What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #17 - allamericandude (05/11/2012) [-]
Ron Paul isn't against gay marriage, he just doesn't condone it personally. Same with marijuana. I think OP just assumed that Ron Paul was a stereotypical Republican.
User avatar #503 to #17 - runici (05/12/2012) [-]
i love how anal people get about nation wide political issues that, in the long run, will only affect kids who are testing on these things fifty years from now
#393 to #17 - BraveSirRobin (05/12/2012) [-]
<-- this entire thread
#50 to #17 - pandacub has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #45 to #17 - ninjastarthrow (05/11/2012) [-]
How in the **** did you get 75 green thumbs. Oh because Funnyjunk is full of retarded teenagers who are for "Legalizing pot maaannnn." That's all they see Ron Paul for. The stupid drugs. He's not going to make it. Romney is, and if Romney makes it, then Obama is guaranteed presidency. Ron Paul is just a senile old man that doesn't know **** about **** .
User avatar #100 to #45 - ozzytehfuneh (05/11/2012) [-]
i don't know why you have negative thumbs cause you are right. that's how everybody at my school is like "Dude Romney gonna legalize the pottttt hells yeah bro."
User avatar #103 to #100 - ninjastarthrow (05/11/2012) [-]
Exactly! They don't even look at anything else. Just the Marijuana. That's all they see. They're willing to ruin this country so they do what they do all the time anyway, only thing is they now can do it outside. Whoop de doo.
#219 to #103 - thethirdparty (05/11/2012) [-]
Ron Paul's views are consistent since like 1988, he doesnt know **** about **** ? Looks like you have no ******* idea who you're talking about. First Ron Paul is actually getting somewhere with his campaign he wont drop out because he is actually being kind of successful and only need 1 more state to go to the convention. Also "ruin the country" RON PAUL WILL GET **** DONE, romney is a ******* moron, it only takes 3 hours for him to change his ******* mind, he just says **** so other people vote for him and his supporters are SO MUCH WORSE, one handed out fake Ron paul pamphlets during one of the primaries, they tried to get more people inside the voting after the designated time, they even tried to start **** when everyone was on lunch break. Ron Paul is actually giving people some liberties back wheather or not hes legalizing pot i have no ******* idea, but he believes that a smaller government is better for the people as they get a say in it SO THEN CONGRESS WILL NOT ******* PASS RANDOM ASS LAWS SO EASILY, did you know CISPA passed (SOPA 2.0). Ron paul is not any normal politician he did not major in politics but in science and is kinda like a ******* doctor, now it really shows that you dont know **** when a someone who DIDNT EVEN MAJOR IN POLITICS IS KICKING YOUR ASS IN BEING ONE, thats why romney's retarded, obamas no better ill give him credit for killing osama but wheres all the other **** he promised? HE TOOK TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ 3 ******* YEARS AFTER HE WAS ELECTED, I MEAN WTF ARE YOU DOING THIS FOR YOUR CAMPAIGN? Obama wont do **** until 4 years later, RON PAUL WILL START THE ******* SECOND HE GETS INTO OFFICE.
RON PAUL you're our last hope

#496 to #219 - whalefister (05/12/2012) [-]
this is what i was thinking about halfway through your comment
#410 to #219 - wabbajock **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#351 to #219 - fearian (05/11/2012) [-]

Didn't read.
#32 to #17 - deltadeltadelta (05/11/2012) [-]
Ron Paul wants to get rid of the institution of marriage altogether. He doesn't believe they should be recognized by the state.

Every Libertarian I've ever met has been an ignorant teen/young adult that hear he's for legalizing marijuana (and all drugs in general), and then willfully ignore everything else he has to say. The other people are white supremacists and conspiracy theorists, they just hate government.

First off, he's unconditionally opposed to abortion. Doesn't matter if childbirth will kill the mother, it's totally unacceptable. He believes birth should be determined by God. He also doesn't believe in the 1st amendment's establishment clause of the separation of church & state. Obviously not someone you want to vote for if you aren't Christian.

Ron Paul wants to abolish nearly every state institution/organization. This includes the Departments of Education, Development, Energy, Commerce, Interior, Housing along with the FBI, CIA, FDA, just every federal law enforcement and regulatory organization. This means murderers can simply cross state lines and be free. It means there is no intelligence agency defending the United States. No FDA means there's no one to make sure your food, water or meds are safe to consume. No regulation also means no one to keep an eye on unethical business practices such as banks being able to do anything they want with your money. If you don't like what they do with your money, then you should find another bank, this is Ron Paul's philosophy. He believes that the economy will regulate itself, which is absurd because if it regulated itself then there wouldn't be any need for these regulations in the first place.

A Ron Paul America would be a nation without any real federal government. States would be nations unto themselves.
#485 to #32 - anon (05/12/2012) [-]
R.I.P. Christopher Hitchens
User avatar #471 to #32 - Krystoking ONLINE (05/12/2012) [-]
It's true that Ron Paul doesn't believe in full separation of church and state, but that's because he believes that religion can create a moral basis. Personally I'm an atheist, and I don't agree with him in this case, but every politician has his downsides.

On abortion, it's also true that he is very much against it, however he also claims that the ninth and tenth amendment does not grant a federal government to legalize or ban abortion. He instead believes that these decisions should be made at state level.

Now, onto the economy. Ron Paul doesn't want to "abolish" those institutions/organizations. He wants to create cuts. This does NOT mean that when "murderers can simply cross state lines and be free". In fact, I'm pretty sure FBI and CIA, was not on his list of economic cuts, unless it's part of the "10% federal workforce cut". However, if you find a source, I'd be glad to see it, I'll admit I'm not 100% on this. The FDA on the other hand would receive a 40% cut, not disappear completely. Also, it's not that the economy will simply "regulate itself", it's that Ron Paul believes in a free economy. A socialist government would never work in economical terms. He understands that the more freedom there is within an economy, the better it works. That's why Ron Paul was able to make his famous predictions, he understands the economy better then most other politicians.

I also believe in Ron Paul's idea of a small government, where it upholds necessities, instead of imposing on the freedom of the country.
User avatar #493 to #471 - Krystoking ONLINE (05/12/2012) [-]
Sorry there's a mistake:

This does NOT mean that when he goes along with his plan, "murderers can simply cross state lines and be free".
User avatar #371 to #32 - cshp (05/12/2012) [-]
I thought most younger people were Liberals as opposed to Libertarians.
#310 to #32 - greasychesticles (05/11/2012) [-]

For a second it seemed the whole internet had jumped on the bandwagon
User avatar #267 to #32 - glasgowrangers (05/11/2012) [-]
You've been watching CNN i see lol
User avatar #286 to #267 - deltadeltadelta (05/11/2012) [-]
I don't watch TV, nor am I an American. I'm just a Canadian well versed in American history and politics.
User avatar #295 to #286 - glasgowrangers (05/11/2012) [-]
Ron Paul is not against national defence. He even wants to use space to utilize national defence needs.

Do you really think the FDA runs about all day making sure the water is safe for all the poorer people?

do you really think the FBI are only interested in catching murderers and dangerous criminals?

" He believes that the economy will regulate itself, which is absurd because if it regulated itself then there wouldn't be any need for these regulations in the first place."
That's kind of his whole point. Regulation would be good if it was legit maybe, but it never is.

"States would be nations unto themselves"

Ron Paul would be commander in chief of the army. He would control that. It's also my belief he would have control over the tax rates which would be significantly lowered. If you localise power you will get more accountability and better democracy.

States would still work with each other very much. In Britain for example, we have different countries and no FBI, but if a murder kills someone in Scotland and jumps over the border to England is he safe? No, because police forces within our countries work and communicate with each other.
User avatar #324 to #295 - deltadeltadelta (05/11/2012) [-]
I don't know where you're getting this from. Ron Paul advocates massive defense cuts, creating a small standing military supplemented by militia.

No food or drugs go on the shelves without FDA approval. Everything is tested to make sure its safe for consumption and legitimate. Prior to the FDA, it was far too common to find people selling miracle tonics or spoiled meat (which killed people). There are licenses needed to sell meat now, and they're regulated by the FDA.

Yes, that's what the FBI does. They do interstate law enforcement.

How are regulations not "legit"?

Federal taxes would be largely eliminated. Under Ron Paul, there would be no income tax. Nearly all your tax dollars would go straight to the state government.
User avatar #504 to #324 - glasgowrangers (05/12/2012) [-]
Ron Paul does not advocate large defence cuts at all. And he specifically said that in a debate about Space exploration

Ron Paul advocates pulling a lot of their troops back to America from all their military bases around the world. This saves money, but how is it cutting defence money? Do you think these bases around the world are "defensive"? If not, you can't claim he is cutting defence.

Ron Paul wants a LARGE military. Just as big as it is now. The only difference is he wants them stationed around America instead of other countries.

I dont think i'll convince you about the FDA and FBI so i'll agree to disagree and i do think it's less of a black and white argument, but if you think Ron Paul wants to cut troop numbers you are wrong because time after time he has said that he does not want to do this.
User avatar #509 to #504 - deltadeltadelta (05/12/2012) [-]
Sir, you're severely misinformed. You need to take a gander at his positions. I don't know where you're getting this from.

The FDA and FBI are necessities, it's why they exist. Both organizations have existed since the early 20th century. Local and state police forces are confined to their jurisdiction. The entire United States is the jurisdiction of the FBI. If it wasn't for the FDA, companies could be selling miracle drugs that say they cure things like hair loss, but just ended up causing liver failure. As I said, prior to the FDA this was a widespread problem. If you don't see the value and necessity of these organizations, than I feel sorry for you.
User avatar #510 to #509 - glasgowrangers (05/12/2012) [-]
Something existing does not prove it's necessity

I get his positions from listening to him. He does not want to cut troop numbers. Apart from he wants less generals.

So a police force in State A couldn't communicate with police force from State B? Is that impossible?

Do people still suffer from food poisoning? Yes

People do still sell drugs that have all sorts of worse side effects than the thing they are meant to be treating. Anti depressants can cause suicidal tendencies. The FDA does f all about this because the drug companies that make them are so rich
#183 to #32 - muffinsauce has deleted their comment [-]
#173 to #32 - GoodGood (05/11/2012) [-]
mfw i finally understand who that is in the picture and why you included.
User avatar #48 to #32 - allamericandude (05/11/2012) [-]
I suggest you do a bit more research, because almost nothing of what you said actually matches up with what Ron Paul believes. He doesn't want to ban marriage--he's actually quite religious. He just believes the government shouldn't be involved in saying who can marry whom--which, if you're a liberal, you should at least agree with THAT.

He doesn't "unconditionally" oppose abortion. He wants the states to decide, but he has personally said that he only REALLY opposes late-term abortions--but being religious he also believes that fetuses are people.

As for you accusation that he doesn't believe in the 1st Amendment--if you had actually listened to what he says for more than 5 seconds, you would know that he is a VERY strict Constitutionalist. He WANTS separation of Church and State. In fact he has used the 1st Amendment to argue FOR gay marriage--saying that marriage is a religious sacrament, and banning homosexuals from marrying inhibits their 1st Amendment rights to practice their religion.

And as a libertarian, I personally resent the accusation that we're druggies, white supremacists, and conspiracy theorists. First of all, if someone is a white supremacist, by DEFINITION they can NOT be a libertarian. Libertarianism is social liberalism plus fiscal conservatism, and racism falls under social conservatism.

Libertarianism is essentially pro-freedom for everybody. In a Libertarian society, businesses can NOT cheat or steal or commit fraud--because market forces are much stricter regulators than the government. But I'm not here to start an economics debate.

As for you, I want to warn you that marginalizing and demonizing people based on their political ideologies is a very slippery slope which leads to the very sort of bigotry you claim to oppose. It's a shame that you posted a picture of Christopher Hitches, because--though I staunchly disagree with his economic beliefs--he was a great thinker and wouldn't resort to such hyperbolic marginalizations as you did.
#166 to #48 - mrsgttaters **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #185 to #166 - deltadeltadelta (05/11/2012) [-]
The 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

The term "Separation of Church & State" is from Everson v. Board of Education.

Government sha'll not prefer one religion over another religion or religion over irreligion.
#190 to #185 - mrsgttaters **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #400 to #190 - thephantur (05/12/2012) [-]
Oh dear Minerva you're retarded.
User avatar #196 to #190 - deltadeltadelta (05/11/2012) [-]
Yes it is. It's on the original Bill of Rights.

The first amendment in its entirety: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Furthermore, this is the same Bill of Rights that says Blacks are only 3/5 of a person. The Bill of Rights contains the original first 10 amendments. The Constitution is also composed of multiple documents, not just the Bill of Rights.
#216 to #196 - mrsgttaters **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#204 to #196 - mrsgttaters **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #271 to #204 - deltadeltadelta (05/11/2012) [-]
Separation of church & state is a phrase that expresses the 1st amendment and its religious clause. The supreme court ruling was over whether or not it applied to states as well and not just the federal government.

Also, you can't just dismiss any amendment that's not in the original Bill of Rights, otherwise slavery would still be legal and women wouldn't be allowed to vote.

It' says it quite clearly in the original Bill of Rights, the document which now sits in the National Archives. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". I don't know where you get the idea that it means congress is free to make laws respecting a religion. To give context, read John Adams's (The second POTUS) address to the Barbary States.

Furthermore, many of the founding fathers weren't even Christians. Most were Freemasons and Deists. Freemasonry symbols can be seen on American currency. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were all Deists. Ever heard of the "Jeffersonian Bible"? It was Thomas Jefferson's bible, it was a small, thinly thing because it had the vast majority of the pages ripped out of it. He ripped out every page he didn't like.

You might want to stop commenting before you're drowned in red thumbs.
#293 to #271 - mrsgttaters **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #334 to #293 - deltadeltadelta (05/11/2012) [-]
Yes, it does say so in the constitution. The constitution isn't a single document, I'm not sure why you're not getting that. It's composed of multiple documents throughout the history of the United States. I'm not sure what you think the constitution is.

The federal government banned gay marriage in 1996. The US has always been a deeply religious country, but Catholics, Baptists, Evangelicals, etc were always feuding among one another, they distrusted one another and so there was no unified Christian identity. Not until abortion and gay marriage became hot topics in the 20th century, did these religious groups band together. Bill Clinton for example is regarded as most religious President in US history, due to how frequently he went to church.

Gay marriage however is a state-by-state issue and will remain so until its brought before the SCOTUS.

Where are you getting this regulation stuff from?
#206 to #204 - mrsgttaters **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#121 to #48 - deltadeltadelta (05/11/2012) [-]
You should take your own advice. You're defending Ron Paul because you identify with Libertarianism. You evidently know little about him, and Libertarianism.

He doesn't believe in the separation of church & state, this is fact. He can call himself a strict constitutionalist all he likes, but I don't see him defending the clause that Blacks are only 3/5 of a human being. Ron Paul is a human, he's infallible and it's disheartening to see such a radical being treated as a paragon.

You've been deeply misled if you think Libertarianism is "social liberalism" and "fiscal conservatism" (both of which are unique and complex ideologies). Libertarianism is little different from Anarcho-Capitalism. The single difference being Minarchism. Libertarians believe in total civil and economic liberty. Ron Paul however styles himself as a "Conservative Libertarian", which is because he believes in some restrictions, such as outlawing abortion. I've found that when teens/young adults like yourself say they're a Libertarian, they really just mean Liberal.

White Supremacists can indeed be Libertarians. Just because the look down upon other races, doesn't mean they advocate subjugating them. Contemporary white supremacists just want a racially homogenous society (whites only).

History has shown us without fail that laissez-faire doesn't work. It's disastrous, always. Financial institutions and corporations are by nature predatory, which is why regulations are needed. Journalists already don't do their job and are legally free to intentionally lie all they like. You think journalists would do a better job in an unregulated economy and be capable of forcing banks and companies to change?

You think society would be better if there was no organization preventing companies from using leaded paint in toys or if investment banks were free to take extraordinary risks, which creates bubbles that inevitably crash the economy?

I'm not using hyperbole. Everything I've said is entirely true.
User avatar #495 to #121 - allamericandude (05/12/2012) [-]
Honestly, I was going to respond to all of that, but this thread has sort of...exploded...and I don't really feel like adding to it. You think I'm wrong. I think you're wrong. You don't like Ron Paul, so don't vote for him. Other than that, what can I say?
#280 to #121 - spacelubber (05/11/2012) [-]
In response to your argument about journalism: Yes. Journalists are entirely capable of doing their job in a relatively unregulated economy. As a matter of fact, the muckrakers of the Progressive Era did EXACTLY that. They brought news of corruption and malpractice to the masses.

However, I will concede that Yellow Journalists, those who came before the muckrakes, did exactly as you predict.

It is also entirely note-worthy to add in that the muckrakers worked FOR reform.

Only replied because you asked the question in the first place. :)
User avatar #52 to #48 - allamericandude (05/11/2012) [-]
User avatar #46 to #32 - ninjastarthrow (05/11/2012) [-]
Ron Paul will surely be the next G.W. Bush. He will **** up everything Obama has ever worked for.

#232 to #46 - thethirdparty (05/11/2012) [-]
oh **** awesome
he will **** up all of obama's "changes"
wait "promises" is a better word, wait
" **** he puts on his do to list when his time in presidency is running out"

seriously he isnt that good i mean osama bin laden's death sure but do you even know the **** hes done, the law during new years eve or the reasons why he did not support a specific bill made by congress because it did not give him enough power, WHY THE **** ARE WE STILL AT WAR STILL?
IM not saying hes a bad person compared to romney
im just saying that "change" will BE A WHOLE ******* LOT FASTER IF YOU VOTE FOR RON PAUL. HE WILL GET **** DONE

#193 to #46 - anon (05/11/2012) [-]
>implying Obama has worked
#54 to #46 - DeepSilver (05/11/2012) [-]
#18 to #17 - anon (05/11/2012) [-]
i actually bothered doing 88-9 just so I could thumb your comment up
 Friends (0)