. You cannot prove an opinion, genius.
You’ve not established why your metric for the ‘war on drugs’ is valid for determining its a failure.
Some would point to the incarceration rates and call that a measure of its success.
omg. This is where teh wacky comes in…
you listen to Glen Beck, yet you don’t know the finer points of Austrian Economics versus neo-classical, nor do you seem to know what is “good” about what Keynes has done? Read some von Mises, Hayek, and then some Keynes and get back to me on why its so good to commodify currency or use species versus fiat currency.
Whatever man, you just invalidated your view, and backed them up with a talking head form CNN.
Your position is unreasonable, and based upon your stated ignorance of economics. Well, except for the Glen Beck school of economics…
hee!
Ah, you like pretend I don’t have a working vocabulary, and then post a youtube link? 
Okay, tell me what you don’t like about George Kennan’s containment policy - or - the Monroe Doctrine and/or the Wilson Doctrine and how that relates to the Bush Doctrine? This must lead into why the “Dr. Paul Doctrine” is then so much better… other then your pretend defense that it is the '‘founder’s doctrine’ - which I pretty much have already debunked.
also…
Interesting choice of words. What does Ron Paul think about the theory of evolution?
I didn’t say anything about the founders. I’m speaking out of common sense here. We’re up to our necks in debt, and all other choices for president pretty much guarantee further nation building around the world. I want the money the government steals from me to at least come back to me in some way. I don’t it going to the bureaucrats and war and fear mongerers who get nothing done.
But I, and you, digress. The argument is why his ideals are ‘wacky.’ You’d be the first person I’ve met who thinks this. I’m genuinely interested as to why you think so. So, stick to the subject at hand here. The point is not why I like him, or why you don’t like him. It’s why his ideas don’t make sense, i.e. are crazy.
Not the point, Ron Paul and his supporters do make that claim, endlessly. Like, this thread, for example. Duh. So I am claiming that is just an empty jingoistic appeal, and I think I’ve already demonstrated how its baseless.
I see you like the rhetorical appeal. Do recall, I’ve asked for REASONS.
No, you are just being obstinate. I cannot prove a negative. I have stated Paul and his supporters are unreasonable.
reason = r / not reasonable = -r
That means the claim is “-r,” for those paying attention. I cannot prove a NEGATIVE.
Also, -r = “wacky”
Ron Paul and/or his supporters need to provide persuasive reasons. They do not, and most likely will not or cannot.
This is a big fat problem I have with it too.
By having one.
We have laws against all the bad things that are attributed to drug use. If drug use or abuse is contributory to a criminals actions, courts have authority to deal with these problems as part of sentencing.
This country constitutionally agreed that prohibition was a bad idea. Recreating the same situation was retarded.
You have got to be shitting me. I guess if everyone is in jail no one can commit any crimes, brilliant.
This means that the federal government has these powers.
A specific problem I have with strict interpretation is ‘‘that among these’’, referring to our inalienable rights, strongly suggests to me that some rights not specified are also inalienable, however, strict interpretationists believe that no rights other than those specifically mentioned exist.
Also, ‘’… without due process of law’', this statement pretty much allows an unchecked branch of government, or the branches acting together, to do whatever they want. This is the aspect that is actually causing many of the problems you decry, and this was built in by the founding fathers because they were nearly as sneaky and underhanded as our current group, they were after all, humans.
Then your issue is with the laws about drugs, not the “war on drugs.” To oppose the “war on drugs” in so far as you’ve claimed, is simply to oppose the rule of law. That’s does not make sense.
You can fight the “war” by changing the laws. The laws are clear, imho.
So, will President Ron Paul make new laws? Or, will he alone be able to divert resources away from the “federal” response?
FWIW, I’m for decriminalization of soft-use, which is the law in California where I live. I am happy with the status-quo in the war on drugs. I fail to see how criminal drug users are a benefit to society, so I really don’t have a problem with them in jail.
I also find the argument that drug use causes them to be criminals inane, they are criminals for both the drug use, and the robbery to support that criminal habit.
Your post is fallacious, argument from incredibility followed by a slippery slope generalization.
This puts points in the “Paultard” column.
I think you have the “literalists” confused with the “strict,” but you make a valid point. They’d be in this category, anyways.
Your last point is brilliant, I give you bonus points for it, and I will also then keep those points in the “Paultard” column until they can do better than jingoist assertions about the founding father’s “vision” via witty quotes.
The real point of that is, once the founders became politicians, they acted like politicians.
It’s clear that by now, if you haven’t explained why his views are wacky as to simply listing his views, then you are incapable.
It’s nothing to be ashamed of, it’s typical of the population.
I see you like the rhetorical appeal. Do recall, I’ve asked for REASONS.
Since you’re posting here…why do you think adhering to a strict interpretation of the Constitution is a bad idea? What parts do you disagree with? What amendments should we add? Should we abolish the constitution completely?
Haha, freakin spot on. Let’s make masturbating a crime so we can pack those prisons further!
Holy shit, I can’t believe it…somebody is actually answering my opening post! Awesome!
Perhaps you can clarify, because I feel this is where this universal healthcare debate is springing from…some would argue everybody should have the right to healthcare as an inalienable right, which I understand to be more of a socialist viewpoint.
And I definitely think what qualifies as a right needs to be open to discussion. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that many things I would like everybody to have, simply as a compassionate person, aren’t feasible. If everybody having healthcare meant eliminating the middle class, or if in trying to eliminate homelessness and poverty meant not allowing people to rise above their means or be richer than anybody else, then I’m not sure if it’d be worth it (isn’t this the idea behind communism? Sorry, I’ve never taken a class about these things! If only I could afford the school!)
Can you tell me where I can get some more info on this, or tell me more in depth what you mean? And I agree about the supreme courts…they pose one of the most undiscussed threats, it would seem.
Hmmm,
Where the rule of law violates constitutional rights it must be opposed. The prohibition of alcohol was determined by valid ammendment to be unconstitutional, there is no difference between the prohibition of alcohol, or any other substance. This is not an opposition to the rule of law, but an opposition to prosecuting unconstitutional laws. Yes I obviously do have an issue with the victimless crime laws, but it is quite silly to separate the law from its prosecution.
The codification of law, which is originally and ultimately tort, provides for standardization of penalties for specific crimes that have been determined by tort to cause harm, for a number of valid and generally pragmatic reasons.
A percieved offence is not a valid basis for law if it could not be positively prosecuted as a tort. Tort requires that some harm be shown, that the harmed individual may seek restitution for. The simple posession, use or manufacture of a substance, growing of a plant, does not, in and of itself, create a provable harm, as with all of the victimless crimes.
I can not change the laws, I must elect officials to do that.
I have no idea what Mr. Paul might do, I do not support him for a number of reasons, but I agree with about half of his positions. The President of the United States, whoever that is or will be, could remove cannabis from the schedule one list just as easily as Mr. Nixon put it on.
Decriminalization of ‘‘soft use’’ is the most perverse of hypocricy. If it is acceptable for a person to possess and use a substance, but not to produce or sell the substance, you create a black market and force otherwise law abiding people to deal with criminals to obtain an acceptable thing. This situation supports criminal society in general, and was the impetus for the repeal of prohibition.
I fail to see how telemarketers and some other folks are a benefit to society, but I don’t recognize that as an excuse to encarcerate them.
You have stated that ‘‘soft’’ use, whatever that is, is acceptable, and yet also accept the illegality of the substance. This is far more silly than recognizing that a ‘‘soft user’’ becomes a criminal only because the aquisition, possession and use of the substance is a crime. I have a quote from Thomas Jefferson making a similarly inane comment about victimless crimes.
I don’t see how I made the argument that ‘‘drug use causes them to be criminals’’, or how that can be inane, since it is simply a definition. You stated that a robber whose motivation to rob is to obtain funds for drugs is a criminal for the robbery and for the drug use. If the drug use was not a crime, the person would still be a criminal for the robbery, or would not have committed the robbery, for a number of reasons.
If you claim that I suggested drug use causes otherwise law abiding people to commit crimes other than drug use, I did not, however, people forced to associate with criminal society are in a far more vulnerable position to be coerced into criminal activity.
The soft drug user that you accept, once convicted and sentenced to jail time, has a very good chance of becoming a career criminal because they have had their options severely restricted, and have often received a comprehensive education and indoctrination into criminal society.
The idea that incarceration is the least bit effective in controlling drug use or abuse has proven to be very wrong, so looking to incarceration rates as positive thing is also wrong.
Here are some more rights that the US is signatory to: un.org/Overview/rights.html
Universal health care is obviously a socialist enterprise, but no more socialist than federal highways or the armed forces. (where universal health care is provided)
I believe these rights are attainable, and constitutionally acceptable.
the constitution might as well be drooling’s on a snotty napkin
More info on due process of law is in the law. Good luck with that.
There are so many ways to circumvent or ignore human rights in the courts (not just the supreme court) it is way beyond me to point a direction, but you can’t miss them if you look.
An unconstitutional law can be passed with due process, and will stand, if it can not be challenged in court, or if the court interprets the constitution in a way that will allow the law to stand, or if the court refuses to address constitutionality and simply accepts that laws are to be made by congress and unquestioned by the court. (see activist courts)
snotty napkin
Well ya. As long as you can appoint and give life tenure to those who interpret the constitution from the very class that will most benefit. As long as the court gives to the congress the right to make its own rules, with the effect that they locked in the number of representatives at a ridiculous low level. As long as they give to economic interests the right to influence and manipulate government while the people are unheard. And as long as the president can take powers to himself like a king or dictator without danger of recall. As long as the parties, for which no justification can be shown in the constitution, can trade on rights even while they swear to uphold the constitution; then it is a rag. It does not begin to meet the goals it sets forth for itself, does not promote good, and does not prevent the worst class among us from feeding on the body politic; so it should be trashed.
And there you see the congress playing to small majorities passing laws that are clearly unconstitutional knowing if they are challenged they will fall, and so handing their responsibility to govern off to the least democratic branch of government. It is retarded. It is government to divide, and that is poison to any nation, to any unity.