Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#203 - anonymous (11/15/2012) [-]
I dont get why everybody wants Ron Paul. He's anti-education, anti-abortion, and thinks global warming is fake. The only thing I could find i agree with him on is 420 bl4z3 it up. That won't make him a good president. Idk just my opinion
User avatar #246 to #203 - Ruspanic ONLINE (11/16/2012) [-]
He's not anti-education, he just thinks it should be left up to the states. Public schools are already mostly managed at the state level, and he doesn't think we need a Department of Education at the federal level.

His stance on abortion is not unreasonable. In fact if you examine the pro-life stance in general, you'll find that there's valid reasoning behind it. Most pro-lifers, including Ron Paul, believe abortion is literally murder and that the unborn have a right to life. Given that premise, it's perfectly reasonable to want to ban the practice, because nothing short of self-preservation (a medical emergency, in this case) can justify murder of an innocent. Of course you can challenge the premise, but that's a rather difficult debate to have because there's a lot of uncertainty involved.

As for the global warming thing - well, that typically isn't very high on people's list of priorities, anyway.
#263 to #246 - underaserpentsun (11/16/2012) [-]
global warming is THE most pressing problem humanity is facing and the only reasons people do not combat it are big oil propaganda and denial ('if i don't see it, it isn't there'). the poor countries are being buttraped by global warming already and it's only a matter of 50-100 years until even the first world will be in serious danger. by that time, it will be most likely too late to stop it from getting completely out of control so if we do not act yesterday, it is questionable if humanity will even witness the year 3000. and then you get a wacko like ron paul denying it....
User avatar #238 to #203 - buttgauges (11/16/2012) [-]
plus his idea on foreign affairs.. he believes world peace is possible and that we don't need a military. lol.
User avatar #267 to #238 - gildemoono (11/16/2012) [-]
We have more military spending than the next 26 highest countries put together. We could certainly cut back at the very least.
User avatar #227 to #203 - traelos (11/16/2012) [-]
Global warming is fake.
User avatar #215 to #203 - lazorman (11/15/2012) [-]
he believes in PERSONAL freedom, which is why I love him
#208 to #203 - underaserpentsun (11/15/2012) [-]
the thing that makes ron paul so attractive is that he is honest. he's a lunatic but at least he goes where his conscience is and not where the money is.
User avatar #239 to #208 - buttgauges (11/16/2012) [-]
So... just because he is honest you'd feel okay having a lunatic run your country? o.o
#248 to #239 - underaserpentsun (11/16/2012) [-]
firstly, i'm from europe, so **** you :D
secondly, HELL NO! and i never said i would. the guy above me asked himself why people support ron paul and i gave him my theory.
User avatar #206 to #203 - lazylazarus (11/15/2012) [-]
420 Blaze really dude? really
#199 - uhduhello has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #195 - roliga (11/15/2012) [-]
So he's a sore loser?
User avatar #200 to #195 - mikepetru ONLINE (11/15/2012) [-]
no, he decided to retaliate against the wave of insults and injustices he has endured throughout his campaign and his political career as a going away present to the ones who tried to silence him.
User avatar #198 to #195 - certifiedidiot ONLINE (11/15/2012) [-]
No, a sore loser would be those who wants their states to seceed from the union
User avatar #194 - gasster (11/15/2012) [-]
Britfag here, who's this dude?
User avatar #211 to #194 - crim (11/15/2012) [-]
Ron Paul he was running for president in 2012. strong proponent for pulling international expenses and focusing on fixing internal america... think hipster republican.
#202 to #194 - swagbot (11/15/2012) [-]
Ron Paul. The man who would've saved our country (I'm being hyperbolic... but srsly he would've)

watch his farewell address: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqi6paX3ong
User avatar #212 to #202 - darkjustifier (11/15/2012) [-]
#244 to #212 - swagbot (11/16/2012) [-]
yeah, you like that?

Honestly, my BritFriend, i think the U.S. is too far gone.
Those who are ignorant are numerous and aggressive.
And, those who know the truth are timid and divided.

U.S. dollar is going to be removed as the world reserve currency, and we'll watch as the storm rolls in.
#255 to #244 - darkjustifier (11/16/2012) [-]
The entire world is too far gone, the incoming storm isn't going to just affect America all the governments around the world may crash because of of what's happening now, and you're absolutely right about the timid being divided.
User avatar #201 to #194 - Viceroy ONLINE (11/15/2012) [-]
That's Ron Paul.
The internet's not sure how to feel about him.
I thought he was pretty cool.
#192 - punkrockdude (11/15/2012) [-]
Too bad he is a ******* moron, even for a politician
User avatar #277 to #192 - hammerfell (11/16/2012) [-]
"Even for a politician"? Politicians are usually extremely intelligent and hard-working. Sleazy and manipulative, yes, but just as smart and hard-working. Just saying.

But I do agree that Ron Paul is pretty ******* crazy. I respect him for sticking to his guns, but he's crazy.
#185 - wehavecandy has deleted their comment [-]
#181 - Spectricity (11/15/2012) [-]
I was actually really hoping he'd win the primaries over Romney.
Politics nowadays make moving to Denmark more appealing each day.
#297 to #181 - xavirb (11/16/2012) [-]
but theres something rotten on Denmark
User avatar #210 to #181 - darkjustifier (11/15/2012) [-]
I know that feel.
#189 to #181 - potatotown (11/15/2012) [-]
I supported him all the way through, the reason he didnt win is because he wasnt bought off and actually had good ideas, people of today are afraid of new ideas even if they would benefit the country. That and he hardly did any advertising, but his ads were always 			*******		 awesome   
Mfw R-Money won the primaries, not Ronnie-P
I supported him all the way through, the reason he didnt win is because he wasnt bought off and actually had good ideas, people of today are afraid of new ideas even if they would benefit the country. That and he hardly did any advertising, but his ads were always ******* awesome
Mfw R-Money won the primaries, not Ronnie-P
#170 - nyankat (11/15/2012) [-]
Too bad everyone wanted Obama or Romney as President..
User avatar #241 to #170 - buttgauges (11/16/2012) [-]
If he was faced against Obama, there wasn't a big chance he'd win. Lot of people didn't necessarily like Romney but thought he had the best chances.
#164 - instability (11/15/2012) [-]
ron paul is the 			******		 man
ron paul is the ****** man
User avatar #151 - Lieutenant (11/15/2012) [-]
Is that one Barack Obama?
User avatar #171 to #151 - masterbob (11/15/2012) [-]
#145 - anonymous (11/15/2012) [-]
#143 - bdowns (11/15/2012) [-]
**bdowns rolled a random image posted in comment #14334 at Politics ** Ron Paul is the man
#175 to #143 - bluebrony **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#141 - jamesisawesome (11/15/2012) [-]
Ron Paul was the only presidential candidate I liked this year.
Here's a funny pic to make up for an uninteresting comment.
#196 to #141 - nightstar (11/15/2012) [-]
Ron Paul wasn't a presidential candidate. He tried to get the GOP nomination, but that didn't happen.

Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Virgil Goode, Rocky Anderson, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney were all presidential candidates...
#149 to #141 - anonymous (11/15/2012) [-]
And the only president candidates you heard about in the media overseas, europe, were Romney and Obama
User avatar #153 to #149 - jamesisawesome (11/15/2012) [-]
We didn't really hear much about the others either, there just isn't much publicity for anyone who isn't a Democrat or Republican.
User avatar #135 - nugafluga (11/15/2012) [-]
i love u ron paul.......
#130 - basichaharemix (11/15/2012) [-]
You know, perhaps we weren't ready for Ron Paul...or maybe we didn't deserve him...
You know, perhaps we weren't ready for Ron Paul...or maybe we didn't deserve him...
User avatar #417 to #130 - potatotown (11/16/2012) [-]
We're just not ready for him, he has some of the best ideas of any of the candidates, he has actual experience, he was a doctor in the air force, not some business man or or lawyer. But people are afraid of new ideas, so they reject them
i am dissapoint
User avatar #131 to #130 - mikepetru ONLINE (11/15/2012) [-]
He's the hero the U.S. needs, but not the one that it wants
#178 to #132 - anonymusbros (11/15/2012) [-]
I laughed way harder than i should have at that.
#110 - yuknowherpderp (11/15/2012) [-]
Why does everyone on this site suck Ron Paul's dick?
Personally, I do agree that Ron Paul is correct that we need to end the drug war and end the wars in the Middle East, those are amazing ideas, and I commend him for that.

However on the other hand, he is a fundamentalist, creationist who doesn't believe in evolution, and does not believe in gay rights, he wants anti-sodomy laws, ban abortions, and make gay marriage illegal or at least allow it to be illegalized under the states.
I don't care who you are, if you aren't willing to embrace the fact that gays should be able to marry, or women can't do what they want with their body, I'm sorry, but kill yourself before you continue to pollute the gene pool.
Aside from his economic and social policies, his foreign policy and drug policy are phenomenal, that's the only thing that's awesome about him, most of the people I see who want to elect Ron Paul just want him to be elected for weed, don't be that retard, just don't.
#218 to #110 - crim has deleted their comment [-]
#174 to #110 - anonymous (11/15/2012) [-]
Look, we aren't a ******* "democracy". We're a ******* "republic". A republic is just about the worst form of government, particularly because the only ones who do vote are the ones elected to vote. The term "republic" just makes it sound nicer here, particularly because our government and opinions will always be ****** up to the point of the whole world hating us. Ron Paul in office would be a ******* improvement.
#184 to #174 - paulbot (11/15/2012) [-]
A democracy is any form of government which allows citizens to have a say in the election of government officials.
#156 to #110 - anonymous (11/15/2012) [-]
So let me get this straight....You're arguing that women should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies......and gays should be able to marry.......but you DON'T believe that everyone has the right to express their opinions? "Kill yourself." Instead of embracing the fact that we live in a democracy (although a corrupt one) where you have the right to speak your mind, you tell people to kill themselves. Please, tell me how accepting you are, you ******* cunt
User avatar #370 to #156 - yuknowherpderp (11/16/2012) [-]
Did I say they don't have a right to express their opinion? No you ******* imbecilic pile of **** , I just think they're a waste of ******* air.
#182 to #156 - paulbot (11/15/2012) [-]
Nazis are cool guys. They have the right to express their hate for gays and Jews too. Hate these ******* people who think that hating gays and Jews should be a war crime. God damn it.
#147 to #110 - basichaharemix (11/15/2012) [-]
1. Don't insult people while you are expressing your opinion.
2. Get your facts straight before expressing your opinion.
3. Don't let something that you are for (gay marriage) completely cloud your judgment on a political figure.
#140 to #110 - anonymous (11/15/2012) [-]
Ron Paul doesn't believe in banning abortion or gay marriage, he's not a fundamentalist, he's a Christian who doesn't believe in evolution but doesn't want the government to get involved as such.
Got to learn to educated, Ron Paul is pratically a Libertarian, he believes the government should stick their heads out of such.
#133 to #110 - SubjectThree (11/15/2012) [-]
We "suck his dick", as you so rudely put it because:

1. In 2002, Ron Paul predicted every economic event that has happened to the U.S. since then.
2. He is the only one who realizes both the Republican Party and Democratic parties are irreparably corrupted, despite zealously supporting Republicans in his early career.
3. Makes no attempt to hide the fact that he wants the internet to remain completely out of government legislation.
4. Realizes that the only true defense against a crazed gunman is a sane gunman.
5. Is not "pro-gay" or "anti-gay", he believes it's none of the government's damn business.
6. Calls himself pro-life, but believes that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue."
7. Spoke out against the institutionalization of public schools and how education was taking a backseat.
8. Believes that marijuana's legality should be determined on a state-by-state basis.
9. Believes that all citizens should know English because bilinguality alienates the Hispanic communities.

Suck that.
#188 to #133 - paulbot (11/15/2012) [-]
Any third party candidate thinks that both the republicans and democratic are bad.

He is a registered republican and ran for president as a republican.

Or not have a gunman in the first place.

He thinks gays are bad, but he wants the states to make gay marriage illegal, not the fed.

Anything that involves basic human rights is the feds business as well. You should not give the states the right to decide if slavery is okay or not for example.

He wants to get rid of state education entirely, which isn't speaking out against it much.

User avatar #136 to #133 - basichaharemix (11/15/2012) [-]
Ron Paul truly is the president we needed...
User avatar #290 to #136 - hammerfell (11/16/2012) [-]
Ron Paul would've been another Andrew Johnson or John Tyler; he would not have gotten **** done, because nobody in Congress likes him. If anything, Congress would be so united against him that it could override everything he tried to do.
User avatar #296 to #290 - basichaharemix (11/16/2012) [-]
Kind of what they are doing with Barack Obama...
User avatar #298 to #296 - hammerfell (11/16/2012) [-]
Obama has the help of the Democratic Senate majority, and the large chunk of the House that is also Democratic, while Ron Paul doesn't even get that.
User avatar #304 to #298 - basichaharemix (11/16/2012) [-]
The only reason why they don't like Ron Paul is he speaks the truth and they seriously cannot handle it, so this is how they retaliate which is just childish. So what if they don't like who he is as a person, listen to his policies and ideals there is something that they can agree on. Policies comes before personalities
User avatar #138 to #136 - SubjectThree (11/15/2012) [-]
That's why I voted for him in the primaries.

The only time I've ever voted.
#129 to #110 - senglish ONLINE (11/15/2012) [-]
he doesn't compromise his beliefs for his campaign.
User avatar #127 to #110 - Namezone ONLINE (11/15/2012) [-]
what's wrong with being a creationist and not believing in evolution? that doesn't make him a bad person, just one with different views than you about our origin. He believes states should make the final decisions on: gay marriage, Marijuana legalization, Abortions, (though his personal views are that he doesn't want to be gay, and believes life begins at conception) and the person(s) you got your information from was(were) also misinformed.

As for weed legalization, i don't smoke weed, but its legalization and even commercialization makes more sense than it being illegal.

(PS, stupidity isn't in your genes unless you're a neanderthal, or have a legitimate genetic defect, it's learned)
#190 to #127 - paulbot (11/15/2012) [-]
Evolution is a theory. Like gravity. Not believing in evolution is stupid.

A scientific theory, which is what evolution is - A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Life beginning at contraception is incorrect. A fetus does not have any aspects that make it fit the definition of life. It does not even have mental thought. A tree is more of a human life then a fetus.

IQ is partly determined by genes.

User avatar #283 to #190 - Namezone ONLINE (11/16/2012) [-]
literally hundreds of flaws can be found in evolutionary theory, so no, it's not stupid to refuse its validity. Refusing its validity also doesn't influence your intelligence, oddly enough. Most of the world's great minds believe(d) in creationism, so there's that.

"a tree is more human than a fetus" genetically, no. anatomically, no. developmentally, no. i know you mean that as an exaggeration, but it was a silly one.

I.Q. has little to no relation to actual intelligence, and it's a correlative relationship, not a causative one. Children separated from their parents for life have had totally different scores than their parents because of different education levels.
#123 to #110 - anonymous (11/15/2012) [-]
Woah doggy..... He believes in rights for all. He doesn't think that homosexuality is correct but he does not believe that imposing laws here on Earth is the right way to show that belief. He believes that God will handle it. You know almost nothing about this man if you believe that he thinks that gays should not have rights. He believes that, under the Federal government, all people should have the same rights.
#193 to #123 - paulbot (11/15/2012) [-]
He is against homosexuality. He thinks states should have the decision to make it illegal.
#122 to #110 - certifiedidiot has deleted their comment [-]
#121 to #110 - anonymous (11/15/2012) [-]
The world is coming to a financial collapse and all you people care for is the gays? Lol absolutely ridiculous.

This is why I can't stand you people.
#284 to #121 - fnerkfnerk (11/16/2012) [-]
The world is coming to a financial collapse and all you people care for is the making it hard for gay people to live in peace? Lol absolutely ridiculous.

This is why I can't stand you people.
User avatar #163 to #121 - makethingsworse (11/15/2012) [-]
I choose the rights of a human being over money.
User avatar #146 to #121 - certifiedidiot ONLINE (11/15/2012) [-]
I honestly do put very basic human rights, that are only opposed by religion, a thing that shouldn't have anything to do with the law and way a country is run, above the financual sector

We created money, we can create infinite amounts of money, I know money is important for the world, but I do not understand it, and I honestly ask if he are in control of the money or if it is in control of us

I just think after so many years, we need to get human rights.. Right.
User avatar #120 to #110 - mikepetru ONLINE (11/15/2012) [-]
he's not against gays being together, he just doesn't think the government should be involved in any marriage, PERIOD. Also, although he believes life starts at conception, he believes issues of abortion laws are reserved to the states. An anti- abortion person believes abortion is a violent crime, and all other violent crimes are tried by the STATE, not by the Federal government, so there should be no federal law for or against it. Ron Paul wishes to use persuasion, not force, to get people to recognize unborn children as human beings with rights.
#148 to #120 - anonymous (11/15/2012) [-]
The state government is still a ******* government. He think gay marriage, abortion, and other **** should be made illegal by state governments, but not by the fed. He is against gay marriage and abortion.

Why do people think it is okay for the state to **** people over, but if the fed does it everyone goes ******* .

The entire point of the fed originally was to protect basic rights. Saying that there should not be a federal law for certain rights is retarded.

He will never be elected president. People are uneducated about what he actually believes and say they think he would be amazing because "420 POT SMOKE 4 LYFE"

He is against the civil rights act.
You need to login to view this link
Against abortion. (a group of cells without any thought is not a human)
You need to login to view this link
He wants to get rid of most taxes which is a horrible idea for the economy for obvious reasons.
You need to login to view this link
Thinks global warming is fake.
You need to login to view this link
He thinks opening up the market and giving health care companies even more control will fix the healthcare problem, which is simply wrong. Companies exist to make money. If there are no regulations they can do whatever the **** they want to make money.
You need to login to view this link
He wants to destroy state education. This is retarded because it means people who can't afford school won't go.
You need to login to view this link

So ya, he is good on foreign policy and drugs. That is it. Every other idea he has is completely horrible. Quit getting hyped over something you don't understand.
User avatar #157 to #148 - mikepetru ONLINE (11/15/2012) [-]
for one who accuses other of not knowing what they're talking about, you seem to be abhorrently misinformed. Maybe if you actually heard in speak in depth on these issues, instead of reading a general statement on his stances from his website, you wouldn't be so arrogant.
#179 to #157 - paulbot (11/15/2012) [-]
All of the things mentioned in those links come from things he said in interviews or things from his speeches.

If you heard him speak in depth you would of gathered the same information.
User avatar #158 to #157 - mikepetru ONLINE (11/15/2012) [-]
*heard him
#118 to #110 - schutzstaffel **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#109 - cerealisticbeing **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #106 - shrike (11/15/2012) [-]
Ron Paul will become the supreme king ruler of the New Texian Union.
#105 - hauntzor (11/15/2012) [-]
Not gonna lie, love this dude, but there was one policy of his that really turned me off in voting for him.

Getting rid of income tax? How else would the government gain revenue to provide services? It seems like a real step backwards to me. inb4 tax marijuana doood 420 blaz it phaggot Maybe I just don't know anything about government so I shouldn't be making this argument.
#176 to #105 - swagbot (11/15/2012) [-]
Oh, god, another one of you people;

Let me explain this very clearly in small words for you;

1. The federal government should not have responsibilities such that they need to tax people in the first place. Not roads, not schools, not post, DEFINITELY NOT WELFARE/SOCIAL SECURITY, and only a fraction of the military they have nowadays.

2. States can charge whatever taxes they want, and set up their own services.

3. National Sales tax, perhaps?

and BTW, out of ALL this good tings RP had going for him, that 'one issue' turned you off entirely from voting? yeah.. right.
#187 to #176 - hauntzor (11/15/2012) [-]
You didn't have to talk down to me like that, especially when I literally admitted not knowing how the US government works.  It was the reason I voted so conservatively to begin with because I didn't know any better.   
Thanks for the info and for putting me in my place, I guess.
You didn't have to talk down to me like that, especially when I literally admitted not knowing how the US government works. It was the reason I voted so conservatively to begin with because I didn't know any better.

Thanks for the info and for putting me in my place, I guess.
#191 to #187 - swagbot (11/15/2012) [-]
Actually, i feel like a total asshole, because i read your comment AFTER i wrote and posted mine...

...so, yeah, sorry about that....

Here's some puppies to make up.
#197 to #191 - hauntzor (11/15/2012) [-]
Have some pizza
Have some pizza
User avatar #167 to #105 - upunkpunk (11/15/2012) [-]
Theres also the consumption tax option
#162 to #105 - bulbakip (11/15/2012) [-]
Oh sweet zombie jesus let me tackle this one.

1. those services are a myth, government takes and we get the shaft of hardly any services because the takers haven't earned the money therefore they have no incentive to provide actual good services. ie the Department of motor vehicles.

2. there was no income tax before 1912

3. there are a LOT of other tax revenue sources, like sales tax and property tax.

remember: Taxation is theft.

User avatar #108 to #105 - mikepetru ONLINE (11/15/2012) [-]
he wants to eliminate the income tax and institute a flat rate federal tax to provide only for the government services the Constitution allows the Fed to have.
User avatar #116 to #108 - mikepetru ONLINE (11/15/2012) [-]
in other words, the rate you pay will not increase because you have more money. For example:
A flat tax of 15% on an income of 300,000 dollars would yield 45000 in taxess
as opposed to
our current system which tacks on a higher percentage the richer you are
so if you have a 15% rate plus let's say extra 4% because your income is over 250,000 dollars, you would be paying 57,000 dollars as opposed to 45,000 in taxes
User avatar #113 to #108 - ragdollrade (11/15/2012) [-]
Flat rate tax is crazy unfair for the poor
#180 to #113 - swagbot (11/15/2012) [-]
you're halfway right.

- If you have a flat-fee tax, that's unfair to poor people.
- If you have a flat-rate tax, then the rich pay more overall $$$, so it's unfair to them (inb4 'they can afford it' - that's not your goddam business! It's THEIR MONEY!)
- If you have a progressive tax (rich pay less by %).... that's just retarded.

Taxes are always unfair.
#128 to #113 - daytoday **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #126 to #113 - koobzacc (11/15/2012) [-]
In what way is equality unfair?
User avatar #173 to #126 - ragdollrade (11/15/2012) [-]
Applying say a ten percent tax rate to all incomes mean that higher income groups pay more and lower income groups pay less in terms of amount, and as such is deemed fair by you. Simplifying the counter-argument for the sake of time; Consider needs, housing, food, water, clothing etc. costs a constant amount for a household and this takes up a smaller percentage of total income for higher income groups, f.ex 40% for middle income households approx, but 80% for lower income households, a 10 percent flat tax rate will take away 50% of the lower class remaining purchasing power, whilst taking away only 16% of the middle income houses purchasing power, and for high income households only take away close to 10% purchasing power (if needs cost <1% of income). These extreme differences in loss of purchasing power is what makes flat tax rates unfair.
User avatar #477 to #173 - koobzacc (11/16/2012) [-]
but increasing taxes on the rich doesnt make that 80% any easier on the poor. I think what you are really trying to say is "flat taxes are too easy on the rich" not "flat taxes are too hard on the poor"

The amount of money taxed on a rich man has little to no affect on the quality of life of a poor man.
User avatar #485 to #477 - ragdollrade (11/16/2012) [-]
I am saying flat taxes are too straining on the poor and too insignificant for the rich
#107 to #105 - schutzstaffel **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#104 - deathkrogan (11/15/2012) [-]
I don't mean to be a little bitch but he only said that because he was leaving not during...
#112 to #104 - schutzstaffel **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)