Ron Paul

[LastBattle]

Does anyone else here know about him/like him?

He seems pretty decent to me, though I can't vote either way. I am wondering if he will ever have something to say about bitcoin.

[1714071115]

1714071115

[1714071115]

1714071115

[1714071115]

1714071115

[1714071115]

1714071115

[opticbit]

My major concern with him is he's getting old.  I think he would atleast look into btc.

[hugolp]

My major concern with him is he's getting old.  I think he would atleast look into btc.

Ron Paul has introduced laws to remove the monopolly on money from the Fed and allow competition of currencies, so yeah.

[jon_smark]

Compared with the average Republican he's not so bad.  However, that's setting the bar pretty low.  Bear in mind that Ron Paul supports some very disturbing policies, namely:

• He's very pro-religion, to the point of being against the prohibition of school prayer.  I guess that Ron Paul conveniently forgets that the separation between church and state is a sine qua non condition for any truly free state, and is even espoused in the freaking 1st amendment!
• Opposes network neutrality on the Internet.
• Favours creationism over evolution.  This alone is a tell-tale sign the guy is a kook detached from reality.
  

[iCEBREAKER]

Compared with the average Republican he's not so bad.  However, that's setting the bar pretty low.  Bear in mind that Ron Paul supports some very disturbing policies, namely:

• He's very pro-religion, to the point of being against the prohibition of school prayer.  I guess that Ron Paul conveniently forgets that the separation between church and state is a sine qua non condition for any truly free state, and is even espoused in the freaking 1st amendment!
• Opposes network neutrality on the Internet.
• Favours creationism over evolution.  This alone is a tell-tale sign the guy is a kook detached from reality.
  

You don't understand the 1st Amendment.  It applies to the Federal Government, not to school districts.

It does not separate any church from any state, or ban prayer in schools.  Only Marxist ACLU lawyers think that.

Dr. Paul graduated from Duke med school.  He has forgotten more facts about biology and the Constitution than a churlish simpleton such as yourself will ever know about either topic.

Don't forget to bash him for being pro-life as well.  That also violates your secular, public school-instilled ideology of rabid intolerance for traditional conservative values.

[hugolp]

Opposes network neutrality on the Internet.

Ron Pauls supports net neutrality, that menas he is against the law with the orwellian title of Net Neutrality. That law is nothing else that the government starting to regulate the internet and anyone supporting net neutrality should oppose it.

[jon_smark]

Dr. Paul graduated from Duke med school.  He has forgotten more facts about biology and the Constitution than a churlish simpleton such as yourself will ever know about either topic.

Your aggressive demeanor and immediate jump to personal attacks means that any attempt at a rational civil conversation is probably doomed.  Nevertheless, there's one point I cannot let pass: evolution is the cornerstone of modern Biology.  As Theodosius Dobzhansky famously stated, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". If you think that anyone who denies evolution truly understands biology then I'm afraid you're too deep into the swamps of ignorance for any forum discussion to enlighten you.  Moreover, Ron Paul's support of creationism is a powerful signifier that he himself is too detached from physical reality to ever be a good president.

[hugolp]

Dr. Paul graduated from Duke med school.  He has forgotten more facts about biology and the Constitution than a churlish simpleton such as yourself will ever know about either topic.

Your aggressive demeanor and immediate jump to personal attacks means that any attempt at a rational civil conversation is probably doomed.  Nevertheless, there's one point I cannot let pass: evolution is the cornerstone of modern Biology.  As Theodosius Dobzhansky famously stated, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". If you think that anyone who denies evolution truly understands biology then I'm afraid you're too deep into the swamps of ignorance for any forum discussion to enlighten you.  Moreover, Ron Paul's support of creationism is a powerful signifier that he himself is too detached from physical reality to ever be a good president.

Ron Paul does not deny evolution. Your opinion is probably based on a manipulated youtube video. I recommend that you go and find the complete version of the video. Ron Paul is saying that evolution happens but that there had to be an initial point for live and he believe god did it. He is religious and believes what many religious person do, including f.e. Obama (who believes exaclty the same as Ron Paul in this issue).

[LastBattle]

Compared with the average Republican he's not so bad.  However, that's setting the bar pretty low.  Bear in mind that Ron Paul supports some very disturbing policies, namely:

• He's very pro-religion, to the point of being against the prohibition of school prayer.  I guess that Ron Paul conveniently forgets that the separation between church and state is a sine qua non condition for any truly free state, and is even espoused in the freaking 1st amendment!
• Opposes network neutrality on the Internet.
• Favours creationism over evolution.  This alone is a tell-tale sign the guy is a kook detached from reality.
  

Net Neutrality is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It would open the door wide open for the US government to begin taking over the internet, using "fairness" as an excuse. Frankly, I would prefer ISPs throttling my internet and letting me switch to another one over the government arresting my ass for saying something they didn't approve of.

EDIT: Also, he believes in Creationism because he is a 72 year old from Texas. I would imagine most 72 year olds from Texas have similar views. He is far ahead of the pack in that he doesn't believe that Creationism should be pushed on others. It is an issue that government should have absolutely NOTHING to do with, and thus his views on religion, evolution, don't matter in the slightest.

[compro01]

Frankly, I would prefer ISPs throttling my internet and letting me switch to another one over the government arresting my ass for saying something they didn't approve of.

however, back in reality, you will have ISPs throttling you and not being able to switch as they have a monopoly they paid the municipal and state governments for and they will hand your data over to the government happily.

[myrkul]

Frankly, I would prefer ISPs throttling my internet and letting me switch to another one over the government arresting my ass for saying something they didn't approve of.

however, back in reality, you will have ISPs throttling you and not being able to switch as they have a monopoly they paid the municipal and state governments for and they will hand your data over to the government happily.

Which is why Dr. Paul is very anti-monopoly, and Pro free market.

[jon_smark]

however, back in reality, you will have ISPs throttling you and not being able to switch as they have a monopoly they paid the municipal and state governments for and they will hand your data over to the government happily.

Which is why Dr. Paul is very anti-monopoly, and Pro free market.

Your sentence neatly summarises what is fundamentally wrong about libertarian and laissez-faire philosophy: the assumption that freedom can be optimised by local gradient-climbing. Sorry, but freedom does not work that way.  To reach a global maximum you'll often need to climb down from your local maximum (ie, have regulations such as network neutrality).

[myrkul]

however, back in reality, you will have ISPs throttling you and not being able to switch as they have a monopoly they paid the municipal and state governments for and they will hand your data over to the government happily.

Which is why Dr. Paul is very anti-monopoly, and Pro free market.

Your sentence neatly summarises what is fundamentally wrong about libertarian and laissez-faire philosophy: the assumption that freedom can be optimised by local gradient-climbing. Sorry, but freedom does not work that way.  To reach a global maximum you'll often need to climb down from your local maximum (ie, have regulations such as network neutrality).

Your sentence neatly illustrates the Insanity that governments instill in their slaves citizens. To make Everybody free, we must oppress you!

Bwah?

[LastBattle]

Frankly, I would prefer ISPs throttling my internet and letting me switch to another one over the government arresting my ass for saying something they didn't approve of.

however, back in reality, you will have ISPs throttling you and not being able to switch as they have a monopoly they paid the municipal and state governments for and they will hand your data over to the government happily.

as they have a monopoly they paid the municipal and state governments for

So Ron Paul is bad for supporting a free market in telecom as opposed to government nationalization, which you say is bad because the ISPs will be given control of government nationalized telecom.

You have some very strange logic that you are employing right there.

Allow me to make a similar argument:

"We can't let Ron Paul win because he would end the Federal Reserve and then we wouldn't be able to switch currencies because privately issued currencies would have paid municipal and state governments for a regional monopoly and they would inflate their money"

I would call it insane troll logic but it is less "insane" and more "inane"

[iCEBREAKER]

Dr. Paul graduated from Duke med school.  He has forgotten more facts about biology and the Constitution than a churlish simpleton such as yourself will ever know about either topic.

Your aggressive demeanor and immediate jump to personal attacks means that any attempt at a rational civil conversation is probably doomed.  Nevertheless, there's one point I cannot let pass: evolution is the cornerstone of modern Biology.  As Theodosius Dobzhansky famously stated, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". If you think that anyone who denies evolution truly understands biology then I'm afraid you're too deep into the swamps of ignorance for any forum discussion to enlighten you.  Moreover, Ron Paul's support of creationism is a powerful signifier that he himself is too detached from physical reality to ever be a good president.

Jon, the very few people with a deeper understanding of evolution than me work at the Santa Fe Institute, studying the interaction of complex systems theory and quantum physics.  I've been reading their papers for well over a decade.  So don't even start to go there!

You began the personal attacks, by calling Dr Paul "a kook detached from reality."

Then, when corrected by someone smarter and more in command of the relevant facts than yourself, you threw a fit.

You can cite no proof that Dr Paul is a young earth Creationist, because he is not one of those.

Why dish it out, when you are clearly too thin-skinned to take reciprocal hostility?

Oh that's right, I already addressed the public-school origins of your churlish secular bigotry towards traditional American values in general, and conservative Christians in particular.  No mystery there.

Nothing distinguishes your banal opinions from the generic liberal twaddle put out by HuffPo, Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, and Bill Maher. 

You are simply a trend following Richad Dawkins wanna-be, IE, a discredit to rational fair-minded people everywhere.  People like you are giving all of us non-believers a bad name with your ugly Secular Jihad against personal spiritual beliefs.

The prejudiced idea that somebody else's spiritual beliefs are not compatible with evolutionary reality relies on the false premise that all religious people are stupid superstitious cretins. 

That assumption cannot explain how Dr Paul graduated from one of the top 10 medical schools in the world, so therefore it is not valid.

[jon_smark]

Jon, the very few people with a deeper understanding of evolution than me work at the Santa Fe Institute, studying the interaction of complex systems theory and quantum physics.  I've been reading their papers for well over a decade.  So don't even start to go there!

Sorry, but your subsequent comments (we'll get to those in a moment) show that you do not understand evolution and its implications quite as well as you think you do.

You began the personal attacks, by calling Dr Paul "a kook detached from reality."

If Mr Paul really thinks there's no problem with teaching creationism to children, then I'm afraid I have some shocking news: he really is a kook detached from reality.

Then, when corrected by someone smarter and more in command of the relevant facts than yourself, you threw a fit.

Is your idea of presenting an argument to state that you are smarter (sic) than your opponent?  Please don't tell me you are really convinced that's a good idea to win people over your side.

You can cite no proof that Dr Paul is a young earth Creationist, because he is not one of those.

I never said he was.  Please don't put arguments in your opponents mouth.

Why dish it out, when you are clearly too thin-skinned to take reciprocal hostility?

Do you really think I would be an unapologetic liberal in a forum dominated with libertarians if I was thin-skinned?...

Oh that's right, I already addressed the public-school origins of your churlish secular bigotry towards traditional American values in general, and conservative Christians in particular.  No mystery there.

If you can confuse humanist values with bigotry, then I fear you either don't know humanist values or the meaning of bigotry.

Nothing distinguishes your banal opinions from the generic liberal twaddle put out by HuffPo, Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, and Bill Maher.

I like Maddow and Stewart, with some reservations.  I can't stand the HuffPo and I think Maher is a bit of a kook himself.  But most importantly, the fact that you assume that I would like a rag like the HuffPo is a tell-tale sign that you have a caricature version of what a liberal stands for.  The HuffPo peddles to all sorts of anti-science woo, in stark contrast to the beliefs of a liberal heir to the values of the Enlightenment. The HuffPo is in fact the target of constant mockery among many liberals, and it is a bit of an embarrassment that it has become associated with liberalism in general.

You are simply a trend following Richad Dawkins wanna-be, IE, a discredit to rational fair-minded people everywhere.  People like you are giving all of us non-believers a bad name with your ugly Secular Jihad against personal spiritual beliefs.

The prejudiced idea that somebody else's spiritual beliefs are not compatible with evolutionary reality relies on the false premise that all religious people are stupid superstitious cretins.

I didn't say that all religious people are stupid superstitious cretins (sic).  However, you must be in denial if you don't realise that "spiritual beliefs" do in fact conflict with the acceptance of evolution.

That assumption cannot explain how Dr Paul graduated from one of the top 10 medical schools in the world, so therefore it is not valid.

Dude, you do realise that being an expert on evolution is not a prerequisite for graduating from a top medical school, do you?

[compro01]

Frankly, I would prefer ISPs throttling my internet and letting me switch to another one over the government arresting my ass for saying something they didn't approve of.

however, back in reality, you will have ISPs throttling you and not being able to switch as they have a monopoly they paid the municipal and state governments for and they will hand your data over to the government happily.

as they have a monopoly they paid the municipal and state governments for

So Ron Paul is bad for supporting a free market in telecom as opposed to government nationalization, which you say is bad because the ISPs will be given control of government nationalized telecom.

You have some very strange logic that you are employing right there.

1. regulation=nationalization?

2. my point is that a free market in telecom DOES NOT EXIST and WILL NOT exist unless the federal government beats both the telecoms and state governments about the head.

[LastBattle]

Frankly, I would prefer ISPs throttling my internet and letting me switch to another one over the government arresting my ass for saying something they didn't approve of.

however, back in reality, you will have ISPs throttling you and not being able to switch as they have a monopoly they paid the municipal and state governments for and they will hand your data over to the government happily.

as they have a monopoly they paid the municipal and state governments for

So Ron Paul is bad for supporting a free market in telecom as opposed to government nationalization, which you say is bad because the ISPs will be given control of government nationalized telecom.

You have some very strange logic that you are employing right there.

1. regulation=nationalization?

2. my point is that a free market in telecom DOES NOT EXIST and WILL NOT exist unless the federal government beats both the telecoms and state governments about the head.

1. Net Neutrality involves giving extreme authority over to the FCC, and we all know how great the FCC is, right?

2. Are you George Bush? "We need to stop our free market system to save it from itself"

I would love to see state governments try to monopolize telecom, people would scram for other states and they would lose revenue. If you are saying there is a better chance of every single (or even a slight majority) state attempting to monopolize telecom, 50 in all, then I am going to have to say that you are high and should limit yourself on Silkroad.

Oh, and a cool history lesson: You are pulling assumptions out of your ass. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, telecom was a vibrant and distinctly unmonopolized market. There were THOUSANDS of telephone companies in the United States. The states did not take over, monopolies did not emerge, there was a free market. Then, guess what? The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT stepped in and nationalized everything in favour of a specific telephone company. Yeah, that is what we should be aiming for, alright!

[libertyzeal]

Ron Paul is the only politician who will get my vote in the primaries, and the general if makes it.  All this banter about creationism/evolution/pro-life, I could seriously care less about, those are minor blips on my radar. 

I'm far more worried about the state of the economy, and Dr Paul, is the only Austrian free market thinker in the running. 

Obama and Bush are both corporatist swine, but the public seems to drink their koolaid for now.

At least with bitcoin I have a currency that is mostly removed from the state control and this wrong-headed central economic planning bullshit.

[NghtRppr]