Ron Paul/FP.com Flashback Pop Quiz

This has gotten incredibly dumb and demonstrates a bizarre and creepy nature about Paul supporters. Not only are they annoying as hell all over the internet and have destroyed all "credibility" of internet polls, they display a disconnect from reality that is almost mindless. This creepines goes way beyond "supporting your candidate."

Everytime Ron Paul farts one of his supporters thinks it newsworthy or that it deserves attention. They are desperately seeking validation that in spite of almost non-existent poll numbers and miserable fund-raising he should be taken seriously. They seek to manufacture his relevance when in fact, none exists.

Paul has been one of the most ineffectual Members of Congess since he's been there. He can't get his own legislation passed, and often, can't even get it out of the introduction phase. Dispite his years in congress, he doesn't chair a committee or subcommittee. His legislative record is best described as "vapid."

This is a man who thinks religion is more important than the state.

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government"

I'm sure the Christian Coalition is real happy with that bullshit. He thinks there is a war on Christmas, that the Founding Fathers wanted discrimination towards certain religions, that there is no seperation between church and state, and there is no morality without christianity. Yet Paul and far far right-wing hate groups and people remain locked in eternal embrace. You will never hear him denounce the immorality of these people although he frequently denounces organizations for equality. He consistently quotes false "statistics" from Jared Taylor, another racist white nationalist crypto-nazi and Hitler-lover who espouses the "privilege and purity of white skin."

There is a very good reason why Paul is considered a kook and his followers kooklings. Very little of what he says translates into a sane policy for a modern world. He is an extremist, a fear-monger, and an outright nutcase when it comes to monetary, tax, and education and social policy.

He is diametrically opposed to equality, to progress, to social responsibility, to national responsibility, and to the very notion of the shared common good.
 
And you sir are asshole.
Go beat up a poor person on the street.

I did a sincere apology and this is the response it get.
Consume excrement and expire.

I'm not sure why you apologized, but as you can see, you're not debating with reasonable people.
 
This has gotten incredibly dumb and demonstrates a bizarre and creepy nature about Paul supporters. Not only are they annoying as hell all over the internet and have destroyed all "credibility" of internet polls, they display a disconnect from reality that is almost mindless. This creepines goes way beyond "supporting your candidate."

Everytime Ron Paul farts one of his supporters thinks it newsworthy or that it deserves attention. They are desperately seeking validation that in spite of almost non-existent poll numbers and miserable fund-raising he should be taken seriously. They seek to manufacture his relevance when in fact, none exists.

Paul has been one of the most ineffectual Members of Congess since he's been there. He can't get his own legislation passed, and often, can't even get it out of the introduction phase. Dispite his years in congress, he doesn't chair a committee or subcommittee. His legislative record is best described as "vapid."

This is a man who thinks religion is more important than the state.

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government"

I'm sure the Christian Coalition is real happy with that bullshit. He thinks there is a war on Christmas, that the Founding Fathers wanted discrimination towards certain religions, that there is no seperation between church and state, and there is no morality without christianity. Yet Paul and far far right-wing hate groups and people remain locked in eternal embrace. You will never hear him denounce the immorality of these people although he frequently denounces organizations for equality. He consistently quotes false "statistics" from Jared Taylor, another racist white nationalist crypto-nazi and Hitler-lover who espouses the "privilege and purity of white skin."

There is a very good reason why Paul is considered a kook and his followers kooklings. Very little of what he says translates into a sane policy for a modern world. He is an extremist, a fear-monger, and an outright nutcase when it comes to monetary, tax, and education and social policy.

He is diametrically opposed to equality, to progress, to social responsibility, to national responsibility, and to the very notion of the shared common good.



An internationalist fascist like you will never understand. Though I agree that complete laissez faire government is not the answer to everything, at least he is talking about important issues, the screwed up nature of our monetary system, the overwhelming power of the military industrial complex, which depends on statist power for it's life blood. If you would pick up just a couple of the principles, instead of being such a "government good / business bad" simpleton you would be better off.
 
That's not cool to change someone's quote, IMO.

Yes, but I drew attention to it in order to not be intellectually dishonest, and also to offer a segue to my perspective: that his incessant rants against Ron Paul seem to me the way my advocacy for the man must seem to him.

So it really is all a wash.

His above tirade is very intellectually shallow and like most of his "evidence" against my candidate, it is just a disconnected series of quotes mixed with his own vitriol and misrepresentation of the man's views.
 
I'm not sure why you apologized, but as you can see, you're not debating with reasonable people.
I did make a mistake and did not read an entire paragraph. MY bad. I will apologize and admmit to mistakes.
I do wonder what percentage of Ron Paul supporters drive BMW's though ? :D
 
Fortunately, none of my advocacy involves removing all regulations, restrictions and limits on corporations. It does involve removing special favors from government for corporations, and that's something on which Ron Paul takes a stand regularly.

Once again, I'm not talking about you.

Ron Paul does indeed advocate removing all restrictions and limits from corporations. If one truly were against the machinations of large multi-national corporations, wouldn't they also favor regulations that restrict their access to government and understand the need to control them?

Paul talks about corporate influence on government but at the same time wants all campaign finance restrictions removed .. thus giving even greater access to government to corporations.
 
Yes, but I drew attention to it in order to not be intellectually dishonest, and also to offer a segue to my perspective: that his incessant rants against Ron Paul seem to me the way my advocacy for the man must seem to him.

So it really is all a wash.

His above tirade is very intellectually shallow and like most of his "evidence" against my candidate, it is just a disconnected series of quotes mixed with his own vitriol and misrepresentation of the man's views.

Well, I think his above post hits it on the head so i suppose I am crazy too, but that's ok. :)
 
I've watched Ron Paul very closely. He may follow the economics of guys like Friedman and Rothbard (which I do not consider a bad thing), but that doesn't mean his program as a candidate is to enact their views word for word and without any sense of priority trash every bureaucratic institution that is holding some functional service that the market currently operates by.

What's more, his Constitutional approach is not necessarily anti-regulatory as it is restrictive to Federal growth.

I think there are many big issues to address, and I'm not going to be discouraged from the supporting the candidate just because he and I may disagree on the stopping point. We agree on where to start, and that's not something you can find from any other candidate most unfortunately.
 
Once again, I'm not talking about you.

Ron Paul does indeed advocate removing all restrictions and limits from corporations. If one truly were against the machinations of large multi-national corporations, wouldn't they also favor regulations that restrict their access to government and understand the need to control them?

Paul talks about corporate influence on government but at the same time wants all campaign finance restrictions removed .. thus giving even greater access to government to corporations.
Yeah I noticed that on the campaign finance restrictions in his voting record....
So he does support corruption in govt.
 
I've watched Ron Paul very closely. He may follow the economics of guys like Friedman and Rothbard (which I do not consider a bad thing), but that doesn't mean his program as a candidate is to enact their views word for word and without any sense of priority trash every bureaucratic institution that is holding some functional service that the market currently operates by.

What's more, his Constitutional approach is not necessarily anti-regulatory as it is restrictive to Federal growth.

I think there are many big issues to address, and I'm not going to be discouraged from the supporting the candidate just because he and I may disagree on the stopping point. We agree on where to start, and that's not something you can find from any other candidate most unfortunately.



Sounds like a line from a bush apologist.
 
Yes, but I drew attention to it in order to not be intellectually dishonest, and also to offer a segue to my perspective: that his incessant rants against Ron Paul seem to me the way my advocacy for the man must seem to him.

So it really is all a wash.

His above tirade is very intellectually shallow and like most of his "evidence" against my candidate, it is just a disconnected series of quotes mixed with his own vitriol and misrepresentation of the man's views.

You intended dishonesty .. there's nothing intellectual about it.

If you were an intellectually honest debater you would have challenged what I posted point by point .. it's what I do.

But you lack that honesty so you decided to simply change my post instead.

I posted Paul's own words and connections and you claim they were misrepresented. Demonstrate some integrity and intellect by showing that these were not his words and not his connections.

Your post is indicative of Paul kookling dishonesty.

At the end of the day .. America is not impressed by Ron Paul in spite of your dishonesty.
 
Well, I think his above post hits it on the head so i suppose I am crazy too, but that's ok. :)


Well, then you should probably exercise some more intellectual curiosity and not believe what other people tell you so easily.

The only actual piece of information there that is potentially from Ron Paul is the quote, and I can't help but notice that the quote is not something I really disagree with at all, even if it suggests that there are Christian institutions in America...that's not wrong, and it's certainly not lending any credibility to the theocracy or authoritarianism the writer goes on to state it supports.

It's a statement that endorses liberty and free society.

He says in it that private institutions in a free society help us to achieve moral and spiritual independence. What is the alternative? Is the suggestion of the writer that we get our morals from the State? This is not even liberal, let alone a libertarian point of view if so.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I noticed that on the campaign finance restrictions in his voting record....
So he does support corruption in govt.


He absolutely does and this is not something you'll find his supporters rushing to discuss. They deal in bumper-stickers, not substance.
 
Well, then you should probably exercise some more intellectual curiosity and not believe what other people tell you so easily.

The only actual piece of information there that is potentially from Ron Paul is the quote, and I can't help but notice that the quote is not something I really disagree with at all, even if it suggests that there are Christian institutions in America...that's not wrong, and it's certainly not lending any credibility to the theorcracy or authoritarianism the writer goes on to state it supports.

It's a statement that endorses liberty and free society.

He says in it that private institutions in a free society help us to achieve moral and spiritual independence. What is the alternative? Is the suggestion of the writer that we get our morals from the State? This is not even liberal, let alone a libertarian point of view if so.


Let me tell you something Adam, and being as that you're just a boy, I'll go a little easier on you than I would on a full-fledged man...don't you come on here and tell me I should show intellectual curiosity and not listen to what some man wrote, as if I am some ditzy girl. It's ok for men to agree with each other, but I noticed since this influx of FP posters, that there is a problem if a woman agrees with something a man wrote.

My opinions and beliefs are already fully formed, long before BAC came along. He is a passionate leftist writer and I respect and enjoy his posts, but he in no way tells me what to think.

Notice I did not use the f word once...that won't happen again.
 
Back
Top