Wow, Ron Paul is amazing

I guess you haven't heard context before, you're expecting someone to explain to you why ron paul isn't perfect, claiming you've done proper research and all of it is good things to say. There's these things called adjectives you can add to the end of your google search to get opposite results.

But one of the reasons I don't care about any of the politicians is because majority of them make promises and tell the country what it wants to hear. You really think if he gets elected anything will change? lol'd. Politic's is for big kids e_e.

So what color bib are you wearing today?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracy...eign-aid-0

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/r..._iran.html

http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/04/why-th...-ron-paul/

http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/...-spending/

First article; they are correct, the quote at the beginning is wrong in that poor people here are not paying any considerable amount into foreign aid, but it ignores the incredible importance of the second half of the quote. Until we completely rework our system of foreign aid, we are just pouring money into the pockets of incredibly wealthy and possibly hostile overlords in other countries. Also, "If you don't want to pay for federal budget operations with your excise taxes, don't smoke." is horrible and they should feel horrible for saying it, but that's more the article writer's bias so it can just be ignored in this argument, I guess.

Second article; I agree with most of the positives he pointed out aside from him being anti-abortion (though it's entirely possible that's just him making political stances to make himself look better...that still doesn't make it OK, though). Here's where the article goes south, though, "The Soviets were communists, and communists are atheists. The last thing an atheist wants to do is die in a mushroom cloud, because there's no afterlife for him". LOL, what? Again, that's an article writer opinion and (probably) not a legitimate fact, so we can ignore that, but goddamn that kind of undercuts the seriousness of the article nevertheless. Just because Iran has a religion based on an awesome afterlife doesn't mean they ALL want to die. Particularly the leaders. The leaders are smart enough to know that it's just a control method to force the underlings to do exactly as they say; the leaders are the ones with control of the supposed nukes, and they will not be as quick to use them as "generic plane terrorist A". "and the Iranians will have a free hand to strangle the world's oil supply." is more idiocy on the part of the article writer, so we can ignore that, too; in reality, we get over 50% of our oil right here in the US. Maybe other countries would suffer, but that's not really our problem; if they DO suffer from it, maybe they will get off their lazy asses and do something about it. That's not a very nice way of putting it, but you can only take pacifism so far, and they need to learn to be a LITTLE more aggressive with finding solutions; until now they have relied on us to be the strongarm to solve all their problems, and Ron Paul is making it clear he no longer wants this to be the case. Which is appropriate.

Third article; this is just an article making fun of some websites for predicting election results incorrectly. So? Who cares what people actually THINK of Ron Paul, this thread is about his actual policies, not his social acceptance. It's my general rule of thumb that a person is usually smart, but people are usually stupid; as persons collaborate, they become a group, and there is nothing stupider in today's society than a very large group of "people". Which is exactly what an election in a country this size is; it SHOULD even out, but it seems that, when in a group, a person lowers their intelligence to the lowest common denominator. Can't say I know why, can't say I like it, but there it is. Anyway, I already am pretty sure Ron Paul isn't going to win even the primary, but that doesn't make his policies any less impressive. It just means that "people" can not recognize him for the genius (OK, overreaching a little bit there) that he is.

Fourth article; Only the first three paragraphs are even ABOUT Paul. However, if they were not taken out of context, then yes, he did mess that statement up pretty badly.