I have a coworker. This coworker is obsessed with Ron Paul. You can say what you want about Hillary and Obama, but Ron Paul can do not evil, according to him. I admit that I am less than educated on the matter, but I do believe from the little I have read the Ron Paul is completely insane. I would like to collect information to present to this coworker to help my case, as this is not my area of expertise at all. Post your favorite Ron Paul quotes and information for me to use, please.

I gives you cookies.

I hope this helps.

Ron Paul is the kind of wishful thinking that appeals to black and white thinkers. Obviously, since the government only represents negative things to his supporters (middle aged white IT males), why wouldn't you abolish that government? Obviously, people can make decisions, and if they want to make bad decisions that end in the destruction of society, who's Ron Paul to say otherwise? His church will clean up the debris.

It's not that people need less choice, or even that they shouldn't be free: Government is there to support and protect society, even from their own stupid mistakes.

Minimization of Government is a good thing, but abolishment of a national government in favor of 50 macro-states is wishful and clear-cut thinking. It goes against the majority of our French-inspired sense of justice and law, and would require a lot more than a shift in money, but a shift in our expectations out of society: None.

We will all probably stop reading here, because no one wants to hear about more of your psuedo intellectualism BS.

I'm bored, so here's more:

Ron Paul was the only representative that voted against HR180, The Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act, which banned federal (not private) contracts with companies in Sudan that directly or indirectly support the genocide.

i have many good political ideas, heres a few

Ron Paul is a nutbar.

Thats my line. :saddowns:

First time posted on the forums: http://forums.massassi.net/vb3/showthread.php?t=49225&highlight=paul+nutbar#post877821

First time you posted it: http://forums.massassi.net/vb3/showthread.php?t=49760&highlight=paul+nutbar#post892463

I DECLARE THAT YOU STOLE IT FROM ME, GOOD SIR.

I DECLARE YOU PLUCKED IT FROM MY HEAD BEFORE I COULD POST IT.

MIND TAKER.

*gasp*

He's onto me.

Now that that bunch is out of the way, here's some advice that is actually usefull:

DON'T TALK ABOUT POLITICS AT WORK.

Just don't. No good will ever come of it.

Also you're all so horribly biased and quick to mis-represent people that it hurts. Zully, maybe you should try debating the issues, instead of just looking for ways to attack the man.

Issues are a state issue, Ron Paul 2008.

Tell him that he doesn't support change enough. Or hope. The man just doesn't support hope at all.

if I wanted to get information on Ron Paul I would've googled it.. not asked the bias population of massassi what they think of Ron Paul..

Most of the information about Ron Paul on the internet is from people with worse bias than us.

I was looking for issues. If I was just going to attack the man, I'd continue to spout "Ron Paul is a lunatic." Instead, I admitted that I was not as educated on the subject as I should be, and I wanted some factual information - not the slander I'd find with a simple Google search. So far Wuss has been the only helpful one.

From the most recent Fox News Republican debate in South Carolina:

A few of the candidates had just responded to a question regarding the passive response the naval commander took when being harrassed by some Irania boats. They all responded along the lines of not second guessing the officer's decisions. Brit Hume then askes for Paul's take.

HUME: Congressman Paul, what if this happens again?

PAUL: I would certainly urge a lot more caution than I'm hearing here tonight. It reminds me of what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin. We went to war there, then, later on, found out there was a lot of false information.

So here we have -- let's put it in perspective. We have five small speedboats attacking the U.S. Navy with a Destroyer? They could take care of those speedboats in about five seconds. And here we're ready to start World War III over this?
And now, guess what, today, the Navy commander of the Fifth Fleet was on ABC and announced that, you know, that voice might not have come from those vessels. So what does that mean? Was there a rush to judgment on this, ready to go to war?

And you know there are people in this administration and in Washington, D.C., that are looking for the chance. They were so disappointed with the national estimate on intelligence. And they were disappointed that there's no attempt to build weapons in Iran since 2003.

HUME: Congressman...

PAUL: So what -- I just don't see this rush to judgment.

HUME: Well, wait a minute. All of these people I've asked this question to so far have said they supported the decision to be passive. What are you responding to?

PAUL: I'm very sorry, I can't hear a word you said.

(APPLAUSE) [which was actually laughter at Paul]

You'll have to speak up.

HUME: Every one of these -- of your fellow candidates have said they supported the commander's decision to respond passively. I just wonder what you're reacting to.

PAUL: Well, I didn't hear that. Of course we want caution. But I'm worrying about the policy of why we're looking for a justification. Now there are no weapons, actually people are looking around for an excuse to bomb Iran.

I mean, we're already, with our CIA, being involved in trying to overthrow that government, and we don't need another war. And this incident should not be thrown out of proportion to the point where we're getting ready to attack Iran over this.

I actually felt sorry for Paul. He was embarassed and the audiance was laughing at him. Romney, whom I supported, also disappointed me because he used the chance to throw a cheap shot comment at him. After that, Paul was giving some of the best answers I'd ever heard from him. It was like he knew he really messed up and had to get his act together.

To me the fascination with Paul seems similar to the reaction many have with Obama. Very similar in that many of their supporters seem to have no idea what either of them really stand for. The difference being Paul could get no serious traction with Republicans where it seems that Obama is the en vouge democrat to vote for.

On the other hand, would it be a good thing if a live Fox audience liked you?

It matter now? He isn't going to be the nominee. He was consistantly last in the primaries.

Well, it's not like he ever really had a chance anyway.

Then why does he have more delegates won than Duncan Hunter, Rudi Guliani, and Fred Thompson combined?

Primary Results

Shows you how much I was paying attention.

vote for me

I just want to say these things:
I think most people who have in their mind to attack Ron Paul don't know what they are talking about. Many people support him from all walks of life, not just white men. And kirby, I think Dr. Paul would actually agree with your last paragraph there.

Those videos posted up near the top also don't seem to do much to make him look bad, especially if you actually find the whole clip, rather than just posting the attacks made, omitting Paul's entire response.

Actually, a lot of people that support ron paul have no idea what he's really about, and most people that "attack" him realize that his ideas are f-ing insane and would never work in a real society.

A lot of them aren't insane from a philosophical standpoint, it's just that they wouldn't work in the real world. We have abandoned a lot from classic liberalism because it just doesn't work anymore.

I mean, who knows how the founding fathers would have thought about something like national health care? There wasn't even a health care service to speak of then because medical science was so primitive.

It doesn't matter what the founding fathers would have thought.

Even hardline communists look at society as it is, not continually asking eachother 'What would Karl Marx do?!'.

I know, his form of pure libertarianism is much like communism, in the sense that it looks great on paper, but would never work; albeit for completely different reasons.

Everyone is wrong because they're meanie mc-poopface buttholes!

I know, sorry, that isn't what I meant. I just thought it would be interesting.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear any of that. You'll have to speak up

People always says this but never give reasons to back it up. You're just saying that because his ideas aren't mainstream, and you assume the implementation of his ideas would be instant and extreme.

Obi_Kwiet is now going to repeat everything he did in the last thread.

Trying valantly to create burden of proof on internet, only to fail.

Someone isn't very self-aware.

But are you going to back that up! My mom says you should back that up!

So now you're insulting logic?

Or is this some bizarre new straw man you came up with to rationalize your habit of arguing by linking to poorly written articles / thread posts?

Take your **** elsewhere.

Please explain how the following is a logical argument:


You haven't made any logical argument at all.