Ron Paul "Black This Out" Moneybomb this Wednesday

[Aceshighhhh]

Not sure if everyone has noticed this but the media has been extremely biased towards Ron Paul. It's really is getting out of hand
If you are a supporter of Ron Paul I strongly urge you all to look into this Black THIS Out Moneybomb for Ron Paul! October 19th, 2011.
The "Black THIS Out" Money Bomb is a 24 hour "Online" fundraising event. On Oct 19th(this wednesday), all donations are to be made to the official campaign website at Ron Paul 2012 Official Campaign Website.

We need to show the media we can do this without them

[Explorer]

Personally, I won't be donating money to any political candidate who is against a woman's right to choose, especially on religious grounds. I understand having religious beliefs in one's private life, but insisting on imposing one's religion on others strikes me as wrong.

But you go ahead and show them.

[ghstofperdition]

Originally Posted by Explorer

Personally, I won't be donating money to any political candidate who is against a woman's right to choose, especially on religious grounds. I understand having religious beliefs in one's private life, but insisting on imposing one's religion on others strikes me as wrong.

But you go ahead and show them.

Well this and the fact that he openly admitted to wanting to reinstate Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Apparently gays aren't manly enough to fight in wars.....

[Guitarman700]

Ron Paul is a racist, homophobic, crazy joke with no punchline,
Not to mention a cult leader, what with his army of paulbots who hang on his every word.

[Randy]

Ron Paul is a Republican in Libertarian's clothing, and wearing Libertarian clothing ain't much to be proud of IMO.

[synrgy]

Not to mention, it's hard to accept the 'blackout' rhetoric when he's been in almost every debate to-date, and articles about him and his policies are published all over the place daily, not even including his privately owned publication(s).

*edit* Also, not to mention John Stewart's man-crush on him.

[Guitarman700]

Ahem...Ron Paul's Racism | The New Republic

[pink freud]

Ron Paul is a half-ass. He proposes to cut the presidential salary to that of the average middle-class income.

I propose to cut the salary of all congresspeople and the president to $0.

They should be grateful for the privileged of being elected, and all those mofos are already rich anyway.

[athawulf]

^ sounds like he's your guy then, since he's closer to your proposal than anyone else

[pink freud]

Originally Posted by athawulf

^ sounds like he's your guy then, since he's closer to your proposal than anyone else

Naw. He is a Libertarian, which means he has a naive faith in humanity that I don't possess.

[Randy]

I never totally got Libertarianism. It's like, an individual rights thing based on the mixture of Ayn Rand and The Constitution but the opening of The Constitution says "We the People..." which is in direct opposition to pretty much everything Ayn Rand was about.

[Explorer]

I understand the desire on the part of some to discuss things privately, but rather than contacting me directly to try to explain where others might have misunderstood Ron Paul, I suggest anyone so inclined contribute to the thread.

That said, if any Ron Paul supporters feel that any of the reasons listed, by all those but the OP, as reasons to not support Ron Paul are incorrect, then please correct our misunderstandings. Otherwise, if you can't point out where we've all gone wrong... doesn't that say something about a clash between your feelings and the actual evidence?

That's not pomposity, of course, that's a willingness to hear what you have to say, but wanting you to not just hear where you've gone wrong from me alone.

Cheers!

[ElRay]

EDIT: I forgot that I explicitly have to state this, so here it goes:
Just because I agree with the point of the fundraiser because the mass media exerts too much control over our elections by choosing to ignore candidates and the illegal/in violation of the intent of the law deeds by the "Big Two" (e.g. interpreting non-partisan as bi-partisan, illegal use of public funds for bi-partisan (not non-partisan) political events, pre-emptively arresting non-Repbulocrat candidates and then releasing them without filing charges, etc.) and that I'm correcting a lot of mis-information, does not mean that I'm a Ron Paul supporter

Wow, there's a lot of mis-information and pieces of quotes taken out of context. Ron Paul (don't confuse him with his son Rand) isn't slick, doesn't tap-dance around facts/historical occurrences that today's sound-bite-driven political process won't allow you to say. Unfortunately, this plays directly into the everything is Black or White (no shades of gray) and you're either a Red or a Blue Republocrat, and exactly the same as the stereotype of each flavor mentality we (as a people) have today.

Yes, he's personally against abortion, but he doesn't feel that it's the job of the Federal Government to ban it either. 99% of the Republocrats out there can't separate one from the other, but that doesn't mean that everybody is the same. It's like somebody who eats kosher/halal won't eat pork, but they don't feel that the federal government should ban it. You can be personally against abortion, but not feel that the government needs to ban it -- just as there are vegetarians that are not members of PETA.

The comments about him being homophobic and wanting to repeal the repeal of DADT, are flat-out false. He has said that homosexual behavior that is disruptive should be punished, just as heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, but that's not the same as saying that homo/heterosexual relations should be treated any different than the other. Ron Paul has voted many, many times to keep the federal government out of people's bedrooms. He voted for the repeal of DADT, and has stated many times that he would not try to re-instate DADT. On a side-note, if you've heard any of the DADT-repeal briefings, you'd know that's the official military policy and the only areas that are not 100% equal are the areas that the Republocrat-sponsored Defense of Marriage Act (remember only 81 out of 537 Congress Critters voted against it and it was signed into lay by a Blue-flavored Republocrat) prohibit any federal agency from acting.

The racist part is a bit easier to see why people would feel that way. It's easy to take a lot of comments out of context, plus we (as a society) aren't truly color/ethnicity-blind yet. Yes, Ron Paul made the big mistake of not closely monitoring a newsletter with his name on it 20+ years ago. But that's an error that many, many folks have made, regardless of their political affiliation and is an indication of a leadership failure. Where it gets a bit more touchy is that there are things that person A can say about their own ethnicity, that person B would be crucified for saying, or even agreeing with. Yes he's naive/overly optimistic/stupid/foolish/insensitive/etc. to make some of the statements he's made, but I haven't seen any quotes that, when taken in context, are truly racist. When sound-bitten, misquoted and/or used out of context, many comments can be offensive/appear racist, but when viewed as part of the whole discussion, they still may be offensive to some, but they aren't racist. Also, in our sound-bite/use-retoric-but-damn-any-real-logic society, people can't separate "I'm against this bill because of the way it implements a solution" from "I'm against what this bill stands for." A very clear-cut example of this is Reagan being labeled anti-civil rights because he vetoed a pork-barreled Civil Rights Bill, because of the pork barreling, and said he'd sign it without all the non-Civil Rights add-ons (which he did), but so many people remember the veto of the original "Civil Rights Bill" and forget all of the details. If you read Ron Paul's anti-Civil Rights Bill comments in their entirety, you'll see that he has problems with the implementation, not with the intent.

Regarding his views on foreign policy, after spending 15 months in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan & Qatar and talking to as many non-Americans (Kyrgs, Afghans (Hazaran, Tajiks, Uzbecks, Pashtuns, Pashaid), Kuwaitis, Germans, Brits, Turks, Croatians, Hungarians, Swedes, Norwegians, Canadians, Aussies, French, Chechen, Pakistani, "non-descript Soviets", etc.) as I could, Ron Paul is a lot more accurate about how the rest of the world perceives the U.S. than the rest of his Red-flavored Republocrats.

Originally Posted by Randy

I never totally got Libertarianism. It's like, an individual rights thing based on the mixture of Ayn Rand and The Constitution but the opening of The Constitution says "We the People..." which is in direct opposition to pretty much everything Ayn Rand was about.

Then you've obviously never read/comprehended The Constitution and/or Ayn Rand and/or true libertarian philosophy. Yes, there's a lot of "way out there" rants and raves by folks that identify themselves as Libertarian, but saying they represent all libertarians is like saying Al Queda represents all Muslims or that Earth First!, Ralph Nader and "Raise the minimum wage to $20/hour" Occupy Wallstreeters represent the Blue-flavored Republocrats.

Regarding your "We the People" quote: The complete Preamble is:

Originally Posted by The Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There's nothing in there that's anti-libertarian. Also, it's the Preamble, which does nothing to define the structure, or what the Federal government is allowed to do or not do. Read The Constitution. There's nothing in there setting-up any kind of a collectivist society. There's nothing in there that says rights are granted to the people by the government. In fact, it's explicitly stated that The Constitution grants the federal government specific enumerated powers and responsibilities, and everything else is retained by "The People". Again, none of the core of The Constitution is anti-libertarian. The only parts that are anti-libertarian are those that discriminate based on gender/ethnicity.

Ray

[Miek]

Well I'm glad the constitution is a perfect document!

Originally Posted by Randy

I never totally got Libertarianism. It's like, an individual rights thing based on the mixture of Ayn Rand and The Constitution but the opening of The Constitution says "We the People..." which is in direct opposition to pretty much everything Ayn Rand was about.

This is right. Objectivism places the importance of the self above helping others, because somehow doing that makes you a less ideologically pure person. Unless your ideology is to help poor people or something? But instead of attempting to come up with some basic human rights and a concept of the suffering of others, it's more important to be an individual.

So you can see from an objectivist perspective, taxes are theft, despite the fact that their taxes paid for the regulations and inspections that make sure their food is safe, ensure their homes do not get insulated with asbestos, build and maintain the road system they use to travel, and not least of all, the ....ing internet they use to spew their drivel.



The ....ing free market won't ensure safety and regulations that keep people from starving to death, eating terrible quality food, protect them from housefires or home them in cases of dire need. Any time the free market has done these kind of things is an anomaly in the face of the vast majority of the history of the human race.

This is only part of why Ayn Rand was a crazy fool. The reason she came up with such things is probably because she hated the communists so much she created a world view diametrically opposed to literally every communist belief.
Also she was a rape fetishist.

If you (general you, not anyone in particular, no hard feelings ElRay, I'm just very empassioned about human rights) don't believe in basic human rights (I know they don't objectively exist in that anyone's god set them) or that humans don't innately deserve to not suffer, you're probably a bad person. You may also be a teenager who just read Atlas Shrugged, which resonated with your deeply seated belief you're better than other people.

People don't choose to be poor, the free market and other systems make them that way.
The wealthiest, for the most part, don't earn their wealth. They are born into it. And they will fight tooth and claw to make sure they keep every opulent, crisp 1000 dollar bill of it from helping the poor. And I've never seen anything Libertarians offer that would keep this from happening. All I see is claims of bootstrapping oneself up.

edit: I AM ANGRY

AND YELLING

I AM ONE MILLION ANGRIES

[ElRay]

Originally Posted by Miek

Well I'm glad the constitution is a perfect document!

It's not. And just because it isn't perfect, doesn't give the government the right to make an end-run around it just to implement whatever is currently politically expedient. That's why there's a way to amend The Constitution. If you think that the federal government should provide universal healthcare, then amend The Constitution to give the federal government the responsibility. Don't use the interstate commerce clause as a loophole, Don't ignore the 10th Amendment, etc.

Originally Posted by Miek

Objectivism places the importance of the self above helping others, because somehow doing that makes you a less ideologically pure person.

Wrong. Nice strawman argument. Objectivism/libertarianism does not denigrate helping others. If that's what you choose to do, then so be it. What both Objectivism and libertarianism object to is a collective that you've not freely joined, placing a demand on your time, effort, intelligence, product of your labors, etc. against your will.

Originally Posted by Miek

from an objectivist perspective, taxes are theft

Another strawman. Taxes in themselves are not theft. Objectivists will have problems when taxes are used as forced income redistribution. Libertarians will have problems when taxes are being excised to support government activities that it was not granted the responsibility to do or when the taxes are used to take away an individual's freedoms.

Originally Posted by Miek

... misc. anti-free market rants ...

Again, strawman mischaracterizations. Most of the abuses you cite, are a) Due to government meddling in the free market and giving unfair protections/perks to certain groups and/or refusing to enforce existing laws or b) Just as, if not more, prevalent under collectivist governments. Look at China, the former Soviet Union, Pol-Pot Cambodia, North Korea, Greece, Venezuela, etc. How many of these countries are the average citizen better off than the U.S.?

What the Founding Fathers understood, and many citizens (world wide, not just in the U.S.) have forgotten, failed to learn, etc. are:

• If you give the government the authority to force your will on everybody else, you've given it the authority to force everybody else's will on you.
• If you don't put strict limits on what the government is allowed to do, it will continue to grow, consume more resources and be used as a hammer to bend the populace to it's will.

Ray

[Miek]

Those are not strawmen I just imagined up. I am referring to objectivist arguments that I have heard from actual objectivists, and the vast majority I've ever seen debate before.
If you feel they misrepresent you, I apologize, again, they were not directed as indictments of you in particular.
Though I do have to ask, though, if you identify as a libertarian, why are you defending objectivism as such? Are you also an ojbectivist? Or are the two interchangeable to you?

And I don't believe in giving the government the ability to subdue the populace, I never even claimed any such thing. It sounds to me much more like you're inventing strawmen of things I never said while not even arguing with you.

And you'll note I said that objectivism does not denigrate helping others, but it sure as .... doesn't make it important. If you don't feel that's something that should be important, good for you.
Nextly, it may be true that you never entered into a contract of your own free will vis a vis paying taxes (that you ACTIVELY BENEFIT FROM, mind you). Please tell me what exactly it is that you dislike about the current system of taxes. Do you disagree with some of the things that they pay for? I do too, and I object to specific policies rather than the existence of taxes themselves.
What taxes are infringing on your personal freedoms? Why do you object to systems such as welfare? The poor can't just bootstrap themselves up into not being poor.

[Alimination]

ah man, It's hard to do a RP topic in this forum.

A lot of you guys seem to think that once(if) he ran as president all hell would break lose!
Racist bigots would run the lands! Christianity would become to main dominant religion america would become a theocracy, Iran would nuke Israel and we won't be there for them, blah blah blah. A lot of which you've taken out of contents.

So rather you'd vote for the same shit that's been going on the past decade. As if doing the same thing again would change anything.

At least he's cut from a different cloth and up for different ideas.

Do be quite frank he's the only candidate even talking about getting out of the multiple wars we're (that's bankrupting us further). And yeah I wan't my brothers back :/

[Miek]

You're right, I don't think that would happen if Ron Paul was in charge. You know what I think would happen? Same shit different day. Same as it is with Obama, despite his very thin veneer of liberal progressivism.

[Randy]

Originally Posted by Alimination

At least he's cut from a different cloth and up for different ideas.

Eh, no and maybe.

[pink freud]

Originally Posted by Alimination

ah man, It's hard to do a RP topic in this forum.

A lot of you guys seem to think that once(if) he ran as president all hell would break lose!
Racist bigots would run the lands! Christianity would become to main dominant religion america would become a theocracy, Iran would nuke Israel and we won't be there for them, blah blah blah. A lot of which you've taken out of contents.

So rather you'd vote for the same shit that's been going on the past decade. As if doing the same thing again would change anything.

At least he's cut from a different cloth and up for different ideas.

Do be quite frank he's the only candidate even talking about getting out of the multiple wars we're (that's bankrupting us further). And yeah I wan't my brothers back :/

I think it's a bit foolish to hope that a corrupted electoral process will produce an uncorrupted candidate who will clean said electoral process.

[Explorer]

I've read some assertions saying that Ron Paul is being misrepresented.

I know that he recently aired an ad in which he vowed to ban abortion once a fetus is supposedly able to feel pain.

I know that he wants the federal government to *NOT* recognize same sex marriage, even if permitted in a state. That is quite a different idea that his not wanting one state to be forced to recognize a marriage in another state. That is a deliberate disenfranchisement of homosexuals who want to marry. Whether this is due to anti-homosexual feelings, or religious feelings, or for whatever reason, the point is that he doesn't want two consenting adults to be able to marry, the same way that earlier politicians didn't want whites marrying blacks. He also is against activitist judges being able to change such laws, as those against miscegenation and unequal schooling between whites and blacks were changed. (Apparently I have to be specific about what he's campaigning against, including the idea of "activist judges" and what he wants to remove from consideration from change. Just look at the nearby "Church wants to ban our music and dancing in our town" to see what will be allowed to be banned under Ron Paul's legislative philosophies.)

He's also stated that, under his vision of what he can accomplish as President, the courts and the federal government would have no right to interfere should a local government pass laws or rules banning atheists from public office.

Sorry, but I want Ron Paul to stay out of my girlfriend's pants. I also don't want him to be able to create shields for religious intolerance, protecting such bigotry from the courts or the federal government. The idea that his philosophies would have kept black children out of white schools, and strengthened Jim Crow, scares the shit out of me.

And the fact that it doesn't scare some people is even scarier.

[Trembulant]

damn, i can't even get what most of the people here DO stand for.
i think if the world became a perfect utopia you'd still find some bullshit to bitch about.

the simple fact is, if people had actually been listening and taking heed and heart to the very logical and simple things ron paul has been consistently saying and has been right about for the last few decades we wouldn't be in half the shit mess we are in now.

that being said, i don't think he should be president, he's better served in his current position and able to do more to influence and change things.
he's one of the best people to ever serve our country. wake the .... up.

[AxeHappy]

Originally Posted by Trembulant

i think if the world became a perfect utopia you'd still find some bullshit to bitch about.

I'm pretty sure if it was your idea of utopia I'd have plenty to bitch about.

[synrgy]

Originally Posted by Trembulant

the simple fact is, if people had actually been listening and taking heed and heart to the very logical and simple things ron paul has been consistently saying and has been right about for the last few decades we wouldn't be in half the shit mess we are in now.

The important point that this is dodging, is that nobody cares what the man SAYS. What we care about is what he DOES. His voting record is public, just like everyone else's is, not to mention his magazines/newspapers.

That's all I'm going to say about that.

[Trembulant]

Originally Posted by AxeHappy

I'm pretty sure if it was your idea of utopia I'd have plenty to bitch about.

A pointless jab.

I don't actually have any preconceived notions about what a perfect utopia would be.