Quote Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
I'm with you in a way.......I really don't care for the term "clown" when referring to people like Ron Paul; assclown is actually a better term. Now lets see if I can follow the same "insightful" format that you laid out here:

Unlike most of the pre-teen pimple poppers up to the mid-twenty age, people such as myself, image reaper, old stoner have been on this planet long enough to know what is "realistic" in regards to change. I see that your 20....that would have made you about 3 during the first Gulf War........LOL, I was older than that for the Vietnam war. We don't need FOX, CNN, MSNBC to do our thinking....we have something called experience behind us.
Being older doesn't give your opinions legitimacy by default P4B. Not to say you don't tout some very good ones, but people of "more experience" stand on just about every point. In fact doesn't Ron Paul himself technically has more life experience than you?

Stalin, Hitler, Ghandi, Buddha, Pope Benedict, they all have more life experience than me. I wonder which one I should look to for guidance?



1) Anti-abortion.......voting record proves it
I'd have to see these votes you speak of, but I get the feeling you're relating to votes against government funding for abortion at the federal level; which would be more a constitutional issue than an abortion issue.

2) Backed by the 9-11 conspiracy nuts. Check out most every web site regarding that and you'll find an addy for Ron Paul.
And the "God hates fags" church people may have voted for George Bush, that doesn't mean George Bush believes "god hates fags".
Peacenick hippies are undoubtedly more prone to voting Democrat, that doesn't make Democrats peacenick hippies.
Stoners would be inclined to vote for Ron Paul, it doesn't make Ron Paul a stoner. You see what I'm getting at here? It's backward logic, saying those who vote for the candidate represent the candidates views in every respect.

3) He calls the wars as being against the Constitution. Fact is, when congress votes for approving the use of force that is in itself enough for the President to send the troops.
His anti-constiutional claims regarding the war are to do with a foreign policy of non-interventionalism, not the actual process by which war was declared.

4) Portrayed as being pro-legalization when there has been NO bill by Ron Paul to suggest that. In fact, he tried to separate hemp farming from the laws regarding marijuana. That would still leave us growers and users in harms way.
Hemp and marijuana, while biologically related, are two very different matters. We're talking about medicine/recreational drugs versus indsutrial products for sails, clothing, ropes and the such. It makes a lot more sense to fix these government policy's toward hemp/cannabis one step at a time. The first step, obviously, is legalizing hemp.
If Paul was lying and not actually for legalizing marijuana, why would he bother saying it when it's political suicide?



5) Says he's against spending but still is responsible for over $400 in earmarks. Seems he's pretty tight with the Shrimp Fishing industry. Big business in the congressmans wallet.
erm.... do you mean $400 or $400 million/billion? Personally I suppose tax incentives and investment in keeping industry/economy strong. Anyway, I'd have to see what spending specifically you believe is hypocritical. Ron Paul is against the big over-spending that is bankrupting the nation, he's not against all spending in any form. As he said in the last debate, "cutting income tax would result in a 1/3 loss in government revenue. As is, that would take us back to 2000 levels of spending. Are you saying this government can't get back to 2000 spending levels?"


6) His idea about switching back to the Gold Standard. Anyone that has any experience in currency/currency trading knows that if this were done, you'd see our dollar crash along with many other countries currency.
I'm not experienced in economy enough to make a judgement on this. However I think I agree with you here. I disagree with most Ron Paul supporters claims that America has a dollar "backed by nothing". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the dollar is backed by gross national material output. Production/consumption, output/input as a basis for financial output.