Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Statements by Ron Paul: is he a quack?

Page 6 of 8 [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

How do you regard Ron Paul's economic ideas?
He is my hero 10%  10%  [ 5 ]
I adore his ideas 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
I agree with him more than I disagree 27%  27%  [ 13 ]
Meh, I can take his ideas or leave them. 4%  4%  [ 2 ]
He has some good points, but is mostly wrong 17%  17%  [ 8 ]
He is a complete and utter quack, when it comes to economics 25%  25%  [ 12 ]
He is a threat to the nation 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
He is a threat to the world 4%  4%  [ 2 ]
Ron who? 10%  10%  [ 5 ]
Total votes : 48

JanuaryMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,359

15 Oct 2012, 6:04 am

If the thread is asking the question "Is Ron Paul a Doctor?" then yes he is.
If the thread is asking the question "Is Ron Paul crazy?" then I put forward the notion that almost all of the greatest ideas, theories and concepts that would benefit man have always been portrayed as scary by the powerful to deceive the simple.

Gallileio and the world being round not flat.
The non artistic works of Leonardo De Vinci.
The ideas of peace and tolerance by various martyrs in religious testaments and scriptures.
Theories of other planets existing.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Oct 2012, 9:05 am

JanuaryMan wrote:

Gallileio and the world being round not flat.
.


The approximately spherical shape of the earth was known to the Greek philosophers 2000 years before Galileo. Eritosthanes the curator of the great library of Alexandria cleverly deduced the circumference of the earth to within 5 percent of its current know value. And he did this with low tech stuff such as a gnomon (the staff that casts a shadow in a sun dial) and a clever device for measure distances. Look up the details in Wikipedia.

What Galileo did was to provide further evidentiary support for Copernicus theory that the earth and other planets revolve around a central point (near, but not at the sun). Copernicus advanced that view as a simplification of the system of Ptolemy which had become over burdened with ad hoc epi-cycles and deferents. However the Copernican views insisted that the orbits must be circles because circles are perfect in their plan symmetry. This is not correct. It was Kepler, a contemporary of Galileo who glommed on to the idea that the Sun is the driver of the motion of the planets and the planets go about the sun in elliptical (not necessarily circular) orbits. FIfty years later Isaac Newton picked up on Kepler's idea and generalized it into the well known law of gravitation.

ruveyn



MayBitsu
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 9 Oct 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 55
Location: NE Pa

15 Oct 2012, 10:51 pm

Hopper wrote:
MayBitsu wrote:
Hopper wrote:
What I like about Ron Paul is that he takes the naive position that the anti-state stuff is genuine. His anti-state talk is pretty much consistent (I know he's anti-abortion, for example, not sure of any other meddling he's in favour of), as opposed to opportunistic. As such, he shows up the mainstream rightwing anti-state talk as the rhetoric it is.

What I dislike about him is pretty much everything, though he's talked a good anti-war talk.


So you are anti Constitution?
and pro NDAA and the police state?


I have not read the constitution of the USA, nor do I know what NDAA is. I am generally not in favour of a police state anywhere.

You'll be glad to know people in the UK still don't get to vote in the US election. As such, my knowledge of his policies is limited.

My remark was more about how he takes anti-state talk at face value, and that that shows up much anti-state talk as hot air. Much right wing anti-state talk (we get it plenty in the UK) is actually about reshaping/using the state for the benefit of the rich. The state is not 'shrunk' so much as functions that helped the working (and now middle) class are removed, and anything profitable is sold off - or rather, contracted out, so the state will still pick up the tab if somthing goes wrong - to the friends of government ministers.


NDAA is National Defense Authority Act.. it is a massive police state in the "states"..they basically threw our Constitution out the window..



thewhitrbbit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,124

15 Oct 2012, 11:03 pm

Ron Paul is a statist because he's anti-abortion? Did you know that he has actually said that he's ok with states being pro-choice but leaving it up to the state and the people?

Take some time to look at his voting record and his son's voting record. He is one of the few people who reliability vote against statism.

He reliability bucks GOP establishment by advocating a reduced military in addition to reduced domestic spending programs.

NDAA is a law that suspends habeas corpus and allows indefinite detention of US Citizens. The main stream media, firmly in bed with Obama, doesn't cover it much.

I don't' agree with everything Ron Paul stands for, some of his ideas are too far, but when it comes to advocating freedom, Ron Paul is light years ahead of Democrats and Republicans.



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

17 Oct 2012, 10:08 am

Ron Paul is a statist because he wants cops and courts to continue to protect private tyrannies.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Oct 2012, 11:59 am

RushKing wrote:
Ron Paul is a statist because he wants cops and courts to continue to protect private tyrannies.


No. He wants Cops and Courts to keep the peace in the land.

ruveyn



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

17 Oct 2012, 12:07 pm

RushKing wrote:
Ron Paul is a statist because he wants cops and courts to continue to protect private tyrannies.


All all fairness, I think most people would want cops and courts regardless. Of course, when you consider that "justice", "fairness" and so on mean so many things to different people it becomes hard to be "just" and "fair" to everyone all the time.

For instance, many people would consider it both "just" and "fair" to have a lot of Wall Street bankers tossed in a maximum security prison to be gangraped for life, but I happen to view that as cruel and unusual punishment.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

17 Oct 2012, 4:15 pm

TM wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Ron Paul is a statist because he wants cops and courts to continue to protect private tyrannies.


All all fairness, I think most people would want cops and courts regardless. Of course, when you consider that "justice", "fairness" and so on mean so many things to different people it becomes hard to be "just" and "fair" to everyone all the time.

For instance, many people would consider it both "just" and "fair" to have a lot of Wall Street bankers tossed in a maximum security prison to be gangraped for life, but I happen to view that as cruel and unusual punishment.


Really? What should be done with them, then?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

17 Oct 2012, 4:32 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
TM wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Ron Paul is a statist because he wants cops and courts to continue to protect private tyrannies.


All all fairness, I think most people would want cops and courts regardless. Of course, when you consider that "justice", "fairness" and so on mean so many things to different people it becomes hard to be "just" and "fair" to everyone all the time.

For instance, many people would consider it both "just" and "fair" to have a lot of Wall Street bankers tossed in a maximum security prison to be gangraped for life, but I happen to view that as cruel and unusual punishment.


Really? What should be done with them, then?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Unless you can press charges for legitimate crimes, such as fraud, embezzlement and such, nothing. My point being that "justice" and "fairness" mean different things to different people and unfortunately a large majority of people suffer from an utter lack of objectivity and reason when it comes to certain issues.

I guess it depends if you're the type of person who considers being gang-raped on a daily basis a just and moral punishment for a non-violent crime, in which case I'd be hesitant to accept your statement on any issue concerning morals.

There is also the argument that a sentence of "x years in prison" did not include beatings, stabbings, rapes, and the other things that take place in the American prison system on a daily basis, and is by several authorities considered "cruel and unusual punishment".



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

17 Oct 2012, 4:48 pm

TM wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
TM wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Ron Paul is a statist because he wants cops and courts to continue to protect private tyrannies.


All all fairness, I think most people would want cops and courts regardless. Of course, when you consider that "justice", "fairness" and so on mean so many things to different people it becomes hard to be "just" and "fair" to everyone all the time.

For instance, many people would consider it both "just" and "fair" to have a lot of Wall Street bankers tossed in a maximum security prison to be gangraped for life, but I happen to view that as cruel and unusual punishment.


Really? What should be done with them, then?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Unless you can press charges for legitimate crimes, such as fraud, embezzlement and such, nothing. My point being that "justice" and "fairness" mean different things to different people and unfortunately a large majority of people suffer from an utter lack of objectivity and reason when it comes to certain issues.

I guess it depends if you're the type of person who considers being gang-raped on a daily basis a just and moral punishment for a non-violent crime, in which case I'd be hesitant to accept your statement on any issue concerning morals.

There is also the argument that a sentence of "x years in prison" did not include beatings, stabbings, rapes, and the other things that take place in the American prison system on a daily basis, and is by several authorities considered "cruel and unusual punishment".


I was meaning following a conviction. And as far as gang rape and stabbing is concerned, those things happen because of the machinations of the prisoners themselves, not as punishments allotted by the courts.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

17 Oct 2012, 4:53 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
TM wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
TM wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Ron Paul is a statist because he wants cops and courts to continue to protect private tyrannies.


All all fairness, I think most people would want cops and courts regardless. Of course, when you consider that "justice", "fairness" and so on mean so many things to different people it becomes hard to be "just" and "fair" to everyone all the time.

For instance, many people would consider it both "just" and "fair" to have a lot of Wall Street bankers tossed in a maximum security prison to be gangraped for life, but I happen to view that as cruel and unusual punishment.


Really? What should be done with them, then?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Unless you can press charges for legitimate crimes, such as fraud, embezzlement and such, nothing. My point being that "justice" and "fairness" mean different things to different people and unfortunately a large majority of people suffer from an utter lack of objectivity and reason when it comes to certain issues.

I guess it depends if you're the type of person who considers being gang-raped on a daily basis a just and moral punishment for a non-violent crime, in which case I'd be hesitant to accept your statement on any issue concerning morals.

There is also the argument that a sentence of "x years in prison" did not include beatings, stabbings, rapes, and the other things that take place in the American prison system on a daily basis, and is by several authorities considered "cruel and unusual punishment".


I was meaning following a conviction. And as far as gang rape and stabbing is concerned, those things happen because of the machinations of the prisoners themselves, not as punishments allotted by the courts.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Just because someone has been convicted of a crime does not mean that the government is no longer responsible for their safety and well being while in prison. Considering that they are caused entirely by the mismanagement of the American prison system, I'm surprised there aren't more lawsuits.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

17 Oct 2012, 5:04 pm

TM wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
TM wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
TM wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Ron Paul is a statist because he wants cops and courts to continue to protect private tyrannies.


All all fairness, I think most people would want cops and courts regardless. Of course, when you consider that "justice", "fairness" and so on mean so many things to different people it becomes hard to be "just" and "fair" to everyone all the time.

For instance, many people would consider it both "just" and "fair" to have a lot of Wall Street bankers tossed in a maximum security prison to be gangraped for life, but I happen to view that as cruel and unusual punishment.


Really? What should be done with them, then?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Unless you can press charges for legitimate crimes, such as fraud, embezzlement and such, nothing. My point being that "justice" and "fairness" mean different things to different people and unfortunately a large majority of people suffer from an utter lack of objectivity and reason when it comes to certain issues.

I guess it depends if you're the type of person who considers being gang-raped on a daily basis a just and moral punishment for a non-violent crime, in which case I'd be hesitant to accept your statement on any issue concerning morals.

There is also the argument that a sentence of "x years in prison" did not include beatings, stabbings, rapes, and the other things that take place in the American prison system on a daily basis, and is by several authorities considered "cruel and unusual punishment".


I was meaning following a conviction. And as far as gang rape and stabbing is concerned, those things happen because of the machinations of the prisoners themselves, not as punishments allotted by the courts.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Just because someone has been convicted of a crime does not mean that the government is no longer responsible for their safety and well being while in prison. Considering that they are caused entirely by the mismanagement of the American prison system, I'm surprised there aren't more lawsuits.


Oh, it's absolutely true that people are entitled to protection under the law, regardless if they're convicted or not. My point was, being gang raped or stabbed by other prisoners was never part of the punishment handed out by the court, and so really could not be considered cruel and unusual punishment. If it was, then technically, no one would be incarcerated in fear of those things happening to them.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

17 Oct 2012, 5:06 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Oh, it's absolutely true that people are entitled to protection under the law, regardless if they're convicted or not. My point was, being gang raped or stabbed by other prisoners was never part of the punishment handed out by the court, and so really could not be considered cruel and unusual punishment. If it was, then technically, no one would be incarcerated in fear of those things happening to them.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Several non-US countries seem to regard it that way judged by their refusal to extradite prisoners to the US prison system. In addition, when you take into account how common these events are, or could more or less be considered a part of the sentence.



MayBitsu
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 9 Oct 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 55
Location: NE Pa

17 Oct 2012, 10:50 pm

RushKing wrote:
Ron Paul is a statist because he wants cops and courts to continue to protect private tyrannies.


What would you prefer?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Oct 2012, 1:33 am

TM wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Oh, it's absolutely true that people are entitled to protection under the law, regardless if they're convicted or not. My point was, being gang raped or stabbed by other prisoners was never part of the punishment handed out by the court, and so really could not be considered cruel and unusual punishment. If it was, then technically, no one would be incarcerated in fear of those things happening to them.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Several non-US countries seem to regard it that way judged by their refusal to extradite prisoners to the US prison system. In addition, when you take into account how common these events are, or could more or less be considered a part of the sentence.


I would think U.S. courts would still only consider incarceration, regardless of what they know what goes on among the prison population.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



MayBitsu
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 9 Oct 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 55
Location: NE Pa

18 Oct 2012, 1:42 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
TM wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Oh, it's absolutely true that people are entitled to protection under the law, regardless if they're convicted or not. My point was, being gang raped or stabbed by other prisoners was never part of the punishment handed out by the court, and so really could not be considered cruel and unusual punishment. If it was, then technically, no one would be incarcerated in fear of those things happening to them.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Several non-US countries seem to regard it that way judged by their refusal to extradite prisoners to the US prison system. In addition, when you take into account how common these events are, or could more or less be considered a part of the sentence.


I would think U.S. courts would still only consider incarceration, regardless of what they know what goes on among the prison population.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The drug and prison business causes much damage to families and people .. there are many law firms actively filing claims on behalf of prisoners that have damages.. another reason the gov spends so much ...and it is never talked about..