GENIUS FORUMS

Check it out: Ron Paul and Lao Tzu share the same political philosophy. These are some chapters from the Tao Te Ching that most directly speak to Paul's policies, though Paul's philosophy is in harmony with the rest of the work as well.

From the Stephen Mitchell translation of the Tao te Ching by Lao Tzu:

Chapter 17

When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.

If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.

The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing:
we did it, all by ourselves!"

Chapter 30

Whoever relies on the Tao in governing men
doesn't try to force issues
or defeat armies by force of arms.
For every force there is a counterforce.
Violence, even well intentioned,
always rebounds upon oneself.

The Master does his job
and then stops.
He understands that the universe
is forever out of control,
and that trying to dominate events
goes against the current of the Tao.
Because he believes in himself,
he doesn't try to convince others.
Because he is content with himself,
he doesn't need others' approval.
Because he accepts himself,
the whole world accepts him.

Chapter 31

Weapons are the tools of violence;
all decent men detest them.

Weapons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.
Peace is the highest value.
If the peace is shattered,
how can he be content?
His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn't wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?

He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral.

Chapter 46

When a country is in harmony with the Tao,
the factories make trucks and tractors.
When a country goes counter to the Tao,
warheads are stockpiled outside the cities.

There is no greater illusion than fear,
no greater wrong than preparing to defend yourself,
no greater misfortune than having an enemy.

Whoever can see through all fear
will always be safe.

Chapter 53

The great Way is easy,
yet people prefer the side paths.
Be aware when things are out of balance.
Stay centered within the Tao.

When rich speculators prosper
while farmers lose their land;
when government officials spend money
on weapons instead of cures;
when the upper class is extravagant and irresponsible
while the poor have nowhere to turn--
all this is robbery and chaos.
It is not in keeping with the Tao.

Chapter 57

If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.

The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.

Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.

Chapter 58

If a country is governed with tolerance,
the people are comfortable and honest.
If a country is governed with repression,
the people are depressed and crafty.

When the will to power is in charge,
the higher the ideals, the lower the results.
Try to make people happy,
and you lay the groundwork for misery.
Try to make people moral,
and you lay the groundwork for vice.

Thus the master is content
to serve as an example
and not to impose her will.
She is pointed, but doesn't pierce.
Straightforward, but supple.
Radiant, but easy on the eyes.

Chapter 60

Governing a large country
is like frying a small fish.
You spoil it with too much poking.

Center your country in the Tao
and evil will have no power.
Not that it isn't there,
but you'll be able to step out of its way.

Give evil nothing to oppose
and it will disappear by itself.

Chapter 61

When a country obtains great power,
it becomes like the sea:
all streams run downward into it.
The more powerful it grows,
the greater need for humility.
Humility is trusting in the Tao,
thus never needing to be defensive.

A great nation is like a great man:
When he makes a mistake, he realizes it.
Having realized it, he admits it.
Having admitted it, he corrects it.
He considers those who point out his faults
as his most benevolent teachers.
He thinks of his enemy
as the shadow that he himself casts.

If a nation is centered in the Tao,
if it nourishes its own people
and doesn't meddle in the affairs of others,
it will be a light to all nations in the world.

Chapter 66

All streams flow to the sea
because it is lower than they are.
Humility gives it its power.

If you want to govern the people,
you must place yourself below them.
If you want to lead the people,
you must learn how to follow them.

The master is above the people,
and no one feels oppressed.
She goes ahead of the people,
and no one feels manipulated.
The whole world is grateful to her.
Because she competes with no one,
no one can compete with her.

Chapter 75

When taxes are too high,
people go hungry.
When the government is too intrusive,
people lose their spirit.

Act for the people's benefit.
Trust them; leave them alone.

Chapter 80

If a country is governed wisely,
its inhabitants will be content.
They enjoy the labor of their hands
and don't waste time inventing
labor-saving machines.
Since they dearly love their homes,
they aren't interested in travel.
There may be a few wagons and boats,
but these don't go anywhere.
There may be an arsenal of weapons,
but nobody ever uses them.
People enjoy their food,
take pleasure in being with their families,
spend weekends working in their gardens,
delight in the doings of the neighborhood.
And even though the next country is so close
that people can hear its roosters crowing and its dogs barking,
they are content to die of old age without ever having gone to see it.

Ron Paul is definitely the candidate who is most concerned with promoting Truth. None of the other candidates even come close to his courage of dealing with the real issues we face today.

http://www.ronpaulblimp.com/

Sage wrote:Ron Paul is definitely the candidate who is most concerned with promoting Truth. None of the other candidates even come close to his courage of dealing with the real issues we face today.

http://www.ronpaulblimp.com/

How nice it is of people to take matters in their own hands, I am sure Ron Paul will be delighted when he sees that blimp, He will say "Yep, If I had that money in my compain donation box, I would have done exactly the same." I am glad to see some people are being so ingenious in helping themselves, and the rest of us.

Sage: Do you know anything more about this marvelous project that your link points to?

.

The Disconcerting Truth of the Company Ron Paul Keeps (photo - links)

Thankfully, other people are starting to notice the dangerous cabal of misfits and revolutionistas that make up the Mob Zombies of Ron Paul supporters. (photo - links)

http://swordattheready.wordpress.com/20 ... aul-keeps/

.

.

Ron Paul Blimp (images)

Help get the blimp to Boston by December 15th!

Please join us in our goal to raise $350,000 to make and fly the first ever Presidential Blimp in history.

http://www.ronpaulblimp.com

.

Come on Tom, just admit you don't like Ron Paul because you love paying taxes.

Tomas wrote:All this aside - be sure to have a tax-paying job!

What a steaming pile of poo that statement is.

Nick Treklis wrote:Come on Tom, just admit you don't like Ron Paul because you love paying taxes.

Tomas wrote:All this aside - be sure to have a tax-paying job!

What a steaming pile of poo that statement is.

Oh sure.

Aren't you the flunkie who a while back accused me of posting on Genius when it (the thread) was also on Worldly?

You, and your joined-at-the-hip brotha' Carl?




Tomas

7

.

Thomas,from a reading of a number of your posts of late I get the impression you've kept an eye on the too-ing and fro-ing of US politics over a substantial period.

I realise Paul hasn't much of a realistic shot at candidacy in the next election; but do you think the U.S people would ever be willing,or likely,or capable of nominating a libertine such as he?If not he in particular,then a Goldwater/Paul type in the future.

It seems to me,that the fact many Democrats find even some of his views appealing rather telling,in that even many from the 'left' of politics have had a gutful of over governance.And further, that the're sick of the dissembling from Republican and Democrat alike.

Interested in your view.

Tomas wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:Come on Tom, just admit you don't like Ron Paul because you love paying taxes.

Tomas wrote:All this aside - be sure to have a tax-paying job!

What a steaming pile of poo that statement is.

Oh sure.

Aren't you the flunkie who a while back accused me of posting on Genius when it (the thread) was also on Worldly?

You, and your joined-at-the-hip brotha' Carl?

I gotta hand it to ya Tom, your consistency when it comes to making irrelevant comments is absolutely uncanny as of late.

Tomas wrote:.

Ron Paul Blimp (images)

Help get the blimp to Boston by December 15th!

Please join us in our goal to raise $350,000 to make and fly the first ever Presidential Blimp in history.

http://www.ronpaulblimp.com

.

Looks legitimate (afict) I guess, I would hate to see an internet scam/profiteering going on, considering what is at stake on this, for the world, not just America.


Do you know if Ron Paul has anything to do or approves of this venture? Hope it works.

.

Republicans and Democrats, Please Protect Us from Ron Paul!

Someone stop this quixotic left-wing, right-wing, long-shot, darkhorse, baby-delivering devil.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article428.html

.

Tomas wrote:.
Republicans and Democrats, Please Protect Us from Ron Paul!
Someone stop this quixotic left-wing, right-wing, long-shot, darkhorse, baby-delivering devil.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article428.html
.

Agreed that we need new thinking, but Ron Paul dont have it. He shouldda stuck to delivering babies. Maybe he wouldda noticed that smart women have not been doing it as much as welfare queens. The population has not been dumbed down, they were born that way, and dumber with every generation.

Which is partly why he has a following.

Sorry daybrown, but Ron Paul's followers are not the ignorant masses. Those are the ones who voted for Bush.

.

The Ron Paul Effect on California

It was bound to happen: Some smart Republican campaign strategist was bound to see the opportunities buried in the arcane new rules that party adopted four years ago for its Feb. 5 presidential primary.

http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_7678257

.

Shahrazad wrote:Sorry daybrown, but Ron Paul's followers are not the ignorant masses. Those are the ones who voted for Bush.

I dont deny that those are stupid also. There's no logical reason why the two sets have to be entirely independent. The problems are systemic and will require a great deal more than the power of any personality, no matter how sagacious, in the Oval office. Ron Paul only has another set of deck chairs that some think will be more comfortable.

But its the sheer comfort level that cant be maintained at any price. Take a look at this presentation for example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ ,called "immigration gumballs". The demographic disaster he outlines is just irrefutable. Ron dont have a plan. None of them do.

No, this is not the kind of thing that Machiavelli will say a constitutional republic is capable of handling. It will take the iron fist of a Tokugawa, or maybe even a Hitler- before he got strung out on meth. Maybe a Hillary could do it. It'd take a real bitch to turn party politics around that much. You'd need more moral high ground than what Ron Paul could possibly have, but we've not seen this nation run by a head bitch yet. Long before Maggie Thatcher, there was Elizabeth, Catherine, & Victoria.

These social safety net issues that threaten to bankrupt the economy and ruin the environment will need the full support of the nation's women in order to have the moral authority to change partisan poltics enuf. Condi Rice could prolly do it, and if the GOP has any sense next year before the convention is all locked up, they mite try her. But whoever would also need an enormous mandate from congress, and the lobbyists are not going to see the light til we start dragging the bastards out to be shot.

.

Ron Paul Has Huge Cajones

Under Ron Paul, it will be peace and trade with all nations, no matter what bitter elites boo him. And by the way, outside of the elites, among the Cuban-American young, Ron's pro-peace message is cheered.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/a ... 17586.html

.

.

Elitists Consider Assassinating Ron Paul

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/de ... g_paul.htm

.

Ron Paul reminds me of Goldwater, a little too idealistic to get elected. Course, if we have some kind of huge economic disaster, then people will turn to those, like Ron, who think outside the box. But otherwise, It'll be Hillary with a Democratic congress, and we get to see them put up or shut up.

Ron Paul, even if he got elected, would need a whole new party to take control of congress to really do anything, and the GOP is not it.

Elitists Consider Assassinating Ron Paul

One could only hope.

Ron Paul reminds me of Goldwater, a little too idealistic to get elected.

A little to idealistic. Try way too idealistic. He's similar to a communist in pure passion for his ideological intent, even disregarding reality to pursue his own ideological follies. Looking at his service to his people is laughable and he's the one laughing at them!! Why? He votes NAY for everything to keep his ideological intent pure. Every bill he has ever sponsored (349 in total) in congress has never passed, even kucinich passed one bill (out of 103). He's ludicrous in intent, meaning his approach is all or nothing.

Even if he were to become a GOP front runner he would get his ass shredded based upon his writings....

Ron Paul wrote:However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

....

The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

LOL. If he became a front runner and people knew this he would lose every minority vote there is. "Forced Integration" does he mean desegregation violated individual liberty? I'm sure he'll come back with, "it's up to the state to enforce civil rights, the EEOC is prosperous with regulating businesses on who they can hire, we don't need more government in business we need less."

Of course, Paul is a religious right libertarian, not a pure libertarian like some believe.

wiki on Ron Paul wrote:In 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would remove federal court jurisdiction over abortion cases arising from state laws and effectively negate Roe v. Wade as binding legal precedent. Also, for the purposes of statutory construction over the jurisdictional limitation imposed, the bill declares that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

This is his getting it back to the states rhetoric. Now I see why!

Similarly...

Ron Paul wrote:Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

Again, back to the states! Imprison those subhuman Homos!

He has also stated he isn't against "alternative theories" being taught to shown "scientific" alternatives to the theory of evolution, aka let them teach that pseudoscience BS Intelligent Design.

Similarly...

Ron Paul wrote:The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.

12/5/07 Interview wrote:DC: Much of the politicking this campaign season has certain religious overtones. Are you a believer in a strict separation of church and state?

RP: Yes. However, I believe state and local communities have the right to adopt policies such as school prayer without interference from the Federal Judiciary or any other branch of the federal government.

I see! He interprets the constitution as no official church of the US, not banning school prayer and bible readings in school! Again back to the states!

daybrown wrote:Ron Paul, even if he got elected, would need a whole new party to take control of congress to really do anything, and the GOP is not it.

True, he would be rather inefficient as president of the US too. Since he is the master of ideological pursuit, he would veto every bill because "the federal government shouldn't do anything." This in turn will lead to congress having to override his veto if they can and otherwise lead to a non productive 4 years in office.

He does make some good points economically and foreign policy wise, but they are too idealistic.

Ron Paul is indeed a fake Libertarian.

Ibanez wrote:

Ron Paul is indeed a fake Libertarian.

Yeah, he is far too extreme in terms of what he wants to cut out of government, and he is far too extreme religiously. Basically, He is too rigid with his political and religious ideologies. However, his only virtue is his ability to criticize American foreign policy in the Middle East, and some of his other economic criticisms are fairly accurate as well.

What seems to set him apart from the other republicans is that he has a deeper causal understanding of how the world works. For instance: it is humorous how upset the other candidates became when he suggested the Sept 11 attacks are causally linked with American Foreign Policy in the middle-east. He Said, “Have we ever asked why the terrorists attacked the world trade center? Its because we have been over there for the last few decades on their soil bombing them, and sending troops to their countries”

This is one of the main reasons Paul has been demonized because Americans want to keep their tribal attitude that they are collectively good, noble, and the terrorists are just 'evil' without wanting to examine any of the underlying psychological motivations of their behavior.

One of his economic criticisms is that if America stopped policing the world, and brought most of their troops home from places like South Korea, Germany, the middle-east and so on, then the government might be able to get the deficit under control over time, and if the government started moving in a more sustainable direction then the federal reserve wouldn’t even be necessary.

In Paul’s view, the FEDs primary function is to meddle with national banking rates to allow the government to continue moving in an unsustainable direction, but he says that eventually the currency will become so devalued that the economy will fall into a huge recession, which is beginning to happen now…

And if America falls into a deep recession, then this will inevitably hurt many other countries as well.

If the Fed operated in the best interest of the economy, and not for the purpose of maximizing the incomes of Wall Street insiders, we'd be in much better shape, with far less worry over systemic collapse. The "irrational exhuberance" Greenspan spoke of was not irrational at all if you assume that insiders knew how to maximize their profits based on pending Fed actions.

This is a point that Ron Paul and the Libertarians miss, that as long as there have been markets, there have been those involved in manipulating them while at the same time trying to maintain the illusion of a "free market".

The only way I see an ideologue like Ron Paul becoming president is if there is some severe economic or social crisis, and even then, it wont really matter that much unless he gets a compliant congress. But if we do see economic crisis, it seems it'd become global, and the whole New World Order will break down, as so many other empires have.

OTOH, if it is to be held together, it'd require more rational leadership than we now see. Whatever we may think or prefer, it seems the global financial community has more faith in the Clintons to manage the decline of the dollar without having it completely tank. Its really up to Global Market 'sentiment'. Of the GOP candidates, only Romney has the classic appearance of practical leadership from the perspective of the transnationals, He is, after all, one of their boys. But Paul? no way.

Davbrown,

This is a point that Ron Paul and the Libertarians miss, that as long as there have been markets, there have been those involved in manipulating them while at the same time trying to maintain the illusion of a "free market"

Here is a YouTube video that goes into some of Paul's objections to the FED, and he does seem to possess a deeper understanding on how the economy works compared to many of the other candidates.

btw, here are a few other videos from Ron Paul, and he seems to possess a deeper understanding of monetary policy compared to any of the others.

Video1

Video2

Video3

Ibanez wrote:

Ron Paul wrote:However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

....

The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

LOL. If he became a front runner and people knew this he would lose every minority vote there is. "Forced Integration" does he mean desegregation violated individual liberty? I'm sure he'll come back with, "it's up to the state to enforce civil rights, the EEOC is prosperous with regulating businesses on who they can hire, we don't need more government in business we need less."

If I owned a private institution and I thought I was justified in not allowing a certain group of people access, you better believe I don't want government telling me who I can and can't let in.

Ibanez wrote:Of course, Paul is a religious right libertarian, not a pure libertarian like some believe.

wiki on Ron Paul wrote:In 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would remove federal court jurisdiction over abortion cases arising from state laws and effectively negate Roe v. Wade as binding legal precedent. Also, for the purposes of statutory construction over the jurisdictional limitation imposed, the bill declares that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

Where exactly did he use religion to justify his beliefs here? I'm having a hard time finding that, well, because he didn't. The man has his own opinions and so do others, but at least he's not going to use the federal government to dictate the lives of each and every citizen.

Ibanez wrote:This is his getting it back to the states rhetoric. Now I see why!

Ron Paul wrote:Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

It's as simple as this. The Republic that is the United States of America has no federal authority to declare any actions legal or illegal unless it is expressly written in the Constitution.

Ibanez wrote:He has also stated he isn't against "alternative theories" being taught to shown "scientific" alternatives to the theory of evolution, aka let them teach that pseudoscience BS Intelligent Design.

Similarly...

Ron Paul wrote:The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.

12/5/07 Interview wrote:DC: Much of the politicking this campaign season has certain religious overtones. Are you a believer in a strict separation of church and state?

RP: Yes. However, I believe state and local communities have the right to adopt policies such as school prayer without interference from the Federal Judiciary or any other branch of the federal government.

I see! He interprets the constitution as no official church of the US, not banning school prayer and bible readings in school! Again back to the states!

Are you familiar with Catholic Schools? They are private institutions and can teach basically whatever the hell they want, and I agree that they should be allowed to. As soon as we stop one thing from being taught in private institutions what's to stop the Government from stopping other things from being taught? It is a slippery slope indeed. And lets not forget what a fucking joke the public(federally regulated) school systems are. The USA is not a democracy, it's a republic, and included in the Constitution of this Republic there is a strict separation of religion and state, whether it's for or against it. Aside from that, a free market will eventually weed out all the poor educational institutions, leaving only the finest of the educational insititutions in tact. This is the beauty of capitalism, something not possible when you have a publicly funded school system being forced down the throats of citzens.

I understand your fear of liberty, it is in fact very risky. Still, it is far better than any alternative produced by man thus far. People living in a free society tend to forget this and end up thinking the grass is greener on the other side, only to end up repeating the same mistakes history has proven to us over and over again.

AH, yes a Paulbot. I’ll respond but arguing with Paulbots is like arguing with Stalinists, he can never do wrong in their eyes. But don't take this as personal hatred, I understand how Paulians can be.

Nick Treklis wrote: If I owned a private institution and I thought I was justified in not allowing a certain group of people access, you better believe I don't want government telling me who I can and can't let in.

Ok, if you believe in discrimination and segregation then I guess you would have no problem with repealing it. However, the issue is really not to convince me that discrimination is legitimate, but rather the voters. If Ron Paul became a GOP front runner that article is widely available and a journalist/reporter will pick up on it instantly and write about. He’s going to have a hard time convincing minorities (Africans, Hispanics, women, etc) that businesses have a fundamental right to refuse applications from them.

Nick Treklis wrote: Where exactly did he use religion to justify his beliefs here? I'm having a hard time finding that, well, because he didn't. The man has his own opinions and so do others, but at least he's not going to use the federal
government to dictate the lives of each and every citizen.

Yeah sure….did you actually read the bill? It is clearly an anti-abortion bill. Just incase you didn’t which I’m sure you didn’t, here’s a summary…

Sanctity of Life Act wrote: The Act declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state.
Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.

Nick Treklis wrote: It's as simple as this. The Republic that is the United States of America has no federal authority to declare any actions legal or illegal unless it is expressly written in the Constitution.

Yes, he uses the states right line to discriminate. Texas has the right to regulate sexual conduct? Wow, what happened to his libertarian stance shouldn’t he have said Texas should have no concern with what people do, after all it’s liberty! You know why he wanted the jurisdiction to be declined and go to the state?

Texas Statute wrote: deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct.

He wants gays to be punished for being unchristian and decadent beings to the core. If good ol’ Ron Paul is as much about freedom as possible why didn’t he also cry out in that article about liberty being violated by the Texas state statute?

Are you familiar with Catholic Schools?

Is that a mars colony? Or is that a new space colony?

They are private institutions and can teach basically whatever the hell they want, and I agree that they should be allowed to. As soon as we stop one thing from being taught in private institutions what's to stop the Government from stopping other things from being taught? It is a slippery slope indeed. And lets not forget what a fucking joke the public(federally regulated) school systems are. The USA is not a democracy, it's a republic, and included in the Constitution of this Republic there is a strict separation of religion and state, whether it's for or against it. Aside from that, a free market will eventually weed out all the poor educational institutions, leaving only the finest of the educational insititutions in tact. This is the beauty of capitalism, something not possible when you have a publicly funded school system being forced down the throats of citzens.

Sorry, a completely totally private education system is hard to accomplish. Even Chile can’t eliminate the public schools, people still attend them. Yes, a private institution can teach whatever they want, but public institutions are another matter. Public schools shouldn’t be teaching kids pseudoscience. However, I do realize out of all the western industrialized nations the US is the lowest in people that believe evolution and surveys done each year show more and more people doubting evolution. So I can understand the desire for this pseudoscience.

Nick Treklis wrote: I understand your fear of liberty, it is in fact very risky. Still, it is far better than any alternative produced by man thus far. People living in a free society tend to forget this and end up thinking the grass is greener on the other side, only to end up repeating the same mistakes history has proven to us over and over again.

I understand your fear of reality and how it perverts your perfect ideology. It’s ok, you can ask former communists how to recover from a shattered perfect ideology.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Davbrown,

This is a point that Ron Paul and the Libertarians miss, that as long as there have been markets, there have been those involved in manipulating them while at the same time trying to maintain the illusion of a "free market"

Here is a YouTube video that goes into some of Paul's objections to the FED, and he does seem to possess a deeper understanding on how the economy works compared to many of the other candidates.

btw, here are a few other videos from Ron Paul, and he seems to possess a deeper understanding of monetary policy compared to any of the others.
Video1
Video2
Video3

The operative term here is seems. Why should I listen to what he has to say when I can read five times faster than he can talk, and when he begins to say something I already know, skim down past that to where he presents new information or insights?

Give it to me in ascii just like we have here. You can parse out what I have posted line by line to see if it is logically consistent. I do not argue that Ron Paul does not see a problem with the Fed. But he dont have a solution, and he's not going to get a congress that will accomodate his proposed changes.

The crux of the matter really is the corruption of the system which itself was, and is, only possible because the electorate is no longer rational enuf to deal with the complexities of the modern global system. His isolationism feeds into that, as if we can ignore the rest of the world to simplify things enuf so that the voters can cope.

Gibbon noted that the Roman people thot religion was true, the philosophers thot religions was false, and the politicians knew religion was useful. In the American republic, religion has never been so important. The reason for this is that the corruption of the power elite, such as thru the Fed, uncontrolled immigration, corporate downsizing & outsourcing, and now the foreclosure and bankruptcy rates, had all eroded the ability of sheeple to cope and they have lost the traditional hope that things would be better for their children. They therefore engage in magical thinking. Waiting for the Rapture, Wicca, astrology, Black Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons... all of which abandon the common ground needed to support the republic. They dont see any future in it.

Ron Paul harkens back to some mythic American nuclear family golden age. If the Untied States of Neurotic Denial are to be held together, it will, in large part, be because the global corporate elite and financial segment see that they will have to keep on holding onto their share of the US national debt, which will prolly be over 9 trillion by the time the next president takes over.

Its not a question of whether Ron Paul is right, but whether THEY think he's nuts. If they think he will take over, they'll quit buying US treasury notes, and the run on the dollar will begin. Of those who are now running, Hillary has their confidence more than any other.

Its not Ron Paul's fault that congress has been gerrymandered; and unless some new centrist, Chimera party can be formed, the center will belong to the Democrats, and whoever is President will need their support to make the needed changes. Among which are going to be downsizing entitlements. It took Nixon to go to China, and it'll take Hillary with a supportive Democratic congress to reduce the size of the social security retirement benefits to something the economy can afford. Ron Paul cant do that.