Ron Paul 2012. Who's been watching/following him?

[sittin_low_287]

How's it going everyone?
First off id like to say i don't live in America, i live in Australia.

Over the last 2-3 months i've been reading and watching a lot on him. started with a forum post with one of his youtube clips. Normally i don't get into politics, but once i started to watch some of his video's, i started wishing we had him down under.

For once i actually heard someone talking some sense, so i kept watching and reading. The more i learnt about this guy, the more it made me read about him. The way he thinks is so different from everyone else, i find i share so many of his views(close on all).

Anyone living in America that hasn't checked this guy out should, before there's nothing left of your constitution. The thing there to save you from a goverment just like you have now. How we live in a corrupt world

What i love most is how much support this guy is getting, people going out of there way to do it. He's not paying anyone on the net but there's so much going on. Ive been following these guys the past week and its really starting to snow ball. its the 420message. some great facts and they really are showing people facts and the truth. Check them out
http://the420message.com/

Anyone else out there been following him?
If you guys want to see any youtube videos or some good sites on him just let me know ill post it up. Ill stop going on for now Any of you guys want to talk about him i can go on for ever

looking forward to see what everyone thinks of him
(mods, if ive done anything wrong just say so and ill fix it up)

 

[sittin_low_287]

lol i guess im the only one who likes him haa

 

Ron Paul is pro-life, doesn't believe in evolution, doesn't believe in separation of church and state, and most of his policies are completely unattainable.

I am a realist, and, as such, I do not like Ron Paul.

 

[SuF]

Ron Paul is pro-life, doesn't believe in evolution, doesn't believe in separation of church and state, and most of his policies are completely unattainable.

I am a realist, and, as such, I do not like Ron Paul.

He believes in a form of separation of church and state that is less radical than the other republicans. He does however preach the whole "American is a Christian Nation" bullshit which really annoys me.

EDIT: He does however favor immunity for whistle blowers which is something that would be really great. I'm following John Stewart and saying Ron Paul should be our ideas guy.

 

[QuasiNoob]

Yes, I'm supporting him this election. I've been wanting to buy some of his books - have you read any?

 

[mexistaniX]

Ron Paul is Republican, religious in a normal sense, and is extremely conservative.
He believes in legalizing marijuana because he strictly interprets the U.S. constitution and is very rigid in his belief that it is a living document(he doesn't really put "living" with terms of the document).
Do we need him? I can't say, but from a middle view stand point and of myself not supporting any parties and setting myself as a moderate/nonliberal/nonconservative, he is a neoconservative relative to our modern society.
However good or bad you may conceive that, he actually is the smarter and more trust-able of the GOP/Republicans. However, his age and his conserved tone may not aid him as much as a young and better looking president might.

 

[Deacon Frost]

Ron Paul is pro-life, doesn't believe in evolution, doesn't believe in separation of church and state, and most of his policies are completely unattainable.

I am a realist, and, as such, I do not like Ron Paul.

He's a gynecologist. I'm GLAD he's pro-life. I'm pro-choice, but his opinion on Pro-life has never bothered me because he's also partially pro-choice. While he defines life at conception, he also says its not his right to decide what a person does with their body. He would not make abortion illegal, or legal, as that's not his constitutional right.

Not believing in evolution is a personal choice. We're not ready for an atheist president, or should I say... an atheist president hasn't got a shot.

The church and state issue, you're misconstruing. Do your research.

His policies are already established. His policies are the constitution. I, myself, am a realist and a rationalist. Ron Paul would win 99-1 if people would realize that his America IS America, and the current 'America' is more of a bastardized version.

He believes in legalizing marijuana because he strictly interprets the U.S. constitution and is very rigid in his belief that it is a living document

I don't think he's going to 'legalize' marijuana, but he will make it not illegal again. He'll still leave the decisions of those matters up to the states. Which means if whatever state your in is against marijuana, you're SoL. He doesn't need to decide what we smoke, fuck, or otherwise engage in... but he's also not going to overrule a states decision. That's how the constitution works.

Also, Santorum is a complete douche. RP's appeal is MUCH higher than the youngest GOP contender.



TL;DR I'm A HUGE Paulite, and will remain that way even after his death. Some things about him are a little off, but they aren't things that matter as a president. That's that.

 

[Emperor Nero]

Ron Paul would win 99-1 if people would realize that his America IS America, and the current 'America' is more of a bastardized version.

.

You seem to make some baseless claims here, care to back it up?

 

[Jimmy]

While he defines life at conception, he also says its not his right to decide what a person does with their body. He would not make abortion illegal, or legal, as that's not his constitutional right.

He opposes Roe v. Wade and believes that abortion should be (dis)allowed by each individual state.

Not believing in evolution is a personal choice. We're not ready for an atheist president, or should I say... an atheist president hasn't got a shot.

It goes to his credibility.

The church and state issue, you're misconstruing. Do your research.

He believes creationism should be taught in public schools. He believes it's constitutional to allow teacher-lead in public schools.

His policies are already established. His policies are the constitution. I, myself, am a realist and a rationalist. Ron Paul would win 99-1 if people would realize that his America IS America, and the current 'America' is more of a bastardized version.

His understanding of the constitution goes against countless court rulings and is a complete bastardization of what the republic originally stood for.

I don't think he's going to 'legalize' marijuana, but he will make it not illegal again. He'll still leave the decisions of those matters up to the states. Which means if whatever state your in is against marijuana, you're SoL. He doesn't need to decide what we smoke, fuck, or otherwise engage in... but he's also not going to overrule a states decision. That's how the constitution works.

Thus, he advocates the repeal of the Controlled Substances Act which would (at least on a federal level) make all drugs legal.

 

[mexistaniX]

I don't think he's going to 'legalize' marijuana, but he will make it not illegal again. He'll still leave the decisions of those matters up to the states. Which means if whatever state your in is against marijuana, you're SoL. He doesn't need to decide what we smoke, fuck, or otherwise engage in... but he's also not going to overrule a states decision. That's how the constitution works.

Also, Santorum is a complete douche. RP's appeal is MUCH higher than the youngest GOP contender.

Thank you for the correction, I guess I was just quick-typing, but i had to add that Santorum quote because he's a complete asshole for sure.

 

[QuasiNoob]

He opposes Roe v. Wade and believes that abortion should be (dis)allowed by each individual state.

But he believes it's a state's choice. He believes the states ought not to allow it, but he won't force it.

It goes to his credibility.

Are you a technocrat? If not, one's views of science - especially when you're a libertarian - are irrelevant to politics.

He believes creationism should be taught in public schools. He believes it's constitutional to allow teacher-lead in public schools.

He believes it SHOULD be (I disagree with him, but regardless), but he, again, believes (to my knowledge) it's up to the states.

His understanding of the constitution goes against countless court rulings and is a complete bastardization of what the republic originally stood for.

What court rulings? And why can't one say just as easily that those rulings are against the way the Constitution is meant to be interpreted?

Thus, he advocates the repeal of the Controlled Substances Act which would (at least on a federal level) make all drugs legal.

And put it in the hands of the States - as per the 10th Amendment. By the way, most, if not all, States already have anti-drug laws, so repeal at the Federal level would change little, if anything.

Please do your research before bashing candidates next time.

 

[The Riddler_]

He believes in a small federal gov't and he wants to reserve more power for the states. I do agree with his economic policies. But I don't believe he will win. People don't take him serious enough.

 

[Jimmy]

But he believes it's a state's choice. He believes the states ought not to allow it, but he won't force it.

This is completely self-contradictory; when a state disallows certain action, citizens are forced to conform to a behavioral standard.

Are you a technocrat? If not, one's views of science - especially when you're a libertarian - are irrelevant to politics.

They are far from irrelevant; Ron Paul's views on this matter would affect public policy by means of the federal judges he appoints.

He believes it SHOULD be (I disagree with him, but regardless), but he, again, believes (to my knowledge) it's up to the states.

Yes, and this goes against various court rulings which have branded creationism/intelligent design religious dogma that cannot be taught in public school science classes.

What court rulings? And why can't one say just as easily that those rulings are against the way the Constitution is meant to be interpreted?

Given Mr. Paul's narrow construction, the better question to ask is this: what current Supreme Court decisions does Ron Paul agree with? You can say whatever you want, but ignoring hundreds of years of judicial precedent is certainly not the way to go about fixing broken policies.

And put it in the hands of the States - as per the 10th Amendment. By the way, most, if not all, States already have anti-drug laws, so repeal at the Federal level would change little, if anything.

Various states have decriminalized various drugs or allowed them for medical use, my state of California being one of them. This is actually one of the policies of his that I agree with, but it's nonetheless wrong to assert that such a policy wouldn't change anything.

Please do your research before bashing candidates next time.

You seem to be unaware that Ron Paul's interpretation of the constitution is not held up at all in any court of law. I've done my research; you clearly have not.

 

[QuasiNoob]

This is completely self-contradictory; when a state disallows certain action, citizens are forced to conform to a behavioral standard.

...or move to another state. Seriously, that's part of the very point of states' rights: if you don't like your state's views on a "hot button" topic, move to another state.

They are far from irrelevant; Ron Paul's views on this matter would affect public policy by means of the federal judges he appoints.

Fair enough. That being said I doubt that that would lead to the actual enactment of ID in schools, rather the mere possibility of it.

Yes, and this goes against various court rulings which have branded creationism/intelligent design religious dogma that cannot be taught in public school science classes.

I have researched intelligent design, although to be fair most of it is on the philosophical foundation for it and not the contemporary treatment of it, but to my knowledge the only federal ruling against ID is Kitzmiller vs. Dover School District. So it's not "various court rulings" (you can't appeal to state and local rulings as Paul would not overturn these).

Given Mr. Paul's narrow construction, the better question to ask is this: what current Supreme Court decisions does Ron Paul agree with?

I'd rather see you justify the ones he contradicts.

You can say whatever you want, but ignoring hundreds of years of judicial precedent is certainly not the way to go about fixing broken policies.

"Hundreds of years"?! The only two court rulings which you claimed Paul directly contradicts have occurred in the last 40 years! And two of the most controversial resolutions of court cases, at that! Hardly "hundreds of years"!

Various states have decriminalized various drugs or allowed them for medical use, my state of California being one of them. This is actually one of the policies of his that I agree with, but it's nonetheless wrong to assert that such a policy wouldn't change anything.

I said "anything" as an ideal. The fact remains that his policies on drugs would only reduce it to a state level and, to my knowledge, all of them still individually ban recreational use of most of the drugs that are illegal on the federal level, with the possible exception of marijuana, but it seems both of us find that agreeable.

You seem to be unaware that Ron Paul's interpretation of the constitution is not held up at all in any court of law. I've done my research; you clearly have not.

You seem to be unable to defend why these courts' interpretations are actually accurate, or to make the distinction between permission and enactment.

 

[Noam]

I gave up on the entire republican party after Perry's Strong ad surpassed Friday in dislikes. Ron Paul was probably the best of them but still very conservative and he voted against civil rights on the 60's.

 

[SuF]

You seem to be unable to defend why these courts' interpretations are actually accurate, or to make the distinction between permission and enactment.

The Constitution specifically gives the courts the power to interpret the Constitution. If you believe in the Constitution (which Ron Paul says he does) you must say that the common law created by the courts is the correct interpretation of the Constitution. You may fight it again and again in court but at some point you have to say, well my view of what it says is not what the court (which has the right to say interpret the Constitution) and give in.

 

[sittin_low_287]

ron paul 2012!
get behind him guys

 

[Jimmy]

The Constitution specifically gives the courts the power to interpret the Constitution.

It's really more judicial precedent.

He would allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons without hindrance. Can anybody explain to me, given the nature of that country, how this policy would be responsible in the slightest?

 

[sittin_low_287]

It's really more judicial precedent.

He would allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons without hindrance. Can anybody explain to me, given the nature of that country, how this policy would be responsible in the slightest?

what has Iran the country ever done to America ?
america is not the world police. how many country have you bombed the shit out of in the last 20 years? pack of warmongers. one day my friend you shall wake up.

if a few thousand america's done a few attacks around the world would you understand the rest of the world bombing you? do you think by us bombing you where going to stop terrorist from your country? OF CAUSE NOT! while where trying to get the "terrorists" we bomb your house and kill all your family. are you going to sit back or you going to say fuck them and fight back. all your doing is pissing off more and more generations off. making sure the hate is strong and gets pass down.do you think all the arab country's just started hating you guys for no reason? i dont blame them

your countrys soooo broke but you want more war? if you so scared of the world wouldnt you want your tropes at home? at your boarder?

clear whatever shit you have over yours eyes and see the world for what it is. your been conned mate.


"America fuck yeah!"

 

[nsakhil]

I am a big fan of ron paul and i believe that if many americans gives him a chance at convincing them, they will flock to him,the media and people shut him down because they think he is a extremist, which is not fair atal. (i dont mean the entire population of america, just the majority.)