Support NeoGAF

[Estocolmo]

You're a Reconstructionist?

So you're expecting a racist to not be racist?

I guess I can understand, somewhat. But being a politician isn't like being an actor. Actor's take on roles. Politicians are the same pieces of shit that they are in regular life.

Votes for politician based on his principles. Doesn't care that he has no principles.

"We need to remove the incentive--easy road to citizenship. Nobody has mentioned the fact that they qualify for welfare benefits. The state of Texas shouldn't be forced to provide free health care and free education." Ron Paul.

Except that he does involve his racism in his political policies. He's real quiet about it, but he certainly does do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjWArYwsUuY

Says it all basically.

 

[Derwind]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjWArYwsUuY

Says it all basically.

Dumbest thing I've heard. Basically sleep with the devil just so long as you get yours.

If a politician wears a pointy white hood, you better fucking believe he's not getting my vote.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

I always test as independent, or libertarian, on political quizzes.

But I don't identify with any party. I just judge each issue on how I feel, not by some party line or something.

 

[Kusagari]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjWArYwsUuY

Says it all basically.

I certainly trust a homophobic racist to have good policies for minorities.

 

[remist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjWArYwsUuY

Says it all basically.

This only works if you trust said politician to keep these flaws from influencing future policy decisions. How can you trust someone who is ethically bankrupt or ignorant enough to be a racist or proudly keep racist company? Racism, creationism, homophobia, and bigotry should be disqualifying. And that's not even getting into how harmful Paul's specific policy's are.

 

[-COOLIO-]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjWArYwsUuY

Says it all basically.

if politicians were contractually obligated to do everything they promised and nothing else then this kind of thinking might work.

 

[linsivvi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjWArYwsUuY

Says it all basically.

Dumbest post in the thread.

And that says a lot.

 

[Big Baybee]

Fox news agrees with you

Did this really happen in this thread? Lol wow

 

[ivysaur12]

I laugh at whoever claiming that Paul is good on civil liberties. He's against social securities. He's against government health care. He's for DOMA. He wants to ban abortion. He's for capital punishment. He wants to abolish public schools. He didn't want to renew the Voting Rights Act. I could go forever.

Exactly. But he's for pot, and that affects a few lonely Libertarians, so he's a god.

 

[B-Dubs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjWArYwsUuY

Says it all basically.

This only works if you trust said politician to keep these flaws from influencing future policy decisions. How can you trust someone ethically bankrupt or ignorant enough to be a racist or proudly keep racist company. Racism, creationism, homophobia, and bigotry should be disqualifying. And that's not even getting into how harmful Paul's specific policy's are.

This. Also Paul isn't able to keep his beliefs out of his votes so it absolutely matters what he believes.

Did this really happen in this thread? Lol wow

And yet it wasn't the worst post in the thread.

 

[dead souls]

Exactly. But he's for pot, and that affects a few lonely Libertarians, so he's a god.

If you're high enough you can forget how his other shitty positions are screwing you over.

 

[CornBurrito]

I don't get how someone can think a politician (or any person in the world that ever existed) can keep their beliefs out of their decision making process. Any decision you make factors in your current beliefs. You may consciously exclude some, or consciously include some, but your beliefs undeniably impact your decisions.

 

[Estocolmo]

Im surprised to read so many responses to one post/user. But there is a limit on how often I can say the same thing over and over again in different variations. No more from me!

 

[The Librarian]

because the constitution was written by humans hundreds of years ago and is demonstrably flawed and dated. Strict constitutionalism is a sign of mental deficiency.

Needs to be repeated until it gets more mainstream attention.

 

[CornBurrito]

Im surprised to read so many responses to one post/user. But there is a limit on how often I can say the same thing over and over again in different variations. No more from me!

Linking a youtube video was certainly a lot of effort.

 

[Link]

Did this really happen in this thread? Lol wow

It's not even a good photoshop. It that picture fools you, you must be desperate to believe it.

 

[Derwind]

It's not even a good photoshop. It that picture fools you, you must be desperate to believe it.

Yeah the head is anatomically incorrect in size. Its like a bobble head doll.

 

[Estocolmo]

Linking a youtube video was certainly a lot of effort.

OK next time ill be sure to write an academical examination.

 

[equippedwithtowel]

OK next time ill be sure to write an academical examination.

Or post a video that won't draw such well deserved ire.

Whatever works for you.

 

[Derwind]

OK next time ill be sure to write an academical examination.

You don't even need to work that hard, just give me one good reason I should allow myself to be represented by a person that openly dislikes my ethnicity. Lets start with that. Because you've stated the politicians personal beliefs shouldn't matter but their policy and voting record.

People have rebutted your claim about voting record, suggesting its not a valuable indicator of whether they'll be able to keep their personal beliefs out of their policies as their influence grows.

People have criticized the assertion(not sure if its your claim) that if a politician votes for a few policies that you like, its reasonable to overlook the rest of their voting record and policies they've helped construct that are bigoted and insular.

So just start by giving me one good reason to convince me to vote for an individual of the Aryan brotherhood, just one convincing tidbit and if you can accomplish that, I and I'm sure everyone else will end this discussion quickly and walk out with our tails between our legs.

=)

 

[Stinkles]

Ron Paul fans aren't going to be swayed by rational argument about the candidate - it's a cult of personality built on the pretense that Paul is a highly principled individual with a unique message.

they believe in a version of him that hasn't ever been accurately and are a group of people who can somehow dismiss virulent racism, homophobia, anti-science and naked intellectual and literal dishonesty because those are just "character flaws."

and that's just the ones who are discomfited by those flaws.

there are plenty who silently agree with him too.

Ron Paul is basically a bag of irrational hatred and paranoia.

if you agree with one or two of his positions then why not help support a politician who isn't so vile?

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Libertarian thoughts are synonymous with Austrian economics which believes in the pseudoscience of praxeology which is "not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts." as quoted by Mises.

 

[ridethepiggy]

Fox news agrees with you

You're trolling right???

 

[The Technomancer]

Libertarian thoughts are synonymous with Austrian economics which believes in the pseudoscience of praxeology which is "not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts." as quoted by Mises.

Huh, good reading. I knew the basic outlines of the "empirical approaches to economics don't work" but I didn't realize that the original thinker literally held that his axioms of human behavior were some kind of transcendent truth also not beholden to empirical analysis.

Just where did he think the axioms came from then? Even claiming that they're self-evident implies evidence.

 

[televator]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjWArYwsUuY

Says it all basically.

I just popped in to this thread....

Everyone with at least a half decent grip on sanity knows why this is laughable.

 

[ridethepiggy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjWArYwsUuY

Says it all basically.

Did you really do this? Really? Why in the hell would I trust a racist homophobe creationist to advance policy that didnt hurt minorities, homosexuals, and science?

 

[CHEEZMO™]

lol that video. Opened it, read the title, thought "yup, sounds like RON PAUL 2012", closed it when the weird eyebrows came on.

 

[KuwabaraTheMan]

Ron Paul is a disgusting person, basically. I'm not surprised that people like him, but I'm shocked that anyone could, with a straight face, argue that he's good for civil liberties.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

I'll quote myself from that youtube video comment section:

Have some fucking standards, jesus. We're talking about public office, not the head of your community college fraternity.

Have our politics sunken so low where our choices can be whittled down to "paragon of virtue with poor policies" vs "complete fucking scumbag with great policies"? There are no decent people with decent ideas, anywhere?

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Because he hits a couple home runs, specifically in regards to our military policies and drug enforcement legislation. He doesn't just get it more right than most other recent presidential candidates: he explores the absurdity of the war on drugs and our constant military aggression with enough eloquence to make you think, "Thank you! Why are none of the other presidential candidates saying this?"

Of course, other politicians are saying this, even if they aren't presidential candidates. Bernie Sanders, for example. Further, when Ron Paul doesn't hit a home run, he strikes out hard; he has explicitly anti-scientific views about economics, climatology, and biology, among others, and his views obviously act as dog whistles for many racists and bigots. But I can understand the appeal of those few home runs; it's refreshing to see a major politician say these things out loud and without euphamism in a presidential debate. For non-pragmatic presidential candidates, however, people like Bernie Sanders are still far superior, because they hit the same home runs as Ron Paul without the anti-scientific baggage or hate group connections. They just aren't running for president.

Gary Johnson was running for president

 

[ivysaur12]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjWArYwsUuY

Says it all basically.

No, because this policies are clearly a reflection on his (at best) apathy for the plight of minorities in this country.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

because the constitution was written by humans hundreds of years ago and is demonstrably flawed and dated. Strict constitutionalism is a sign of mental deficiency.

It's a good thing that the Constitution can be amended, right? It's happened a bunch of times before, and it's even been un-amended.

The problem is less that the Constitution is "strict" or "dated", and more that some people are pissed that their pet project can't get the support it needs to be added. So, they turn to demanding that some bureaucrats step in and change it, democratic process be damned.