arfink Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) I'm not entirely sure I agree with the ideas put forth in this image, especially seeing as this was published by the somewhat leftist Mother Jones website, but it seems to basically describe Ron Paul in a nutshell- he doesn't fit with ANYONE out there. [img]https://motherjones.com/files/images/venn-of-paul.jpg[/img] EDIT: If you have ever read Mother Jones you'll know they attempt to sound unbiased and fair, which only amounts to them declaring each and every politician who comes into their cross hairs a complete dirtbag. But they do tend to swing to targets on the right a good bit more. After all, sniping Obama is obligatory these days in order to sound unbiased, but sniping GOP candidates is just so darned fun. Edited January 7, 2012 by arfink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePenciledOne Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Honestly that is why we need him. He [u]does not[/u] fit with anyone, which is precisly why he's the best pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgiiMichael Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 I don't think "Anti-government" is an accurate descriptor. I think "Anti-big government" is better. And something that both parties love, despite what a lot of Republicans say. I'm really glad by how well he did in Iowa. I can't wait to see what the coming months will bring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Well, unfortunately almost all of Ron Paul's ideas in this diagram are 'anti-' (what he is against), without it being entirely clear what he is for. (Even the pro-life designation means he is against abortion, of course.) While I understand that politics has to simplify things to 'are you for it or against it?' I think it'd be helpful for candidates to spend a bit more time talking about what they are for. 'I want to dismantle ALL THE THINGS' is not a political platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FutureCarmeliteClaire Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 [quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1325967178' post='2364557'] Well, unfortunately almost all of Ron Paul's ideas in this diagram are 'anti-' (what he is against), without it being entirely clear what he is for. (Even the pro-life designation means he is against abortion, of course.) While I understand that politics has to simplify things to 'are you for it or against it?' I think it'd be helpful for candidates to spend a bit more time talking about what they are for. 'I want to dismantle ALL THE THINGS' is not a political platform. [/quote] Well, the anti part means that he is pro whatever the other word is NOT. That doesn't really make any sense, I can't explain anything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgiiMichael Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 [quote name='FutureCarmeliteClaire' timestamp='1325969251' post='2364569'] Well, the anti part means that he is pro whatever the other word is NOT. That doesn't really make any sense, I can't explain anything... [/quote] Precisely. Ron Paul is pro- small federal government and pro- states rights. That's the logical pro- on the anti- big government side. As for anti- intervention, he is pro- international sovereignty, in other words, he thinks that the United States should let other nations handle their own problems in the ways that they want to, instead of forcing the American will on other nations. This is something I strongly support. Anti- war means pro- peace. Anti- Patriot Act means pro- private citizen and privacy. Anti- tax means pro- capitalism and pro- privatization. Anti- immigration is pro- lower class, because immigrants primarily take the lower paying jobs away from the lower class. Anti- abortion is pro- life, that's true, but pro- life is so much more than anti- abortion as gets pointed out on this forum quite often. I'm not too familiar with his anti- NAFTA stance, but I argued pretty successfully in a paper for my moral philosophy course last semester that NAFTA was a moral evil, so I'm okay with being anti- NAFTA as a stand alone stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 occasionally I'll see on facebook some uber-republican conservative friend talking to an uber-liberal democrat friend when they both find out they love Ron Paul. they then proceed to debate a little bit about their differences on issues, but it amazes me how the whole tone of the conversation has been changed. makes me smile and hope for the future of America a bit are Libertarians really pro-NAFTA, btw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Seriously, I would not trust Ron Paul as president based on his foreign policy, but American presidental candidates always have terrible foreign policy and know they don't have to win their elections on that (it's the economy, stupid.) But the most encouraging thing about Ron Paul to me is that he seems to be an answer to the complete polarization of Republicans and Democrats in this country. He isn't just pretending to be middle of the road to get just enough votes to be elected - he has some potential to unite people and scale back the hateful rhetoric. I find that...encouraging. We'll see how things go. He'll likely do well in New Hampshire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgiiMichael Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 [quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1325975366' post='2364615'] Seriously, I would not trust Ron Paul as president based on his foreign policy, but American presidental candidates always have terrible foreign policy and know they don't have to win their elections on that (it's the economy, stupid.) But the most encouraging thing about Ron Paul to me is that he seems to be an answer to the complete polarization of Republicans and Democrats in this country. He isn't just pretending to be middle of the road to get just enough votes to be elected - he has some potential to unite people and scale back the hateful rhetoric. I find that...encouraging. We'll see how things go. He'll likely do well in New Hampshire. [/quote] What exactly do you have against his foreign policy? What's the problem with not interfering with the sovereignty of other nations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePenciledOne Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 [quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1325975366' post='2364615'] Seriously, I would not trust Ron Paul as president based on his foreign policy, but American presidental candidates always have terrible foreign policy and know they don't have to win their elections on that (it's the economy, stupid.) [/quote] But when in recent years have Americans ever been concerned with anything farther then our borders? Besides it dealing with us directly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Ron Paul doesn't really fit in with anyone because he's willing to step outside the box and think for himself. I was talking to my husband about this very thing -- we talk about not being happy with the status quo, that the system is broken and real change is needed, and yet when anyone such as Paul tries to do just that, people brand them wackos. Whether or not people agree with him, Ron Paul is one of the very few better-known politicians out there that is willing to actually challenge the way things are done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 stupid diagram. nobody is pro-war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arfink Posted January 8, 2012 Author Share Posted January 8, 2012 [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1325993705' post='2364795'] stupid diagram. nobody is pro-war [/quote] Wrong. http://www.diligence.com/index.html http://www.academi.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xe_Services Lots of people absolutely LOVE war. It's a real money maker, and places like Academi and Xe (formerly Blackwater) prove that there do exist people who love killing other people so much that they'll give up their souls to be paid to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmaD2006 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) [quote name='GeorgiiMichael' timestamp='1325972729' post='2364592'] Anti- immigration is pro- lower class, because immigrants primarily take the lower paying jobs away from the lower class. [/quote] This is sooo not true .... to be anti-immigration is to continue to perpetuate a sort of racism that is in this country (the US). It is also serves to change what this country was based of. This country, at least in the form that it takes now, was derived of immigrants coming for a fresh start. To be anti-immigration changes the entire fiber of this country in a negative way. To be realistic, every country (and I mean every) has people who enter the country illegally or overstay their visa. A lot of other countries are not as strict about work policies, so that a person (illegal or not) can work in the country to earn a living. I have a difficult time with seeing the suffering of those who are in this country illegally and cannot earn a (decent) living. Not to mention some of the living conditions. To be anti-immigration is not pro-lower class. Not if you consider the condition that a lot of illegal immigrants live in. And the work abuses that are present. And the lower pay. How is anti-immigration pro-lower class if the "illegal immigrant" class isn't taken into account? To be anti-immigration is in my opinion contradictory to being pro-life. I do think the immigration laws need to be fair, need to be clear, and need to provide a way for those who are in this country illegally for years (meaning 10, 15, 20 years) a way to become legal without having to dismantle their entire lives. Fair immigration laws/policies that take into account the human person and the particular situations without dividing families would be pro-life. Anything else is really anti-life and anti-family. Edited January 8, 2012 by cmariadiaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgiiMichael Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 cmariadiaz, you didn't really deny the fact that the jobs that immigrants take are jobs that the jobless lower class of citizens would have if not for immigration. I don't deny that many anti-immigration advocates are fueled by racist sentiments, but in the overarching purview of Ron Paul's foreign policy, that isn't really the case. Also, your point as to being anti-immigration not being pro-life isn't really that clear or convincing. The point about breaking up families really only sheds light on how much American citizenship laws need to be reformed. They're outdated by more than 200 years. Before America can even begin to think of solving the wider world's problems, it needs to sort out it's own house. That is what Ron Paul wants. America sorted out. As an American who cringes at what our great society has become, I can't help but agree with this sentiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now