Ron Paul wins CPAC presidential poll

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

The Guy isn't a mainstream republican and he holds many non-mainstream conservatives views but i have been highly critical of the individual for several things.

1. He wants to eliminate the federal reserve
2. He is very supportive of a gold standard, and bimetallism.
3. Attempts to pass "we the people act" during every session of congress. A bill that could potentially harm individual rights. Supporting other such anti-gay legislation such as the "family protection act".
4. His racist newsletter that he not only defended, but also signed off on.
5. Stripping women of the right to choose, implementing coercive ‘pro-life’ polices at the Federal Level (see the Sanctity of Life Act)
6.Allying with Republican hard-liners who want to abolish Social Security, the Nation’s most popular social program ever
7.Abolishing student financial aid
8. Dumping the income tax.

Sure the guy may be right about some things,but even a broken clock can be right twice a day.

[Scam of God]

I'm a libertarian and I'm hardly favorable to Paul. He tries way too hard to court various authoritarian elements, and it makes his entire political philosophy something of a joke. I could - just barely - pull the lever for him against Obama, but I could just as easily vote against him in 2016 provided he won.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

I'm a libertarian and I'm hardly favorable to Paul. He tries way too hard to court various authoritarian elements, and it makes his entire political philosophy something of a joke. I could - just barely - pull the lever for him against Obama, but I could just as easily vote against him in 2016 provided he won.

He critical of things that r easy to be critical of, but saying that we should abolish The Federal Reserve is moronic at best.

[Scam of God]

I'm a libertarian and I'm hardly favorable to Paul. He tries way too hard to court various authoritarian elements, and it makes his entire political philosophy something of a joke. I could - just barely - pull the lever for him against Obama, but I could just as easily vote against him in 2016 provided he won.

He critical of things that r easy to be critical of, but saying that we should abolish The Federal Reserve is moronic at best.

I think we should abolish the Federal Reserve. I don't think we should kowtow to social conservatives.

[k-onmmunist]

Why would anyone support the Federal Reserve? It's essentially a secretive ring of bankers who couldn't run a whelk stall, let alone a country's economic policy.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

I'm a libertarian and I'm hardly favorable to Paul. He tries way too hard to court various authoritarian elements, and it makes his entire political philosophy something of a joke. I could - just barely - pull the lever for him against Obama, but I could just as easily vote against him in 2016 provided he won.

He critical of things that r easy to be critical of, but saying that we should abolish The Federal Reserve is moronic at best.

I think we should abolish the Federal Reserve. I don't think we should kowtow to social conservatives.

I disagree with the idea of abolishing the Fed, but if we did this what would happen to.
1.The buying and selling of tressury bills.
2.what would back the dollar.(right now we back it with full faith and credit, and they can be exchanged for T-bills, and their can never be a run on T-bills thus the dollar will always have value).
3. The velocity of money.
4. Tressury yeilds

[Phony Moderate]

Again, this dents Paul's credibility. Virtually everyone who attends CPAC claims to be for small government and liberty, and yet they support fascistic border control laws, controlling the choices that a woman can make, controlling the choices that a gay person can make, etc.

Oh wait, Ron Paul does[/] have the same views as them.

[Mechaman]

I'm a libertarian and I'm hardly favorable to Paul. He tries way too hard to court various authoritarian elements, and it makes his entire political philosophy something of a joke. I could - just barely - pull the lever for him against Obama, but I could just as easily vote against him in 2016 provided he won.

He critical of things that r easy to be critical of, but saying that we should abolish The Federal Reserve is moronic at best.

I think we should abolish the Federal Reserve. I don't think we should kowtow to social conservatives.

I agree.
Paul's record on social policy is alarming, and the circumstances of the newsletters is questionable at best. Even if he didn't write those newsletters, even if it was Lew Rockwell (who I despise for going out of his way to reconcile libertarianism with traditionalists, who are by far the biggest collectivists in society) who did it, ignorance is no excuse. Does he really want the American public to believe that he was knowingly ignorant of what was being written under his name under his newsletter? I mean really, what kind of idiot allows someone to write for them without checking in from time to time what was being written. I know that if I had let someone write under my name I would've at least be smart enough or interested enough to read it from time to time.
And his support for anti-woman, anti-immigrant policy, and some anti-gay policies (because admittedly he could argue that some of it was based off of federalist stances) is just disgusting.

The sellout of libertarian principles to traditional collectivists must be stopped, and I doubt that Paul is the candidate to do this.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

I'm a libertarian and I'm hardly favorable to Paul. He tries way too hard to court various authoritarian elements, and it makes his entire political philosophy something of a joke. I could - just barely - pull the lever for him against Obama, but I could just as easily vote against him in 2016 provided he won.

He critical of things that r easy to be critical of, but saying that we should abolish The Federal Reserve is moronic at best.

I think we should abolish the Federal Reserve. I don't think we should kowtow to social conservatives.

I agree.
Paul's record on social policy is alarming, and the circumstances of the newsletters is questionable at best. Even if he didn't write those newsletters, even if it was Lew Rockwell (who I despise for going out of his way to reconcile libertarianism with traditionalists, who are by far the biggest collectivists in society) who did it, ignorance is no excuse. Does he really want the American public to believe that he was knowingly ignorant of what was being written under his name under his newsletter? I mean really, what kind of idiot allows someone to write for them without checking in from time to time what was being written. I know that if I had let someone write under my name I would've at least be smart enough or interested enough to read it from time to time.
And his support for anti-woman, anti-immigrant policy, and some anti-gay policies (because admittedly he could argue that some of it was based off of federalist stances) is just disgusting.

From Reason. Article title is "old news"? "Rehashed for over a decade"?
May 23, 1996, Houston Chronicle:
Ron Paul supporters like to claim that their Aytollaha is incapable of racism, and they someone else wrote his newsletter. This is a laughable assertion because Ron Paul not only defended the newsletter,but also signed off on them.

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." [...]

Thus during Ron Paul's last campaign he clearly lied about his level of involvement.

[Phony Moderate]

I'm a libertarian and I'm hardly favorable to Paul. He tries way too hard to court various authoritarian elements, and it makes his entire political philosophy something of a joke. I could - just barely - pull the lever for him against Obama, but I could just as easily vote against him in 2016 provided he won.

He critical of things that r easy to be critical of, but saying that we should abolish The Federal Reserve is moronic at best.

I think we should abolish the Federal Reserve. I don't think we should kowtow to social conservatives.

I agree.
Paul's record on social policy is alarming, and the circumstances of the newsletters is questionable at best. Even if he didn't write those newsletters, even if it was Lew Rockwell (who I despise for going out of his way to reconcile libertarianism with traditionalists, who are by far the biggest collectivists in society) who did it, ignorance is no excuse. Does he really want the American public to believe that he was knowingly ignorant of what was being written under his name under his newsletter? I mean really, what kind of idiot allows someone to write for them without checking in from time to time what was being written. I know that if I had let someone write under my name I would've at least be smart enough or interested enough to read it from time to time.
And his support for anti-woman, anti-immigrant policy, and some anti-gay policies (because admittedly he could argue that some of it was based off of federalist stances) is just disgusting.

Exactly. Not to mention that he has been pictured with Don Black (a former leader of the KKK who now co-owns Stormfront, if i'm not mistaken), he endorsed Pat Buchanan, Chuck Baldwin and Ronald Reagan (and praised him in his speech to CPAC), and is well known to be a good friend of Alex Jones.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

I'm a libertarian and I'm hardly favorable to Paul. He tries way too hard to court various authoritarian elements, and it makes his entire political philosophy something of a joke. I could - just barely - pull the lever for him against Obama, but I could just as easily vote against him in 2016 provided he won.

He critical of things that r easy to be critical of, but saying that we should abolish The Federal Reserve is moronic at best.

I think we should abolish the Federal Reserve. I don't think we should kowtow to social conservatives.

I agree.
Paul's record on social policy is alarming, and the circumstances of the newsletters is questionable at best. Even if he didn't write those newsletters, even if it was Lew Rockwell (who I despise for going out of his way to reconcile libertarianism with traditionalists, who are by far the biggest collectivists in society) who did it, ignorance is no excuse. Does he really want the American public to believe that he was knowingly ignorant of what was being written under his name under his newsletter? I mean really, what kind of idiot allows someone to write for them without checking in from time to time what was being written. I know that if I had let someone write under my name I would've at least be smart enough or interested enough to read it from time to time.
And his support for anti-woman, anti-immigrant policy, and some anti-gay policies (because admittedly he could argue that some of it was based off of federalist stances) is just disgusting.

Exactly. Not to mention that he has been pictured with Don Black (a former leader of the KKK who now co-owns Stormfront, if i'm not mistaken), he endorsed Pat Buchanan, Chuck Baldwin and Ronald Reagan (and praised him in his speech to CPAC), and is well known to be a good friend of Alex Jones.

The worst thing about Ron Paul is that he does not realize how arrogant he sounds when says "stop printing money out of thin air,end the fed, and privatize social security". The first two statements show how ignorant the individual is but it also implies "Ron Paul is right and everyone else is just plain wrong"

[SPC]

While I disagree with some of his social stances, his policies would be more libertarian. While he is against abortion, he would not make any federal legislation on the matter. He stated in the June 2007 CNN debate that he wants to restore marriage as a private contract without governmental interference. And he also stated that he would get rid of immigration laws if not for the welfare state, which he also plans to get rid of. Of course this could just be political posturing, given his support for opening the border when he first ran for president. He also referred to racism as an "ugly form of collectivism", would end the War on Drugs, opposes the death penalty, and would end the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security.

[Phony Moderate]

I'm a libertarian and I'm hardly favorable to Paul. He tries way too hard to court various authoritarian elements, and it makes his entire political philosophy something of a joke. I could - just barely - pull the lever for him against Obama, but I could just as easily vote against him in 2016 provided he won.

He critical of things that r easy to be critical of, but saying that we should abolish The Federal Reserve is moronic at best.

I think we should abolish the Federal Reserve. I don't think we should kowtow to social conservatives.

I agree.
Paul's record on social policy is alarming, and the circumstances of the newsletters is questionable at best. Even if he didn't write those newsletters, even if it was Lew Rockwell (who I despise for going out of his way to reconcile libertarianism with traditionalists, who are by far the biggest collectivists in society) who did it, ignorance is no excuse. Does he really want the American public to believe that he was knowingly ignorant of what was being written under his name under his newsletter? I mean really, what kind of idiot allows someone to write for them without checking in from time to time what was being written. I know that if I had let someone write under my name I would've at least be smart enough or interested enough to read it from time to time.
And his support for anti-woman, anti-immigrant policy, and some anti-gay policies (because admittedly he could argue that some of it was based off of federalist stances) is just disgusting.

Exactly. Not to mention that he has been pictured with Don Black (a former leader of the KKK who now co-owns Stormfront, if i'm not mistaken), he endorsed Pat Buchanan, Chuck Baldwin and Ronald Reagan (and praised him in his speech to CPAC), and is well known to be a good friend of Alex Jones.

The worst thing about Ron Paul is that he does not realize how arrogant he sounds when says "stop printing money out of thin air,end the fed, and privatize social security". The first two statements show how ignorant the individual is but it also implies "Ron Paul is right and everyone else is just plain wrong"

I would say that the worst thing about Ron Paul is his supporters. From the beginning of 2007 to the end of 2008 they spammed YouTube non-stop on virtually every politically-related video with comments like "Ron Paul 2008 for freedom!", "If you don't like Ron Paul then you hate America", "9/11 was an inside job", and so on. That is why i hope he doesn't run in 2012.

[Beet]

Although I disagree vehemently with much of his platform, part of me wants to see him win just to see what he would do.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

While I disagree with some of his social stances, his policies would be more libertarian. While he is against abortion, he would not make any federal legislation on the matter. He stated in the June 2007 CNN debate that he wants to restore marriage as a private contract without governmental interference. And he also stated that he would get rid of immigration laws if not for the welfare state, which he also plans to get rid of. Of course this could just be political posturing, given his support for opening the border when he first ran for president. He also referred to racism as an "ugly form of collectivism", would end the War on Drugs, opposes the death penalty, and would end the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security.

Ayn Rand Said racism was an ugly form of collectivism, but her circular reasoning doesn't obscure the fact that she was a homophobe/racist/sexist pig!

[Phony Moderate]

While I disagree with some of his social stances, his policies would be more libertarian. While he is against abortion, he would not make any federal legislation on the matter. He stated in the June 2007 CNN debate that he wants to restore marriage as a private contract without governmental interference. And he also stated that he would get rid of immigration laws if not for the welfare state, which he also plans to get rid of. Of course this could just be political posturing, given his support for opening the border when he first ran for president. He also referred to racism as an "ugly form of collectivism", would end the War on Drugs, opposes the death penalty, and would end the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security.

You're mistaken on his stances on both abortion and same-sex marriage. He authored the "Right to Life Act" (or something) that forces states to accept that life begins at conception. He also voted in favor of the partial-birth abortion ban. On the subject of gay rights, he supports DADT (calling it in one of the debates, "a decent policy") and DOMA.

I think that he reference to racism was also "political posturing" considering his newsletters. As for the other issues you mentioned, fair enough.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

My Prediction:

Ron Paul will simultaneously win both the Republican and Democratic nominations when in 2011 following the eventual (and boy eventual does sum it all up) success of Obama's health care bill it's signature brings about an event similiar to the opening of the holy grail in Raiders of the Lost Ark upon which the President, the Vice President, the whole Cabinet and all members of congress' faces melt and heads exploded in five furious moments. Though in regards to headless members of congress, records indicate that viewers of C-Span were unable to tell the difference. Only Ron Paul survived due to his overwhelming anti-government superpower which made him immune to the mystical evil of big government bills. Though when the plague of locusts arrived the next day he just happened to be out of town.

After the millions of deaths from the health care bill, Godly Plagues, Millennial violence (including rampaging death panels gone amok!) and malfunctioning CGI the Military intervened and took over. They decided to set up a temporary dictatorship until the leadership of the pet Monkey of the 22nd Airborne who was told to do (and did) nothing except eat bananas and sit in the oval office all day stratching his ass. It was made into a very successful reality TV show. For this reason America was run the most efficiency it ever was in its two hundred years of history. During the election Ron Paul ran an effective joint two-party campaign on the slogans "Keep the big government out of your plague" and "Privitize the rampaging Death Panels... for the children", a third party formed with no official name which nominated the Lincoln Memorial statue as its candidates. This party ran on a Zombie's rights platform including the slogan "I want to kill you and your children to feed the brainless rampaging hoards. Also Free Pie" and "Free money for every brain you donate". The Lincoln Statue was a shill for the Zombie rights' industry. For this reason the Lincoln Statue won in a 49 state + DC sweep after Rhode Island sank into the Atlantic due to the extremely partizan nature of the campaign. THE END.

[Guderian]

Ron Paul is not a bad guy as nutjob libertarians go. But he's not someone I want to see as President. In Congress, we could use more original thinkers with fresh points of view like him.

[Bo]

The Guy isn't a mainstream republican and he holds many non-mainstream conservatives views but i have been highly critical of the individual for several things.

1. He wants to eliminate the federal reserve
2. He is very supportive of a gold standard, and bimetallism.
3. Attempts to pass "we the people act" during every session of congress. A bill that could potentially harm individual rights. Supporting other such anti-gay legislation such as the "family protection act".
4. His racist newsletter that he not only defended, but also signed off on.
5. Stripping women of the right to choose, implementing coercive ‘pro-life’ polices at the Federal Level (see the Sanctity of Life Act)
6.Allying with Republican hard-liners who want to abolish Social Security, the Nation’s most popular social program ever
7.Abolishing student financial aid
8. Dumping the income tax.

Sure the guy may be right about some things,but even a broken clock can be right twice a day.

I agree with Paul on 5, am indifferent to 3 & 4, partially agree on 1, and disagree with Paul on the rest.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

The Guy isn't a mainstream republican and he holds many non-mainstream conservatives views but i have been highly critical of the individual for several things.

1. He wants to eliminate the federal reserve
2. He is very supportive of a gold standard, and bimetallism.
3. Attempts to pass "we the people act" during every session of congress. A bill that could potentially harm individual rights. Supporting other such anti-gay legislation such as the "family protection act".
4. His racist newsletter that he not only defended, but also signed off on.
5. Stripping women of the right to choose, implementing coercive ‘pro-life’ polices at the Federal Level (see the Sanctity of Life Act)
6.Allying with Republican hard-liners who want to abolish Social Security, the Nation’s most popular social program ever
7.Abolishing student financial aid
8. Dumping the income tax.

Sure the guy may be right about some things,but even a broken clock can be right twice a day.

I agree with Paul on 5, am indifferent to 3 & 4, partially agree on 1, and disagree with Paul on the rest.

The Sanctity of life act would make it impossible to get abortions even when those procedures are needed to save the mother. For example if the plecenta rupture than both the mom and fetus has a high percentage of dieing.

issue 3,4,1 are the areas that make me consider ron paul a nut.

After reading we the people act.....I actually laughed out loud.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

of we read Paul's opinion on Lawrence vs texas and his speech for introducing we the people act....we can pretty much assume that the guy is a raging homophobe. The public already has the newsletter to prove that pont, but these two things just drive it home.

[SPC]

While I disagree with some of his social stances, his policies would be more libertarian. While he is against abortion, he would not make any federal legislation on the matter. He stated in the June 2007 CNN debate that he wants to restore marriage as a private contract without governmental interference. And he also stated that he would get rid of immigration laws if not for the welfare state, which he also plans to get rid of. Of course this could just be political posturing, given his support for opening the border when he first ran for president. He also referred to racism as an "ugly form of collectivism", would end the War on Drugs, opposes the death penalty, and would end the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security.

Ayn Rand Said racism was an ugly form of collectivism, but her circular reasoning doesn't obscure the fact that she was a homophobe/racist/sexist pig!

This is the first instance I have seen of a red herring, non sequitor, and ad hominem attack in one sentence.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

While I disagree with some of his social stances, his policies would be more libertarian. While he is against abortion, he would not make any federal legislation on the matter. He stated in the June 2007 CNN debate that he wants to restore marriage as a private contract without governmental interference. And he also stated that he would get rid of immigration laws if not for the welfare state, which he also plans to get rid of. Of course this could just be political posturing, given his support for opening the border when he first ran for president. He also referred to racism as an "ugly form of collectivism", would end the War on Drugs, opposes the death penalty, and would end the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security.

Ayn Rand Said racism was an ugly form of collectivism, but her circular reasoning doesn't obscure the fact that she was a homophobe/racist/sexist pig!

This is the first instance I have seen of a red herring, non sequitor, and ad hominem attack in one sentence.

perhaps you should read what i responded to!