Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Is Ron Paul still as bad as he was?
blaisepascal
One weird thing I've observed is that many of the OWS protestors I've seen are Ron Paul supporters.

Back in 2008, when he was running for president then, I wrote of my opinion of his platform at http://blaisepascal.livejournal.com/199971.html. The tldr summary is that, at least in 2008, I found Ron Paul's platform to be hateful and fearful, internally inconsistent, pandering, promoting of untruths and incorrect oversimplifications, and lacking in research. I found it surprising then that Paul was the darling of the intelligent geek, since even a little independent research would show how bad his ideas were (one example: he wanted to eliminate the Department of Education for both fiscal and ideological reasons. It's budget in 2008 was $61B. He wanted to replace it with a $6K voucher for every schoolchild in the country to pay for the schooling they needed. That would cost $305B. This is not a fiscally sound shift).

I fully expect Ron Paul to be as bad today as we was four years ago, but I don't have the time nor interest in redoing the research on him I did 4 years ago to verify.

So I ask you: is he still as bad as he was?

  • 1
Your opinion previously was based upon illogic and inaccurate notions of what Dr. Paul suggested. Your current opinion is similar. It doesn't sound like you're looking for logical responses which would sway you, though, because no one honestly looking for information would ask such a dishonest question as, "is he still as bad as he was?" That's about as honest as, "have you stopped beating your wife?"

You might actually read Dr. Paul's budget proposal, before making assumptions as to where funds are and are not coming from. So far, he's the only candidate to propose a budget which has a snowball's chance in hell of actually resulting in a balance, and has done so using objectively-verifiable numbers, not pie-in-the-sky inventions.

He and Johnson are the only candidates who actually support civil liberties, ending the wars, or pretty much anything else worthwhile. Count out the warmonger-in-chief, and the guys who want to take over as warmonger-in-chief. Those are the only candidates who don't support the wars, who don't support the un-Patriot Act, who don't support corporate welfare, who don't support the total destruction of all civil liberties. An ideal candidate might go further that Dr. Paul has proposed, but he's the best that's in the offering.

By any chance did you read the direct quotations I made from his 2008 platform in my 2008 evaluation? How, specifically, was I misrepresenting him?

I just looked at http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/ and I find his plan horrific.

My vision of America and it's future is fundamentally incompatible with Ron Paul's. While there are many things wrong with the budget, high taxes and the programs Paul would zero out are not among them. I would gladly pay higher taxes if it meant, for instance, that I was guaranteed health care independent of my employer, or that fundamental research in fusion energy would happen in the US, or that large-scale scientifically valid carbon sequestration projects were enacted.

Out of curiosity, what do you think a 10% cut in the Federal workforce will do to the unemployment rate?

Let me also make this clear: I have friends who, in my opinion, would be dead were it not for the intervention of so-called big government. I see slash-to-the-marrow budget plans like Paul's (and he's not the only one) as tantamount to wishing my friends killed.

"By any chance did you read the direct quotations I made from his 2008 platform in my 2008 evaluation? How, specifically, was I misrepresenting him?"

Which quotes? You quoted an email that was forwarded to you, not Dr. Paul.

"My vision of America and it's future is fundamentally incompatible with Ron Paul's."

You're welcome to your vision. When enacting your vision requires that violence be done to innocent people, and enacting his requires that the current levels of violence be reduced, his is the morally-superior position.

"While there are many things wrong with the budget, high taxes and the programs Paul would zero out are not among them. I would gladly pay higher taxes..."

Fine. Write the Feds a check. No one's stopping you. There's no prohibition on paying more than the minimum rate.

Ah, but you don't want to pay... you want others to pay.

"...if it meant, for instance, that I was guaranteed health care independent of my employer..."

Linking healthcare with employment was a situation created by the government, and it is currently maintained through government regulation. Taxes are not required to change that; simply removing the laws that created the situation would solve it.

"... or that fundamental research in fusion energy would happen in the US..."

Why does it have to happen in the US? Isn't that a bit nationalistic?

And why would taxes make it happen? The only fusion energy that taxes have brought to fruition as a working technology involves devices designed for vaporizing cities.

...or that large-scale scientifically valid carbon sequestration projects were enacted."

Like stopping the slash-and-burn of the rainforests? That's the only scientifically-valid way to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide. But blaming the third world is not PC, is it? I do have to give you the point, there; Obama is the only candidate likely to start yet another war, to bring about that result. So if sequestering carbon dioxide in a scientifically-valid manner is important to you, the warmonger-in-chief is probably your best bet.

"Out of curiosity, what do you think a 10% cut in the Federal workforce will do to the unemployment rate?"

Not much. They can become hookers, run three-card-Monte scams on streetcorners, or get some other honest job like that.

"Let me also make this clear: I have friends who, in my opinion, would be dead were it not for the intervention of so-called big government. I see slash-to-the-marrow budget plans like Paul's (and he's not the only one) as tantamount to wishing my friends killed."

Could I borrow your crystal ball, sometime? Because I find your ability to know that nothing would have saved them, other than that one possibility, to be quite amazing. I usually have trouble knowing exactly what would have happened, if things were different, so that must be a pretty good crystal ball.

Now, all the individuals who were friends, siblings, parents, children, or whatever to various folks around the world, who Obama did order murdered... those deaths don't require a crystal ball to see... they only require open eyes. But, I guess, as long as you don't know them, it doesn't matter? The deaths that monster did actually, verifiably bring about are irrelevant, and you'll condemn more of them, to avoid some hypothetical that's scared you?

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account