Anti-Ron Paul people?

[ssunlimited]

There are some people who are against Ron Paul. What do you think about them and their arguments? You can read some here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...hqCu6tDsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20121121142755AAa6lnI . What are your counter arguments?

 

[FrankRep]

Very silly answers:

1.) For one, he's got one foot in the grave and another on a banana peel
2.) He's against war. The fact is: if we don't invade countries like Afghanistan and Yemen, they will invade us.
3.) For starters, you know all that cleanup along the east coast? Good luck, no help from the feds.
4.) 1. Economics: He is for ending the Federal Reserve and returning to the Gold-Standard.
5.) 2. Foreign policy. Ron Paul is an isolationist.
6.) Ron Paul is a conspiracy theorist and extremist who doesn't understand monetary policy or fiscal policy, who is probably a racist, and who is not a socially liberal libertarian but rather an old-school paleoconservative.

Ugh. Makes you want to bang your head against the wall...

 

[RickyJ]

They are anti-freedom. You can argue certain issues that you may disagree with Ron Paul on, but overall most supporters of liberty agree with him on most of his stances on the issues. Ron Paul isn't perfect, but he is really close to it.

 

[Akus]

Pay no mind to them. They're either trolls or idiots too far gone.

 

[satchelmcqueen]

people whom ive met that are against paul either do NOT understand his stance, or have no clue what they are speaking of to even begin to debate what paul says. ive yet to see 1 person have a clear argument against anything paul says as in proving him wrong.

 

[mtr1979]

I looked at the list of reasons to be against Ron Paul and the one that stuck in my mind was the one made by username Shovel Ready. They said "The idea of giving Congress control over the money supply is utterly idiotic." I'm not a constitutional scholar, but what about Article 1 Section 8?

 

[JK/SEA]

to be 'against' Ron Paul and his ideals, is to do so at your own peril.

Back in the late 60's when i was protesting the Vietnam war, i was called an American chicken....you know what they call me now?......'right'...

 

[JacobSzumniak]

Wow

Yahoo.com makes me want to blow my brains out. Both the comments on news articles and yahoo answers. It is literally the testament to HOW RETARDED 90% of Americans are. Im sorry if I'm being harsh here but its so true man. The thrash people right on there is ridiculous. All that news last week about Israel and Gaza, and 95% of people were supporting Israel for killing the evil terrorists. Ask any of those people 1 reason or benefit for us supporting Israel? Nope nobody can answer all they know is KILL THE TERRORISTS because thats what they've been taught. Its like a mob of mindless drones kissing Israel's ass and yelling kill the terrorists but they don't know WHY. Its like they just regurgitate the crap they hear from like NPR or whatever. None of these people research anything for themselves they take all their info at face value. Im not anti Israel, well I kinda might be but that was just a recent example that drove me mad all last week.
When people actually believe Ron Paul is a racist it just shows how stupid they are. Heres the dilemma guys, YOU CANT FIX STUPID. We cannot win as long as they are sheeple. We talk about people "waking up" and how most of us here have woken up but I feel like a majority of the population can't wake up. It just won't happen. They will hold onto the bullshit the TV and Government spew at them til they die and they will always outnumber us. Sorry for semi off topic rant.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Very silly answers:

1.) For one, he's got one foot in the grave and another on a banana peel
2.) He's against war. The fact is: if we don't invade countries like Afghanistan and Yemen, they will invade us.
3.) For starters, you know all that cleanup along the east coast? Good luck, no help from the feds.
4.) 1. Economics: He is for ending the Federal Reserve and returning to the Gold-Standard.
5.) 2. Foreign policy. Ron Paul is an isolationist.
6.) Ron Paul is a conspiracy theorist and extremist who doesn't understand monetary policy or fiscal policy, who is probably a racist, and who is not a socially liberal libertarian but rather an old-school paleoconservative.

Ugh. Makes you want to bang your head against the wall...

Nope. Just remind them that he is no longer alone in his position. If they want thunder and lightening then give it to them. There are videos all over the free web that support the notion. Ron packed the house better than anyone I saw during the circus this time around. Fact. So...let em bang their own fuggin heads against the wall. Maybe they'll knock some sense into themselves.Yahoo crowd probably isn't worthy of a right proper white paper on the subject anyhoo. A question like that was enviting the prescribed answer in my opinion. There's an art to asking questions and over there they seem to be few and far between. No originality.

 

[fr33]

If you're a fan of dystopian novels you can't help but think you are living in one yourself when your read stupidity like those comments.

"Until they become conscious they will never rebel,
and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious."

Surely you know tons of statists. Their kneejerk reaction to any subject can make you cringe. Logic and reason isn't "practical".

 

[Natural Citizen]

If you're a fan of dystopian novels you can't help but think you are living in one yourself when your read stupidity like those comments.

"Until they become conscious they will never rebel,
and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious."

Surely you know tons of statists. Their kneejerk reaction to any subject can make you cringe. Logic and reason isn't "practical".

Well. Could be said that there is truth to that. Generally speaking. Subject removed.

Seeing with the flame is often called imagination. So says Oliver Sacks at least. I do agree with him in that regard. Which could be practical to discuss in a more complex manner. Probably another forum though. Don't know about here.

Ode to the Brain! Oliver is in here some place. Probably toward the end.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

people whom ive met that are against paul either do NOT understand his stance, or have no clue what they are speaking of to even begin to debate what paul says. ive yet to see 1 person have a clear argument against anything paul says as in proving him wrong.

This has been the case in my experience both in real life and on the internet 100% of the time.

 

[Ivash]

Many people just disagree with him. Political disagreements are not unhealthy, and come from a large variety of different experiences in life. People can see the same facts and come to different outcomes- there is nothing wrong with that.

Oh, and a lot of people don't like 'Paulbots'. They seem to show up everywhere, don't add anything to the conversations, and I believe are mostly made up of people who just really like trolling.

 

[Dick Chaney]

While I disagree with him on the gold standard, everything else that he says is just brilliant, so the the absolute anti-Paul's can go fuck themselves.

 

[Meatwasp]

While I disagree with him on the gold standard, everything else that he says is just brilliant, so the the absolute anti-Paul's can go fuck themselves.

What! you disagree with him on the gold standard???? That is one of the main things I love him about pluss a lot of other things.

 

[ssunlimited]

What! you disagree with him on the gold standard???? That is one of the main things I love him about pluss a lot of other things.

And I think we should instead of going back to the gold standard nationalize the federal reserve

 

[gjdavis60]

Ron Paul and the principles of liberty are not synonymous. However, when he was a candidate and that was our vehicle, we had to defend both the principles and Ron Paul the man. This was not always easy, especially since there were over 30 years of quotes, interviews, essays, speeches, and House votes that could be taken out of context and sensationalized to effectively neutralize the entire candidacy. How much of the most effective criticism against us during the campaigns was distorted or taken out of context? How much of it was personal attacks and not serious debate about issues and policies?

The good news of Ron no longer running for public office is that we no longer have to defend Ron Paul the person and his long record as if he was a candidate, and instead we can focus on the principles and how they shape the issues facing us today. We can also take advantage of this interregnum and freely criticize the character of everyone else in the political establishment without having to worry about retaliation in kind. Ron is probably happy about this, too.

As much as I admire Ron's record and feel capable - and sometimes irresistibly impelled - of defending attacks against his character, I also realize that spending a lot of effort on this is probably not in the best interest of the movement now. I'm sure our more clever opponents would love to entice us into this line of debate, since it really is one we cannot win now that Ron is no longer running for office.

If we are smart we will take the opportunity at hand to argue on pure principle without having to protect our flank when Ron Paul's character is assailed. It is also time for us as a movement to achieve the next level of maturity where we actually understand and can articulate the principles and positions, and can defend them rather than simply delegate the fight to Ron Paul (or some other candidate) as our proxy. Ron brought many of us to the movement, but the message belongs to us now. It is time for us to move past being a cult of personality and become a true movement of ideas where the message is embodied in each of us and expressed by each of us. It is the only way we will survive Ron Paul, and the only way the movement he started will continue.

"An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government." -RP