What's with Those Ron Paul Supporters?

Scott Sommers

Illuminator
Scott Sommers
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,866
I keep coming across supporters of Ron Paul who claim they support all kinds of intervention in the economy. For example, there's this guy who claims he will be running for Illinois congress in 2012. He calls Paul a "new founding father of America", but then goes on here

http://www.artforcongress.webs.com/

to outline a platform that supports universal health care, abortion on demand, financial support for women with children and other massive state interventions in the economy. Somehow he also advocates lowering taxes. He comes across like a Bolshevik to me. This is not the first or only time I've come across this kind of confusion.

Now the guy's a 911 Truther, so he may not be too bright, but what's with this? How could anyone support this sort of mess of ideas?
 
Last edited:
im a socialist but like Ron Paul's speeches alot. but i know we dont share the same ideology.
 
scott.in.taiwan said:
I keep coming across supporters of Ron Paul who claim they support all kinds of intervention in the economy. For example, there's this guy who claims he will be running for Illinois congress in 2012. He calls Paul a "new founding father of America", but then goes on here
Click to expand...

What the site actually says is this:

"the new founding fathers Of America

Dennis Kucinich(Democrat), Ralph Nader(Independent), Ron Paul(Republican)

(these should be the candidates in the 2012 presidential election. The Best of 3 great candidates, instead of the lesser of 2 evils)

Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders, Jesse Ventura, Adam Kokesh, Al Franken, Vincent Bugliosi, Anthony Weiner, Norman Goldman "
Click to expand...



He supports the "anti-establishment" independent minded politicians, I dont think he represents himself as a follower of Ron Paul but respects him although his policies are different. He just chose the most visible "kook" from both parties so I dont have any idea why you decided to make this thread about stupid evil 9/11 Ron Paul supporters instead of Nader or Kucinich or maybe even someone else from the list.
 
Last edited:
Why doesn't he have Rocky J. Suhayda in there? He doesn't have all the third party candiates up there. He's made a value judgement.

I like listening to Paul as well - at least when he doesn't babble like an idiot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zasMKX5tUmU&feature=related

Maybe it doesn't seem strange to you to support the same policies that made Stalinist Russia into a communist state and to also support Ron Paul. Maybe that answer my question.
 
scott.in.taiwan said:
Why doesn't he have Rocky J. Suhayda in there? He doesn't have all the third party candiates up there. He's made a value judgement.

I like listening to Paul as well - at least when he doesn't babble like an idiot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zasMKX5tUmU&feature=related

Maybe it doesn't seem strange to you to support the same policies that made Stalinist Russia into a communist state and to also support Ron Paul. Maybe that answer my question.
Click to expand...

im not a Stalinist.
 
2% of the US population is mentally ill. 2% also support Ron Paul.

Coincidence? I think not.
 
Cleon said:
Probably the same thing that makes me sure I'm not a Libertarian, Rush Limbaugh sure that he's not a Democrat, and Ron Paul sure he's coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs.
Click to expand...

I'm quite sure our friend in Illinois believes he is a defender of liberty of freedom. That's why he believes the state should be perhaps the largest source of income in the country and the police should be rounding up all the politicans whose record he doesn't approve of. People aren't always that accurate when it comes to describing themselves.
 
scott.in.taiwan said:
... to outline a platform that supports universal health care, abortion on demand, financial support for women with children and other massive state interventions in the economy. Somehow he also advocates lowering taxes. He comes across like a Bolshevik to me. This is not the first or only time I've come across this kind of confusion.
Click to expand...


Please describe, in a million words or less, how "abortion on demand" is an example of "massive state interventions in the economy."

While you're at it, you can use the leftover word allocation to distinguish Bolshevism from Menshevism from good ol' Communism. Do they all advocate this dastardly plan of financial support for women with children?
 
scott.in.taiwan said:
I'm quite sure our friend in Illinois believes he is a defender of liberty of freedom. That's why he believes the state should be perhaps the largest source of income in the country and the police should be rounding up all the politicans whose record he doesn't approve of. People aren't always that accurate when it comes to describing themselves.
Click to expand...

But, of course, you are always accurate in describing what other people think. :rolleyes:

Try again, bucko. Not buying it.
 
hgc said:
Please describe, in a million words or less, how "abortion on demand" is an example of "massive state interventions in the economy."

While you're at it, you can use the leftover word allocation to distinguish Bolshevism from Menshevism from good ol' Communism. Do they all advocate this dastardly plan of financial support for women with children?
Click to expand...

Did I say that? If I did, I must apologize. But our friend Art for Congress does believe the government should be responsible for huge transfers of cash. He does believe the government is responsible for looking after women with children who have no means of support.

And while I'm at it, he seems to believe its a congressman's job to interfer with the media. The government should be telling companies where they can invest. Education and health care will be free. And somehow he's going to do this without income tax.

And he can do all this while at the same time claiming Ron Paul is a great American. In fact, it's almost as if the only points he agrees with Paul on are drugs and gays. After that, the government runs everything.
 
Last edited:
scott.in.taiwan said:
Did I say that? If I did, I must apologize. But our friend Art for Congress does believe the government should be responsible for huge transfers of cash. He does believe the government is responsible for looking after women with children who have no means of support.

And while I'm at it, he seems to believe its a congressman's job to interfer with the media. The government should be telling companies where they can invest. Education and health care will be free. And somehow he's going to do this without income tax.

And he can do all this while at the same time claiming Ron Paul is a great American. In fact, it's almost as if the only points he agrees with Paul on are drugs and gays. After that, the government runs everything.
Click to expand...


OK then. I'm still interested in your position though. Is not abortion on demand compatible with the ideal of less government?
 
hgc said:
OK then. I'm still interested in your position though. Is not abortion on demand compatible with the ideal of less government?
Click to expand...

I don't care about my position. Why do you? My whole point here is these Ron Paul nuts who turn around and say they support massive government intervention. Is it because they're just plain stupid and don't really know what Ron Paul means? Or is there something about American politics I don't get? Or is it just American politics is so stupid I can't get it? I keep coming across this. So tell me, why would a guy who has access to the Internet appear so confused about what Ron Paul means?
 
Last edited:
scott.in.taiwan said:
I keep coming across supporters of Ron Paul who claim they support all kinds of intervention in the economy. For example, there's this guy who claims he will be running for Illinois congress in 2012. He calls Paul a "new founding father of America", but then goes on here

http://www.artforcongress.webs.com/

to outline a platform that supports universal health care, abortion on demand, financial support for women with children and other massive state interventions in the economy. Somehow he also advocates lowering taxes. He comes across like a Bolshevik to me. This is not the first or only time I've come across this kind of confusion.

Now the guy's a 911 Truther, so he may not be too bright, but what's with this? How could anyone support this sort of mess of ideas?
Click to expand...
And there are atheists who voted for Obama. There are people who make over $250k who voted for Obama. I should probably preface my comments on Paul by pointing out that I voted for Obama. :)

Some policies may carry more weight with someone than another.

I have some admiration for Paul. The Republican party has surely lost its way in previous decades. Personally, I like his "GTFO" take on foreign policy and military spending the best. In fact, so much so that I might even vote for the guy if he got the Republican nomination. I disagree with his entirely hands-off social policy and saying "no" to almost any kind of spending, but I feel that our military spending and interventionism has been doing us such a disservice for generations, that 4-8 years of social stagnation would be worth it if we were able to reign-in the foreign policy/military beast to where it should be. I voted for Nader twice for the same reasons. I feel very strongly about foreign policy and military spending in a similar way that people might feel about abortion. But considering that I voted for Obama, I'm not that locked into my beliefs when I have the right motivation (Palin... shudder).

But for a truther, it may simply be because Paul seems like he goes against the grain, and truthers seem to like that. Anything outside of the mainstream.
 
Debunker said:
The mentally sane all support George W. "Mission Accomplished" Bush and Barack "Did I say "Change"?" Obama.
Click to expand...

Not at all. But Ron Paul is so far from rational that even mentally sane people who disagree with Bush and Obama also disagree with Paul.
 
scott.in.taiwan said:
I don't care about my position. Why do you? My whole point here is these Ron Paul nuts who turn around and say they support massive government intervention. Is it because they're just plain stupid and don't really know what Ron Paul means? Or is there something about American politics I don't get? Or is it just American politics is so stupid I can't get it? I keep coming across this. So tell me, why would a guy who has access to the Internet appear so confused about what Ron Paul means?
Click to expand...


Your posts are overflowing with vociferous opinion. All of a sudden your position isn't up for discussion? As you like it.

As for what's going on with the apparent dissonance between that candidate's position on Paul and on other things, all of the above. Politics can be stupid. I don't think that's a distinctly American condition. Lots of people say incongruous things. I think it's stupid to refer to increased government spending on mothers with children "Bolshevik," but that's just me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom