ViruRulez Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I normally hate politics and politicians but I have recent started following him by chance through some videos etc. I have to say that he is a refreshing change in the age of dirty politics all over the world. If any of you ICFers have voting rights, then I would recommend you to vote for him. I do not agree with some of his views too but he is far better and honest than any politician or presidential/PM candidate etc. anywhere in the world that I have seen. If only India had such a man of integrity who gave more importance to honesty, truth and liberty instead of seeking political mileage. US mainstream media seems to be neglecting him though his support is increasing rapidly. So, hope more people supports him and he can be a good and refreshing change for the US as well as the world. Here are his Youtube channels if anyone has not known about him previously. http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaul2008dotcom http://www.youtube.com/user/ronpaul
f.b.m Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Regardless of whether you agree with him or not, its his adherence to his principles that is different. Then again, he probably will never be elected for anything important because the electorate themselves are a bunch of hypocritical idiots. Here's some evidence: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wZnxF5Bxgk]Ron Paul On Morton Downey Jr. Show ~ 1988 - YouTube[/ame]
ViruRulez Posted January 18, 2012 Author Posted January 18, 2012 Regardless of whether you agree with him or not, its his adherence to his principles that is different. Then again, he probably will never be elected for anything important because the electorate themselves are a bunch of hypocritical idiots. Here's some evidence: Ron Paul On Morton Downey Jr. Show ~ 1988 - YouTube The video is not working but I found another link on Youtube. But the host is just a jackass and trying to push words into Ron Paul's mouth from what I can see. I also do not agree with him on a couple of things but overall he is more right than any other politician of the current era. And he sticks to his words which is indeed rare for a politician. The electability is actually not as big a question as the media is working out to be. In fact, from what I could see, there seems to be a distinct bias against Ron Paul by the mainstream media as well as his own party. They are always projecting him either extremely negatively or neglecting him when he tops their polls etc. too. So, there is a definite bias which I can see amongst all the top US media networks. Maybe because he is against bureaucracy and corruption and speaks against wars. Not sure but there is a definite bias from what I could so. And he does not get huge donations from big corporations like other candidates but people including veterans donate for his campaigns. So, he cannot run as big a campaign as the other candidates but inspite of all this I can only see him supporters everywhere online. And even in the sample poll yesterday he was just two points below Obama. Trust me, if his party would have backed him and if he would have got some positive media attention like they are giving to the other candidates then he would have defeated Obama. And I mean it with his support only growing with time. Republicans are doing something wrong and are not realizing that they could easily defeat Obama if only they supported Ron Paul a bit more. And I really hope that India also gets some honest and bold candidates such as him in the Prime Ministerial elections. Believe me, Indian media would have made him a bigger hero than Anna Hazare if he was here in India. I hate Indian media too but I can say that such a politician would surely have been the media's blue eyed boy as that would have resulted in massive TRPs. But it is surprising that US mainstream media has been insulting and neglecting him even when the US public is supporting him overwhelmingly.
ravishingravi Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 I am for this guy. Have been for a long time. ESP since he also endorses Austrian school of economics . However, on some issues I can't possibly agree with him.
ViruRulez Posted January 18, 2012 Author Posted January 18, 2012 I am for this guy. Have been for a long time. ESP since he also endorses Austrian school of economics . However' date=' on some issues I can't possibly agree with him.[/quote'] I am not much into the Austrian School of economics but some of his economic things are quite true. He says that inflation is a tax which is absolutely true. Even if I consider this case in India, then I nowadays realize that the speed of inflation is far more than the actual growth in income of an average Indian or the middle class. The cost of everything is doubling every few years and we are saying it growth. I mean our relative earning has hardly changed as individuals. It is just that we earn a bit more because we need to pay a lot more compared to the past. Now, how the hell is that growth I am starting to wonder in recent years. So, inflation is definitely an economic factor and unless inflation gets fixed superficial growth is a bit senseless. To be honest, Ron Paul is correct in that regard. I am a bit against the abolishing of a federal bank. I suppose the fed is like the RBI here in India. But then Indian banks have not become bankrupt and people cannot start banks in India at wish. RBI takes care of the banking system here in India quite OK but then it seems US fed is not good at that. So many banks going bankrupt during recession implies that banks were quite unregulated in the US and their central economic policy was wrong. And bailing out all of those were massive mistakes too. In India too, I am against the bailing out of Airlines companies as that means ****. They need to sort out their mistakes instead of getting bailed out. So, perhaps Dr. Paul is right there too though I cannot say much as I am not sure of the fed and how it works. But fed seems to have messed up a lot of the US economy. In a way it is growing like Gandhiji's movement. The media and corporations are knowingly ignoring him, then they also keep on ridiculing him, now they are starting to directly fight him and insult him .. so, the last step might also be possible .. and it is a definite possibility from what I can see .. irrespective of all the neglect and negative campaigns by the media his popularity is only increasing day by day.. even blacks are openly supporting him instead of Obama which is interesting.
f.b.m Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 But the host is just a jackass and trying to push words into Ron Paul's mouth from what I can see. I also do not agree with him on a couple of things but overall he is more right than any other politician of the current era. And he sticks to his words which is indeed rare for a politician. They are trying to throw **** at him these days by calling him a racist, etc etc. But notice how he has stayed true to his principles since 1988 (and before). The electability is actually not as big a question as the media is working out to be. In fact, from what I could see, there seems to be a distinct bias against Ron Paul by the mainstream media as well as his own party. They are always projecting him either extremely negatively or neglecting him when he tops their polls etc. too. So, there is a definite bias which I can see amongst all the top US media networks. Maybe because he is against bureaucracy and corruption and speaks against wars. Not sure but there is a definite bias from what I could so. And he does not get huge donations from big corporations like other candidates but people including veterans donate for his campaigns. So, he cannot run as big a campaign as the other candidates but inspite of all this I can only see him supporters everywhere online. And even in the sample poll yesterday he was just two points below Obama. Trust me, if his party would have backed him and if he would have got some positive media attention like they are giving to the other candidates then he would have defeated Obama. And I mean it with his support only growing with time. Republicans are doing something wrong and are not realizing that they could easily defeat Obama if only they supported Ron Paul a bit more. Yeh the mainstream media are just puppets of the two major parties. Thats why Ron Paul is big on the internet. There are plenty of special interests who want him nowhere near the presidency. The union infested democratic party would rather eat their own feet than see him win and jesus loves america brigade hate his guts too: [ame= Can Do Better Than Ron Paul - YouTube[/ame] And I really hope that India also gets some honest and bold candidates such as him in the Prime Ministerial elections. Believe me, Indian media would have made him a bigger hero than Anna Hazare if he was here in India. I hate Indian media too but I can say that such a politician would surely have been the media's blue eyed boy as that would have resulted in massive TRPs. But it is surprising that US mainstream media has been insulting and neglecting him even when the US public is supporting him overwhelmingly. Just out of curiosity, what is it about him that you like: his integrity and staying true to his values or the fact that he is a libertarian?
hari504504 Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 I watched the Iowa debates and he was the only credible person in the bunch. His foreign policy is the cherry on the cake, along the lines of 'lets set our house in order instead of being the global police and picking fights'. He handled the question on illegal immigration admirably as well - everyone needs to be treated the same regardless of how long they have been 'illegally' staying in the country. when the question was to say something you liked about your opposing candiates..plenty of them ended up quoting Ron Paul's policies. The other candidates were simply.......not that great (not the exact words i wanted to use). But when BBC did the report on republican candidates before the results were announced for Iowa , the analysts firmly believe that Mitt Romney is the clear favorite among the Republicans and the others are just there to make up numbers.
Brainfade Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Welcome to the party, y'all. I joined it in 05/08/08 at the height of Obamania :-). http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=183261&highlight=Paul I've supported him and Huntsman. Now, it's just him. As for Romney: Obomney 2012:
Ram Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Welcome to the party, y'all. I joined it in 05/08/08 at the height of Obamania :-). http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=183261&highlight=Paul I've supported him and Huntsman. Now, it's just him. As for Romney: Obomney 2012: CA, I hope you take some time to read some of Ron Paul's newsletters from back in the 80s. I am wondering what your opinion of him will be, then.
hari504504 Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 CA, I hope you take some time to read some of Ron Paul's newsletters from back in the 80s. I am wondering what your opinion of him will be, then. I am interested ... can you provide any links you may have ?
Ram Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 I am interested ... can you provide any links you may have ? I will try to find and post it, but I am not sure I have the time. Just google for 'Ron Paul newsletters in the 80s and 90s' or something along those lines.. It is by far, some of the most blatantly racist opinions you will find. Not surprising though, coming from a guy who said he would have voted against the civil rights act of 1964.
Brainfade Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 CA, I hope you take some time to read some of Ron Paul's newsletters from back in the 80s. I am wondering what your opinion of him will be, then. There are 500+ newsletters, and I have read about 3 of the most controversial ones. They are disturbing, to say the least. He came out and said that he didn't write them and that he just ran the company that published them. That didn't fly with me - he has to take ultimate responsibility for what is published in his name. My enthusiasm has dropped off from 2008. but those newsletters were from 1985, and one hopes he has changed his views. I am cautiously optimistic that he will address them more candidly - like Obama addressed the Jeremy Wright church issue. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-paul-and-the-racist-newsletters-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/21/gIQAKNiwBP_blog.html
Silva Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 Not surprising though, coming from a guy who said he would have voted against the civil rights act of 1964. He only disagrees with the part about private businesses not being allowed to not serve minorities. But I can understand his viewpoint. If people have the right to be racist and not allow minorities into their homes then why should they not have the right to not sell their services as well?
ravishingravi Posted January 20, 2012 Posted January 20, 2012 Let's just say for the retarded base which has dumbed down and destroyed every single principle of conservatism and reduced it to mere jingoism, Ron Paul provides a figure of sanity for those who understand and ascribe to those ideas. Most important thing for me is that there is a belief system in place and an informed one at that, irrespective of what the ignorant electorate thinks.
ViruRulez Posted January 20, 2012 Author Posted January 20, 2012 They are trying to throw **** at him these days by calling him a racist, etc etc. But notice how he has stayed true to his principles since 1988 (and before). Just out of curiosity, what is it about him that you like: his integrity and staying true to his values or the fact that he is a libertarian? Another debate where he came out great today though it was still a bit biased. It was also interesting to see the audience shouting Dr. Paul Paul when they tried to skip the medical question on him after asking the other three candidates. :giggle: Before mentioning the other things which I like I would also like to mention that I also like how his movement is a bit similar like Gandhiji. He was ignored first, then they started to ridicule him, now at times can see that they are starting to fight him and probably the win also lies ahead. Not to mention that his revolution is also non violent like Gandhiji. Here is a good ad released today by the Paul Campaign to attract gaming voters. Jux8sCCfS1E Regarding what I like about him, I like several things about him to be honest. At the same time, I do not agree with a few of his views too. But even on aspects I do not agree, I can understanding his point of view and his reasons for the same. (eg. abortion, legalization of drugs etc.) But then he has mentioned that he will keep it state mandate on most such controversial topics. The things I agree with him include his views against invasion of privacy, his foreign policies of peace and his views of free trade to name a few. And I also like the fact that he is a man of words and consistent with his views for 30 years when politicians normally change words overnight for getting votes. I see everybody flip flopping and Indian politicians are a lot worse than those US politicians but Ron Paul does not flip flop on his words at all. To be honest, if Dr. Paul would have changed his statements to suit the audience he would have got a lot more support even from critics. But as he mentions he is contesting not for his own benefits but for the people. His economic policies are not bad either. Though I do not agree on all his economic policies but some of his policies make extreme sense. He talks about inflation and national debts and how it is detrimental to the economy and he is right on that. It even applies to India where inflation grows at a lot faster pace than the growth in income of middle class not to mention our national debt increasing year on year. Such growths are quite superficial in nature and that is what happened to Japan which is now at 225% of GDP in national debt. Even US is approaching 100% of GDP in national debt and Obama is now bringing a legislation to increase the debt ceiling by another 1.3 trillion dollars. In a way, US is becoming subservient to China by taking debts from China every year and passing it on to Pakistan etc. only to be used against us or their corruption system. So, US govt. is screwing up its own economy about which Ron Paul is right. So are many other economies including our own country India which is not controlling inflation and let the corporate bureaucracy continue. I am not that deep into the FED but it sounds like a monster on which the govt. has no control at all and which does not need to report to anybody including the US govt. as to how much money is being printed. So, it results in more debt as there is no limit. His suggestion of bringing it to something such as a gold standard or any other fixed amount to back up the printing of money makes sense. This would prevent the US from becoming bankrupt in the future. Even his foreign troops and his policy against preemptive wars make a lot of sense. He says that there are bad people in countries all over the world but that does not mean attacking those countries and becoming a world policeman which makes absolute sense. And to be honest, these countries like Iran or Korea are not as bad as to go to war. I recently tried searching for videos on those people. In fact, you can also search youtube for the Iran president on the few US shows when he visited. The media was against him to a bit but he was making quite sense to be honest. You can also watch the video series on youtube named Larry King show where he was interviewed. And he spoke more sense than perhaps even Obama or the Republicans. He was a bit insane in saying that he was not sure in the holocaust which is one negative about the interview. Rest he was quite sane and was saying about peace only if US cooperated. Even the videos have only positive rating which itself and positive response from US citizens as well as worldwide internet users which shows that the man is not as bad as the US media tries to make him out. He also stated and cleared almost three times that Iran would not make nuclear missiles. Attacking a country simply because there is suspicion and when the country itself has reiterated that they do not plan to create or use nuclear bombs is a ridiculous logic. If they would have been against democracy then they would have been against all democracies including India. But both Iran and Iraq are friends of India. So, they are not against democracy as American media tries to imply and MSM there is pushing the wrong things into the heads of US citizens. Ron Paul is a revolution as he is clearing up all the misconceptions. Iraq was also a massive mistake and there was never proof of nuclear missile there which Ron Paul mentions correctly. However, I do not agree with him that perhaps they should not have attacked Afghanistan too which I think was not a bad war. But what I am against is that US created these Talibans and Ladens which US should have never done at the first place. Afghanistan was even more modern and progressive in the 70s before the US trained Talibans alongwith Pakistan. So, US created the mistake in the first place which I am against though I am not against the attack on Afghanistan which I think is fine. Similarly, US planning to attack North Korea is ridiculous again on "suspicion" that they might get nuclear missile in the future. Cut the crap. If they start attacking every country based on suspicion then probably in the next few decades they would need to bomb the whole world because there is no end of suspicion as displayed in our saas-bahu serials. :giggle: He says right that if they are against countries which are not democracies then they should attack China, Russia or Saudi Arabia but US govt. DOES NOT DARE to attack them because they are not easy to defeat and are their allies too. I did not know that US still had troops in Japan since World War II or in Germany or Korea etc. He says US has 900 bases in 130 countries and that is ridiculous if true. :cantstop: Hop they do not have a base here in India. :giggle: I mean they are screwing up their own economy and putting their nation on debt. And his foreign policies seems to be supported by the US military itself as he always receives the highest donations from active duty US military and is more than the total of all the Republican candidates and Obama combined. So, he must be saying something right and perhaps their troops are not interested in fighting unnecessary wars or becoming policemen in other countries for more than half a century. :--D Some points like Pro Life stance and against abortion is something I do not support. But then if you check from his point of view then he is a good family man and a doctor and so, you can understand his stance. However, he also says that it would be a state prerogative. He also speaks against invasion of privacy and fair judgment which is something I agree. I also like his stance on SOPA, PIPA, NDAA etc. Lot of things I like and very few things I do not agree. CA, I hope you take some time to read some of Ron Paul's newsletters from back in the 80s. I am wondering what your opinion of him will be, then. That is an archaic newsletter written in his name though he did not write it directly. If he was a racist, he would not have said that blacks are disproportionately sentenced compared to whites when all others were scoring points in debates including Gingrich by indirectly bashing blacks. So, I do not agree that he is a racist. Blacks say that he delivered babies for poor including blacks free of cost at times. And a lot of blacks themselves are openly supporting him irrespective of what the media mentions. Just search youtube and you will find his massive black support base too. Even Obama fans amongst blacks are starting to support him openly. Moreover, that is just one point in his whole profile which is a bit flawed whereas all other candidates are riddled with flip flops and massive problems.
f.b.m Posted January 20, 2012 Posted January 20, 2012 Dude, can you space out your post into smaller paragraphs? And as for racism, he said that he didnt write those things. Dont know whether he is legit on that or not but one of the disadvantages of US libertarianism is that it doesnt repel the Glenn Beck types of racists strongly enough even though racism completely opposed to libertarian ideals. For the record, Ron Paul is also a believing christian which again is quite odd. More to the point, its a great tool for mudslinging from the mainstream parties. Why would anyone actually discuss the principles behind his ideas? Why would any of the parties answer to questions of special interest when they could just call him a racist or not a 'real republican' and end it there? Its a great energy efficient hit and run but one that depends on the credulity of the people who believe it.
ViruRulez Posted January 20, 2012 Author Posted January 20, 2012 Dude, can you space out your post into smaller paragraphs? And as for racism, he said that he didnt write those things. Dont know whether he is legit on that or not but one of the disadvantages of US libertarianism is that it doesnt repel the Glenn Beck types of racists strongly enough even though racism completely opposed to libertarian ideals. For the record, Ron Paul is also a believing christian which again is quite odd. More to the point, its a great tool for mudslinging from the mainstream parties. Why would anyone actually discuss the principles behind his ideas? Why would any of the parties answer to questions of special interest when they could just call him a racist or not a 'real republican' and end it there? Its a great energy efficient hit and run but one that depends on the credulity of the people who believe it. I have a habit of not making too many paragraphs. :P Most of my long posts here on ICF are always single paras. Will try to do so next time. :--D The Mainstream media is trying their best to rake up the racist issue again and again as they do not have any other line of attack against Dr. Paul unlike other candidates who have loads of loopholes. If not they knowingly removed him from polls and reports and repeated him to be "unelected" when even projecting people like Herman Cain and Rick Perry electable who were nowhere near him in any polls. :giggle: The bias became so vivid that finally people started realizing the BS especially the youth and stopped following Mainstream Media which is the reason why his support is only growing with time. And I doubt there might be some bummers ahead for mainstream media. However, one big problem is that his party does not support him at all too which is why it becomes very difficult for him to win the nomination as a Republican. Mainstream media was also caught upright on tape in recent weeks. At first CNN correspondent Dana Bash slipped on TV saying that she is worried Ron Paul might make it to the critical stags of the nomination and actually win it. Then last week when a Ron Paul supporter asked her if she is biased against him then she accepted her opposition to Ron Paul and gave the BS defense of his letters. Then she also called Ron Paul supporters blind. Not only that but there is enough evidence already. Even on top websites especially the ones won by Murdoch etc. they only publish negative articles against Ron Paul and hide all positive ones. Anyways here are the two videos of Dana Bash and they are quite funny as public are becoming more and more aware of the media game. It also exists here in India and in a way for the Congress stooges as we know but even Indian media is never as biased as it seems the US media is. 0zQKtslBonM 2RA5SorMVRI BTW even her husband John King who was the anchor of the Presidential debate today was giving lesser airtime to Dr. Paul once again and bypassed him on one question and was again about to bypass him on a second one when the public shouted that they wanted to hear Ron Paul. Funny one and a lot of videos are also available on youtube of the moment if you have not seen it live. At least, the CNN audience was far more decent than the Fox News audience though.
Brainfade Posted January 20, 2012 Posted January 20, 2012 Some points like Pro Life stance and against abortion is something I do not support. But then if you check from his point of view then he is a good family man and a doctor and so' date= you can understand his stance. However, he also says that it would be a state prerogative. He also speaks against invasion of privacy and fair judgment which is something I agree. I also like his stance on SOPA, PIPA, NDAA etc. Lot of things I like and very few things I do not agree. Maybe I am harsh, but he needs to take ownership of it and admit it was a mistake. You cannot let someone hijack your name for a publication that you own, and then disavow it when it becomes inconvenient. He is ultimately responsible for it. Making racist statements in 1985 is one thing; people can change their views in 27 years. That he didn't take responsibility is bothersome to me. Which is one of the reasons, I got behind Huntsman ... the other true conservative (but with a moderate voice). But the dude has the charisma of concrete. Can you explain your opposition to a pro-life stance? I am staunchly pro-life, and have explained it with my embryologist's hat on. If you're pro-choice, do you also support PBAs? Under what circumstances? That is an archaic newsletter written in his name though he did not write it directly.
ViruRulez Posted January 20, 2012 Author Posted January 20, 2012 Can you explain your opposition to a pro-life stance? I am staunchly pro-life' date=' and have explained it with my embryologist's hat on. If you're pro-choice, do you also support PBAs? Under what circumstances?[/quote'] I am not sure I would consider his idea of life as right. He says that he considers life at the time of conception which is merely a single cell. So, there is no life in that case. I understand if he considers life after say at least 8 weeks or so after conception. And family planning etc. might not be possible with a completely pro-life stance. But then he is a doctor who has delivered over 4K babies and so, I can understand. He mentioned that it would be prerogative of the states and their laws. Hoever, the pro-life stance especially at conception conflicts with the same idea of liberty and freedom he proposes. But then perhaps it might work out well in the US. I saw that most of the Presidential candidates mentioned that they had at least 5-7 children. Just imagine an Indian in today's date with half a dozen or more children. He would be called a Laloo with a football team and would be blamed for the population explosion problem. So, when I see especially in terms of India I do not prefer too much pro life as I care about the nation. And I always believe population explosion is one of the main reasons of India's major problems and so, do not support such stances especially in India. In fact, I feel that an indirect and democratic attempt (such as incentives) should be done to reduce to only 2 offsprings per couple in order to control the population menace. As I mentioned, that is one flaw but is not as big a flaw compared to the countless flaws in the other candidates or even compared to most other politicians around the world.
Brainfade Posted January 20, 2012 Posted January 20, 2012 I am not sure I would consider his idea of life as right. He says that he considers life at the time of conception which is merely a single cell. So, there is no life in that case. What science says unequivocally is that a zygote is genetically a separate individual from any other individual - a new human entity characterized by a unique DNA fingerprint. Thus, biologically speaking, the single-celled "zygote" is a new, unique human life. Once implanted, its default path is to develop into a fully formed child and then an adult, unless something external is done to stop it. No other cell has that ability. That's the undeniable science. Whether one wants to afford it a right to life is a legal question. I fall squarely on Dr. Paul's side on this. Regardless of our rantings here, it looks like Mitt's the man. BHO will eat him for lunch.
Recommended Posts