3 votes

What positions do you DISAGREE with RP on?

While I'm a huge RP supporter, I don't consider myself a Libertarian and don't agree with RP on a number of things. A common thread through most of the following is a naive sense of idealism. As we've clearly seen throughout the primaries, there are without a doubt, some very evil people out there. Put an advantage in their hands that they can exploit, and see how far you'll get without some regulations to fall back on:

- The real threat of monopolies in an RP-style world

- That ALL troops should be brought home from everywhere. This has nothing to do with the fake war on terror. Of course, those troops should be brought home. But if prudence is a virtue, then maintaining a small, passive, spread-out presence wherever possible trouble could brew doesn't seem too unreasonable.

- RP is anti-collectivist. IMHO, denying the historically supported statistics indicating general strengths and weaknesses with regard to different groups is dishonest, hypocritical, irresponsible and potentially dangerous. Diversity, by definition, means different. That is, not equal in some areas. Most "solutions" proposed in this area are, again, idealistic. If we're all equal, then explain the NBA.

- 911. While the blowback theory is completely sensible in establishing motive. That's all it does. The fact is, 11 years later, there is still not a shred of evidence that 19 hi-jackers did it. But there is the WTC7, molten steel, presence of thermitic material, put options, Larry Silverstein, Micheal Chertoff, a gross cover up, missing surveillance footage (everywhere), and our Israeli media demonizing 911 family members and concerned citizens. So unless quantity and quality of evidence means nothing, it's pretty clear at this time who's really responsible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjaTAe5gnjY

- He should have planned to run 3rd party this whole time. Not that he was in any way obligated, but strategically speaking, had he been milking the MSM as a GOP candidate but all the while scheming in the background to go third party at the end, it would have gotten very interesting - even if only to clearly show the GOP sheeple how costly their actions were. (Understanding that, of course, the GOP bosses don't care either way and there's always the diebold's to reflect whatever number they want.)

So, why am I a supporter? Many reasons, but mostly because he is an intellectual wizard, has integrity, can't be bought and would be a corruption exterminator if policies such as ending the fed were to actually happen.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Only one position.

That we should continue to try to work within the Republican Party.

Otherwise, I love everything he says.

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

Cyril's picture

Well, I have a problem with Ron Paul,

Well, I have a problem with Ron Paul, because...

I disagree with him ABOUT NOTHING.

NADA.

NIHILO.

RIEN DU TOUT.

I just cannot find ANYTHING of what he has ever said NOT to be a no-brainer to me. So far anyway.

And I'm an ugly stubborn and very opiniated French dude saying that.

Ron Paul is just pure simple common sense wisdom to me, and I learned an AWFUL lot from him, it's not like I was always informed enough.

Really UNIQUE experience if you ask me.

While I disagree with my wife on small stuff every new day.

YMMV.

Peace.

P.S.
Btw, I say it's a problem for me because it sort of feels like "supernatural" as silly as it sounds. I sure had never expected so before I first heard of him 18 or so months ago.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I disagree with him thanking Benton for running his campaign.

That and the day after pill. If life begins with conception. I'll let someone else finish the answer.

It's time! Rand Paul 2016!

"Truth, Justice, and the American Way!"

I don't agree with most of

I don't agree with most of you're disagreements. You use history as a source but you don't consider the internet as having a role, easing and probably even eliminating most of the problems we dealt with in the past. But pretty much, you haven't read/heard that many Austrian Economic books/lectures. Morally it's consistent, that's why I appreciate voluntaryism. But I do have an issue, I don't agree with Dr. Paul on. The defense of life act or whatever, Ron Paul introduced in 2005. It outlaws abortions on the federal level. I thought Ron is pro states rights? Unless they're trying to amend the constitution, having a federal law outlawing abortion should be also unconstitutional.

"you're a funny dude, but who gives a fuck about that? I don't care about someone's wit, I care about the courage of their heart and the honesty of their mind."

I believe...

RP has voiced support in the past of a Constitutional amendment that bans abortion.

I don't play, I commission the league.

Ummmmm.......

......still working on it.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Currency and Legal Tender are not the same things

I disagree with Dr. Paul on something very similar to Michael Nystrom's post on the difference between money and credit, and it is also a crucial point. I reposted part of Michael's post below because it is getting lost in the thread.

Currency and legal tender are not the same things. You do not have to "re-legalize" alternate currencies. In fact, they already exist, such as LETS systems and digital currencies, and have always existed - in fact they were more prevalent in the 1800s. It is whatever is commonly used and in currency to trade for other things.

Legal tender means something entirely different. We need to recognize the government can only make gold and silver legal tender, and only the States have that power. But what is currency is something else.

Submitted by Michael Nystrom on Sun, 09/09/2012 - 21:41. Permalink
In fact, the Fed does not do any printing - it is the Treasury that does the printing. This is the most minor part of the quibbling, so please stay with me.

The Fed does not print money, rather it creates credit out of thin air. This is an important distinction, because credit is not money. Money is the green stuff in your wallet. You walk into a bar, slap it down on the counter and get your beer. Credit is the plastic in your wallet. You walk into a bar, slap it down on the the counter, and if it is declined -- guess what? No beer.

We're all familiar with the hyperinflation of post WWI Germany, and the million unit Reichsmark notes that were printed and circulated in the economy. The existence of those notes - which were "money*," and not credit drove up prices in the real world. Once those notes were printed and circulated into the economy, there was no taking them back. They were out there, floating around, driving up prices.

But when was the last time you saw a million dollar bill? We don't have hyperinflation because the Fed is not printing money. It is creating credit, but that credit must be loaned into existence. And credit, unlike money, can disappear back into the thin air from whence it came. This is the crucial difference.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Thought of another one...

the Civil Rights Act. While Ron wouldn't repeal it, he does criticize the effect it has on property rights. However, a valid libertarian argument could be made that NOT having laws in place to protect civil rights violates everyone's right to the pursuit of happiness, and also violates the non-aggression principle. (Segregation, after all, is definitely not solicited by the people being discriminated against.) Furthermore, without protection of civil rights, collectivism becomes a way of life, and history has shown over and over again the dangers of this phenomenon.

I don't play, I commission the league.

Racism is and should be

Racism is and should be protected by your right to free speach. The only place where Racism and segregation should be illegal is in government buildings.

If some jackass wants to tell gay people or black people that they cannot enter their business, wonderful. The free market will handle it. That person will suffer the consequences of blowback for his small mindendess. A law does nothing to prevent racism, it only begins a slippery slope to controlling speach.

People also have the right to

People also have the right to live in a society that has certain rules. Per our Constitution, a state would be allowed to set laws on who you must allow into your business.

I mean, the main way that the EPC was applied to that part of the Civil Rights Act was the fact that so many states already had laws on the books saying that no White man would be disallowed entry into x, y, and z.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

You have far more faith in humanity than I do, man.

I bet if Chik-fil-A banned all gay people from working or eating there tomorrow, their sales figures would be off the charts. After all, we all saw the positive effect on sales they got just from SAYING they were pro-discrimination of LGBT people without even acting on it.

You also assume that racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. only exists as speech. However, it can also take the form of unsolicited actions that harm others taken simply because of the victim's skin color, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Hmmm.... sounds like a violation of the NAP to me.

I don't play, I commission the league.

Let me get this straight, Pauling --

you don't have a lot of faith in humanity, but you want a government bureaucrat to be able to decide for a store or restaurant owner whom they can or cannot serve? There isn't a person on this earth, not even Ron Paul, who should have that type of violence backed authority.

Saying that homosexuality is

Saying that homosexuality is a sin, when it is the view of a Christian owner of a store that also closes on the Christian Sabbath, is not unusual.

In fact, homosexuality is an abomination.

And it isn't the policy of the store, it is the personal belief of the owner.

Homosexuals more than any other group insists on forcing themselves into groups when that group hasn't invited them. That use of force is sodomy - another term for rape.

Freedom means you can choose who you associate with and who you do not.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

So..

as long as we're accepting that homosexuality is "an abomination" because the magical sky fairy said so, have you ever worn mixed fabrics? Have you ever eaten shellfish? If you've done either of those things, the magical sky fairy will be sending you to hell right along with those "abominable gays".

Homosexuals more than any other group insists on forcing themselves into groups when that group hasn't invited them. That use of force is sodomy - another term for rape.

This is the most laughable argument against civil rights I've ever heard. Gay people trying to exercise their constitutional rights = rape? What planet do you live on?

Freedom means you can choose who you associate with and who you do not.

Yes, but like all the other choices that freedom gives us, we're not free to use that choice to harm others. Discrimination does indeed harm others physically, emotionally, financially, and mentally.

I don't play, I commission the league.

People have the right to defend themselves

Yes, forcing someone to associate with someone else over sexual matters is rape. Milder forms of it is considered stalking and harassment.

If you insist on trying to force someone to let you in their clubs, on their property, in their house, or marry you *that doesn't want you*, they have a right to shoot you by trespass law. You can't use force. And in most state laws, trespassers can be shoot - and that's the way it should be.

You've taken one of the most abominable things in the eyes of some, and have tried to use force on them to make them have it.

It's the exact same sin as in the Bible that you are advocating. Gang rape to force someone to do something they don't want to do. And they have a right to protect themselves.

This is totalitarianism of the basest and vilest sort.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Fantastic

Fantastic

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

And that is where the term

And that is where the term sodomite came from, an attempt to gang rape the angels of the Lord - forcing themselves on someone else.

Genesis 19:
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.

11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

12 And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place:

13 For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the Lord; and the Lord hath sent us to destroy it.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

I must admit I'm not sure Dr. Paul is right about...

bicycle riding being the best cardiovascular exercise. I enjoy it very much, but perhaps running ultimately burns more calories.

Considerations for the 2012 U.S. Presidential Race from the Mind of a Political Independent-Use this tool to educate the unconverted and prove support for Dr. Paul among Independents.

Cycling is the best

because it's a lot more fun than running. :)

Asking how we disagree with

Asking how we disagree with RP is like asking how we disagree with our Constitution. And I don't disagree with that!

...

I only disagree with 1 RP position...

Dr. Paul wants to eliminate birth right citizenship....I believe if you are born on USA soil you are a US citizen...That is the ONLY position I know of that I can disagree on...

Bad food, worse weather, please rEVOLution the states so I can bring my family back home!
Rosa Koire for for President!

Without lies and distortion

And without manipulation and propaganda, I think that everyone in the world can agree on all of his positions. He is a reasonable man, like most. Most just seem to have their facts wrong.

None

I agree with all the positions.
No need to fear monopolies. They would only exist if they were benficial - in a RP world we would have private property rights to protect against predatory organizations. The state has destroyed property rights with their agencies that promise to protect yet only protect the industries they allegedly regulate.

peAce

Liberty = Responsibility

NONE!

Dr. Paul backs freedom:

Freedom for you to take drugs and pay the consequences
Freedom for you to support the endless, unconstitutional wars and pay the consequences
Freedom for you to not get involved and pay the consequences
Freedom for you to do whatever you wish on your own land, but if you violate someone else's you pay the consequences

With Freedom comes responsibility, this is the fact most American's have missed.

If we support endless wars and $12 million per hour wars we will have to pay. What makes us the rulers of the world?

If you take drugs and get sick you will have to pay.

Unfortunatley, the WITH responsibility part of the equation most people have forgotten. Just like with freedom of speech here on the DP, if you mouth off you have to pay the consequences. Sending $500 million in bombs on a small city the size of about 50,000 is not okay. We blame them because they have churches and schools so close to their military when innocent have died. Where do you live? How close is your closest military base? For me it is only a few miles, so ....

I just agree with the man. Freedom comes with responsibilty and that is a key to the equation that is missing.

freedom is resposibility

Man you are so right. That one little word, responsibility, is what it's all about at the end of the day and the end of most dillemmas.

Thanks for your service.

That is what is definetely missing with the Obama campaign, everyone wants a handout. When we were out of work last year we had so many tell us to go and get the handouts. I went to work cleaning people's yards and hauling things, etc... I have never been on the system and pray I never have to be.

When my brother passed away some years ago, my sister-in-law was left with two small children, she started receiving food stamps for a while and it was at the time you had to pull them off a sheet and them to the cashier, she was only on them a short period of time. she was embarrassed, now we have lifers that get a card so they are not embarrassed. I may agree with the embarrassment part, but do not agree with the "lifer" part. Yes, we need to help others but we can do that through choosing privately how our money should be spent and how it should help.

With responsibilty we need to also respond to the needs of our fellow man/woman and not be told we cannot. Unfortunately that is happening as well. A fire broke out in a location near my home and several homes were burned. We took up a collection of drinks, clothes, and items people need right after a fire. I went and bought toothbrush. paste, deodorant, shampoo, etc... Noone would take them, we were told that "there is too much governement paperwork involved" I was astounded, so I delivered the items to an awesome church after several attempts to get it to the victims. (fire dept. Red Cross, etc.) I have also heard this has happened with the flood victims down south, they have set up points and will not let people go through to help! Disgusting!

Amen to that!

I think that is key to the whole thing.

freedom is resposibility

Man you are so right. That one little word, responsibility, is what it's all about at the end of the day and the end of most dillemmas.

Over the last quarter of a century

I've disagreed with Dr. Paul on one subject, and he changed his mind on that one.

Having the death penalty? If

Having the death penalty?

If that is what you imply, I second your statement.