Do you think Ron Paul's views are correct?

[Ghogiel]

Because he is a doctor. And not a phd grad, but an MD doctor.

[marharth]

Because he is a doctor. And not a phd grad, but an MD doctor.

He used to be a doctor. It seems strange to call a politician "Dr. Paul."

[Quetzlsacatanango]

Because he is a doctor. And not a phd grad, but an MD doctor.

He used to be a doctor. It seems strange to call a politician "Dr. Paul."

 

He has been a practicing obstetrician for many years.

Dr. Paul is right about everything, history will show it.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Quetzlsacatanango

[marharth]

But he is currently a politician not a doctor. I don't really care if you call him that, it just seems a bit strange to me.

 

It is debatable if he is right about everything. I would say he is factually incorrect about at least two things for sure.

[ita]

If he did win, would you call him Dr President? What is it with people called Ron anyway? Ron Paul, Ron L. Hubbard....:psyduck:

 

...Ron Jeremy :psyduck:

[sukeban]

He used to be a doctor. It seems strange to call a politician "Dr. Paul."

I don't really know where or why the tradition came about, but, take for example, Newt Ginginch--he hasn't been Speaker of the House since 1998, yet he is still addressed as "Speaker Gingrich." Ditto for President Clinton and all other living (ex-) Presidents. The same is also true for Senators and House members. I would guess that this is also true for judges and local political functionaries. It really doesn't serve any sort of a purpose, and is probably meant more for ego-stroking on the part of the ex-official than it is for any practical means of differentiating between citizens. For whatever reason, politicians keep their highest-ranking title essentially until they die.

 

As for the actual "Doctor" portion of Dr. Paul, addressing somebody as "Doctor" isn't a function of their profession--it is a function of their educational attainment. Thus, you could (and should) refer to any University professor as "Doctor" even though they are not a medical doctor. It is simply an acknowledgement of their educational status. Thus, Dr. Paul is not addressed as "Doctor" because he is or was a practicing ObGyn, but because he completed the requisite coursework in order to become a "Doctor of Medicine" (Md.) to begin with. He retains that title no matter what he does in life.

Edited March 25, 2012 by sukeban

[marharth]

He used to be a doctor. It seems strange to call a politician "Dr. Paul."

I don't really know where or why the tradition came about, but, take for example, Newt Ginginch--he hasn't been Speaker of the House since 1998, yet he is still addressed as "Speaker Gingrich." Ditto for President Clinton and all other living (ex-) Presidents. The same is also true for Senators and House members. I would guess that this is also true for judges and local political functionaries. It really doesn't serve any sort of a purpose, and is probably meant more for ego-stroking on the part of the ex-official than it is for any practical means of differentiating between citizens. For whatever reason, politicians keep their highest-ranking title essentially until they die.

 

As for the actual "Doctor" portion of Dr. Paul, addressing somebody as "Doctor" isn't a function of their profession--it is a function of their educational attainment. Thus, you could (and should) refer to any University professor as "Doctor" even though they are not a medical doctor. It is simply an acknowledgement of their educational status. Thus, Dr. Paul is not addressed as "Doctor" because he is or was a practicing ObGyn, but because he completed the requisite coursework in order to become a "Doctor of Medicine" (Md.) to begin with. He retains that title no matter what he does in life.

I understand that, but you don't call other politicians by their degree title. It really doesn't matter, it just bugs me for some reason.

[WizardOfAtlantis]

Sure, there will always be problems in the world, but that does not mean that it is our responsibility to solve them all--especially when there is no obvious economic imperative to do so. I--literally--could not care less about Afghanistan at this point. Those people (yes, I'm aware of how bad that phrasing sounds...) are nearly bronze-age in their social, political, and economic development. There may well be rare-earth minerals in the mountains there (the only rationalization I can come up with why we are still there at this point), but that is simply not worth the cost--in men or in treasure. I lament the plight of Afghan women, but we simply cannot do anything to help them. We cannot advance the social evolution of their menfolk 3,500 years at the points of our rifles. It just will not happen. The best any of us can do is allow--and to expedite--their applications for political asylum should they ever request it. I would rather depend on China for rare-earth minerals (world's only other large reserve) than I would expending $150 billion/year + psychologically devastated troops in order to hold and quixotically "pacify" Afghanistan.

 

Rather, I would withdraw those troops and ask Mexico what they thought about some direct American assistance in fighting their cartels. That is a FAR more direct threat to American citizens and interests than Afghanistan or the Fulda Gap will ever be.

I think you're falling into the trap of believing that the military is there to actually "do" something "concrete", like "pacify" "terrorists" or some such nonsense (imo). While there are actual exceptions to this in the modern world where a military presence, imo, does real concrete good in maintaining peace and stability in a particular region (like Korea), the thing to remember about the military is this: if you want to have a big military, you have to have something for them to do. Come up with whatever excuses you want, but you have to keep them busy, or else there is no reason to have a big military. Then you have a problem. So, you keep them "busy". "Busy"=justified existence.

Afghanistan is practice. Nothing more, nothing less. Practice is important. Look at most martial arts and martial artists these days. At one time, people were true killers with their bodies (some few still are). Nowadays, most all of those fancy colored belts are just expensive ways to hold their pants up. Why? Because they don't really practice what they preach (war/warfare on an inter-personal level). They're fakes and phonies.

As for Dr. Paul, I think he's the only real choice to shake things up in any way whatsoever. The current Republican/Democrat dipole is a farse, a sham, with far more similarities between them than actual differences. Regardless, they are failing, have failed, and will continue to fail, imo. I see no light at the end of the tunnel with them at the helm.

The Federal Reserve is a farse, as ludicrous as the "federal" in its name. The whole damn country is enslaved to this central bank that calls itself a "federal reserve", and Dr. Paul for this alone should be given far more weight than any other politician because he's the only one that sticks it to them like they deserve it. They should be abolished. How will the US ever be out of debt when its own money comes from a private organization outside the bounds of our government? Answer: it won't. Ever. This fact alone is outraging to the point of rebellion. Or at least it should be.

[csgators]

Do you think Ron Paul's views are correct?

 

Yes