ron paul for president

[Frozencat99]

Countries with the strongest human right scores, as well as quality of life scores, often have strong centralized governments that are infused with libertarian ideals (aside from, obviously, the strong central government).

When my course went through a case study in imprisonment, comparing living conditions, rehabilitation programmes, and rates of recidivism between several different countries, it was pretty clear why the Nordic countries aren't having many problems as North American ones.

Humans looking out for number one, on a larger scale? No thanks.

[orangeman]

Countries with the strongest human right scores, as well as quality of life scores, often have strong centralized governments that are infused with libertarian ideals (aside from, obviously, the strong central government).

When my course went through a case study in imprisonment, comparing living conditions, rehabilitation programmes, and rates of recidivism between several different countries, it was pretty clear why the Nordic countries aren't having many problems as North American ones.

Humans looking out for number one, on a larger scale? No thanks.

How are Nordic countries libertarian?  That's an honest question.

[Frozencat99]

Countries with the strongest human right scores, as well as quality of life scores, often have strong centralized governments that are infused with libertarian ideals (aside from, obviously, the strong central government).

When my course went through a case study in imprisonment, comparing living conditions, rehabilitation programmes, and rates of recidivism between several different countries, it was pretty clear why the Nordic countries aren't having many problems as North American ones.

Humans looking out for number one, on a larger scale? No thanks.

How are Nordic countries libertarian?  That's an honest question.

]

Personal freedoms, such as no direct government intervention into things like prostitution or drug use (unless they evolve into human or drug trafficking respectfully) and prisons dealing with criminal matters as matters between two wronged individuals rather than an individual vs the state. They are far from pure libertarian situations, as I said. There are certainly some libertarian ideals present, but they've been worked into strong centralized governments (it isn't nearly as much of a paradox as one would be led to think).

I admit that I still find the matter confusing... Nils Christie (one of my favourite authors, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Christie) was the one who first brought the fusion to my attention.

[elzoog]

Personal freedoms, such as no direct government intervention into things like prostitution or drug use (unless they evolve into human or drug trafficking respectfully) and prisons dealing with criminal matters as matters between two wronged individuals rather than an individual vs the state. They are far from pure libertarian situations, as I said. There are certainly some libertarian ideals present, but they've been worked into strong centralized governments (it isn't nearly as much of a paradox as one would be led to think).

I admit that I still find the matter confusing... Nils Christie (one of my favourite authors, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Christie) was the one who first brought the fusion to my attention.

Prostitution and drug use are primarily things conservatives are more likely to want to restrict than liberals.    What about things liberals tend to want to restrict such as pornography, smoking, trans-fatty acids, and so forth?

[Frozencat99]

Some liberals also want and support restrictions on prostitution and drug use. I was led to believe that libertarians generally support the freedom to choose what one does with their own bodies, which is why Christie linked them with the abolition of the War on Drugs.

If he (and thus, I) are mistaken, my apologies :3

[dbtm]

Yes there was nothing progressive about fighting child labour and giving women the right to vote.

[jaysoon17]

When my grandmother's brother immigratted to the United States in 1919, he arrived to the US at a time in California if any white woman married an immigrant of color, the white woman would lose her US citizenship. Now Americans have made a lot of progress during that time, and the thought of going back to something like that would be horrific.

However, that doesn't disqualify Ron Paul from my eyes. Ron Paul can actually say crappy things about brown people, but I would support him as long as his top priorities are in line with what is important for the country. No president can do everything he has on his agenda, so you need to ask what are his priorities. Also, The senate and the media would never allow him to do some of the things that are really unpopular.

I WAS a big Ron Paul supporter in 2008, and I still like the guy, but Ron Paul nowadays reminds of of John Sculley, the former CEO of Apple who was previously the CEO of Pepsi. Sculley has the CEO experience to keep things efficient just like Ron Paul would for the government, but in order for a company or government to grow, you need to be efficient, have a great track record of getting results and be able to lead and inspire others to lead. A Steve Jobs like figure is needed.

My favorite candidate, Buddy Roemer, is going to trying to run through AmericansElect.org. I don't agree with this guy on everything, but his top priorities and approach to them are in line with what I think is important for the country. He won't win, but I hope he runs in 2016.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wzxeXm61lM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
BA in Economics from Harvard
MBA from Harvard
8 years in congress as a democrat
2 years as governor as a democrat
2 years as governor as a republican
Built a billion dollar bank
Accepts no more that $100 donations with full disclosure.

Dartmouth Speech! Excellent speech if you have the time!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb06h8qjr9k&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[elzoog]

Yes there was nothing progressive about fighting child labour and giving women the right to vote.

Actually I think that some child labor is good.   For example, I had a paper route when I was in middle school that I made a little bit of money from.

I don't see anything wrong with giving children non-dangerous jobs such as paper routes, cleaning cars, being store clerks, and so forth.

As far as women having the right to vote, it was the government that was restricting that rather than the government giving people freedom that caused women to not have the right to vote.

[elzoog]

Yes there was nothing progressive about fighting child labour and giving women the right to vote.

Actually I think that some child labor is good.   For example, I had a paper route when I was in middle school that I made a little bit of money from.

I don't see anything wrong with giving children non-dangerous jobs such as paper routes, cleaning cars, being store clerks, and so forth.

As far as women having the right to vote, it was the government that was restricting that rather than the government giving people freedom that caused women to not have the right to vote.

Also, child labor was already declining by the time they got around to legislating it. Child labor laws are unnecessary today as the returns from schooling are so much higher than they were during the industrial revolution.

Further more, it could be argued that child labor laws are actually destructive to children. Children are effectively banned from working in the official sector of the economy. Therefore, kids who can't or won't go to school for whatever reason and need to make money, are forced into unofficial sectors of the economy. For example, the drugs or sex trade. "Progressives" really need to look up the definition of unintended consequences.

What about paper routes, or cleaning cars?   I did both of those for money when I was in middle school.   The paper route was about 2 to 3 hours a day of work (folding the papers, then delivering them on my bicycle) every weekday.   Don't remember if it involved Saturday as well or not.  The cleaning car job involved a fund raiser at the church were during one weekend, we had people drive in and we would clean their cars for $5. 

Another good business idea I heard for 12 years and up would be a changing your oil at home business.   The kid would come to your door and ask to change your oil.   It would save the person having to drive to the nearby oil change shop and it wouldn't involve actually driving the car.   Someone as young as 12 could be taught how to do it safely.

The thing is, these kinds of jobs teach basic working skills such as punctuality, following basic instructions, keeping your mind on the task at hand, and does it better in some ways than "school".

Or what about other simple jobs such as folding papers, assembling parts, and so forth?

[Frozencat99]

If you want to be semantic, yes, you can't truly declare yourself a liberal if you support restrictions on freedoms and/or liberties. However, most people have the knowledge required to discern what I mean when I say "liberal government"... it isn't necessary for me to say "mostly liberal government aside from the restrictions on Category 3 drugs and support of imprisonment".

[Hoosier_Jedi]

Second in New Hampshire. Still being beat by Mitt. Again, how is this guy going to get elected? 

[unclefrank]

primaries aren't over until June..

[orangeman]

When my grandmother's brother immigratted to the United States in 1919, he arrived to the US at a time in California if any white woman married an immigrant of color, the white woman would lose her US citizenship. Now Americans have made a lot of progress during that time, and the thought of going back to something like that would be horrific.

However, that doesn't disqualify Ron Paul from my eyes. Ron Paul can actually say crappy things about brown people, but I would support him as long as his top priorities are in line with what is important for the country. No president can do everything he has on his agenda, so you need to ask what are his priorities. Also, The senate and the media would never allow him to do some of the things that are really unpopular.

I WAS a big Ron Paul supporter in 2008, and I still like the guy, but Ron Paul nowadays reminds of of John Sculley, the former CEO of Apple who was previously the CEO of Pepsi. Sculley has the CEO experience to keep things efficient just like Ron Paul would for the government, but in order for a company or government to grow, you need to be efficient, have a great track record of getting results and be able to lead and inspire others to lead. A Steve Jobs like figure is needed.

My favorite candidate, Buddy Roemer, is going to trying to run through AmericansElect.org. I don't agree with this guy on everything, but his top priorities and approach to them are in line with what I think is important for the country. He won't win, but I hope he runs in 2016.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wzxeXm61lM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
BA in Economics from Harvard
MBA from Harvard
8 years in congress as a democrat
2 years as governor as a democrat
2 years as governor as a republican
Built a billion dollar bank
Accepts no more that $100 donations with full disclosure.

Dartmouth Speech! Excellent speech if you have the time!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb06h8qjr9k&feature=youtube_gdata_player

So believing one group of people is superior because of the colour of their skin is not enough to disqualify someone to lead a country full of people of different colours?  I bet you'd feel differently if tomorrow Obama said the exact same things about white people.  Racism is a lot more forgivable when it's not directed at you.   

And Paul supporters wonder why they're mocked and dismissed. 

[Squire]

I wish the UK had a Ron Paul. I know of no UK politicians who represent libertarian ideals. I don't agree with the man about everything, far from it. His religious belief is out of date and across the board private education seems a bit too far, but the idea of a politician getting into power only to hand it back (to people or the various states) is very appealing.

The other Republican candidates are nauseating

[Hoosier_Jedi]

primaries aren't over until June..

Yeah, and you need to actually WIN some of them to get the nomination. When you lose by ten points it's not a good sign.

[orangeman]

So believing one group of people is superior because of the colour of their skin is not enough to disqualify someone to lead a country full of people of different colours?  I bet you'd feel differently if tomorrow Obama said the exact same things about white people.  Racism is a lot more forgivable when it's not directed at you.   

Ron Paul doesn't believe this.

Is there anything in the famous newsletters that would lead you to make this statement?

“[W]e are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions"

"I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city (DC) are semi-criminal or entirely criminal..."

"It's the hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos..."

"A mob of black demonstrators, led by the 'Rev.' Al Sharpton, occupied and closed the Statue of Liberty recently, demanding that New York be renamed Martin Luther King City 'to reclaim it for our people.... Hmmm. I hate to agree with the Rev. Al, but maybe a name change is in order. Welfaria? Zooville? Rapetown? Dirtburg? Lazyopolis?...But Al, the Statue of Liberty? Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house."

On the ending of the LA riots;
"Order was only restored in LA when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began…"

"Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage..."

Sorry, those were just the ones I could find while cooking dinner.  Should I do a follow up with the raging homophobic quotes, or just sum it up with the AIDS is a government conspiracy?  Jews were behind the 1993 WTC bombings is a good one, too. 

Listen, if you want a raging lunatic conspiracy theorist bigot in the White House, that's your business.  But don't pretend you're a better person for ignoring all this bigotry just because the guy has had some good quotes on economics.  There have been several monsters throughout history who have had great economic plans but with, shall we say "less desireable" social policies.  Many people don't want a leader who has these insane views.  That's not a conspiracy.  That's called being a rational human being.

[Keuka]

It's great to be the outsider like Ron Paul is in the 2012 primaries.  He can do no wrong. 

[jaysoon17]

So believing one group of people is superior because of the colour of their skin is not enough to disqualify someone to lead a country full of people of different colours?  I bet you'd feel differently if tomorrow Obama said the exact same things about white people.  Racism is a lot more forgivable when it's not directed at you.   

And Paul supporters wonder why they're mocked and dismissed.

I am a brown man, and I don't believe Paul wrote anything said in those papers. I state that I would vote for Ron Paul even if he said crappy things about brown people. Insensitive things he may say do not matter as long as he treats everybody equally and can get stuff done. This is the problem in American politics when people cry racism. The amount of claims of racism in the United States are quite ridiculous. Yes, racism exists, but the way people react to claims of racism are quite extreme. It can be so extreme that people were willing to call Bill Clinton a racist. Bill Clinton a racist? That's pretty insane from some Obama supporters who knocked Hilary out of the race. I have never forgotten when some Obama supporters went after Bill Clinton calling him a racist during the 2008 campaign.

How long have you followed Ron Paul? I have been following him for five years now, and I take his word for it when he says that he didn't write any of that. CNN, MSNBC and every other news organization cannot provide hard evidence that he actually wrote those racist statements that were written in the early 90s or cannot provide hard evidence that he believes in these conspiracy theories, so why would I believe anybody who pulls quotes on his beliefs from the internet? Nobody can prove that he wrote those things, and from what I see over the past 5 years of following him, I don't believe he is a racist.

Plus, race issues in politics are placed on the bottom in my list of priorities. Some insensitive comment made by any politician that gets national attention boggles my mine when the focus should be on more important things during these challenging times. My favorite candidate, Buddy Roemer, talks about real issues and gets no attention, because people want to talk about issues that deserve no priority like race issues. The one candidate on the republican stage that talks about real issues and would be trusted enough to do what he says he will do, Ron Paul, is getting hammered by the press for a low priority issue. America need to focus on creating fair trade policies that benefit the American people, reduce the deficit, fix monetary policy and support people who will do what they say and get things done. The people we have elected into office have proven that they can't get it done.

[JABU NXAU]

looks more like romney vs obama to me

[orangeman]

So believing one group of people is superior because of the colour of their skin is not enough to disqualify someone to lead a country full of people of different colours?  I bet you'd feel differently if tomorrow Obama said the exact same things about white people.  Racism is a lot more forgivable when it's not directed at you.   

And Paul supporters wonder why they're mocked and dismissed.

I am a brown man, and I don't believe Paul wrote anything said in those papers. I state that I would vote for Ron Paul even if he said crappy things about brown people. Insensitive things he may say do not matter as long as he treats everybody equally and can get stuff done. This is the problem in American politics when people cry racism. The amount of claims of racism in the United States are quite ridiculous. Yes, racism exists, but the way people react to claims of racism are quite extreme. It can be so extreme that people were willing to call Bill Clinton a racist. Bill Clinton a racist? That's pretty insane from some Obama supporters who knocked Hilary out of the race. I have never forgotten when some Obama supporters went after Bill Clinton calling him a racist during the 2008 campaign.

How long have you followed Ron Paul? I have been following him for five years now, and I take his word for it when he says that he didn't write any of that. CNN, MSNBC and every other news organization cannot provide hard evidence that he actually wrote those racist statements that were written in the early 90s or cannot provide hard evidence that he believes in these conspiracy theories, so why would I believe anybody who pulls quotes on his beliefs from the internet? Nobody can prove that he wrote those things, and from what I see over the past 5 years of following him, I don't believe he is a racist.

Plus, race issues in politics are placed on the bottom in my list of priorities. Some insensitive comment made by any politician that gets national attention boggles my mine when the focus should be on more important things during these challenging times. My favorite candidate, Buddy Roemer, talks about real issues and gets no attention, because people want to talk about issues that deserve no priority like race issues. The one candidate on the republican stage that talks about real issues and would be trusted enough to do what he says he will do, Ron Paul, is getting hammered by the press for a low priority issue. America need to focus on creating fair trade policies that benefit the American people, reduce the deficit, fix monetary policy and support people who will do what they say and get things done. The people we have elected into office have proven that they can't get it done.

Ignoring what was written in those newsletters is your prerogative, but like I've said several times now, you don't get to tell other people that they shouldn't care about it.  You are not more politically intelligent because you believe blatant racism is not as important as economic theory (and that's all it is, by the way: theory.  Libertarianism looks great in textbooks, but if you want to see how low tax rates, private-only education and health care only for those who can afford it works please visit Cambodia or Somalia and take notes). 

I find it quite ironic that Ron Paul supporters started off telling everyone that he was different because he is a straight shooter and sticks to his principles.  Then these extreme newsletters come to light and all of a sudden we should just take him on his word, exactly what we were told by Paul supporters was wrong with all the other candidates.  So at first we had to show you that the statements were in fact racist, and now that that's obvious it becomes "he didn't write it!"  Then why didn't he deny writing the newsletters in 1996 in several interviews where he tried to justify them?  Then again in 2001?  Why is only now denying any knowledge of them.  Oh, I guess it's part of the Great Conspiracy. 

Anyway, it's not just the racist rants.  If you read some of those newsletters you see what kind of insane, far right, crackpot conspiracies he and his supporters are into.  It's basically a furied screed written by a very disturbed person.  But as I've said, you're free to support whatever racist crazy nutjob you want based on some 10 year old comments that you think will translate into transforming the US economy over night.  But you don't get to pretend these racist rants don't exist, you don't get to pretend they're not racist, you don't get to pretend they're not important.  Sorry, believing 95% of black men are criminals is not some meaningless distraction and you can't compare it to some fringe guys calling Clinton racist; only one of them wrote that it's rational to fear black men.