Is Ron Paul A Visionary Or A Nut Job?

[danboid]

Documentaries of Critical Importance

http://netctr.com/media.html

You should also all take the time to watch 'Bloodlines of power' as it will explain a lot of what has REALLY been going on in- its nothing like what we get told by Big Media, who are controlled by the same people who own your banks, universities and hospitals- are you really counting on these guys to tell you the truth! :lol:

I have watched many of the videos listed at the first link, but this is the best!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=amLDfAMnLVc

Watch and learn!

EDIT

It just so happens, I just realised now when checking the links, that the first link is promoting Ron Paul with a big banner at the top of their page! Please, I don't care what you may think of Ron Paul, seriously check out those videos. I highly recommend Jordan Maxwell and Michael Tsarion as researchers/ speakers on such stuff - religion, gov and secret societies etc.

 

[daclassicgamingmaster]

lol this discussion went from Ron Paul to the illuminati

WTF

 

[LHC]

I couldn't watch that video because my internet is awful, but I've read through his policies (quickly, and only on wikipedia, so I don't know how much importance he gives to each policy) and he seems like a relatively decent candidate. There are many issues I haven't judged because I have no idea how things work over there. For example his educational policies seem to be related to state vs federal government, but I don't understand this really.

Good things:
anti-patriot act, more pro free speech than other candidates, anti-intervention, decreased taxes, defence of second amendment, more pro free market than other candidates, anti id cards, anti draft (surely all candidates are anti draft?), anti affirmative action, pro stem cell research, anti universal health care, anti drug prohibition

Bad things:
pro life, seems to be generally anti-homosexual, doesn't believe in separation between church and state (although his policy is better than the situation in the UK, where we have state sponsored religion)

Overall I would say based on this (and you can't vote for president based on a list on wikipedia) I'd say he has a decent but fairly radical set of policies. He will never be elected because he's a Republican candidate with largely libertarian (ie "weak, lefty liberal") policies; they will never support his candidacy.

 

[DaveC]

lol this discussion went from Ron Paul to the illuminati

WTF

More "tin foil hat" conspiracy theory stuff to google Not saying I believe in this stuff either, alot is probably BS, but who really knows.

Bilderberg group

New world order

Skull and bones

Bohemian Grove

Zeitgeist

He will never be elected because he's a Republican candidate with largely libertarian (ie "weak, lefty liberal") policies; they will never support his candidacy.

That really is not right either. Libertarian is not the same as "lefty liberal". In fact most liberals/left wing do not agree or like libertarian ideas especially the "privatize everything, get rid of government" thing. I found recently that the left wing "liberals" and older conservatives (not neo-cons) have alot of the same concerns. I have listened to left and right wingers and when it comes to the government they are both concerned about the same things. They both do not like the US going to facism, the loss of civil rights, massive corporate influence on government, illegal immigration, assault on the US constitution etc. They mostly part ways when it comes to religion, goverment aid, environment, entitlement, and of course liberals are less likely to want to bust someone for smoking weed

 

[Yrx]

You know, it's kind of weird, because liberals often talk about personal freedoms and stuff to do whatever you want to do, but that doesn't match up with their policy of getting government involved with EVERYTHING. Ron Paul is at least consistent with that. If we weren't in a war, I would probably support him.

It's kind of funny how everyone's talking about Reagan being a great leader and everything, and the two guys closest to him (Huckabee for openness and charisma, and Ron Paul for small government policy) are getting blasted by all the so-called "conservatives."

It's too bad that Bush put such a bad taste to the term "compassionate conservative," because I think that's what a lot of people want. I'm not saying that he was the absolute worst president ever, but he certainly made some bad choices. I feel bad for him, though, with all the stuff he has to put up with from the media.

And DaveC, I do think that you're being ridiculous with your judgements of Christianity. The Bible set forth all kinds of moral rules, like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Never does it say wage a holy war for Christ's second coming, and although I do see a lot of bozos working under the guise of Christianity, none of them could ever justify doing something like nuking the Middle East. I especially can't see someone like Huckabee being that delusioned, when he talks about helping the lives of those struggling. That's actually a big reason I like him more than a lot of the supposedly "conservative" candidates. This guy really acts what he believes, especially in regards to helping those who need it. I like how he put it, he said, "Well I'm a conservative, but I'm not mad at everyone."

 

[LHC]

That really is not right either. Libertarian is not the same as "lefty liberal". In fact most liberals/left wing do not agree or like libertarian ideas especially the "privatize everything, get rid of government" thing. I found recently that the left wing "liberals" and older conservatives (not neo-cons) have alot of the same concerns. I have listened to left and right wingers and when it comes to the government they are both concerned about the same things. They both do not like the US going to facism, the loss of civil rights, massive corporate influence on government, illegal immigration, assault on the US constitution etc. They mostly part ways when it comes to religion, goverment aid, environment, entitlement, and of course liberals are less likely to want to bust someone for smoking weed

I am aware that liberalism/libertarianism are not the same (actually they used to be synonymous but what we now consider liberalism has taken the use of the term). That's why I put it in quotation marks. However the predominantly conservative (and large religious numbers) Republicans generally consider many libertarian policies such as the removal of prohibition as "liberal/weak". He is essentially fighting a Libertarian candidacy in the Republican ranks and it won't work. There is no way the Republican party is going to nominate somebody who would be seen as weak on crime and goes against traditional values.

We are talking about a country where a phenomenally unpopular George Bush was elected largely on the basis of national security and moral issues. There is no way the party where most of that support comes from is going to nominate a man that opposes prohibition and the patriot act.

 

[Orkie]

You guys act like Christianity is something new and dangerous. Quite the opposite.

It is something old and dangerous. Remember that the Christians went over to the holy land to slaughter all the Muslims on many occasions.
See: The Crusades.

 

[daclassicgamingmaster]

You guys act like Christianity is something new and dangerous. Quite the opposite.

See: The Crusades.

you just got served

 

[DaveC]

You know, it's kind of weird, because liberals often talk about personal freedoms and stuff to do whatever you want to do, but that doesn't match up with their policy of getting government involved with EVERYTHING. Ron Paul is at least consistent with that. If we weren't in a war, I would probably support him.

It's kind of funny how everyone's talking about Reagan being a great leader and everything, and the two guys closest to him (Huckabee for openness and charisma, and Ron Paul for small government policy) are getting blasted by all the so-called "conservatives."

It's too bad that Bush put such a bad taste to the term "compassionate conservative," because I think that's what a lot of people want. I'm not saying that he was the absolute worst president ever, but he certainly made some bad choices. I feel bad for him, though, with all the stuff he has to put up with from the media.

"Liberals" don't want the government involved with "everything". They want the government involved with things they SHOULD be involved in which is the well being of ALL citizens, yes even those that aren't the upper 1% wealthiest. To do this you have to have some government regulations. If you allow businesses for example to pump all of the poison into the environment with no regulations, guess what (and that is one thing the Bush admin has done)? They will do just that as it is cheaper for them. This will result in a massive amount of diseases due to the toxic environment. This is just one example but there are many others that show that the "privitize everything" idea just doesn't work.

"Everyone" doesn't talk about Reagan as a great leader, only the right-wingers do. Reagan was a terrible president. His policies that lead to the destructon of organized labor (and the middle class) , the consolidation of media that lead to the news turning into info-tainment rather than real news (fairness doctrine), other pro-corporation anti-citizen policies that have started the move toward facism, and more.

Bush definetly IS the worst president ever. I have never seen an administration as corrupt and full of cronyism than this one. If the media REALLY told the truth about what is going on Bush would have been impeached years ago. The fact that the right-wing corporatist media DOESN"T do real news is the reason so many like you are so uninformed as to what is really happening to this country and YOUR civil rights. They put out propaganda like Fox "news", Shawn Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill o'reilly etc that dumbs down America. It is right out of the facism handbook, keep 'em stupid and you can do anything. Also by the way they LOVE religion. Religion is a great tool to control people, it is now and always has been through the ages. That is why it is such a big issue in politics now.

 

[StealthBagel]

Yes the US is steaming full speed ahead towards facism, corporatism, and theocracy. ... or mob crime boss Guiliani which is just as bad as the Bush crime family.

Please loosen your tinfoil hat a little.. I think it is cutting off circulation. Or at least stop listening to people like those Loose Change douchebags or 9/11 truthers.

I don't think any of the candidates Republican or Democrat are "visionaries" I think it is just a matter of choosing the best of the worst

That's politics for you unfortunately. Anyone who can align their views perfectly with a political party probably had their views force fed to them from birth like a religion; republicans and democrats all have opinion sets only half of which I can ever agree with, so voting is a matter of choosing which issues are more important to me..... it's a shitty proposition and I can see why Washington so disliked political parties.

 

[DaveC]

Yes the US is steaming full speed ahead towards facism, corporatism, and theocracy. ... or mob crime boss Guiliani which is just as bad as the Bush crime family.

Please loosen your tinfoil hat a little.. I think it is cutting off circulation. Or at least stop listening to people like those Loose Change douchebags or 9/11 truthers.

I think the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are nut jobs (always did).

The rest is true. Who do you think really calls the shots in US government? It is big business/corporate lobbyists and the military industrial complex. "News" has become info-tainment (they will drone on for days about OJ but never mention the stripping of our civil rights etc). The Republican party *has* been taken over by the religious-right (some think that is good, I don't).

 

[OMars]

I like this guy, but politicians always lie about something, and I doubt that the income tax can be taken out in during his term, if he gets elected. I like his points of view. He either really believes in those things, or is trying to get attention with the shock value of the things he says. Not many people are willing to say that America causes terrorism on itself when it interferes with other countries. He also claims he wants to take away that idea of America being the world's police.

It doesn't really matter who wins in the end, there will never be another Bill Clinton again. :lol:

 

[imec]

You guys act like Christianity is something new and dangerous. Quite the opposite.

It is something old and dangerous. Remember that the Christians went over to the holy land to slaughter all the Muslims on many occasions.
See: The Crusades.


No one remembers the communists, maybe because they are running the country. Atheistic governments have a knack for slaughtering those that don't agree with them, see the Bolsheviks/Communist China. But, then again, one-hundred and eighty million is just a statistic, it doesn't really matter. The *evil* Christians who stopped the Muslims quest for world domination, rape, and pillaging (something you cry about every morning, I know), are infinitely evil (oh no, ban him, he's not politically correct). So evil, in fact, that we must ban every single Bible from school, we must completely cleanse them from the face of the earth! They think they are so holy with their Bibles and churches! I think it's unfair that they preach their ignorance, forcing the Bible down young peoples throats once a week, when we tell them there is no God one-hundred times a week. This must stop, I suggest all of you, especially DaveC, buy a gun and go to your nearest church. It's the only way people! They are completely illogical and evil, just look at the media! Everyone knows that the media is right!! We must take away their rights day by day, so slowly that once every right is gone, they will be too small to do anything about it! Kill the Christians!!!!!!!!!!

 

[nickspoon]

No one remembers the communists, maybe because they are running the country.

Which country?
QUOTE
Atheistic governments have a knack for slaughtering those that don't agree with them, see the Bolsheviks/Communist China.

They were communist (well, not really). They were also atheist, yes, but it doesn't mean that they slaughter people because of it. That's like saying "Governments with people with moustaches in them slaughter people, see Nazis/Bolsheviks."
QUOTE
The *evil* Christians who stopped the Muslims quest for world domination, rape, and pillaging (something you cry about every morning, I know), are infinitely evil (oh no, ban him, he's not politically correct).

Wait, you're suggesting some kind of hidden evil Muslim agenda?
QUOTE
So evil, in fact, that we must ban every single Bible from school

At least move them to the fiction section.
QUOTE
we must completely cleanse them from the face of the earth!

You misunderstand - 'freedom of belief' is what we strive for, which includes 'freedom from belief' for those who choose it, not for all.
QUOTE
They think they are so holy with their Bibles and churches! I think it's unfair that they preach their ignorance, forcing the Bible down young peoples throats once a week, when we tell them there is no God one-hundred times a week.

I don't go around telling people that there is no God. I don't hold services, or give out leaflets, preaching my atheism. And if they want to go to church, let them go to bloody church, I don't care.
QUOTE
This must stop, I suggest all of you, especially DaveC, buy a gun and go to your nearest church. It's the only way people!

You miss the point completely.
QUOTE
They are completely illogical and evil, just look at the media!

I don't see the media reporting Christianity as 'illogical and evil'. Ever.
QUOTE
Everyone knows that the media is right!! We must take away their rights day by day, so slowly that once every right is gone, they will be too small to do anything about it! Kill the Christians!!!!!!!!!!

Excuse me? Why exactly is demanding separation of church and state a stripping of civil liberties? You're quite clearly completely mad.

 

[Blah]

I think he was being facetious.

edit: so much for that...

 

[imec]

QUOTE
Which country?


I don't know if you could call it communism, but it's sure as hell socialism. Britain, US, Germany, pretty much countries in the European Union. Where threats and bribes go a long way.

QUOTE
They were communist (well, not really). They were also atheist, yes, but it doesn't mean that they slaughter people because of it. That's like saying "Governments with people with moustaches in them slaughter people, see Nazis/Bolsheviks."


Yeah, specifically targeting people because they refuse to break into your system has nothing to do with religion. Especially when said system requires that you abandon your beliefs. That's like saying the Columbine shooters didn't target Christians, they just merely stated: if you're Christian walk to the front of the room and put your hands on your head. The Christians really didn't need to do that because he wasn't even targeting them, right? :rolleyes: Furthermore, in the Bolsheviks, Christians were more rebellious because their practices conflicted with the communists. China, on the other hand, killed Christians merely for worshiping God. You didn't even have to rebel to get shot, merely owning a Bible guaranteed it.

QUOTE
Wait, you're suggesting some kind of hidden evil Muslim agenda?


Wait, am I suggesting that not everything that you read in your eighth-grade history book is true. How could I do such a thing!? I mean, someone really put allot of effort into their delusional rants. I should really respect that.

QUOTE
At least move them to the fiction section.


I'm sure you wouldn't do that with the Quran, unless you like the taste of your own burnt lips. Wait, no, that's not why. It's because it's politically incorrect, right? Every religion that has ever crept out from under a rock should be respected, but not Christianity, because it actually instills individuality and freedom. The very bane of socialism.

QUOTE
You misunderstand - 'freedom of belief' is what we strive for, which includes 'freedom from belief' for those who choose it, not for all.


Where, if I may ask, did I state that everyone must believe in God. Your previous statement contradicts this belief, anyways. Some people just have trouble masking their true intentions. B)


QUOTE
I don't go around telling people that there is no God. I don't hold services, or give out leaflets, preaching my atheism. And if they want to go to church, let them go to bloody church, I don't care.


Hmmm... Really, so the Bible belongs in the fictional section, yet you aren't telling anyone that there is no God? Maybe it's just me, but this seems slightly hypocritical. :unsure:

QUOTE
You miss the point completely.


Yes, actually, silent oppression is fine, but open slaughter and bias is totally immoral right? I thought evil didn't exist, it's just part of natural selection.

QUOTE
I don't see the media reporting Christianity as 'illogical and evil'. Ever.


That's because you don't care, or, more assuredly, it doesn't conflict with your beliefs, so it doesn't cause insult or oppression. Therefore, as mentioned above, you don't give a shit.

QUOTE
Excuse me? Why exactly is demanding separation of church and state a stripping of civil liberties? You're quite clearly completely mad.


That's quite simply not what you are demanding, you demand the absolute oppression of Christianity. You demand the integration of your own political beliefs into the government, morality alternates so much with you people (you like to play us and them, so I will too, that's still one of my favorite albums though ) you can practically be controlled at the flip of a switch.

 

[Yrx]

The crusades were a retaliation to Muslim armies taking over the area. A necessity, although granted not a Biblical one. When you act Biblically, you get stuff like what our founding fathers did.

By the way, Huckabee and Obama won in Iowa. I was surprised that Hillary didn't get second, but otherwise I expected it to pan out that way.

 

[nickspoon]

I don't know if you could call it communism, but it's sure as hell socialism. Britain, US, Germany, pretty much countries in the European Union. Where threats and bribes go a long way.

I'm not sure what you understand by socialism, but the socialist ideals seem to differ rather a lot from it.

QUOTE
Yeah, specifically targeting people because they refuse to break into your system has nothing to do with religion. Especially when said system requires that you abandon your beliefs. Blah blah blah.

I am not saying that the communists were not forcing atheism. All I'm saying is that thinking "Communists were atheists, communists were bad, therefore atheists are bad" is irrational.

QUOTE
Wait, am I suggesting that not everything that you read in your eighth-grade history book is true. How could I do such a thing!? I mean, someone really put allot of effort into their delusional rants. I should really respect that.

At least my "eighth-grade history book" doesn't tell me that if we hadn't gone to war with the Muslims they'd be ruling the world and we'd all be slaves.

QUOTE
I'm sure you wouldn't do that with the Quran, unless you like the taste of your own burnt lips. Wait, no, that's not why. It's because it's politically incorrect, right? Every religion that has ever crept out from under a rock should be respected, but not Christianity, because it actually instills individuality and freedom. The very bane of socialism.

I am not arguing against individuality and freedom. I am a firm believer in both. Also, if I were to put the Bibles in the fiction section, I would put all other holy texts there too. But really, you've taken a tounge-in-cheek remark incredibly seriously and the rest of your post seems to revolve around attacking me for it.

QUOTE
Where, if I may ask, did I state that everyone must believe in God. Your previous statement contradicts this belief, anyways. Some people just have trouble masking their true intentions. B)

You really are obtuse. I was saying that you seem to think that I think that nobody can believe in God. Quite how you got that I don't know. And my previous statement is of no importance.

QUOTE
Hmmm... Really, so the Bible belongs in the fictional section, yet you aren't telling anyone that there is no God? Maybe it's just me, but this seems slightly hypocritical. :unsure:

I do tell people that there is no God, if they ask me for my opinion, or if the topic of discussion means that it would be apt to say. I don't stand up in the street and sing the praises of reason and science or anything.

QUOTE
Yes, actually, silent oppression is fine, but open slaughter and bias is totally immoral right? I thought evil didn't exist, it's just part of natural selection.

I don't know where you got this oppression from. Even if I did seriously want to move the Bibles to the fiction section (a laughable concept) it would be in no way restricting access to them.

QUOTE
That's because you don't care, or, more assuredly, it doesn't conflict with your beliefs, so it doesn't cause insult or oppression. Therefore, as mentioned above, you don't give a shit.

Believe me, if anybody in the news called Christianity irrational, I would be rabidly supporting them (because it is).

QUOTE
That's quite simply not what you are demanding, you demand the absolute oppression of Christianity. You demand the integration of your own political beliefs into the government, morality alternates so much with you people (you like to play us and them, so I will too, that's still one of my favorite albums though ) you can practically be controlled at the flip of a switch.

You have no right to tell me what I'm demanding. And yes, I demand the integration of my own political beliefs into the government. Isn't that what democracy is for?

 

[imec]

QUOTE
I'm not sure what you understand by socialism, but the socialist ideals seem to differ rather a lot from it.


Socialism descends from communism. Unlike communism, it works. Unfortunately, the only people who can win under such a system are the rich (but this is an entirely different discussion).

QUOTE
I am not saying that the communists were not forcing atheism. All I'm saying is that thinking "Communists were atheists, communists were bad, therefore atheists are bad" is irrational.


Really, I guess it is irrational, but I made my point. It's just as irrational as your claim that the "unjustifiable" crusades must mean all Christians are evil. Huzzah!


QUOTE
At least my "eighth-grade history book" doesn't tell me that if we hadn't gone to war with the Muslims they'd be ruling the world and we'd all be slaves.


You know what they say, ignorance is bliss.

QUOTE
I am not arguing against individuality and freedom. I am a firm believer in both. Also, if I were to put the Bibles in the fiction section, I would put all other holy texts there too. But really, you've taken a tounge-in-cheek remark incredibly seriously and the rest of your post seems to revolve around attacking me for it.


You are actually, just think about the above quote. It's not too hard. You believe that religion should be frowned upon as ignorance. You don't stop by simply claiming that Christianity is both wrong and evil. You also attempt to *state* that it's completely and utterly fictional. I can handle these arguments, I have been in many, but they always seem to come back to arrogance. You also believe that the government should have influence on how the public perceives Christianity, as well as how public systems deal with it. Conserved, I would support this, but when it's insanely overpracticed like right now, it's oppressive.

QUOTE
You really are obtuse. I was saying that you seem to think that I think that nobody can believe in God. Quite how you got that I don't know. And my previous statement is of no importance.


The previous post is of significance because it shows that you contradict your own statements. And I'm not sure how you quite got "nobody can believe in God" out of my post. Read it again.

QUOTE
I do tell people that there is no God, if they ask me for my opinion, or if the topic of discussion means that it would be apt to say. I don't stand up in the street and sing the praises of reason and science or anything.


Again with the us and them mentality. I guess we are polar opposites, but if you were to take both of our mentalities, both of us are soulless monsters, right? For someone that hates stereotypes so much, they seem to pretty much compose of your beliefs. I like to call this baiting, people start a thread where they know atheists or Christians have an unfair advantage, and then preach by proxy. Hiding behind an argument. Also, I receive enough sacrilegious preaching everywhere I go, the internet, although highly composed of atheists, is petty in comparison.

QUOTE
I don't know where you got this oppression from. Even if I did seriously want to move the Bibles to the fiction section (a laughable concept) it would be in no way restricting access to them.


Again, this really goes along with the "you don't give a shit" concept. Honestly, imagine that you were told you were wrong everyday of your life. Don't affiliate this concept with your current ideological beliefs because they seem to be the ones that are most widely considered acceptable (making the entire concept unimaginable).

QUOTE
Believe me, if anybody in the news called Christianity irrational, I would be rabidly supporting them (because it is).


And so you state your true beliefs.

QUOTE
You have no right to tell me what I'm demanding. And yes, I demand the integration of my own political beliefs into the government. Isn't that what democracy is for?


No, your very similar to the average liberal. Your ideological beliefs are composed of what "makes you upset or happy," a very real problem that any six year old can express. Unfortunately, not everyone follows what they witness on the television while claiming that they are an individual. As long as you keep supporting something because you were "taught" to do so, democracy loses. This definitely wasn't a problem when the Constitution was forged, but now with the introduction of mass media, things have changed. The uniform screaming of "I am an individual" is quite scary.

 

[nickspoon]

I've given up responding to you sentence-by-sentence because a large proportion of it seems to be the same gibberish repeated again and again.

I believe Christianity is irrational. I believe in telling people that should they ask me what I think of it. I believe in the ability to state my beliefs and for others to state theirs. I believe in respecting the right to have a belief but not in respecting the belief itself because I see it as fundamentally flawed. And I believe in free expression.

I do not believe in stifling Christianity or any other religion, only in not forcing it upon people who do not want it forced upon them (e.g. prayer in schools, preaching in public places). I certainly don't want Christians killed, nor do I want to force them to stop believing in God. I do not believe that all Christians are evil, nor do I believe that they are all the same, but I do think that it, along with anything accepted by faith alone which tries to shape people's lives, is dangerous. I would like to make it clear that I don't want to eliminate that danger.

I do not believe that there is some kind of Muslim world domination conspiracy. It's ridiculous.

I am an individual. Is placing my beliefs in what is best for everyone really worse than placing them in two-thousand-year-old dogma?