Can we just pretend this wasn't posted. I mean shit, even if he was a nazi at this point, how is he even relevant?
lol @ anyone who thinks ron paul is relevant. while we're on the subject though, here's what paul has to say about rape. funny how the ron paulbots always overlook this. https://www.google.com/#q=ron+paul+rape&safe=off
yeah, I'm not wasting my time explaining why the "legitimate rape" trope is dangerous, or why it is disgusting to deny women the right to accessible abortion. forced reproduction is slavery, and making exceptions for women YOU decide were raped makes it obvious what your real agenda is. how blind you are.
I'm sure of RP had become president you'd still be able to have as many babies or abortions as your heart desired. but one thing you wouldn't have is the psychopathic out of touch warmonger that we have now. i mean how exactly would abortion laws change with RP as president? How exactly would Ron Paul force you to reproduce?
This is the central point of your post and for the sake of focus I am going to respond to the most important point in depth instead of responding to many of your points in a shallow manner. This is the definition of hearsay in US Law (you're a US citizen too, right? I thought you were for some reason) taken from Wikipedia: "Hearsay is the legal term for testimony in a court proceeding where the witness does not have direct knowledge of the fact asserted, but knows it only from being told by someone. In general the witness will make a statement such as, "Sally told me Tom was in town," as opposed to "I saw Tom in town," which is direct evidence. Hearsay is not allowed as evidence in the United States, unless one of about thirty eight[1] exceptions applies to the particular statement being made." This is the definition of hearsay from Cornell's law website: "Broadly, an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts. Hearsay evidence is often inadmissible at trial. However, many exclusions and exceptions exist. Evidence meeting the broad definition may not actually be hearsay under the court's evidence rules. Even hearsay may be admitted if exceptions are met." Here is the list of the 38 scenarios in which hearsay law IS accepted validly as evidence in a United States court (Wikipedia footnote 1): http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/hearsay-evidence.html As you can see in the link provided, numbers 15 and 17 (particularly 17) include the statements made by RP's former employees as exempt from the automatic inadmissibility of hearsay and are thus due the same fair consideration as any other evidence. Edit: Upon further consideration I realized that neither Paul's secretary nor his aide made statements of having heard from someone else that Paul had the authority and responsibility of doing a final proof. They both made statements exclusively concerning their own personal experience. Thus the suggestion of hearsay has literally no basis in fact! (see: "Hearsay is the legal term for testimony in a court proceeding where the witness does not have direct knowledge of the fact asserted, but knows it only from being told by someone.") Hear that, I say.
See... I really don't have much love for Obama. I don't disagree that he's out of touch, and a warmonger. And crazy, too. Yes. But with that being said, RP is crazy as shit! He may not be a warmonger but his economic policies would have destroyed social services en masse similar to Ron Reagan's expansion of free market and limitations on government regulation. And those had truly devastating effects for a lot of people (hundreds of thousands of disabled homeless Americans who weren't homeless before Reagan kicked them out of their hospitals). That's not really any better, unfortunately. It's like the Who said: "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Nobody for President in '16!
but Paul isn't running the country right now Obama is.. so who's more dangerous? he's a retired congressman... let him be crazy who cares?
Actually, this time it is you who has made the mistake. Right here: "It's not the ideology of Ron Paul it[']s the ideology of liberty..." It is the ideology of Ron Paul, because he has a part in it. It doesn't matter where his part in it was. The point was that his ideology IS "the ideology of liberty etc." that you speak of. They are synonymous and inseparable, thus your post is literally without any meaning at all. In other words, this is what you have essentially stated: "It's not the ideology of Ron Paul, it's the ideology of [Ron Paul]." Also, this: Did you think we were SUPPORTING this statement? I don't know if that was directed at me. You do realize that this thread is criticizing Ron Paul for allegedly using really shitty means to get to his ends, right? The whole point is that the kind of stuff that people do that is embodied by the quoted statement really sucks.
Oh, I thought we were doing hypotheticals No question Obama's more dangerous, for what it's worth. I actually made that basic statement earlier in the thread... I likened comparing Obama's power to Ron Paul's to comparing that of a state senator to a town mayor. Edit: I edited out my edit because it got too long.
You clearly didn't read any of the thread. It has been stated at least a half-dozen times that no one here believes Ron Paul is a racist. If you want to find out what the thread is about, go back and read the articles and posts like you really ought to anyway before responding to a highly topical thread like this.
Are current events so time-consuming we don't have any time left over to view our ideological leaders with a critical eye?
Ideology. How many pages long is the RP appreciation thread? It's 1,000+ of people saying things that are related to Ron Paul. If he is that important in the eyes of forum members to have his own 10,000+ (edit, I checked: 21,000 posts, sorry) post thread, then his image, his opinions, and his legacy clearly have some sway over the people who frequent this subforum.