Why are Republicans afraid of Ron Paul?

[dblack]

I am going to go out on a limb here and say I was a Perot-style Libertarian before you were even born.

LOL... "Perot-style Libertarian".... that's pretty funny. I'm going to start using that, if you don't mind. Kinda sums up the phony Tea Party stuff.

 

[uscitizen]

Why are Republicans afraid of Ron Paul?


1. Because he is a real fiscal conservative. Unlike the republicans who just talk about being fiscally conservative.

2. He is really against nation building and the US being the police force of the world, and the MIC is a major part of the republican party.



There are more reasons but that is sufficient.

 

[Contumacious]

Why are Republicans afraid of Ron Paul?.

They are not afraid of Ron Paul - they have been indoctrinated after 12 years at government minimum security prisons , to accept slavery.

"Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey. A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state. –

Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943)

.

 

[uscitizen]

Why are Republicans afraid of Ron Paul?.

They are not afraid of Ron Paul - they have been indoctrinated after 12 years at government minimum security prisons , to accept slavery.

"Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey. A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state. –

Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943)

.

Kinda explains the rutral right wingers low education level ?

 

[Contumacious]

Why are Republicans afraid of Ron Paul?.

They are not afraid of Ron Paul - they have been indoctrinated after 12 years at government minimum security prisons , to accept slavery.

"Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey. A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state. –

Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943)

.

Kinda explains the rutral right wingers low education level ?

USA Today:

Literacy study: 1 in 7 U.S. adults are unable to read

The evidence shows that government schools adversely affect all Americans. The ONLY difference between Obama and Romney is that one of them is black.

.

 

[Oddball]

You would be a totalitarian and try to stop the locals from starting a welfare program.

That would be the only way to preserve the purity of your Libertarian government.

Realize yet why the rest of us consider you a fucking joke?

LOL

Yes.....I'd be a totalitarian for stopping looting of the populace in the name of "charity".

There you have it, folks.

Elect a Liberatarian, and get a Stalinist.

There you have it, folks....Someone who hasn't the first fucking clue about libertarians.

 

[SniperFire]

Yes.....I'd be a totalitarian for stopping looting of the populace in the name of "charity".

There you have it, folks.

Elect a Liberatarian, and get a Stalinist.

There you have it, folks....Someone who hasn't the first fucking clue about libertarians.

But Mayor, would you NOT be forced to prevent the majority-voting locals from creating a welfare program to feed the crackheads?

Admit it, jackbooter.

 

[SniperFire]

For Libertarianism to work in government, it would require forced compliance to a set of VERY rigid principles.


Why? Because HUMAN NATURE, being what it is, would CONSTANTLY be seeking to compromise it.


You simply cannot deny this.

As an actual, real world public management program, you guys would be little different than Pol Pot.

Come over from the dark side and vote Romney.

 

[whitehall]

Alinsky is dead but his rules for radicals live on in stupid posts.

 

[ThinkCritically]

Your premise is flawed because you fail to recognize the charity in human nature and only focus on those parts that suit your agenda. There would be no need to pass laws.'

But what if they WANTED to pass such laws?

Would there be some sort of fascist prevention built into your Liberatarian constitution to stop this and keep the political philosophy pure?

Or are you just trying to pass hypothetical bullshit as real, workable government policy as well?

Why would there be a fascist prevention to prevent local communities from passing laws? Again you really don't understand what a libertarian is.

I'm still waiting for your response on this one....because it seems to be the last straw you are grasping for...

Again....Why would there be a fascist prevention to prevent local communities from passing laws?

 

[SniperFire]

But what if they WANTED to pass such laws?

Would there be some sort of fascist prevention built into your Liberatarian constitution to stop this and keep the political philosophy pure?

Or are you just trying to pass hypothetical bullshit as real, workable government policy as well?

Why would there be a fascist prevention to prevent local communities from passing laws? Again you really don't understand what a libertarian is.

I'm still waiting for your response on this one....because it seems to be the last straw you are grasping for...

Again....Why would there be a fascist prevention to prevent local communities from passing laws?

Because Libertarianism would fail as affinity groups began to vote themselves money, just like they are doing now, just like they have always done, and just like they always will do.

Do you need me to attempt to dumb this down?

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

I am not afraid of Ron Paul. I listen to some of his "talking points" and they sound real good. And then he tries to expound and it just leaves me shaking my head.

Take for example his stand on Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. This is an issue that is going to affect us at some point down the road. If they get nuclear weapons they are going to: 1. Give one to a terrorist organiation 2. Blackmail other nations and their interests in the region OR 3. Actually use the damn thing against Israel or some other country. His reasoning is that we shouldn't be concerned about what Iran is doing. I really have no desire to start worrying about Iran and their nuclear weapons AFTER Hezbollah detonates a weapon in San Jose. And we have legitimate interests in the Middle East. If the Iranians want to talk, fine. But telling us "do this or I'm going to nuke you" does not constitute negotiation. Anyone who tries to maintain the position that Iran is remotely rational has no clue about the nut jobs running this third-world shit hole.

I find his reasoning for the 9/11 attacks ridiculous and stupid. They attacked us because we attacked them first? And Osama Bin Laden himself said that it was "offensive" that we had bases in Saudi Arabia and that is one of the major reasons why he ordered the attack. He had been at war with the US since BEFORE the first World Trade Center bombing. As usual, it just takes the US a while to catch up.

The US is a super power for a reason. We have found over the years that it is easier and SAFER to affect world affairs than to simply sit back behind our borders and wait for what ever the world wants to dish out to you. That is why and rightly so, that we have military installations around the world. Also, we use those installations not only to respond militarily, but also when humanitarian aid is required. The Indonesian Tsunami is an example.

The world is a dangerous place. There are countries like Iran and North Korea that would absolutely LOVE for the US to become isolationist. You like $4.00 a gallon gasoline? You wait until there's no 6th Fleet to keep the straight open...

 

[Oddball]

I am not afraid of Ron Paul. I listen to some of his "talking points" and they sound real good. And then he tries to expound and it just leaves me shaking my head.

Take for example his stand on Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. This is an issue that is going to affect us at some point down the road. If they get nuclear weapons they are going to: 1. Give one to a terrorist organiation 2. Blackmail other nations and their interests in the region OR 3. Actually use the damn thing against Israel or some other country. His reasoning is that we shouldn't be concerned about what Iran is doing. I really have no desire to start worrying about Iran and their nuclear weapons AFTER Hezbollah detonates a weapon in San Jose. And we have legitimate interests in the Middle East. If the Iranians want to talk, fine. But telling us "do this or I'm going to nuke you" does not constitute negotiation. Anyone who tries to maintain the position that Iran is remotely rational has no clue about the nut jobs running this third-world shit hole.

And what happens after this?...Do you think that the Iranians in power are so short sighted and stupid that they'd risk throwing away their political power over such actions?

I find his reasoning for the 9/11 attacks ridiculous and stupid. They attacked us because we attacked them first? And Osama Bin Laden himself said that it was "offensive" that we had bases in Saudi Arabia and that is one of the major reasons why he ordered the attack. He had been at war with the US since BEFORE the first World Trade Center bombing. As usual, it just takes the US a while to catch up.

So, I guess that the CIA is just a bunch of big fat liars and 9/11™ happened in a vacuum, huh?

The US is a super power for a reason. We have found over the years that it is easier and SAFER to affect world affairs than to simply sit back behind our borders and wait for what ever the world wants to dish out to you. That is why and rightly so, that we have military installations around the world. Also, we use those installations not only to respond militarily, but also when humanitarian aid is required. The Indonesian Tsunami is an example.

The world is a dangerous place. There are countries like Iran and North Korea that would absolutely LOVE for the US to become isolationist. You like $4.00 a gallon gasoline? You wait until there's no 6th Fleet to keep the straight open...

Thank you, Woodrow Wilson.

 

[TorJohnson]

No one's afraid of Ron Paul because he hasn't won a single primary.

 

[Oddball]

For Libertarianism to work in government, it would require forced compliance to a set of VERY rigid principles.


Why? Because HUMAN NATURE, being what it is, would CONSTANTLY be seeking to compromise it.


You simply cannot deny this.

As an actual, real world public management program, you guys would be little different than Pol Pot.
Come over from the dark side and vote Romney.

You mean "rigid principles" like the Constitution?...Why is it that political officials even bother to take the oath of office?

As an actual real world political "thinker" (for lack of a better term) you're perfectly in like with the likes of Stalin, Mao and Castro.

 

[amrchaos]

Why would there be a fascist prevention to prevent local communities from passing laws? Again you really don't understand what a libertarian is.

I'm still waiting for your response on this one....because it seems to be the last straw you are grasping for...

Again....Why would there be a fascist prevention to prevent local communities from passing laws?

Because Libertarianism would fail as affinity groups began to vote themselves money, just like they are doing now, just like they have always done, and just like they always will do.

Do you need me to attempt to dumb this down?

Hey Sniperfire, Libertarian types of government can work if you are dealing with easy going, and independent types of people. Also, most humans are of this type. The problem begins when you start including the other types of people such as the self-righteous, the controlling, i.e your basic jerks and assholes.

Libertarianism is unlike communism in that it is nearly impossible to brain wash humans into an "easy going and independent". Most of these types are either born or naturally realize that state. On the other hand, It is an easy task to make people paranoid and controlling.

 

[ThinkCritically]

Why would there be a fascist prevention to prevent local communities from passing laws? Again you really don't understand what a libertarian is.

I'm still waiting for your response on this one....because it seems to be the last straw you are grasping for...

Again....Why would there be a fascist prevention to prevent local communities from passing laws?

Because Libertarianism would fail as affinity groups began to vote themselves money, just like they are doing now, just like they have always done, and just like they always will do.

Do you need me to attempt to dumb this down?

You are right affinity groups would vote for their own self interest, just like they are doing now, yesterday and today. It is human nature you are right....

So the Libertarian approach to this problem is to minimize the affects of affinity groups by reducing the size, money, and power of the federal government.

Does it solve the problem of human nature? NO.....and no system can or ever will, so criticizing it because "human nature" makes it fallible isn't a very strong argument due to the fact all systems are subject to this "human nature". Basically the "human nature" argument is irrelevant due to the fact all systems of governing will face the same such said "human nature"

and your response to my question "Why would there be a fascist prevention to prevent local communities from passing laws?" is "Because Libertarianism would fail as affinity groups began to vote themselves money". Are you implying that we need fascist prevention to prevent local communities from passing laws, because affinity groups will begin to vote themselves money. Surely not....I am just piecing it together and this is what it sounds like to me please clarify where the problem is?

 

[Oddball]

I'm still waiting for your response on this one....because it seems to be the last straw you are grasping for...

Again....Why would there be a fascist prevention to prevent local communities from passing laws?

Because Libertarianism would fail as affinity groups began to vote themselves money, just like they are doing now, just like they have always done, and just like they always will do.

Do you need me to attempt to dumb this down?

You are right affinity groups would vote for their own self interest, just like they are doing now, yesterday and today. It is human nature you are right....

So the Libertarian approach to this problem is to minimize the affects of affinity groups by reducing the size, money, and power of the federal government.

Does it solve the problem of human nature? NO.....and no system can or ever will, so criticizing it because "human nature" makes it fallible isn't a very strong argument due to the fact all systems are subject to this "human nature". Basically the "human nature" argument is irrelevant due to the fact all systems of governing will face the same such said "human nature"

and your response to my question "Why would there be a fascist prevention to prevent local communities from passing laws?" is "Because Libertarianism would fail as affinity groups began to vote themselves money". Are you implying that we need fascist prevention to prevent local communities from passing laws, because affinity groups will begin to vote themselves money. Surely not....I am just piecing it together and this is what it sounds like to me please clarify where the problem is?

The problem is that he's a lockstep GOP party man, without a critical thought in his head.

 

[paulitician]

 

[SniperFire]

Does it solve the problem of human nature? NO.....and no system can or ever will, so criticizing it because "human nature" makes it fallible isn't a very strong argument due to the fact all systems are subject to this "human nature". Basically the "human nature" argument is irrelevant due to the fact all systems of governing will face the same such said "human nature"
?

You are quite wrong. Human Nature is exactly why Libertarianism never works anywhere and exactly why no population of people are fucking stupid enough to ever attempt it.

You can't even get out of the box. Here is a simple example.

If the majority of a people decide they want a welfare program, would a Libertarian government block it? You must. If you don't, you quickly no longer have a Libertarian system.

But restricting and blocking such initiatives by the people would be fascist, would it not?