Ron Paul is retiring from the House after this year. This is his farewell speech.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some. Then he brings up things like going back to the gold standard. Dumb.

Indeed.

A few of his questions are good to discuss while others are good for thought experiments but not much else.. The bulk, however, have explanations. Some may disagree with those explanations, but they're still valid.
 
During the primary debates when asked what if someone who was dying with no insurance showed up at a hospital would you not care for him, he had no answer because for the first time he realized how stupidly idealistic he was and was basically caricature


And some of his supporters in the crowd chanting "let him die!"
 
You hopped into this thread and said that some of the people hate freedom. While you may not be pushing for succession, your still making claims against people.

Defend yourself. Don't say it has to do with pushing beliefs on others. Explain why people hate freedom.

I like stop signs. Do I hate freedom?

The main question is what does freedom have to do with Ron Paul?
 
You hopped into this thread and said that some of the people hate freedom. While you may not be pushing for succession, your still making claims against people.

Defend yourself. Don't say it has to do with pushing beliefs on others. Explain why people hate freedom.

I like stop signs. Do I hate freedom?

People hate freedom because freedom can lead to some people having more money than others. People hate freedom because freedom does not stop people from harming themselves. People would rather have "equality," safety, and order than freedom. And people hate freedom because they do not trust others to make the right decisions.

Sometimes with freedom you don't always get the best result. But it is still preferable to being controlled.
 
They are moving on to the prophet Gary Johnson.
How long until he starts calling to dissolve the Union?

People hate freedom because freedom can lead to some people having more money than others. People hate freedom because freedom does not stop people from harming themselves. People would rather have "equality," safety, and order than freedom. And people hate freedom because they do not trust others to make the right decisions.

Sometimes with freedom you don't always get the best result. But it is still preferable to being controlled.

Since you chose to ignore the Ron Paul video I keep showing you, I take it that you tacitly accept those views as you do with all his others. Please do not bitch again when you are branded as a secessionist who hates our Union.
 
People hate freedom because freedom can lead to some people having more money than others. People hate freedom because freedom does not stop people from harming themselves. People would rather have "equality," safety, and order than freedom. And people hate freedom because they do not trust others to make the right decisions.

Sometimes with freedom you don't always get the best result. But it is still preferable to being controlled.

But why are you a racist?
 
People hate freedom because freedom can lead to some people having more money than others. People hate freedom because freedom does not stop people from harming themselves. People would rather have "equality," safety, and order than freedom. And people hate freedom because they do not trust others to make the right decisions.

Sometimes with freedom you don't always get the best result. But it is still preferable to being controlled.

You're right. Civilization sucks. Always controlling me from all those things I want to do...like...um, oh I know, smoking pot.
 
How long until he starts calling to dissolve the Union?



Since you chose to ignore the Ron Paul video I keep showing you, I take it that you tacitly accept those views as you do with all his others. Please do not bitch again when you are branded as a secessionist who hates our Union.

I don't 100% follow one person's opinions. So, I can actually agree with some things someone says and not others.
 
People hate freedom because freedom can lead to some people having more money than others. People hate freedom because freedom does not stop people from harming themselves. People would rather have "equality," safety, and order than freedom. And people hate freedom because they do not trust others to make the right decisions.

Sometimes with freedom you don't always get the best result. But it is still preferable to being controlled.

Who are you talking about here? Be specific. Who said what that justified the above opinion.

Is it somebody in this thread, or are you just talking in general?

By your definition, freedom doesn't stop people from hurting others. From taking advantage of people. Or, from a whole slew of other shit. We could do this all day.

All I'm asking for is what somebody said, in this thread, to justify you saying they hate freedom. Or, explain how Ron Paul's beliefs would increase the freedom of the majority of American society. 'Cause right now, you haven't said much of anything.

I don't 100% follow one person's opinions. So, I can actually agree with some things someone says and not others.

Then what the hell are you going on about people hating freedom in this thread? Do you even have an opinion of Congressman Paul or you just here to attack people for disagreeing with you?
 
Who are you talking about here? Be specific. Who said what that justified the above opinion.

Is it somebody in this thread, or are you just talking in general?

By your definition, freedom doesn't stop people from hurting others. From taking advantage of people. Or, from a whole slew of other shit. We could do this all day.

All I'm asking for is what somebody said, in this thread, to justify you saying they hate freedom. Or, explain how Ron Paul's beliefs would increase the freedom of the majority of American society. 'Cause right now, you haven't said much of anything.

I'm talking about the people who are laughing at what Paul said. A lot of points are valid, but people treat him like a quack. And one reason for that is people do not value freedom. That's why people vote against gay marriage and why people vote for market restrictions. They simply don't value freedom as much as they value how they think people should act.
 
I'm talking about the people who are laughing at what Paul said. A lot of points are valid, but people treat him like a quack. And one reason for that is people do not value freedom. That's why people vote against gay marriage and why people vote for market restrictions. They simply don't value freedom as much as they value how they think people should act.

Only a racist would say this. Why are you a racist? Why don't you admit it?
 
Get a fucking clue.

And good riddance, his economic beliefs are bizarre and dangerous. Taxes are not an infringement on our freedoms, asshole.

His economics beliefs are in no way bizarre, and even if you assume the worst they could be no more dangerous than our current policies of utter failure.
 
I'm talking about the people who are laughing at what Paul said. A lot of points are valid, but people treat him like a quack. And one reason for that is people do not value freedom. That's why people vote against gay marriage and why people vote for market restrictions. They simply don't value freedom as much as they value how they think people should act.

Ron Paul would vote against gay marriage.
 
Since it appears that FutureZombie cannot articulate a single argument against Ron Paul's positions, I daresay that he is the ultimate conformist.

We treat him like the quack he is because he wants the gold standard, a rollback of civil rights, goddamn theocracy, and the fucking dissolution of the United States of America. Those positions are the rantings and ravings of a loon, a loon who doesn't seem to have much regard for his country either.
 
His economics beliefs are in no way bizarre, and even if you assume the worst they could be no more dangerous than our current policies of utter failure.

Yes they are. By going from fiat currency to a commodity based currency, it will destroy our economy by stopping it (lower borrowing, expansionary policies which have made the American economy strong. Basically, it's easier to get loans which business need). By ending the Fed, all our control over inflation, monetary expansion, interest rates are all gone. You don't need to study economics to know why that's terrible.
It happened when the Brits tried it to go back to gold before WWII.
 
His economics beliefs are in no way bizarre, and even if you assume the worst they could be no more dangerous than our current policies of utter failure.

It would be hard to commit a sentence to the screen more wrong than this. It's just factually incorrect in nearly every way imaginable.
 
Also, if raw milk wasn't banned and there was no requirement to label it as such, people like me with weakened immune systems due to chronic illness would probably die in large numbers.
 
I'm talking about the people who are laughing at what Paul said. A lot of points are valid, but people treat him like a quack. And one reason for that is people do not value freedom. That's why people vote against gay marriage and why people vote for market restrictions. They simply don't value freedom as much as what they think is how people should act.

Good, we're starting to drill things down here. Let's take this on line by line.

1. What did Congressman Paul say that people laughed at that you think implementing would increase the freedom of American's as a whole? Or, what are the valid points he makes that you agree with that other people think make him sound like a crazy person?

2. Ron Paul believes that marriage between two unrelated consenting adults of full mental capacity with the ability to make personal decisions that do not require a guardian of the same sex is not a federal issue. He believes it, what many consider a civil right, to be a State issue. How is letting the States determine two people's legal right to get married increasing freedom? Is that not actually restricting their freedom? Do I hate freedom for thinking it should be a federal issue?

3. Market restrictions, properly implemented, protect the value of the dollar, the banking system from collapsing, and protect people from having their financial lives destroyed. Could it not be said that restricting the freedom of the financial sector from doing whatever it wants is increasing the freedom of individuals as they're less likely to have their lives destroyed by a collapse like we saw in the '20s and in 2008? Do I hate freedom for believing that there should be laws restricting what a bank can do with my grandpa's 401k?

4. Who's they and what did they say?
 
Yeah, no doubt he had a lot a views I wouldn't agree with, but I really liked him most out of all the republican hopefuls this year. I think that was primarily though because many of his ideas aren't very republican at all.
 
Good, we're starting to drill things down here. Let's take this on line by line.

1. What did Congressman Paul say that people laughed at that you think implementing would increase the freedom of American's as a whole? Or, what are the valid points he makes that you agree with that other people think make him sound like a crazy person?

Not throwing people in jail for drug use, defending economic liberty, democracy being the enemy of the minority...

2. Ron Paul believes that marriage between two unrelated consenting adults or full mental capacity with the ability to make personal decisions that do not require a guardian of the same sex is not a federal issue. He believes it, what many consider a civil right, to be a State issue. How is letting the States determine two people's legal right to get married increasing freedom? Is that not actually restricting their freedom? Do I hate freedom for thinking it should be a federal issue?


Number one, marriage should have nothing to do with the government. Secondly, I don't care about state rights at all. Lastly, I voted for gay marriage in Maryland, so I don't know why you're bringing this up to me.

3. Market restrictions, properly implemented, protect the value of the dollar, the banking system from collapsing, and protect people from having the financial lives destroyed. Could it not be said that restricting the freedom of the financial sector from doing whatever it wants is increasing the freedom of individuals as they're less likely to have their lives destroyed by a collapse like we saw in the '20s and in 2008? Do I hate freedom for believing that there should be laws restricting what a bank can do with my grandpa's 401k?

We'd have to really sort out what is malicious vs what is incidental. Generally, I would err on the side of less restriction.
 
His "raw milk" mention likely has more to do with how and why the government actually enforces the ban, rather than simply limiting people's freedom to drink raw milk.

The revolving door between agriculture industry and government regulator positions that oversee those industries in this country is one of the more obvious "conspiracies" that nobody seems to care about.
 
Am I allowed to ask about his casual mention of the collapsing dollar? Is that crazy talk? He speaks as if it's a fact the dollar will collapse.
 
CHEEZMO™;44353658 said:
shit you're right.

Crap I think you proved my statement wrong!

;)

Am I allowed to ask about his casual mention of the collapsing dollar? Is that crazy talk? He speaks as if it's a fact the dollar will collapse.

Yes, to proclaim that based on current conditions the dollar will collapse is very much crazy talk.
 
I love Ron Paul
I love his way of thinking
And I love the speech in the OP

Can't get behind the hivemind this one
I think he's better for the country than the Republicans and the Democrats.
 
Reading comprehension

"and there was no requirement to label it as such"

That goes more into the realm of very few governmental regulations, though.
Did he say the government should have no requirements to label raw milk? If not, why the hell are you suggesting that?

I love Ron Paul
I love his way of thinking
And I love the speech in the OP

Can't get behind the hivemind this one
I think he's better for the country than the Republicans and the Democrats.
You obviously value freedom. You're rare around here.
 
Did he say the government should have no requirements to label raw milk? If not, why the hell are you suggesting that?


You obviously value freedom. You're rare around here.

Not rare at all. Just because people who value liberty are not as outspoken on issues on GAF doesn't mean we don't exist.

This is upsetting as he's probably one of the only US members of congress who adopts libertarian values.
 
I didn't say anything about race, but if the shoe fits.

You certainly don't seem to disagree with your prophet despite the numerous opportunities I've given you to rebut him.

I don't see whats so crazy about promoting discussions of such issues. Should we not discuss certain issues because they carry scary connotations? He believes the dollar is approaching a breaking point. His prediction is irresponsible policy will result in the dollar collapsing. If this happens it is his belief that state's may succeed from the USA. There are a lot of ifs in that Youtube message but it is a welcome change for he rejects the typical rhetoric you hear on news media websites and television programs in favor of intelligent discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom