Conquer Club

I'm working my way through "Revolution", and I find myself agreeing with nearly everything he says (of course, he may simply be presenting false information or have good persuasive skills). He actually has opinions on both sides of the spectrum, though of course he appeals more to the right-wingers. I know a few people here support him, but most don't. So what are your thoughts on this guy? If you dislike him then you should present a reasonable argument against his actual positions instead of saying "he's an old coot" or something like that.

ron paul is the absolute man.

i like ron paul, but ron c is way cool too.

Not only could he successfully rule this republic of ours he has the correct name for NASCAR.

ron c is a troll

I voted for him in the '08 Republican primaries in NY State. Unfortunately he was not on the ballot in the general election nor the candidate Ron Paul supported for president so I had to pick another 3rd party candidate.


I agree with all of Ron Paul's stances except legalizing drugs.

Ron Paul's got a lot of good sense. Which of course makes him unelectable.

The only thing I can agree with him on is foreign policy.

He knows absolutely nothing about economics though. Advocating bringing the gold-standard back is so unbelievably stupid that it taints all his other stances.

Where as worthless paper IOU notes printed by the trillions are stable and will never collapse.

jefjef wrote:Where as worthless paper IOU notes printed by the trillions are stable and will never collapse.

If the government is sensible and does not collapse, then yes.
But that's unimportant. A reserve currecy based on a gold-standard inevitably will fail.

The Austrian School of economics and the libertarians base their theories on self-evident axioms and theories, but they seem to disregard evidence that suggest their theories simply don't apply to real economies.


Any serious economist knows this.

john9blue wrote:I'm working my way through "Revolution", and I find myself agreeing with nearly everything he says (of course, he may simply be presenting false information or have good persuasive skills). He actually has opinions on both sides of the spectrum, though of course he appeals more to the right-wingers. I know a few people here support him, but most don't. So what are your thoughts on this guy? If you dislike him then you should present a reasonable argument against his actual positions instead of saying "he's an old coot" or something like that.

Most people do like him, and I am hard pressed to think of anyone who "does not like him". I also completely disagree that "he appeals more to right wingers." Right wingers hate him the most. Huckabee and Guliani played very dirty tricks on him in the primaries. Truw "Right wingers" vomit when they hear Dr. Paul's foriegn policy, in fact, being an ARDENT Paul supporter for many years, it's the #1 argument by far against him, and it comes from IMO, Stanuch right wingers. He is a true statemen and he gives his unused money back to the gov't. He could solve A good portiion of Americas monetary and economic problems, of course congress going along is another story. If he ever did get elected, he would probably have to use the Jacksonian approach to congress and follow his victory over the central bank and nicholas biddle.

If people don't like him then why didn't he receive many votes in the presidential election? The man who won opposes most of the things he stands for.

john9blue wrote:If people don't like him then why didn't he receive many votes in the presidential election? The man who won opposes most of the things he stands for.

In the two-party system we have, someone like Ron Paul quite simply cannot put together the financing to support what it takes to win a Presidential campaign. Sad...sickening...pathetic...but true.

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:If people don't like him then why didn't he receive many votes in the presidential election? The man who won opposes most of the things he stands for.

In the two-party system we have, someone like Ron Paul quite simply cannot put together the financing to support what it takes to win a Presidential campaign. Sad...sickening...pathetic...but true.

There are also good things about the two-party system though.

Woodruff wrote:Ron Paul's got a lot of good sense. Which of course makes him unelectable.

Agreed.

A few weeks ago I went on a Ron Paul binge on youtube, and I was enthralled by his statements, his speeches, what he does for a living. It's interesting, and I really enjoy hearing a politician expressing my own thoughts on what's wrong with the mainstream politicians' decisions. He's the man that will vote "sensibly," but of course he doesn't play the game like everyone else. That makes him unelectable because too many average Americans like their BS served hot and in large amounts.

I really enjoyed the Ron Paul during the presidential debates. There was the man not dishing out the rubbish about the war in Iraq. The other guy's had that same memorized rhetoric, then comes this hero parting the clouds and calming the seas with a clear head and sensible ideas... It's just a shame that the American public elects so poorly.