As anyone with a blog, YouTube account, MySpace page, or web site knows Ron Paul supporters are everywhere! The internet is filled with them. Although we are a progressive blog and both William and I support Democratic candidates, vocally, we are constantly barraged with pleas and “stories” to win us over. The frightening thing that I have witnessed is that many liberal voters are giving some credence to Ron Paul’s campaign and message. He somehow comes across as different or better than the run of the mill conservatives filling the Republican ticket.
I do not support Ron Paul in ANY and I find his Congressional record and policies to be, at times, even scarier than his counterparts. The only thing that I have found to agree with him on is the fact that he does not support the war in Iraq. After extensive research I have compiled a list of 10 reasons NOT to vote for Ron Paul!
- Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42.
- Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392
- Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kick backs.” Here are the related legislative links: H.R.2030, H.R.4604, H.R.736, and H.R.2720
- Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for working class citizens. Please see this link for more information: H.R.05484 Summary
- Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment. Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to “restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters”. To see for yourself the possible extent of the damage to the environment that would happen under a Paul administration please follow these links: H.R.2504, H.R.7079, H.R.7245, H.R.2415, H.R.393, H.R.4639, H.R.5293, and H.R.6936
- A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supports withdrawing the US from the UN, when that has not happened he has fought to at least have the US withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He has introduced legislation to keep the US from giving any funds to the UN. He also submitted that the US funds should not be used in any UN peacekeeping mission or any UN program at all. He has sponsored a bill calling for us to “terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.”Ron Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with Bush’s plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that the International Criminal Court does not apply to the US, despite President Clinton’s signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes. Please see the following links: H.R.3891, H.AMDT.191, H.AMDT.190, H.R.3769, H.R.1665, H.CON.RES.23, and H.R.1154
- Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.
- Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns. One of Paul’s loudest gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being eroded. In fact, he believes that September 11 would not have happened if that wasn’t true. He advocates for there to be no restrictions on personal ownership of semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (because we all know our schools are just missing more guns), wants guns to be allowed in our National Parks, and repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968. Now, I’m pretty damn certain that when the Constitution was written our founding fathers never intended for people to be walking around the streets with AK47′s and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” (That just sounds scary.) Throughout the years our Constitution has been amended and is indeed a living document needing changes to stay relevant in our society. Paul has no problem changing the Constitution when it fits his needs, such as no longer allowing those born in the US to be citizens if their parents are not. On the gun issue though he is no holds barred. I know he’s from Texas but really, common sense tells us that the amendments he is seeking to repeal have their place. In fact, the gun control act was put into place after the assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy. Please view the following links: H.R.2424, H.R.1897, H.R.1096, H.R.407, H.R.1147, and H.R.3892.
- Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. The fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our current health care system) that this doesn’t work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the Federal Government “from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate piece of legislation he seeks to “prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.” So basically the federal government can’t regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require them for private schools they get no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. He is certainly moving forward with these proposals!Remember his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955? Guess what? He basically advocates for segregation in schools once again. It “Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.” Without thinking about this statement it doesn’t sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that this is done by having children go to different schools, often after a court decision as in Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill that passed, schools would no longer be compelled to comply and the schools would go back to segregation based on their locations. Ron Paul is really starting to look like a pretty bigoted guy don’t you think?
- Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state. This reason is probably behind every other thing that I disagree with in regards to Paul’s positions. Ron Paul is among those who believes that there is a war on religion, he stated “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.” (( Koyaanisqatsi Blog: Wrong Paul Why I Do Not Want Ron Paul to be My President )) Though he talks a good talk, at times, Ron Paul can’t get away from his far right, conservative views. He would support “alternative views” to evolution taught in public schools (i.e. Intelligent Design.) We’ve already taken a look at his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 Besides hating the gays he takes a very religious stance on many other things. He is attempting to force his beliefs on the rest of America, exactly what he would do as president.
So there you have it, my 10 reasons not to vote for Ron Paul. Please take the time to thoroughly review the records of the people running for office so you know where they really stand. Ron Paul has good rhetoric and he opposes the war but he’s not a good man in the human rights sense of the phrase. He is pretty much like every other Republican but more insidious. Here is a video that you should watch after reading this article. Really listen to what he says and how he says it. Watch out for the sneaky ones and RESEARCH! (( Orcinus: Ron Paul’s Record in Congress ))
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omx1ImbQuAY[/youtube]
UPDATE: I am posting a blog entry response to some of the feedback a little after 1 pm CST. I am also working on a more thorough referenced response that will hopefully be up by this evening. Also, the majority of the comments on this post appear to be thoughtful and honest and we appreciate that, the dialog that takes place between two or more conflicting viewpoints is much more productive when done in this manner.
Bill Ludwig
Summer Ludwig
The ten reasons not to vote for Ron Paul that you cite all have positive sides that you fail to mention. When one is against something, the other side is that that person is for something else.
The something else that you fail to mention involves things that appear to be alien to you – things like freedom, liberty, the right to be left alone, protection of our rights, right to property and to use it in any way you see fit that does not interfere with other’s rights, right of contract, right to keep what you earn without government stealing it from you to give it to someone else that is too lazy to earn for themselves, etc, etc.
I work hard every working day, and would truly like to keep what I earn for support of my family. I believe in our Constitution. I believe government should protect my God-given rights and not steal from me. I believe that government shouldn’t be telling me what I must do at the point of a gun.
Your research was done with a very limited point of view. I suggest that you re-assess.
God bless.
Thank you for your comment. Please tell me the positive side of allowing discrimination based on ethnicity? What could be good about destroying the environment and giving even more incentives and breaks to big oil? I’m not sure who’s rights and freedom you believe Ron Paul is for. Big business? Corporations? If you want to be left alone and have government out of your personal business then I would hardly recommend a candidate who advocates taking away a woman’s reproductive rights, does not support equal rights for glbt citizens, and who would push his religious viewpoints on the rest of us. That is hardly freedom.
Summer
For one, we already allow descrimination. You think Oprah is stumping for Obama because of his message? Come on. Discrimination of whites against blacks or blacks against white is still discrimination. To allow a school to pick a minority who has a poor GPA to meet their quota so they can get more government subsidizing is still discrimination, so don’t give me that b.s. about equal rights. Discrimination exists and it will always exist so long as we look at skin color rather than the actions and thoughts of a person. Government doesn’t make it go away.
As for women’s rights…if the baby is not alive, then how come the DA can prosecute for homicide when a drunk driver kills a baby in a mother’s womb in a car accident? Fact is, a babe in the womb is a living entity, and as a country, it should be given recognition and all the rights afforded as any individual. In a way, you’re no different than the discrimination you talked about for minorities. It’s just that now you’re discriminating against babies. You’re a hypocrite, and you don’t know anything about freedom because you’re still living in your mom’s uterus, too lazy and fat, to want real freedom from tyrannical government that says it’s protecting us from terrorism while it passes stupid legislation like pdd 51, rex 84, patriot act, military commission act, real id act, defense authorization act, NAU, SPP, and spies on civilians while giving illegal immigrants amnesty.
I would hesitate to make a pro-life argument based on current law – just because a DA somewhere can prosecute for homicide, and especially when the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on this specific issue, does not mean that the fetus has broad legal standing.
Of course discrimination exists. But Oprah is not our government, and although we may still have work to do as a society, it is important to keep government from getting too involved – if they actively discriminate against any race, there is a problem. Also, think back to pre-integration United States. It was what you call racism that turned the country towards an end to… racism. Integrating the schools, sometimes forcibly, was and is entirely appropriate.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you say “it’s important to keep the government from getting too involved”. The very power that is used to enforce minority representation was used to discriminate, and is currently used to discriminate against homosexuals and transsexuals. This illegitimate, yes illegitimate, power should be taken away from the government. It was not granted under our constitution, and I and many would argue _should not_ be given the power to enforce virtues. I find racial and sexual discrimination abhorrent, and would not frequent any establishment that employed these tactics. At the same time, I understand a person’s right to live in a manner with which I may disagree, be they racist, sexist, atheist or catholic. I am curious as to why you feel that you have others don’t have that right.
McGimp,
Maybe a fetus doesn’t have “broad legal standing.” However, does that mean it’s not a living being that should be given the opportunity to continue to live? Dr. Paul isn’t against all abortion, however he is against most abortions after the 3rd trimester.
Could not have said it better myself, Jojy Igwaboo.
You say Ron Paul discriminates but if you do your research you’ll find that is far from the case. Ron Paul is an advocate of individual freedoms no matter what color or orientation you happen to be. This works both ways. Affirmative action for example gives precedence to minorities over Caucasians even though their abilities may not be as good. You could say that minorities would have an unfair advantage in that case. Ron Paul definitely believes (as do I) that no one should get an unfair advantage especially mandated by the government.
Now I understand that this country isn’t perfect and people get discriminated against. However, trying to balance the unfair with the unfair just goes back to that old saying that 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Discrimination is a social issue that needs to be overcome but it should not be done at the expense of someone else’s individual freedoms.
As for the environment I do think you’re right when you say it is a concern. I even agree with you that Ron Paul probably isn’t the most environmental guy out there. However, what makes you think that big government is the answer to this? Just because there is a big powerful government doesn’t mean it’s going to get results. In fact it will meet obstacles of red tape and untold amounts of bureaucracy. I think our best bet to change the environment is awareness and technology. After all China has already said they don’t give a damn about the environment and what they contribute to it’s downfall. I believe in promoting the technology to go green would be the most beneficial. Getting everyone to work nicely together for a common cause isn’t exactly the world’s strong point.
I would also like to mention your stance. You have clearly stated that you’re a democrat. Democrats are typically for big government, entitlements, and regulation of everything… for the common good (sounds a bit like communism to me but hey to each their own). Ron Paul probably isn’t for you. It’s ok. Individual freedoms is not that important to everyone. Some people are hooked on the government doing everything for you. Pigs at the trough is what I would compare it to.
As for the rest of us who believe that the government shouldn’t intrude itself into every facet of our lives and that we should keep the fruits of our labor… well Ron Paul is for you. He is a straight talker who is almost the anti-thesis of what most people consider politicians to be. That is the first thing that attracted me to his campaign. I suggest watching some of his speeches because it’s after I heard him talk that he really got my vote. He says what he believes and it’s not sugarcoated or double talk. Yes we finally have the opportunity to vote for an honest man.
As for everyone else who wants to keep the status quo and vote for one of the other republicans or the democrats… good luck with that. Excuse me while I help Ron Paul bring freedom and integrity back to this nation.
If you are not a woman, a minority, gay, or non Christian then you will have some sort of freedom under a Paul administration. If you are from one of the aforementioned groups, hopefully you don’t vote libertarian.
This really just comes down to how you want to deal with the problem. I mean really passing laws does little to help the problem. Unfortunately, some people are just jerks and even laws don’t stop them from projecting their hate upon others. If anything these laws exacerbate the problem by creating resentment towards these groups because they get an unfair leg up. You may say it’s to balance the unfairness they receive at the hands of white males(basically that’s what it boils down to) but it’s not that simple.
Now take a white male who is looking for a job. He is the best qualified and worked his butt to get where he is. He comes up against a minority or woman whatever for his dream job. He doesn’t get the job. In fact it was given to a less qualified and less driven person for affirmative action reasons. Isn’t that unfair?
2 wrongs don’t make a right. Really it’s all about picking who you want to screw over. Race, color, sex, religion and orientation should not even come into consideration in these types of things and it is sad that it happens. However, helping one of those groups at the expense of another is just wrong. It’s a bad situation but how can you justify passing the suck on to someone who is not at fault? Shouldn’t it be the people who discriminate who get the consequences and not the hard worker who didn’t get his chance for his dream job?
Really if you believe passing the discrimination off to the majority is any better than discrimination of minorities then I think you need to have a moral rethink. After all… if you discriminate against the majority you’re discriminating against more people than you were originally. Both situations are not right! But only one is mandated discrimination… one required by law. The other is discrimination by people who also could use a moral rethink but at least it’s not required of them.
after reading the HR’s it is clear to me that you do not understand Paul’s position because I see nothign negative in these proposals..it is all in your interpretation
To John shepard,
It’s not about interpretation with these people. It’s about trying to spin in a negative light so people won’t vote for Dr. Paul. Peace
I am not in any of those “groups” because I’m an individual with my own opinions, desires and rights, AND I RESENT BEING LABELED AS PART OF ANY GROUP. People only band together into groups (ie. “black rights”, “gay rights”, etc.) because they’re not getting the rights they deserve AS AN INDIVIDUAL. It’s called collectivism and it’s a disgusting concept that breeds bigotry and hatred.
Anyway, you’re essentially saying that by making the government smaller, it will become more oppressive. That makes no sense whatsoever (and runs contrary to numerous historical examples).
No, but that by making government smaller, society will become more oppressive. Read John Stuart Mill’s _On Liberty_.
Are you on crack?
Summer, we do not inherit our rights as human being by our affiliation with some grievance group. People’s inalienable rights do exist because of their gender, race, or sexual orientation. I think that while your effort here was valiant, your arguments typical of leftist academia’s tired and illogical ideology. Do yourself a favor and start learning the fundamentals of critical thinking. Appeals to emotion are not effective with the Paulites (I am a Paulite, for the record). Presenting self-evidently correct premises (i.e. abortion is a woman’s right, and affirmative action is a good idea etc.) reveals your naivete, and shallow intellectual development up to this point. Cheers.
@BM-
Presenting self-evidently correct premises (i.e. abortion is a woman’s right, and affirmative action is a good idea etc.) reveals your naivete, and shallow intellectual development up to this point.
Questions:
1. If the state can tell a woman what to do with her body. (by denying her access to abortion services) What does that say about her right to have the government leave her alone? It’s seems you are in favor of Affirmative Action for fetuses only.
2.If someone’s inalienable rights are violated, and the government is no longer in the business of protecting those rights. Who will ensure that those rights aren’t violated? Private security firms a la’ Blackwater?
All of the protections that we now have relatung to these and other issues that Paul mentions were put in place for very sound reasons. And at the request and demands of the citizenry. Paul supportors act a though they were set up in the dark of night by evil-doers. The politicians who instituted these programs were freely elected by people who wanted them to do the things they deemed important.
Younger Paul supporters weren’t around to see what this country was like before these, so called, “infringements” on your freedoms were in place.
Supporters of this misguided charlatan are seeking nothing more than freedom from responsibility. They are scared, greedy and will not step up to the plate to ensure the rights of their fellow citizens.
Paul’s ideas would make a interesting Poli Sci class, but is totally unworkable as a means to govern.
>> 2.If someone’s inalienable rights are violated, and the government is no longer in the business of protecting those rights. Who will ensure that those rights aren’t violated? Private security firms a la’ Blackwater?
…
>> Supporters of this misguided charlatan are seeking nothing more than freedom from responsibility. They are scared, greedy and will not step up to the plate to ensure the rights of their fellow citizens.
Just a comment on this. It seems to me, actually, that Paulities are the few groups who go by the age old addage “I may disagree with your ideas, but I will fight to the death for your right to say them”. Seems to me that the abuse of our government comes from people being apathetic about the gradual appropriation of these powers created by the people by opportunistic politicians…and in order to counteract this trend, the winds of government must change and allow for a “refactoring” of the role/function of government. Our government is bloated, broken, dysfunctional, apathetic, narsccistic, and has sadly lost it’s way and sense of purpose/duty. People have lost sight of the reason for government. So if that requires us taking away the miles of government red tape we have wrapped ourselves in just so we can remember the reason we put those guards up in the first place, I for one feel that our country, and people, will be better off not being so babied and dependent. Ron Paul has lit a fire in our memories of what it is it be an independent American citizen, which, sadly, has been long lost ‘neat the suffocation of politic margin-grapple rhetoric.
Zippity,
You state, “Paul’s ideas would make a interesting Poli Sci class, but is totally unworkable as a means to govern.”
Since Dr. Paul has the most constitutionally sound record of all the 2008 presidential candidates, are you saying that the Constitution of the united States of America is totally unworkable as a means to govern?
His views of true Liberty are entirely Jeffersonian.
-LB
ps: right on Tyler!
>>1. If the state can tell a woman what to do with her body. (by denying her access to abortion services) What does that say about her right to have the government leave her alone? It’s seems you are in favor of Affirmative Action for fetuses only.
We’re talking about BIG government leaving people alone. Ron Paul is for states’ rights and individual freedom. If a state wants to outlaw abortion the state right next door is in its rights to make it legal.
>>2.If someone’s inalienable rights are violated, and the government is no longer in the business of protecting those rights. Who will ensure that those rights aren’t violated? Private security firms a la’ Blackwater?
Once again, BIG government. State government will still police and protect the people. You’re obviously not reading much into this concept.
>>Supporters of this misguided charlatan are seeking nothing more than freedom from responsibility. They are scared, greedy and will not step up to the plate to ensure the rights of their fellow citizens.
You’re an idiot. Freedom FROM responsibility? Ron Paul wants everyone to take personal responsibility. Privatized education lets people choose where they spend their money for education. No social security makes people take responsibility for their own retirement. No affirmative action enables employers the freedom to choose the best candidate for the job instead of filling the black/hispanic/female slot with someone less capable and with less experience.
Equal discrimination is NOT equal rights!
Right. The rich and the poor alike have the right to sleep under the bridges of paris.
fools.
>>Democrats are typically for big government, entitlements, and regulation of everything… <<
More accurately, Democrats favor dependency on government. Republicans favor dependency on big business. Under Democrats, entitlements go to those on welfare. Under Republicans, entitlements go to corporations.
What the hell’s the difference? How is one form of dependency any better or worse than any other? Democrats will openly and arrogantly support more government regulation. Republicans will speak out against growing government, but will then grow it just as much in the dead of the night when they think no one is looking. Again, what the hell’s the difference.
You may as well vote for Elvis.
If you are in favor of affirmative action, then you are the one advocating discrimination based on ethnicity, not libertarians like Ron Paul.
Advocates of affirmative action based on race argue that a wealthy black person who may be unqualified should get preferential treatment over a poor white person that is. What is the positive side of that?
If I were one of the minorities that advocates of “affirmative action” seek to help, I’d be insulted that someone would give me something based only on my membership of that minority group, rather than because of my abilities.
I will just say, as a student in the NYC Public School System, I would suppoer Ron Paul’s policy of getting rid of the DOE. They are just a big problematic beurocracy that doesn’t care at all about individuals. They just want to feed us whatever they think is right and force us to memorize it. Why do you think certain colleges are so good? When a college is good, people attend it and give them money. Bad colleges don’t attract as many people, and therefore dont make as much money.
Maybe privatizing is not a great thing to do, but giving people choice in their school system is certainly a better option then just giving everyone a standard carbon-copy school. The world works with money. Get used to it.
More so, I think that you are taking the racial No Child Left Behind act a bit to seriously. You think it really makes sense to promote a child of minority status to a better college than a white student with equal credentials? This is unfair to majorities!! As a white student in New York City, I have seen first hand our government’s attempts at equilizing the races in our educational environment. For one thing, on almost every standardized test, you are forced to fill out a bubble that reads “Please identify your ethic background.” Because I am white, I must bubble in “Caucasian.” My asian friends can bubble in “Asian” and my latino friends can bubble in “Latino.” How is this fair at all!? Why should I be put in a separate category because of my race! Being fair and non-discriminant is one thing. Being tilted towards minorities is another. HOW IN THE WORLD CAN A BLACK ONLY SCHOLARSHIP EXIST!!! Imagine if I opened a foundation for the education of white males. How would that go over?!!?!
So stop taking our government’s actions at face value. Everything isn’t as it seems. Believe it or not, many people agree with what Ron Paul has to say. I am not a Jesus freak, I am not religious at all for that matter. I am not republican and I don’t own a gun. I can still understand where Ron Paul is coming from, though. Liberal geeks like myself fight for internet freedom. Why can’t a hunter fight for gun freedoms? Our world consists of people with ever conflicting views. You can either crush one point of view, or you can let them all reign free.
Mind you, I am too young to vote so my opinion means nothing. But if I could, I would probably vote for Ron Paul. He just has the right attitude to make some BIG changes in this government!
yes I can understand your reluctance because he is not business as usual… but for every no there is a yes or a solution to wat is not in the constitution. please do not be offended read the constitution then compare your reluctance thats it. thats all I wanted to say remember the oath of office of preside is to protect and defend the constitution of the usa…I think that we have come far from that oh I know you will say the constitution is out of date and for me to get with the program.
Ron Paul does not own any firearms, how can he have an unnatural obsession with guns?+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y_mDlUUCMo
Sorry Boomer, but that video is of Duncan Hunter, not Ron Paul. Secondly, Ron Paul has said on video that he has firearms at his house.
On the other hand, the statement on this website that he has “an unnatural obsession with guns”, has no basis in fact, and is clearly intended to misinform people about Ron Paul.
Thank you for your comment. Please tell me the positive side of allowing discrimination based on ethnicity?
What do you think affirmative action is? Yet you seem to have an issue with Dr. Paul wanting to get rid of it.
What could be good about destroying the environment and giving even more incentives and breaks to big oil?
You should watch the Google interview with Dr. Paul, he explains this very well. In short he says that no person nor business has the right to pollute other peoples air, property, or water…
I’m not sure who’s rights and freedom you believe Ron Paul is for. Big business? Corporations? If you want to be left alone and have government out of your personal business then I would hardly recommend a candidate who advocates taking away a woman’s reproductive rights,
Actually he is PERSONALLY opposed to abortion, but understands that the woman makes that choice not the FEDS.
does not support equal rights for glbt citizens, and who would push his religious viewpoints on the rest of us. That is hardly freedom.
Thats the thing about Dr Paul you don’t get.. He does not push his views on others.. And understands his personal opinions have no place in the office of the president.. And he has said at least 6 zillion times he would allow gays and lesbians the same rights as all other people, including Marriage! Amazing isn’t it.. I don’t think you did any research on Dr. Paul before you wrote this… Or watched even 1 interview… or any of the debates.. And if you did, you need to pay better attention.
Here’s so information you may find startling. Politicians lie to get elected. I’d be more inclined to trust a pollie’s voting record than what they say in interviews.
Voting record is very subjective….
Yes it does say where he stood on an issue. However who is to say that a represenative didn’t take the side of their constiuents, and vote for what the people that elected him think. I know this rarely happens in our republic, and normally most represenatives have agendas solely dictated by party agendas or lobbyists… But realize what state he was representing, and the view points from that state.
And how is he in any way discriminatory towards any one group of people? As has already been stated by others, affirmative action, by definition IS discrimination….and your other bit of ‘proof’ is that he voted against something the IRS was doing??? He wants to disband the IRS, what part of that don’t you get?! Of course he’s going to vote against giving them authority to do ANYTHING….just because you found one instance where it happened to be related to minorities, I guess that gives you free reign to turn that into propoganda.
Look, the reproductive right of choosing not to have sex or unprotected sex is still there in light of what Ron Paul would like to do in respect to Roe v. Wade. What you fail to understand is the underhanded nature by which Roe v. Wade has made it to a Supreme Court decision. If you would please do some research on that point, you may see the wisdom that Paul has on this.
I have a question that I want to ask that I cant quiet get my arms around. And I am asking in scincer earnest for some opinions and thoughts.
On the subject of legislation being removed that would allow for segregation once more: If legislation must be in place to safeguard a society from segregation than wouldn’t that mean that the society has the problem with racism?
Really I have two questions:
1. Does any one think, that given the chance, the American society would through a free economy work out issues of segregation on its own and through local governments with out the need for an additional “big brother” watching over our sholders?
2. Does a politician’s desire to give the American people that chance mean that he is in fact a racist?
I have comments and opinions of my own concerning the above questions. Naturally there are pros and cons to every resolution.
For the first question, I know that in removing federal legislation, the doors would be open to increased crimes against civil liberties so it seems like removing the legislation is in fact harming our civil liberties. However, is that not what the Federal Judicial Branch is for? To protect our liberties where our autonomy and local governments have failed.
On the second question, it bothers me to read comments that personally label a person based on a desicion or a stance on an issue merely because it would allow others to act or live by that label. For instance, I have issue with allowing people to choose what sexual orientation they would like to choose. That does not make me gay.
As I said at the begining of this comment, I would truly like some feed back, as sometimes one’s own opinions can get in the way of seeing another’s views clearly.
Sincerly,
LS
He may be anti-abortion personally, but if you really listen to what he says it’s that he feels the federal government doesn’t have the right to make the law. He believes that it should be left up to state law, which I agree with. If you ask me, the Federal Government has gotten way too big and that was not supposed to happen. If they start taking away small rights, like the right to bear arms, what’s to stop them from taking away bigger rights? No candidate is perfect, but there are good things about Paul and his intentions are the best that I’ve seen out of any of the candidates.
Nice spin on the facts. Why not show both sides of the story? Your 10 points are very one dimensional.
Ron Paul for President 2008
She won’t reasses. She is just attacking the Republican candidate that she deems most dangerous to her big government socialist buddies, like a good lil worker bee.
this is a great well thougthout comment.
I’ll preface this response by explaining that I am a very liberal college student.
I do not, however, agree with this.
Ron Paul’s support of guns is not an “obsession” so to speak; its the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. He has been noted several times as stating that his support for the second amendment is that WHEN THE GOVERNMENT BECOMES OPPRESSIVE of us we have a way to defend ourselves and our families.
Ron Paul’s views on abortion, same-sex marriages, federal funding, and the IRS are all because they are currently UNCONSTITUTIONAL. He states that no matter what his own personal opinions are, he will follow the CONSTITUTION. All of these issues would be regulated by state governments, which is how our government is set up to run.
Paul supports a small federal government.
Large federal governments are best understood by reading George Orwell’s novel 1984.
Personally, I support abortion and stem cell research. I support same-sex marriages. I support International Criminal Court. I’m extremely liberal, actually.
But the current government of this country is WAY TOO BIG and WAY TOO INTRUSIVE. Paul wants to limit that. Paul will run his administration by the CONSTITUTION. He also will follow the deceleration of independence which say such things as, “all men are created equally” and that we’re all entitled to, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Under that, all people are protected.
As for separation of church and state, Paul does support that they be separate. He does, however, want to keep “god” in our rights. The importance of this is that if our rights are not derived from a “god” or some type of higher power, then the highest power is the government. You do not want to highest power to be the government. Again, that’s Orwellian.
Paul’s tax issues are just typically republican.
All in all, Paul is the only candidate who supports the CONSTITUTION. He is the only one who is a step in the right direction. Liberalism implies that you want more rights, not less, and Paul is campaigning to give us just that.
He’s the only chance for a “real” change in government as he’s not a puppet like the rest of the candidates on both sides.
Great rebuttal!!
Dang. This list actually makes me WANT to vote for the guy. The ONLY reason I will not vote for him is because he is for taking our guys out of Iraq before the job is done for the people there to live free without terrorists blowing them up.
Every single other item that Ron Paul stands for is right on target. Too bad the WOT trumps abortion for me this election cycle!
In my experience average people in the military are not Bush supporters and in fact do not want to be in Iraq. The portrayal that we believe in this war is utter bullshit. There are just as many of us that don’t believe in this war. However, we are motivated and dedicated individuals and when told to do a job we do it. That doesn’t mean we agree with it.
I’m not saying there aren’t supporters of this war in the military but when a politician puts words in all our mouths it is a damn lie. We are not a single minded entity but a group working toward a common goal because that is the mission presented to us. Our personal beliefs do not matter in that regard.
If you don’t think I know what I’m talking about I happen to be active duty Air Force. I may know a thing or two about it. I took an oath to defend the constitution and I take it seriously. Some have forgotten just what that means. Ron Paul has not and that is why you will never convince me not to vote for him. Not gonna happen.
Active military personnel have donated more money to Ron Paul’s campaign than any other candidate. What does that tell you?
Karenia,
You really seriously think that we should stay over there?! If you actually researched the reasons that we were attacked you’d have seen two key reasons: because we were currently occupying Al Queida’s (sp?) holy land, and we had troops in their country! This is why we need to pull ALL of our troops home! Not just because we’d give them some much needed rest and bring them home to their families, but to allow the other countries we’re basically “occupying” go about their business! How do you think we’d feel if China or Russia had military bases here in the US?! I for one would NOT want them here trying to impose their “power” upon me. I’d want them out! Granted, I probably wouldn’t go to extremes to remove them (unless extremes were used against me), but I’d most certainly object and develop a hatred for them for basically “occupying our country”. I can certainly understand the whole ideal of “we must finish what we started” but the problem with that is instead of CORRECTING our mistake we’re only ADDING to the mistake. I mean…for crying out loud, Bush now wants to go to war with IRAN!!!
One of our biggest problems is the fact that too many people rely on the very biased corporate media. And then they run off what they hear on the news to back up what they believe. The truth is that we need to also get rid of the bought-n-paid-for biased corporate media, and get some real news stations that tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. And that’s my two cents.
You are right,most of the ten reasons listed are states rights issues,Ron Paul is my choice for sure.
god does not exist, sorry for the reality check
Thank you so much for writing this. i had no idea about how crazy his views were on homosexuality were, but you showed it in his voting record.
He relaly is much sneakier then he lets on.
oh please, he’s against FEDERAL funding. He says government has no place in matters of marriage anyway. He’s not being sneaky, he’s being RIGHT.
In other words, he’s for whatever you want to believe because it’s in the constitution under your 1st amendment rights.
That’s not true. He supported the Defense of Marriage Act and has vocally supported laws against gay sex acts….
[citation needed]
Actually, he said he would have supported it back in 1996, but upon further reflection found that a federal restriction on states’ rights to choose for their own people would be going to far.
In other words, he did, but learned and thinks better now.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
The “Defense of Marriage” act states, basically, that a marriage claimed by one state does not have to be recognized by another state or the federal government.
Seems like he’s just keeping marriage out of the hands of the federal government.
In addition, what exactly does marriage mean, and what does the state have to do with it? The government’s opinion of marriage shouldn’t even matter, since marriage is a religious function, and to legislate it would mean that you’d be passing religious laws.
Marriage is not a religious function. It is a personal function. Many people get married who do not believe in God. This is all the more reason for government NOT to interfere in marriage.
Are you sure it wasn’t the federal involvement of government in marriage? Why don’t you go on youtube and hear it from his own words? The Federal government got involved in marriages due to health reasons, but that’s not the case anymore.
He believes the government should have no role in Civil Unions.
He also supports don’t ask, don’t tell because the government shouldn’t have to ask on the sexual orientation. Also, whether they are gay or not, if military personnel act wrongfully in a sexual manner they should both be treated the same.
vocally has nothing to do with actions. Take a look at the track record of his voting against just about everything that would take away the decision from where it belongs, the state level. He is not called “Dr. No” for reasons other than he wants to restore the power to the state level so we as individuals have more control over deciding how and where we live. It restores lost ability to truly have our voices heard on a more local level that has been taken away from those who want big socialist level government and the other who wants money and power in the guise of reducing government.
While he nor I agree with everything, the fact remains that he wants to restore our freedoms on a local level so we can decide to, as a smaller unit, move if our local state goes the way we are uncomfortable with, or stay and try to work to change the laws so that we are more comfortable. Having one big giant blanket federal law removes our right to choose ANYTHING more than you seem to know. Where would we go if we disagree with the law that was passed? Should we be forced to leave the country? Well with the current state we re in, thats happening right now.
I suggest you take of your biased blinders and quit wasting time. Be more objective and open minded and maybe, just maybe, you will see that whatever Ron Paul believes, the whole point to his campaign is to restore our abilities to each individually believe what we want to believe. That is true freedom!
You want government to intervene where it should not. This is a standard position of people who, like all of us, recognize the inequalities of real life. However accurate or otherwise right, it is not the place, nor was it written to ever be the place of federal government to regulate all of the things to which you have a problem. You say discriminate, rather than eliminate discrimination. As it is now the discrimination is against the majority. You say deny abortion – not true. If your state wanted to keep abortion legal it would be. Our foreign intervention not only doesn’t work, in many cases it makes things worse.
Your ideas are good, however with the federal government enacting them, the size of government swells and the power given to them increases. When that happens and the people who aren’t on your side get elected then worse things happen than if you were to leave social issues at the local level.
Ron Paul is about freedom. Its not about curing the social ills of America and the world, that is a losing battle. Only when people are free and responsible will this world truly be the place you want it to be.
Wishing everyone would be “free and responsible” is equally ridiculous. Do you remember learning about the industrial revolution, railroad barons and the civil war? All of these are great examples where state’s rights or loose government intervention in business had very negative results for the working class.
It reminds me of something very simple my history teacher taught me. He picked two kids from the class: the most vocal democrat and the most vocal republican. He asked both, “Do you believe the government should interfere less in your life?” Both answered “yes.” He asked, “So why don’t you agree on issues such as abortion, gun control, welfare, etc?” The two kids thought for a minute, and one piped up, “Well, we disagree where we want them to interfere less.”
Choosing a candidate who picks one set of freedoms over another is equally reprehensible if you’re pretending you’re voting for “pure freedom.” Why do you feel it is okay to trade Rowe v. Wade for lighter gun control? Environmentalist policy for taxes?
There is a reason why Ron Paul’s views are so often at odds with the mainstream Republican views of the other canditates…precisely because he does not advocate this arbitrary distribution of freedom, delegating more government power in one area but less in the other just because he thinks it is “right.” He believes in getting the government out of everything, giving back freedom in all areas of life to the individual. I’ve also never understood the traditional platforms of the Democrats and Republicans, who promote freedom here but not there. That’s what makes Ron Paul great…he keeps his own personal views on right and wrong out of your business.
Libertarians are the closest thing we got to our founding fathers. These reasons not to vote are unsound. Not enough for me to comment any longer.
The largest problem with this post is that you do not look a Ron Paul’s main idea – small government. In many of these cases, for instance the Gay and Lesbian marriage federal funding, he is simply opposed to the use of taxpayer’s dollars . He is not against homosexuality, nor does he necessarily support it. He supports freedom. He doesn’t necessarily like what people do with that freedom, but he will NEVER infringe upon their rights to do so. Here’s a good interview about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M
On education – most of the funding for our nation’s schools does not come from the federal government, but the states. He is for giving people the right to choose how their children get education, whether it be homeschooling, private school or public school.
On abortion – he will never federally mandate that abortions be illegal. He is a constitutionalist, and he sees this as a state issue. Which, if you read the constitution, it most certainly is. He wants to over turn Roe V Wade in order to make sure it is no longer a federal issue, his reason (I believe) for doing so is mainly because it allows “abortions” to take place at the later months.
Negative image of the US? That image comes from the wars we have started and the civilians we have killed, which was “justified” because of UN resolutions. Our image might be hurt if we leave the UN, sure. But compared to us leaving Iraq it would be rather small. And we will always be the country that gives most when a disaster strikes another country.
I could argue against your other points, but unfortunately do not have the time. I’m sure other supporters will though.
Your comments on his stance on homosexuality are not correct. He has carefully worded his speeches throughout this campaign but he has shown through past legislation, as referenced in the article, that he is against homosexuality.
On abortion, he has introduced several pieces of legislation to define human life as beginning at conception. This lays the groundwork for a complete abortion ban.
Isolating ourselves and angering the rest of the world is what will happen under Paul. He has shown that he supports continuing in Bush’s vein of foreign policy. Yes we may get out of Iraq but we still will look like arrogant asses.
His views on homosexuality is this… it does not matter. Not at all. His ideology is for all peoples. Now he may believe personally against homosexuality and abortion. You see that doesn’t matter at all because he is a man of integrity and follows the constitution. He has shown that he will consistently uphold the constitution over his own personal beliefs. How many politicians can you say that of?
He has stated that abortion should be left up to the states. This is based on the constitution. See the above paragraph for clarification on why he would do that.
You are wrongly thinking that non-intervention is the same as isolation. It is not. Isolation is trading with no one, closing our borders completely, and having no relations with other countries. He wants to trade and be friends with all nations. He just wants to drop the bullying of other nation to do what we want just because we are stronger. Might does not make right. We wouldn’t put up with it from other countries so why should we force our agenda on the world?
As for Bush’s foreign policy technically you are correct. However, you have left out one little tidbit of information that only changes everything. He advocates the policy Bush ran for president on and not the current policy that he has in place. Bush ran on a humble foreign policy with no nation building. Hardly what he practices. That’s really like telling half the truth and I don’t really see how that helps your argument.
I am against his personal views on religion and homosexuality, but support his policies on them: he clearly keeps his opinion separate from his legislation, with an amazing and long voting record backing this up. Digging back 20 years to reveal him showing his personal opinion and not finding a vote that contradicts his policies – that should tell you something about his strong belief in personal freedom.
As someone supporting women’s rights, the pragmatist in me dreads federal legislation in either direction: I rather have the precedent cemented that it is a state law (which seems feasible) because a woman in need could then go to a state more in sync with reality.
Your article has so much obvious spin that I have difficulty believing it wasn’t intentional.
“On abortion, he has introduced several pieces of legislation to define human life as beginning at conception. This lays the groundwork for a complete abortion ban.
Isolating ourselves and angering the rest of the world is what will happen under Paul. He has shown that he supports continuing in Bush’s vein of foreign policy. Yes we may get out of Iraq but we still will look like arrogant asses.”
Addressing your first point, I don’t know how many times you need to hear this but Dr. Paul opposes abortion law to be a FEDERAL edict. He wants the states to decide! You know, small government, that thing you’ve discriminated against in your ridiculous 10 points of ignorance. He was an OB/GYN and personally opposes abortion. But as president he abdicates the authority of what should be a states law to the STATES. How novel. Understanding yet?
You completely contradict yourself in your second point, and you do not understand the concept of isolationism vs non-interventionism. Supporting the elimination of free trade (tariffs, embargoes, sanctions) is isolationism. THAT is how you cut yourself off or isolate yourself from the rest of the world. Non-interventionism is different. The United States should NOT intervene all over the world. It incites hatred which manifests itself in the forms of embargoes, malcontent, and terrorism. The Constitution does not provide the authority for the United States to project power around the world, only to protect our sovereignty. The constitutional position is non-interventionism. Have you read the Constitution lately? Maybe you need a refresher course. Think about it completely objectively: Why does the United States have any right to intervene in the affairs of other nations unless our national security is at stake? It doesn’t. Just like we would hate it if China sent its military into our country, established bases, and supported anti-American movements. The only reason you can say that the United States should intervene in the affairs of other nations when our national security is not at stake is if you axiomatically believe that the United States is morally better than everyone else. And if you truly believe that, who is the real arrogant ass?
This is a good wikipedia article that I recommend everyone read who wants to learn how the Republican party was hijacked by the neo-conservative movement and where the neo-cons originated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo_con
If he thinks abortion should be left up to the states, then why did he sponsor a FEDERAL bill defining human life as beginning at conception? You’re saying one thing about his position, but his actions very clearly state something else.
I guess I’ll start debunking your reason #1 “Ron Paul doesn’t value equal rights for minorities”.
Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens.
—————————————————-
Your reasons are backwards. In fact, affirmative action creates racism. Professor Walter E. Williams did a study on this a while ago and wrote an article on this, it is an interesting read.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams052803.asp
But now looking back, I don’t see specifically where it states he would repeal it.
How is limiting the scope of the IRS, in fact, racist? How about elimination of the IRS, would that be super racist?
Now the last issue, the one on birthright citizenship, is not about race, it’s about national sovereignty. Something Ron Paul is strongly for is securing our borders and preventing any forms of amnesty. From a liberal or libertarian point of view one may see having open borders and illegals coming here fine, and to restrict them is racism.
This is not the case, the case is ILLEGAL immigrants come to our country for a better life. They could wait in line like everyone else, but instead they sneak in and have a family.
The parents aren’t in the system so they don’t pay local taxes, taxes that would go to schools and hospitals. The family uses these facilities for free, at the cost of the tax payer. What this causes is the destruction of our schools and hospitals, they simply cannot afford to stay afloat (don’t get me started on No Child Left Behind, which thankfully Ron Paul is against)
So these aren’t based on race or minorities, this is about saving our country.
Let’s take a look at your sources: A bill from 1979, two from 1984, one from 2003
Let’s break these bills down, shall we?
1979: This is about PRIVATE schools, not public. Public schools are a different story, these are paid by the people. But take a private all-girls school for example, they are gender discriminatory, are THEY worse than a private school that accepted both genders?
1984 (1+2): Entitled A bill to provide for civil rights in public schools. I take it this is about Federal reach in public schools, the ones that are paid by local taxes. I tell you this is an interesting one. A public school near where I used to live, George Washington High, one year was required by federal law to bus in people from a different town simply to ‘diversify’ the schools population. They were forced to spend tax payers money to bus these kids every day. And why? Simply because the kids they were busing in where black, that’s the only reason. Our government has no place in judging an American based on the color of their skin, it is unconstitutional. I can tell you many schools became very poor and couldn’t afford to pay their good teachers because of something like this. Integration is schools is a GOOD thing, but it can’t be forced and not Federally. The federal government doesn’t give access to school boards on issues like this, no one would hear the school board’s plea but Ron Paul.
1993 (with 4 cosponsors): Basically a repealing of birthright citizenship. Obviously people here now would be grandfathered in, but it’s a very important issue. If you look Tom Tancredo backed him up on this. Like I wrote before this is a major issue in the south, many south Texas towns are overrun with illegals that don’t pay taxes and have babies.
Illegal immigrants wouldn’t be such an issue except that the federal income tax is a massive burden on everyone. I could imagine that these people will be less of a scapegoat (blame for all problems) if the income tax and birthright citizenship was repealed.
So anyway, I don’t have an entire month to write a novel in this little forum for WWJV4, but I hope I answered your 1st issue with a proper rebuttal.
Still waiting….
You have a popular view about affirmative action, and one that I do not agree with. Affirmative action was a response to racism. It was and still remains a necessary adaption to the ongoing issues.
As far as limiting the scope of the IRS; If a private school receiving federal funding discriminates on the basis of a protected class they lose there tax exempt status. By saying that the IRS cannot investigate this it is racist. Unless, within that legislation he supplied someone else the job of doing so, he didn’t.
In regards to undocumented workers, I find it funny that he is an adamant supporter of the constitution unless he doesn’t agree with it. The Mexican people were in America first, we acquired 8 of our states from Mexico, portions of the original California State Constitution were in Spanish. The point is, we have a long history with the Mexican people. They are suffering and trying to provide for their families. You’re right, they could wait in line, and watch their children grow up without shoes or enough to eat. This is a human rights issue and I feel that there are ways to solve this in a compassionate, responsible manner. Ways that do not involve changing the spirit of our immigrant nation.
I used bills from throughout his career to show the pattern of his beliefs, at least he is consistent.
Maintaining a school system that is desegregated and as fair to all as possible is a huge responsibility. Brown v. Board of Education opened the way for minority youths to partake in a better educational experience. It’s important to maintain that. If not, schools will once again be segregated and we will right back where we were, except maybe worse off with the other changes to education that he proposes.
I can say that I don’t agree with pushing discrimination from one group to another. Affirmative action just changes who you discriminate against and not that someone is being discriminated against. It’s helping some by hurting others. It’s crap.
Limiting the scope of the IRS? I suppose eliminating it is technically limiting but getting rid of it entirely is what Ron Paul’s agenda is. I agree. Small government solves the problem of needing that money. The less you spend, the less money you need. That means more money for you and me as well which will work to bolster the economy rather than send it through an inefficient and slow to react system that rarely gets anything accomplished. When something does get done it’s rarely as intended and usually done only halfway right with corruption thrown in the mix.
I love how people are quick to have a bleeding heart for other countries when we have plenty of people here in the US who could use help as well. How can you help others when you can’t even help yourself? Sadly the US cannot solve the world’s problem nor should we. If you personally want to help third world countries out then I applaud you and your commitment to humanity. However, not everyone feels this way so we shouldn’t be forced to pay for it. The world is a tough place and remembering that helps you deal with the fact that you just can’t help everyone. It’s not possible.
Saying that as soon as the government stops looking over peoples shoulders then all hell will break loose is rather unrealistic. Things have changed and for the better even. We live in a society of information and I’m pretty sure popular opinion has shifted toward equality. Saying things will move backwards seems like an awful grim outlook.
Also let’s say Ron Paul is elected president. If you think everything he advocates will come to pass then you need to take a reality check. He will be good for yanking the government back down to respectable levels of operations. People who want government oversight will still have their say just like all Americans. Hopefully compromises will be made and we’ll settle on things everyone can be happy with because after all the constitution can be amended. Hopefully we can avoid this country’s fall into fascism in time.
I was going to write something similar to Gottlos, but he covered up most of the bases. Let me sum up my disagreement.
On Affirmative Action: “It was and still remains a necessary adaption to the ongoing issues.”
But where is YOUR article backing you up that this is a necessary adaption?
IRS: “As far as limiting the scope of the IRS; If a private school receiving federal funding discriminates on the basis of a protected class they lose there tax exempt status.”
But you don’t answer my question in if private schools should have a right to be an all girls or all boys school?
Are they wrong for being discriminatory? It’s a private school. Furthermore, Ron Paul wants to eliminate the IRS, in doing so this wouldn’t be an issue, would it…
Illegals: “This is a human rights issue and I feel that there are ways to solve this in a compassionate, responsible manner. Ways that do not involve changing the spirit of our immigrant nation.”
Like most democrats or other pro-open border people you assume this immigrant nation is a nation of illegals. This is wrong. My parents and grandparents waited for years after they escaped the Soviet Union so they can take a boat to America. They waited in line.
What you don’t realize is that America CONTRIBUTES to Mexico’s poverty, find out what NAFTA does to the cost of wages of the Mexican people. Mexico takes American Dockworker and Trucking jobs, and do it cheaply.
You don’t touch the subject of taxes, which I think is one of the core issues here. With removal of Income Tax it would remove one aspect of hatred toward illegals.
All our border guards that should be protecting our border are in Iraq. I don’t think a wall is necessary, but a much cheaper and efficient solution to the illegal running over the border. This is the removal of birthright citizenship.
What gives two Mexican or Canadian immigrants the right to sneak into our country illegally and have a baby to earn benefits tax free? What makes the illegal any better than someone that came across legally?
Why don’t you read the constitution and see the limit of power the President has? He can’t force all these thing through, however, he’ll be able to make these views more ‘relevant’ to the politicians in Washington. The Congress is quickly warming up to these things because they want to keep their job. He’ll also VETO anything that comes across the table that is unconstitutional.
It’s quite obvious you’re a pretty left minded Democrat, which should be a message to Republicans that this guy is the right man for the job.
It is quite possible that you believe what you wrote, but it is far more likely that it is a ‘hit piece’. Here are some corrections:
#1 Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities.
Affirmative action legislation does not give equal rights to anyone. It results in government protection and promotion of a group based on their ethnicity, effectively establishing government sanction of discrimination based on race.
Private schools are just that; PRIVATE. Why are we spending government tax dollars to regulate a private organization? If you start a book club for neighborhood kids, do you want a federal representative coming to your club and telling you that you must dedicate 2 meetings per quarter to the Upanishads so that the Indian-Asian community is being fully represented.
———————————————-
Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade.
What an amazingly naive statement. Roe v. Wade is good in that it protects the right to choose, but it is also a disaster waiting to happen. By establishing the precedent that the federal government has the right to tell you what you can do with your body, they could at any time reverse their stance and tell you that you may never have an abortion under any circumstance.
Dr. Paul supports repealing unconstitutional law and has stated again and again that it is not the jurisdiction of the federal government to legislate morality.
——————————–
Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class.
Once again, the unnecessary burocracy and regulation of businesses by the federal government is not the business the federal government should be in
The minimum wage does not help us, nor does it protect us. If it were abolished there would be far more competition for labor and the average wage would increase. OSHA does nothing for the workers of this country, but they are very good for the insurance sector who can dodge paying a premium based on OSHA regulations.
—————————
O.K. I’m not going to go point by point to correct this article, just suffice it to say that the author of this article clearly believes that the government should protect her in all aspects of her life from cradle to grave.
I would like to suggest that the author could do a better job of taking care of herself with her own earnings than the government will ever do by taking a portion of her earnings and then dolling a fraction of what they take back out to you.
I believe with conviction everything that I wrote. As I said I thoroughly researched Ron Paul, his stated stances, and his record. He is very careful about what he says but by really looking at legislation that he has proposed his conservative, racist, bigoted self comes shining through.
On abortion, he may talk a good talk about “local” decisions but he has submitted several times, legislation that would define life as beginning at conception, laying the groundwork for a total ban on abortion. Also, as president, he would nominate justices that share his personal stance on abortion.
Also I would love to see your research, or are you just blindly firing back with more rhetoric?
Why don’t you rely on and post your own research to debunk what someone says rather than demand someone include their own research. Don’t get lazy if you want to have a constructive argument now.
I personally don’t have time or the desire to sift through all that and post it. Perhaps others hold the same view? There a lot of sites and a lot of minds to reach to be linking all these things for just this one. People will do their own research and find out for themselves if they’re interested… and then they will know.
You are saying that you don’t agree with my position but you can’t back that up with anything. I don’t think I’m the one being lazy. I have gone through a lot of trouble to make sure my points are well cited to allow for intelligent debate.
If you think a bibliography is required to be right then you’re mistaken. I AM lazy thank you very much.
I don’t want to sit here and link all that stuff… like I just said. However, since you’re the one making the demands of research… then continue doing it by all means. Everything I say CAN be backed up. I just leave it up to my reader to verify it. I could be talking out my butt… I could be completely correct. I could be somewhere in between. Find out now by researching Ron Paul! I mean really… I do have an agenda here.
Gotta love people who can’t be bothered to post references, but can still find it in them to call someone else lazy.
You are very right and I can’t be bothered. Also Summer did imply the laziness of the poster she was replying to. I was pointing that out in a rather cute manner. Note the smiley.
Well I don’t expect random people reading an article to do “research” but its quite telling about the integrity of the author when they them selfs don’t research the candidate and instead rely on their own communist propaganda. This article in my opinion is poorly written and full of fail.
Summer, you conveniently didn’t comment on my fact filled reply on your first part. Would you like to do so now?
Because you posted facts, I am researching. I will get back to you. I’m not superfast.
#1 Affirmitive action is discriminatory. The IRS is not needed and if removed would give the poor a 28% percent pay raise. The department of education is a failure and the states can do much better without oversight.
#2 Of course this is a touchy subject with everyone but if a person can be charged and imprisoned for harming a fetus then we already are looking at it as though the fetus is a person with rights.
#3 The federal minimum wage removed competitive wages and has helped remove the middle class in this country. Social security is also a failure and is something that i am paying into and will never reap the benefits of. OSHA and other federal oversight costs small business LOTS of money and headaches. This helps big corporations eliminate competition.
#4 Ron Pauls tax plan ? Thats from 1984 ! Not even what he supports today. He wants to eliminate the Fed and give everyone a 28% pay raise. Good lord how great that would be. He has stated many many times that if we bring the 1 trillion we send overseas every year home we can fund all these programs, let the young people opt out, and have money left over to boot.
#5 OH MY GOD ! You really hate the free market ! When you tax companies they only pass the cost on to the consumer. This is basic economics – look it up ! If I were running a small business and the gov decided to tax me I sure as hell would raise my prices to make up for it. He isn’t talking about getting rid of the EPA at all. This country hasnt built a refinery since the 70′s which has only contributed to the high prices at the pump. Please learn about economics and the basics of business before making assumptions.
#6 !!! Our negative image – I think that can be chalked up to the last 5 presidents sticking their nose in other countries internal affairs and policing the world.
#7 Ron Paul the 2002 Szasz Civil Liberties Award Winner
are you serious ! He has done more for civil liberties and rights than anyone in recent years. His main principle is freedom.
#8 Gun Control again ! Gun control perpetuates crime. The states with the most lax gun laws have the lowest crime rates. And yes our founding fathers did intend that we all be armed. The purpose was to keep the government from being more powerful than the people.
#9 Yup – the fed needs to stay out of education and let the states handle it. The fed can’t create a one size fits all solution and expect every state to benefit.
#10 Yes yes of course – Ron Paul hates fags and wants religion in schools. Once again you are ignorant of the constitution. The federal governemtn has no place making any law against of for religion. This includes laws trying get these things out of public view. These are issues that should be handled at the local level. The federal government was meant to be a small binding organization not a large wasteful know-it-all.
The biggest problem I have with your article is your misunderstanding of the abortion issue. You seem a lot like our current group of lawmakers who don’t read the legislation – they only read the synopsis.
HR 2597 – the bill clearly states “the Congress recognizes that each State has that the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State ”
Also maybe you should witness an abortion or read what it entails and then rethink your stance on it. I dont know anyone that is for 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions unless absolutelty medically necessary.
Reading inbetween the lines? Seeing things that aren’t really there?
You sound like a conspiracy theorist to me.
Summer, you say you researched before you wrote your conclusion and you may have but from looking at what you have written I can see that you had a completely preconceived notion of what your conclusion was going to be. Your inability to understand what Dr. Paul stands for or wants confirms this. Your negative spin on issues such as the IRS or AA also proves this.
We need less government not more. We need less corporate involvement in politics not more. We need Presidents that will listen to the people not special interest groups. We need more states rights and less Federal intervention. We need more privacy and less spying on the population by government agencies.
Go back and read exactly what our founding fathers wanted for this country. This is defiantly NOT IT!
I want my country back! and as far as I am concerned the only one who can do that is Dr. Ron Paul.
>On abortion, he may talk a good talk about “local” decisions but he has submitted several times, legislation that would define life as beginning at conception, laying the groundwork for a total ban on abortion. Also, as president, he would nominate justices that share his personal stance on abortion.
Below is a great interview clip of Paul specifically on this topic. No one says it better than the man himself.
Some incite on his stance on Abortion
and, for the record. i don’t think it’s debatable whether or not “life” begins at conception. any scientist, or 3rd grader, for that matter, knows that human “life” DOES, in fact, begin at conception. what’s debatable is whether or not the woman has the right to end that life. i also feel your argument is tinged with a bit too much conjecture on whether or not abortion would be banned at a federal level. in all honesty…i don’t think there’s even a minute chance of that happening, but it sure does get the one issue voters riled up, doesn’t it?
i’m personally pro-choice, however i completely understand where Paul is coming from on this issue, and whole heartedly believe something likes this belongs as close to home as possible…not at the federal level.
if he were a pro-choice atheist…i’d be ecstatic. unfortunately he’s not, but he’s still getting my vote. i feel there are much, much more pressing issues than whether or not a woman can end the life that grows inside her or a bible thumper can or cannot pray in school. these squabbles pale in significance when you look at our monetary policy, foreign policy, and slow but steady move towards a more tyrannical government lead by nitwits and warmongers.
Summer,
I’m sorry that you feel so negatively towards the Libertarian Party. I admit that there are a lot of far-right Republicans who became disenchanted with their party and joined the LP, but they don’t truly represent the real spirit of the party or the beliefs of the party. Speaking specifically about the rights of gay people, most libertarians believe that someone’s orientation is none of the government’s business and that what happens between consenting adults should stay between consenting adults. Personally I believe, as a libertarian, that gay people should be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals, including the right to marry, have children, inherit from their partners, and have health benefits that cover their partners. I question if the government should be involved in any of these decisions as the George Bush administration has shown that they’re willing to discriminate against gay people for political gain, and unfortunately, so have many democrats.
Personally, I believe that if you are gay, and you’re still voting for a democrat, you should examine the track record of your party and consider how in times of political pressure you might again become a target for short-term gains.
Take care.
Thank you for your comment. Really I think that Paul has good rhetoric but unfortunately his record doesn’t back it up. To me he appears to be just another Religious Conservative, only smarter than the rest.
I support Kucinich for president and I do see what you mean about the Democratic party and glbt rights. Unfortunately for the nation as a whole we have moved to slowly to extend equal rights to all.
I find it hard to believe that you have listened to the man speak if you think he’s another religious conservative. Don’t fault a man for his religion… he’s entitled to it. Respecting other people’s differences is something he advocates and says everyone should be treated fairly and equally. Distrusting someone based on their religious values seems more like you have the prejudiced feelings.
Unless you can prove Ron Paul to be a liar then you have no argument because he has clearly stated his intentions. In fact politicians think to say what he says is political suicide but he says them anyways because it’s what he believes. He is clear and sincere in what he stands for. He says he will not let his personal beliefs get in the way of his presidency and I believe him. I recommend putting away your political filter that the MSM and other politicians have provided for you and really give a good hard listen to the reality this man speaks of.
Reality? When someone’s record doesn’t match what they say that is lying.
Ok let me just talk about that life starts at conception. That’s his belief. Of course he would support that. And of course it may influence the states decision on the matter. I don’t see how that affects what he advocates now. He’ll still leave it up to the states. If they still want abortion then they can still have it.
Really the whole when life starts thing is really about murder. If the fetus is considered alive at conception the abortion is murder. Advocates of abortion don’t want that because then they would be advocating murder and that’s a moral dilemma now isn’t it. Sometimes life isn’t nice. I actually have pro-choice leanings really. If you want to kill your unborn child that is your choice. Don’t sugarcoat it. Don’t justify it by calling it something else when it isn’t. It is what it is and your personal beliefs will not change that nor will any congressional ruling. If believing that life does not start at conception makes you feel better about it then believe what you gotta believe. Don’t pretend you base your feelings on scientific fact because no one really knows. That’s reality for you and it’s a moral struggle for millions of people.
As for any other contradictory legislation please provide some more. Everything you have provided seems to fit what Dr Paul advocates. What seems to be the issue is that you just don’t agree with him. That’s fine. Just don’t call him a liar because you disagree. Be free to use what you’ve already posted to support your facts. I’m human and I may have missed something.
The fundamental flaw in your argument stems from a failure to recognize that there is and should be a differentiation between a president’s personal convictions and a president’s obligations to his or her country and to the rights of the citizens thereof. Ron Paul has made his personal stances clear on many “hot button” issues such as abortion, gay marriage and the separation of church and state. However, he has always taken political stances that are subservient to these personal views.
For instance, if there were no difference between his personal beliefs and his duty to uphold the constitution, would his opposition to a constitutional ban on gay marriage make any sense? This is why it is unfair to claim that Ron Paul is categorically against gay marriage as your article suggests. To Ron Paul, someone’s orientation is none of the government’s business and therefore gay marriage becomes a nonissue for Paul.
This is why it is reprehensible to write Paul off as simply being pro-life, discriminatory, against gay marriage, etc. For instance, he wants to repeal Roe v. Wade not because of his personal beliefs but rather as a servant of the U.S. constitution he believes it is an issue that the federal government should not be involved in. Therefore, although Ron Paul may personally believe abortion to be murder, he will not pursue abolishment of abortion on the federal level until an amendment to the constitution is ratified, unlike virtually every other pro-life candidate.
This is not only why Ron Paul has the most integrity of any candidate that I have seen in my lifetime but also why his chances of being elected will be unfortunately slim no matter the circumstances. In order to understand Ron Paul a voter has to be willing to see beyond the 10 second sound bytes of present day political discourse; a willingness I sadly feel has been diminished by the mainstream media. And when I talk about the mainstream media’s bias I am not proselytizing conspiracy theories. Can you remember one question asked at any of the presidential debates on CNN or FOX in direct regard to our nation’s looming recession? Has any major news network even entertained the idea of impeaching this president without an immediate rebuke?
It troubles me deeply when discussion of Ron Paul is whittled down to the one dimensional black and white talking points like the ones in your article. The current establishment of mainstream media and politics is largely AGAINST the American people and the principles of personal liberties and freedoms. Ron Paul is only one of a handful of candidates in this election whose voting record shows a consistent incorruptible concern for the liberties and freedoms the American people have been so quick to throw away in recent years. As such it is vital that Paul gets a fair and fully dimensional analysis outside of the media that perpetuates the false notions of a Paul administration like the ones in this article.
Reasoning with the unreasonable, I have seen this sentiment expressed again and again by Paul supporters: I do not agree with Ron Paul on everything, but I know that as president he would make this country great again. I concur.
Ron Paul wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, because SCOTUS does not have a Constitutional right to determine when life begins. Abortion is a personal issue that is best left to communities to work out for themselves. The Fourteenth Amendment allowing a woman the right to potentially commit infanticide is to many Americans an abhorrent principle and a divisive one, as well.
I am pro-choice, because I recognize the unfair treatment of women in our society creates a culture where abortion may be a necessary evil. Unplanned pregnancies can change lives, affect your education level and livelihood and contribute to poverty. I know many dogmatically pro-life activists are unconcerned with the child’s well-being once it is born.
A more pro-life culture at the communities discretion would be beneficial to this country, though. If states could make laws protecting life or the rights of a woman’s body, I think women would be viewed more respectfully as the sacred vessels of life that they are instead of reproductive slaves or inconvenienced parasitic hosts or dumb breeders.
I have two things to say:
1. I’ve known about Ron Paul since he started his political career in S. Texas. I lived in Lake Jackson and met him in the mid 70′s when I was in school there. He’s a typoical libertarian, and the fact that he’s a libertarian should in and of itself be sufficient to preclude him from consideration. Libertarians are fundamentlay about not having regulations with respect to individual interactions. Not to protect those interactions but to maximize the potential for profit, their profit. Libertarians at heart believe in ‘greed is good’.
2. With regard to the comments in part 8 above about our founding fathers not wanting us to own military arms. You could not be more wrong. Let me give you an exemplar quote as to what they thought about military arms….
“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
That is correct, its called “freedom”, you should try it some time.
Not at all, libertarians applaud charity, but its not charity if its the government taking your “donation” by force through taxation.
It seems that you believe that people, left to their own devices, will act greedily. Libertarians have a better opinion of their fellow man than you seem to.
I have to say… I’m really struggling right now deciding who to support. I like a lot of what Ron Paul says and I like that he is a “straight shooter” and not just a run of the mill politician… But I agree with your points and with many others… I really wish the “revolution” happening around Ron Paul was happening around Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel…
Yes I know what you mean. I respect Gravel and Kucinich for their courage to speak out against the wrongs of the Bush administration. However, it’s hard to want to vote for someone who will create more big government and lead us towards socialism. Smaller government is a necessity in my opinion so Paul is the man for the job.
Affirmative action is not equality.
Concerning the appeal of Roe vs. Wade, the context of why he wants to appeal the decision needs to be told. He doesn’t want to appeal it because he feels abortion is wrong, only that he feels that the federal government has no business controlling such a complex issue. He wants to leave it up to individual state governments to decide. When considering the context on why he wants to appeal the decision, I think most people will find that stance preferable.
That is once again NOT TRUE. He personally opposes abortion and he has SEVERAL TIMES introduced legislation that would define the beginning of life to be at conception, laying the groundwork for a total abortion ban.
read the legislation – you are wrong
once again …
HR 2597 – the bill clearly states “the Congress recognizes that each State has that the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State ”
All these bills imply that the states have jurisdiction
Right, and if there were an amendment stating that a human begins at conception then each state would have to protect that human.
A state could go that way with it – while another may say rubbish !
which in no way is a total ban, you avoid that scenerio when the question is left up to states. so you are incorrect in making that statement.
What about the death penalty? Some States value human life more than others. It is a double edge sword that has no definite answer. That is why these are state issues.
If a man murders his brother in a state with no death penalty (and is convicted), then the state has already mandated that his life is not to be a payment for those who were slain.
If the same happens in a death penalty state, his life is no longer valued (by the state), and the authorization to protect his life is voided as a result of his crime.
Now in these two cases, both are the exact same crime, but done in different states. Is one more wrong? Is one right? This is precisely why these are state issues. A “one-size-fits-all” federal approach is mot what our Constitution calls for.
The double edge of this moral sword is, “Does a death penalty (or lack of a death penalty) prevent (or promote) murder?” This question can be asked for another equally important life based state issue: abortion. “Does the availabiltiy of abortion in my state promote it? Or does the restriction of abortion prevent it?”
The question is real. If we live our lives and treat a fetus as not human, what does that say about us as individuals? It sounds like a very selfish, and irresponcible thing to have unprotected sex, and abort a pregnancy because of personal issues. On the other side, I don’t think it would be the greatest thing to be forcefully born into a world where right off the bat you are unwanted by your parents. Again this is why these are local, state led issues. If you want to live in a state where babies are killed, and murderers live a life in prison then by all means find that State and raise a family there. If I choose to live in a state where all life is respected then I’ll go and live in a death penalty and abortion free state! But don’t force me to live in a country where abortion is appeased!
Furthermore, on Dr. Paul’s Bill to recognize life at conception as recognized by the federal level, This is entirely Constitutional, because life is recognized by the federal govt, and the states are authorized to protect human lives based on the morals of its citizenry, be it from prevention of murder through life imprisonment or a death penalty, or making abortions unavailable.
As for the death penalty, it boils down to the view that protection of citizens through capital punishment is the answer or the protection of individuals to live a life where forgiveness is a possibilty.
Abortion is a much more complicated question. Do we value liberty to the point where a woman can decide to terminate the developing human being inside her, or do we recognize the fact that we all started our existance as an innocent one celled 46 chromosome human being.
Regardless of what he said then or introduced as legislation he has said that he would repeal roe v wade and leave it up to the states. That is his position. You want to look it up? Try http://www.ronpaul2008.com or http://www.ronpaullibrary.com or even youtube will get you there. You know what… I believe him too. He has never come across as anything but sincere. That is so important to me I’d vote for him even if I didn’t agree with 50% of the issues (I support most of his so lucky me).
That’s about the constitution right there. I took an oath to defend it and it’s one I take seriously. It is not just a piece of paper. According to the constitution the federal government does not have the authority to oversee abortion but it does afford that authority to the states. If you can’t support that then really it’s about you forcing your will upon others for your own agenda and beliefs. We are the nation that we because of that document. Discard it at the risk of our country and freedom.
I would vote for Ron Paul for two reasons: To end the IRS, it’s illegal for the government to be taking money for people’s incomes, and secondly to end the miserable failure known as the “War On Drugs”. Although, admittedly I think and feel that Dennis Kucinich could take care of these two problems while at the same time not sacrificing our civil liberties or forcing a Christian (un)moral and biased viewpoint on all Americans (as Ron Paul would).
I support Kucinich, where Paul has rhetoric Kucinich has the record.
Great, now you can list 10 reasons why you shouldn’t support Ron Paul as VP – http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/ispol/119606955056620.xml&coll=2
Hopefully they are as horribly and irresponsibly written as the first ten. I can’t wait!
Ron paul has and always has said that he will not impose morality on peoples lives. He would not force any view on americans other than freedom.
Google this – Ron Paul the 2002 Szasz Civil Liberties Award Winner
By the way, it should be clarify that I would vote for Ron Paul any day if Dennis Kucinich doesn’t make it. Both candidates have the potential to dramatically change America forever (for better or worse), but that makes them better than the “status quo” candidates. Hasn’t GWB changed America dramatically already? I would absolutely love to see America headed in a different direction.
The writer of this article makes me laugh to the point of hysteria almost, I went threw this entire thread and read every one of her points (if you can call them that). Tho i could have just read this and not had to read anymore. ( but i gave her the benafit of the doubt since i am not exactly an admit RP supporter. We have our differences, If it came down to Paul vs ANY demo besides obama or kucinch i would vote for RP.. But im not sure who I would support RP vs Kuch or Obama.. But well cross that bridge if were lucky enough to come to that hahaha man would that be refreshing! real debates! And it wouldn’t be the lesser of 2 evils.. but the better of two good honest politicians. The way America was founded…
Summer says and i quote
“Isolating ourselves and angering the rest of the world is what will happen under Paul. He has shown that he supports continuing in Bush’s vein of foreign policy. Yes we may get out of Iraq but we still will look like arrogant asses.”
This statement is by far the stupidest arguement i have ever heard against Paul… Bush’s foreign policy is to put our thumb up every other countries ass, How can you compare his policy of Pre emptive wars. Invading countries on a wim, for resources, stability, bases for future engagements? On the other hand you have Pauls proposed pulling ALL troops home not just Iraq, South Korea, ect ect but ALL forigen stationed troops.. its not our business to police the world. Do you like the police telling you what to do at your house? Well how would you like a foreign government thousands of miles away doing it and killing a good percentage of your friends, family and countrymen. Im sorry i just dont see the reference… you remind me of Mccain comparing saddam to hitler.. or paul to Nevil chamberlain But i bet you don’t know who the latter is
but I should HOPE you know who the first was haha.
Another point you call him a bigot and a racist.. yet he won an award for being a champion of all civil liberties..? Thats seems a bit contradictory wouldn’t you think? ALso I have heard he was the only politician EVER to win it i believe?
Also another thing an African American friend of mine told me is that Paul has the most African American support in polls of any canidate, second only to Obama of course ha ha my other favorite candidate. ( kucinch is awesome too )
But anyways coming to the point.. When readers look up this stuff for themselves ( like i Did ) which they will i should hope.. they will see this silly hit piece for what it really is. And in all actuality all you are doing is helping the candidate you obviously dislike greatly and which you have your closed mind very set on hurting… Kinda ironic wouldn’t you say summer?
BTW : Since when does admitting you fucked up a country and pulling your troops out look ARROGANT, Thats like the exact opposite…. it would make us look HUMBLE. You know something along the lines of “the previous administration was wrong we aren’t going to follow in their mistakes” Kind of like what Australia just did with ratifying the Kyoto protocol only days after the new PM was inaugurated i believe. Ok im done
Good day “summer” if that really is your name
BTW you seem to follow the general attitude of
“I hate people who try to impose there will on me its just so wrong! My will is right, i should impose it on them!”
Shame on you, let people make up there own minds what makes your opinion more right than anyone elses
“Now, I’m pretty damn certain that when the Constitution was written our founding fathers never intended for people to be walking around the streets with AK47’s and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.”” Ron Paul certainly isn’t advocating people owning AK47′s either; There is quite a difference between a fully automatic “assault rifle” and a semi-auto handgun or rifle. And a “large capacity ammunition feeding device”? What foolish zealot thought that one up? That is just a really stupid term for a magazine that has more bullets in it. Laws that limit the amount of ammunition you can carry in one magazine are stupid. Someone trying to go on a rampage can easily subvert them using a simple tactic: BY BUYING MORE MAGAZINES. Paul realizes that gun laws like that mostly affect law abiding citizens, so why even have them? That said, stupid gun laws only weaken the second amendment; the only one that gives you a position of power when all the others have been violated.
Take your fear of guns and shove it, fear is what lets them kill.
The founding father meant that the people should have the type of arms used by the military. They meant for the citizen to be the equal of any soldier. Look it up. Even the supreme court, ruling in Miller vs US in 1934 recognized that the second amendment prtected arms of ultility to the militia.
Technically speaking, based on the Miller ruling, the only weapons protected are military ones (like the AK-47). Look it up.
Nice work, Summer. I’m a Paul supporter and tend to disagree with the conclusions drawn here but you’ve clearly performed some actual research – something that’s sorely lacking in Paul opposition pieces.
I’m quite interested in understanding the following a bit better:
This would be extremely disturbing to me if true. It seems to conflict with Paul’s basic philosophy, though, so I’m wondering if you could expand a bit on what your thinking was here. Are you basing that statement on something Paul said specifically about ID or are you extrapolating from other related material?
I expect Paul’s position to be that the federal government ought not have a say one way or the other in what’s taught in public schools. He could not really support or oppose ID in any kind of official capacity as a congressmen or president, which is exactly the position I’d prefer the folks in D.C. to have on such issues.
I’d still like to know where he weighs in on the issue, however. The idea of teaching something as scientifically bankrupt as ID alongside biology or genetics and under the guise of science is absolutely apalling to me. What’s taught in science class should be left to the scientific community, wouldn’t you agree?
I found a similar claim in a recent zmag article:
ZMag is extremely far left and they’re being pretty loose with their reference here. Anything else out there to support the Paul-as-ID-supporter claim?
I agree completely. During the 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate on Sept. 17, 2007 the candidates were asked:
“Academic freedom is threatened when questioning the theory of evolution. An Iowa State astronomer was denied tenure because of his work in intelligent design in May 2007. Censoring alternative theories–dogmatic indoctrination–has replaced scientific inquiry. Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?”
All of the candidates, including Paul said “yes”. Now, of course I used ID as the example as that is the leading “contradiction” to evolution. Here is the source.
I believe that exposing kids to less knowledge is never the right way to go. I say present both sides and let them decide for themselves. There are people who are real believers in intelligent design and if being taught this differing outlook gives kids an insight into those people and their beliefs then good. Just let them decide for themselves. Personally I believe ID is a load of crap but hey to each their own.
If you advocate not teaching them intelligent design then you’re just like the christian fundy who doesn’t want evolution taught in schools. No different. It boils down to wanting to impose your will on others which also is a load of crap. I say to these people stop telling others how to live their lives as if you were perfect and knew everything. What may work for you may not work for others.
Basically from what you say it sounds like you’re attacking Ron Paul’s religious beliefs. I don’t see how that helps your case. Am I missing something?
Um no. Exposing them to science in school is correct. There is no “side” to this issue. Evolution is not some great debate.
It’s not a two sided issue. ID is not science. It is a social belief, and possibly some people would go so far to call it an explaination. You can teach it in social studies all you want. You can’t teach it in a science class because it is not falsifiable, which is a criteria of what is science.
Gottlos,
So your saying that we should teach our children every crackpot theory that anyone comes up with whether it is supported by evidence or not? If that’s the case we are going to have to teach them thousands of really poor theories because we won’t be ale to just introduce ID, we’ll have to teach them every other theory that has no merit as well.
Arguing against ID being taught in schools is not the same as arguing against evolution being taught because evolution is backed by a mountain of evidence while ID has none.
Yes we should! Would you rather your child get an objective viewpoint about something and compared with actual science or would you rather they get converted to believing the crap that is ID? Really there are two sides to a coin. Your job as a parent should be to ensure your kid isn’t dumb enough to believe that ID is actual science.
I whole heartedly believe in being presented with all evidence even the crackpot stuff. It’s when presented with all the information that you can make an informed decision. I’m not saying teach this stuff as truth… I’m saying teach this as a differing viewpoint. After all the ID people would say evolution is just as ludicrous so really it’s two sides of a coin. So really from a position of objectivity you need to take both sides into account. Dismissing one side is a bit hypocritical no matter how much crap it is.
The more you know… the more you grow. Teaching kids to be narrow minded is the wrong direction in my opinion.
Thats not the point. ID has no place in a SCIENCE-CLASS. It belongs in religion class. Nobody is saying that they cannot teach ID in religion class. What people are against is presenting ID as science, in a science class. It is not science. By any definition of the word.
I agree it shouldn’t be presented in a science class… because it’s not science. I think a lot of people don’t want it taught at all and I’m just trying to say that would be censoring of information. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear about that.
Thanks. That’s disconcerting. The question is framed a little funny but I definitely would have preferred to see a big fat NO on that one. But then again, I’m not sure I could have answered NO as a direct response to the way the question is worded. If you say “NO”, you’re saying, “I would not encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts.” We both know that “scientific facts” here means “theology”, but still.
I’d love to see someone put a specific question on intelligent design in science class to the man. But I’ll cede the issue to you. What’s out there, while light, seems to support your position more than I’m able to refute it.
You contradict yourself. It doesn’t matter his personal views on a FEDERAL level when education is done through the STATE level.
Here is what he himself says about evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q&eurl=http://forums.netphoria.org/showthread.php?t=154114
I found it deeply troubling that he does not give it as much weight because it’s a “theory” You would think that a doctor would know the implications of theory in the scientific sense.
Awful, just awful. I read that whole thing and couldn’t find an ounce of truth in any of it. :[ Thankfully, Paul fans are too enlightened buy this crap. I mean, really, with an opening argument like “Ron Paul is a racist because he doesn’t want to give special treatment to black people” this has to be satire.
(you are now entering Obama country)
you must be a white boy! ha!
Thanks for posting this. It reminds me why I’m not a republican (in the Ron Paul sense or the George W. sense). A strong counter-point to the Ron Paul fervor that’s sweeping the internet needs to be made and I think you’ve detailed some important points well.
Oh snap! You support Dennis Kucinich. Well guess what? Kucinich supports Ron Paul. Paul says they are, “good friends.” And get this, Kucinich’s first choice in a running mate is… Ron Paul. If you agree with Kucinich then maybe you’re missing something in your analysis of Ron Paul.
“Kucinich is a good friend of mine.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJcnoDfFWhM
“Democratic candidate [Kucinich] says his first choice for running mate is: His republican colleague Ron Paul.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpnhd5fJ9nQ
Focussing on what the government can do for a country is almost as ignorant as ignoring what its people can do for themselves. More culturally developed nations around the world feature governments which are less involved in peoples lives and provide a freer more functional and more enjoyable society. If you spend time worrying about the policies of politicians you waste effort that could be spent on reducing the power of Government of individuals. Government is the only power that has the right to give itself a job at the expense of its employer, the people. The proliferation of employment mentality, the pursuit of entitlement instead of greater contribution to society is proportionate to the self expansion of Government’s self appointments. For every service it delivers there are substantial administration costs which render the increase in efficiency to society overly expensive. Individuals can do these things for themselves at a significantly lower cost. But only societies that have dealt with these problems already in their history are ready to take responsiblility for themselves.
Though I like Ron Paul, I agree in part with Summer Ludwig that he has some downsides. If the Democrats put up a candidate who is fervently anti-war, both the Iraq War and the Drug War, then I will for him. Notice I said “him” because Hillary certainly doesn’t fit the bill. To me, the war issues trump the ones discussed in the post. I’d vote for Kucinich, but the Dems won’t nominate him. Obama would be nice, too. Hopefully he will grow a pair before it’s too late.
I’m a Ron Paul supporter and I ‘d just like to thank you for putting together a legitimate (and well researched) argument to not support him. Although there are other sides to these points that reflect Paul’s small-government views, you raise very real concerns, especially with 3, 5, and 7 (though I don’t the connection between equal rights and affirmative action). It’s very important that we all educate ourselves about who we vote for and be informed. You’re probably going to be bad mouthed by Paul fans, but here’s one saying keep doing what you’re doing (as long as it’s well researched!)
Thank you for posting this.
I’m really quite impressed with the amount of braindead Paultards that are raining down on this piece – I guess this is what happens when it hits social media sites, eh?
Of course, all of these people haven’t actually researched a lot of his ideas, but heck, if it’s good enough for one neckbeard, it’s good enough for them.
Let’s also not forget this: Though they may deny it, the moment he loses the primary or heaven-forbid he get that far, the race for president, they won’t realise he’s been beaten fair and square. They’ll turn even more on the media, the electoral commission, anyone, because GOSH DURN IT I VOTED FOR HIM AND MY FRIENDS DID, HE HAD TO HAVE WON.
Stupidity and ignorance truly is alive in modern-day America. It just happens to be in the minds of those that would think they embody the exact opposite.
Just a thought… being critical without name calling is much more effective than posting the cookie cutter comment you just did. I have done my research… my views probably just differ than yours. It’s easy to denounce what people say and just throw out that no one did their research. I’m pretty sure that if you’d read the comments here you would know that most of these posters have done their research and some even link to supporting material.
Your post has prejudice written throughout and a lot of preconceived notions. If you think you’re reaching people and getting your ideas across I highly doubt you’re changing any minds. It seems that you are merely seeking acceptance from those who believe like you do and are scared of what Ron Paul stands for.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win. Gandhi said that. We’re at the part where they fight you. Do the math.
It seems my comment had the exact response I was aiming for, it got one of you to respond. I should probably note at this point that I’m not actually in the states, I’m merely watching this from abroad with a slowly-spreading grin on my face.
And if you think you’re gonna win you’re in some kind of alternate reality world, I’d wager. Paul, while popular on the internet, still isn’t polling well with mainstream America from what I can make out. You might wanna start taking advantage of those easily-hacked voting machines …
Oh no those sneaky foreigners have done it again! I as the dumb American have fallen into his/her/its insidious trap! Anyways…
While I applaud your interest in our humble country I have to say that you’ve managed to fall prey to what some of our more uninformed citizens believe…. that you can still trust the media. The fact that the media is biased towards certain candidates is mind bendingly obvious when you are even halfway informed about anything. To say that any candidate is in the lead at this point is pure conjecture… considering nothing matters until the primaries.
I think the best indicator is money raised and well you can’t really put down the efforts of Ron Paul’s supporters on that front. In fact look to the 16th for some news about it. Even though the media is biased they are finding that they are getting more viewers and the MSM is taking notice of Ron Paul. The anniversary of the Boston tea party will be a big day for Ron Paul. You may even find out what many individuals who believe strongly about something can do.
As for the voting machines you can look to other candidates for some corruption. Even though Paul supporters can get a bit rambunctious we’re all usually pretty honest and straightforward.
Personally I also wonder why people say Ron Paul is a lost cause. I mean after all people who post flaming messages and then try to say “ha ha got you to post on a comments board neener neener neener” don’t support Ron Paul so that must be a check mark on the positive side. Thank you for supporting Ron Paul with your negativity.
The beautiful thing about this post is that there is some type of actual investigation and intelligent conversation happening.
While I don’t agree with Dr. Paul on many issues, the fact that his candidacy creates such intelligent conversation amongst the American public leads me to believe that something is going on that is actually worthy of further investigation.
Ron Paul has remained firm in his beliefs and, when he presents himself to the American people, the fact that he does not allow himself to become caught up in the emotional fervor created by high stakes debates should cause some type of respect for his positions. Regardless of partisan affiliations, the other candidates seem too willing to make empty promises that simply quiet down any naysayers. Digressing from the topic, the only two candidates that seem to have any sound ethical foundation are Kucinich and Paul.
As a supposedly Democratic country, where do we draw the line and stop allowing liars and hypocrites from gaining political positions? Of course in the general scope of the political public sphere, many, including myself, question the inherent biases and hypocrisies of the political spectrum, but how do we start the pendulum to swing in favor of reason and ethics?
Nitpicking aside, Paul’s extremist views are Paul’s extremist views and many of his plans would never get passed because the one thing that Paul advocates is a fair system of checks and balances.
Frankly, I am tired of empty promises and the wishy-washy nature of the current political field and hope that someone who has proven a stolid ethical candidate will get on the ballot over someone who has no true political stances. Ron Paul cannot be reduced to simple political sound bites. I commend your article in that it sparks more intelligent conversation.
If only everyone at least did as much research as you did, then they would have a different opnion about Dr.Paul. Currently he is the best of the worst in the republican side. Your writing certainly changed my views. I am pro choice period and I did not know about Dr.Paul’s stance until now.
Thanks for taking time to research about him
You are a total loser if just this article somehow “opened your eyes” and probably never did any research yourself except jump on the bandwagon because it seemed everyone else was doing it. See, right there in lies the problem. For many of us who support Ron Paul, we have researched enough to know that most of this rhetoric in context, without the information taken out to make a juicy article, restores our freedoms in all aspects to have a true right to choose once again.
For all creeds, races, groups, etc. On a State level. This revolutionizes the concept or the right to choose in EVERYTHING.
Stop being a bandwagoner and don’t just stop researching from this silly article. Do more. Read more. Learn more. Be free more.
A lil harsh but I have to agree. If you don’t make an informed decision what decision are you making?
They respect each others differences but can see they are 2 of the last honest politicians around.. plain and simple haha.
oh snap.. i think Ryan’s comment is the last nail in the coffin.
I’m not particularly a Ron Paul fan but i’m likely to vote for him if only for the fact that he intends to bring our troops home and get the federal government’s middle finger out of the states’ asses.
As for your points here…. um… don’t you think there’s an awful lot of conjecture here… you’re stating facts… and on the basis of these facts making conclusions that are not necessarily logical consequences.. i believe there’s a specific name for that type of fallacy. I’m particularly bothered by your repeat usage of the words “laying the ground work for a total abortion ban”….
hmm…. there are so many things wrong with that statement.. first it implies that “laying the groundwork” is the reasoning behind his actions… and also it requires that after a repeal of Roe vs. Wade…Paul then go totally back on his stance on everything and use the federal government as the moral gavel of civil liberty bashing that the Bushites have turned it into. Hmm…
Anway…. looking at all the points you’ve made… removing your conjecture… you’re speculation as to “why” he would take certain decisions or indeed the ramifications of said decisions… he seems to make perfect sense… nearly every single objection here is an example of Paul behaving like Paul… removing the federal government’s talons from areas it shouldn’t be involved it. Why you’d completely ignore this somewhat plausible hypothesis that a libertarian would act like a libertarian because…. he is… a libertarian…. and instead believe that it’s a conspiracy of secrets and lies is baffling to me. I mean this exact same exercise could be done for any one of the candidates upon examination of their voting records.. just insert wild conjecture or effect…. Actually that would be an interesting assignment….. nm….
Also come the hell on… the civil liberties award was a huge deal.. and yeah, he is the only politician ever to receive one… even a cursory glance at his record… you know…. not JUST his voting record but his actions would tell you this…… frankly that point just seems poorly researched. Also.. since when does being against affirmative action make you a bigot? If i’m an advocate of civil rights improvements for Palestinians does that make me a hater of israelis?
Anyway…i think it’s time for a take 2… someone made a point earlier.. there are remarkably few negative pieces on Ron Paul and a good one needs to be done… unfortunately… this just isn’t it…. If a candidate does things that entirely echo what they’re supposed to be… highlighting this doesn’t change anything… It would be more interesting to find examples where Paul has compromised his own principles or perhaps directly contradiction his position on something… you know.. the type of thing that would make a supporter reconsider…. you almost had it with the Intelligent design thing… but the way the question was worded (so typical of debates) was laden with so many traps that to be honest… Hitler’s Anschluss with Austria referendum question seemed fairer… and we all know how that ended…
sorry if i’m coming off as mean but it all really does come off as a borderline hit piece as many have stated above. It smells a little… main stream media…. perhaps even local news.. i dunno…
Good post. This made me want to make one comment.
I just want to state that Ron Paul has been consistent and says what he believes without sugarcoating and deceiving us.
Now even if he did once… even twice… even three times lied to us. Hypothetically. He would still be so far ahead of any other candidate except Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel it’s not even funny. You gotta consider the alternatives. Thankfully we don’t have to worry about that because he’s an honest man trying to do the honest thing for America. Truly an opportunity that needs to be pounced upon.
Between Gravel, Kucinich, and Paul it comes down to ideology. Big government vs small government and I choose small government. Remember when it used to be like that before the neocons came to town? Whom you voted for actually meant which ideology that you subscribed to. Now your choices between the mainstream candidates is big government and… big government. It’s a fight over who gets to run the big government. This is why we need to reject the mainstream and focus on the real candidates…. Kucinich and Paul. May the best man win.
P.S. Sorry Mike Gravel but I just don’t see you working out… you have some good ideas.
“Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade.”
Are you trolling? Ron Paul is opposed completely to denying women control of their bodies. He wants to make sure the federal government has NO such legislation. He’s not a hypocrite that wants federal gov’t stepping on rights when it serves his moral views. This is total misinformation. If you published each of these stances with Ron Paul’s justification and explanation for why and how it advances freedom (and he’ll surely have historical precedent to back it up..), you’d have a pretty damn different blog post. Up the honesty.
This wont convince many people becuase its from such a left wing perspective.
Tell people that Paul doesnt believe in the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Thats something they dont know and something theyd disagree with him about no matter what their politics are. Paul doesnt think the Bill Of Rights should enforced on the states; he thinks they only apply to the federal government. Thats the biggest reason not to vote for Paul. That would mean that a state could ban handguns for example. See how that isnt left wing? Thats a more effective argument.
All the stuff about discrimination, and “glbt citizens”, and not being for raising taxes… just makes people roll their eyes.
I’d like to know where you got your information. Something tells me you may be spinning something. I’d like to decide for myself.
Paul considers incorporation “a phony doctrine”. You have to first know about what incorporation is to understand where he’s coming from. Id suggest looking it up.
Heres two places he mentions it, where he says the 1st and the 5th amendments dont apply to the states:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=259
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul259.html
The first link isnt very long so I wont quote from that. But heres the important part from the second link:
“If anything, the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the Kelo case on the grounds that the 5th amendment does not apply to states. If constitutional purists hope to maintain credibility, we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases – not only when it serves our interests.”
Thats what he believes for the whole BORs.
This is more evidence of the opposition’s fear of truth and freedom. Ron Paul’s platform is to leave matters to the individual states. This is exactly the way the constitution says things should be handled. Anyone who supports afirmative action is a racist. Just because RP votes to not spend federal tax dollars on certain things, doesn’t define his stance on them. There is no bias, he votes against any and all unnecessary federal spending, no matter the reason. Try harder, A$$hats!
P.S. all you gun hating sheep better be careful at the mall this year. I hate the mall, so I won’t be there to protect you.
a lot of people on this discusion board seem to have a very distorted idea of who was the primary beneficiary of Affirmative Action,
do your research and you will find white women were the main benifactors of AA, not black people.
Also since Ron Paul and his supporters are all about states rights I wonder what the response would be if slavery or indentured servitude were adopted by some states again!?
1) Make false claims
2) Link to random documents related to those claims, but do not support your points
3) ???
4) Discredit: Failed
1.
Ron Paul 100% supports equal, individual rights, and rightly declares activities that define social groups perpetuates discrimination.
2.
Ron Paul agrees the government has no rights to interfere with rights of a female, he is the most pro-choice for everything. He says states should govern the legal limits. Is it so shameful for us as sentient beings to say that pulling a baby out of a womb, when it could survive on its own, and then having to kill it to complete the abortion is ok because it is the mothers right? Ron Paul says there are legal limits, and do you panicking feminazis, who have no hope in hell of getting a guy to impregnate you, think you know more about this becau
3.
Ron Paul would give working class real money, end inflation tax, and provide competitive health care. You ever wonder why meds are cheaper in other countries? You think ‘working class’ can drive up to Canada every time?
4.
No, you just described today’s tax scheme. Warren Buffet agrees.
5.
Ron Paul isn’t anti environment, but he knows how much money the government siphons off to useless causes, such as corn based fuels. Ron Paul would give us highly competitive and innovative fuel markets.
6.
“A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations.” Unbe-fucking-lievable. You mean by not attacking countries? I think you believe Iraq must have been a good score for the US, and an open ‘friendly trade and talk’ with all and no tangling alliances would be a negative image? Leading by example and not force is wrong?
7.
“Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens.” First – wow, you’ve dropped the capitalization on glbt. Incredible. Like when email dropped the hyphen. Progressive. Ron Paul believes that every US citizen has 100% equal rights as an individual. How can you argue against that? How? Oh he doesn’t want federal funds divested to sponsor same-sex marriage, when legally they were paid by tax payers to sponsor heterosexual marriage? But I want more rights because I am gay! Well, sorry, no. Just equal rights here.
8.
Ron Paul supports the constitution and the right to bear arms. He says the airline, not the government, should have been in charge of securing the plane. Responsibility in the right places!
9.
Butcher the education system? He supports giving children more then trying to pass attainment tests. He supports freedom, choice and localized control. Parents back in control. Oh wait! Maybe that circumvents your desire to see home-economics classes teach how to bring up babies in same-sex households? Gee big government sure is nice when you want to impose your own decision on what other people’s children should learn, but perish the thought they ever did the same.
10.
Ron Paul is fully for separation of church and state and personal religious freedom. How can you argue otherwise? Because he has integrity? I think he is, as terrible as it sounds, saying religion is a right people have to express, Christian, Jewish or Muslim (or other). I wonder if you’d ever feel that there is a war on sexuality, and people cannot express their sexuality, you’d protest?
OH WAI! I remember when there was the glib protest over the restriction of advertisement of GBLT guilds in WoW. Great win! Even though the restriction was valid, it was discrimination, and bringing sexuality into a child friendly game.
Summer Ludwig is obviously dysfunctional
Equal rights for people MEANS no affirmative action.
His Tax plans would NOT benefit any one party. It does now though, and will do with pretty much any democrat.
Paul has an “unnatural” obsession with guns? Yeah I guess the same way Jefferson did – and tons of other repubs and democrats. Lame point, not even a point.
Jordan K, no good points were made here. Read a little further than this crappy blog.
Disastrous for working class? Yeah right. Paul’s No income tax and smaller government means 1/3 of your salary will be yours again. I guess that’s a disaster? Plus it’s cheaper to keep jobs here in US. Again, a win for working class BIG TIME.
Regarding Separation of Church and State, believe me, you are better off with Paul than others. He’s for more freedoms across the board. The fixes will trickle down to the local level.
Regarding the environmental issues, you have to look at the economics of it too. He’s targeting earmarks that aren’t constitutional. Don’t be stupid and quit fear mongering. Ron Paul is the only logical solution.
I liked kucinich, but the day after Virginia Tech, he introduced multiple bills for gun bans.. What???!!! I couldn’t believe how sneaky that is. Guns are a good thing. The more guns in good peoples hands and houses, the safer you will be. Look at towns requiring ownership. Safest in the US. You like DC? Shithole, with plenty of gun bans.
This site is pretty lame. Jesus wouldn’t vote for any of the other republicans and probably none of the democrats right now. He’d vote for Paul.
Our intervention has caused much of the current conflict. Our laziness and dependence on oil is what causes intervention too.
Religion should be out of Government, you still want Ron Paul though. Even though he’s catholic, he’s all about the constitution and has voted CONSISTENTLY keeping to it for 20 or more years. If you really look at the records, you’ll see Paul rocks.
I was wondering how long it would be before Rudy’s brownshirts would start their Reddit sabotage campaign.
Where to begin… suppose I’ll start with #1
1. It’s not about race, it’s about the Constitution (I suspect I’l be repeating this). To paraphrase the good doctor, racism and bigotry are sins of the heart, and government is a poor tool for fixing those. On the topic of the IRS, he supports anything to limit the power of the IRS.
2. Indeed, he does not. May this not deter you in your conversion to Liberty. Let it also be pointed out that Ron Paul is the BEST Republican in the field on this: if Ron Paul is not elected president, and another Republican nominates the next Supreme Court Justice(s), abortion WILL be outlawed throughout the country. And there has yet to be a topic on which the Supreme Court started out one way, changed its mind, changed its mind again, and then did so a third time. So the outlawing will be permanent. A Paul administration, on the other hand, would return the power to regulate abortion to the states, and prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on it.
3. Social security will be insolvent in mere decades. Furthermore, with the monetary policies of a Paul administration, no benefit increases will be necessary. On the other topics, it’s about the Constitution and the proper role for the Federal Government.
4. Out of date information and a straw man. I’m really impressed. Others have pointed out how wrong you are here. I’ll defer to them as to exactly how much of a raise the poor get.
5. He wants to make polluters liable for personal and property damage, and sees government regulation as not only useless, but harmful by allowing some pollution. Either a polluter is damaging, or it’s not. The EPA’s massive regulations are full of loopholes that are get out of jail free cards for polluters. You have been brainwashed if you think that the EPA is the answer. If it was, there would be no environmental issues to discuss.
6. Here, you’re wrong not only about Ron Paul, but also Bush! Unlike Paul, Bush is an internationalist and a big fan of the UN. If you review Bush’s statements on the matter, you’ll find a man who doesn’t dislike the concept of the US being beholden to the UN, but only criticizes the efficiency of the UN. On the ICC, Bush doesn’t like it because he might face responsibility. Paul doesn’t like it because it’s supra-Constitutional, and anyway was never ratified by the Senate; it doesn’t matter one bit that President Clinton signed it.
7. You have two issues here, and I’m going to address the second first, because it’s simpler: “Prohibits Federal funding of”; if that appears in the bill, there’s a 95% chance Paul is going to vote for it, no matter what it is. To borrow from a certain campaign manager, It’s the Constitution, stupid! On your first issue.
On the first issue, you’re simply wrong; the act prohibited REQUIRING the states from recognizing another state’s same-sex marriage if they did not want to.
8. Given that you’re a Liberal Weenie™ (evidenced by “that just sounds scary!” as a reason to ban something), I don’t think anything I can say here will convince you you’re wrong. But just consider this: which would you rather have if Bush or Rudy Giuliani decided they don’t like your blog and want you “disappeared”: nothing at all, or an AK-47 with a large magazine? (And then I remember because you’re a Liberal Weenie™, you don’t think any politician, even a documented fascist, is capable of such a thing, because you have overriding faith in government to do the right thing, despite 7 years of evidence to the contrary)
9. Once again, It’s the Constitution, stupid. Show me where in Article I, Section 8, there’s anything to do with regulating education, or how states handle education.
10. This is completely unfounded. I don’t see how you can claim to have done research on Dr. Paul and have come to this conclusion. If Ron Paul is against separation of church and state, why does he think the state shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all? Ditto with schools: he doesn’t want the government regulating what Catholic and other religious schools teach.
In summary, Dr. Paul does not believe in using government force to achieve your ends. This is true. He probably doesn’t even support your ends, most of them. But he supports every single means you might want to undertake to achieve those ends, so long as you neither hurt nor defraud anyone in the process, whether by your own threats or force, or threats or force the government makes on your behalf. That is what liberty is all about.
Liberal Weenie™ ?
lol
This is such BS. In many cases Ron Paul does support repealing these laws – b/c it is none of the Federal Governments goddamn business. The States can deal with these issues if need be – do your children a favor and read the Constitution please.
Ryan: LOL. Thanks for pointing that out.
You failed to mention his absolutely ranting and raving lunacy on Usenet in the 1990′s… and that, on an ironic note, he very much suggested that people start buying gold… from Ron Paul Precious Metals, Inc.
Not that I will hold any poor opinion of you, in the least, for not mentioning those. I realize that this is pretty much just a brief summary of his previous suggestings and rulings.
Due to that, if you don’t mind – I would love to add to the list. My little niche is generally History, Politics, and words to describe them – so perhaps you’ll enjoy this as much as I do.
This is H.R. 4379. Let’s get to know Mr. 4379; introduced by Ron Pero- Paul (this will be the single below-the-belt remark).
—
This bill states that:
” The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court–
(1) shall not adjudicate–
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).
—-
Now, to throw it in writing that isn’t technical (not for you, Summer – I’m pretty sure I just had a political geek-gasm concerning your logic):
(1) The Supreme Court – the court which sets rulings for us, as a country, to abide by to have some sense of cohesiveness – will not make any judgements on the following:
(A) Laws, Policies, Regulations regarding freedom of religion.
To give an idea of how he would like it, Paul also co-sponsored a prayer-in-schools amendment. He also wrote that “…the real motivation behind the insistence on a separation of church and state is not based on respect for the First amendment, but rather on a desire to diminish the influence of religious conservatives at the ballot box.”
So, no more arguing about things regarding religion.
(B) ANY claim regarding your right to privacy (including BUT NOT LIMITED TO sexual acts, orientation, or reproductive issues.
Just as a refresher:
“Including =/= limited to”. The courts would no longer hear any arguments about privacy. Because the nation totally doesn’t need standards on that. State level all the way, guys. That worked so well in the pas- wait. oh.
(C) Equal rights (including BUT NOT LIMITED TO same-sex marriage or being discriminated against for being gay)
Of course, the wording of this also allows any minority to be included… but hey, we’re all white and middle-class here… right? I did come to the right meeting, didn’t I?
–
According to Paul, there has been no genocide in Darfur.
He opposes campaign finance reform.
“The cocaine speculation would explain certain mysteries. During the campaign, Bill never released his medical records…. [C]ould the reason for his reticence be DOPE? Clinton has perpetuated troubles with his throat and voice, which could be related to the nasal drainage a cokehead experiences. He is also an insomniac, which dopers are. None of this is conclusive, of course, but it sure is interesting.”
- Ron Paul, Phoenix Journal – 1994 – #84
I could really do this for hours. Don’t forget the whole “fleet-footed black youth” comment. I’m also on the threshold of showing that it actually was Paul who wrote that. The newsletter was 8 pages – and Paul wrote all of it previously. It’s not like he didn’t have a lot of time in between his Usenet posts and Ted-Stevens’esque rant blog.
Need a new friend, Summer?
Let’s get some ice cream.
So in essence don’t vote for Ron Paul because hes a REPUBLICAN
It seems that you are correct about Ron Paul and the Intelligent Design question, but it’s like the gentleman said above me that the question is worded so strangely that it would be hard to say no. I mean who would ignore facts? Yes, I know the “facts” in question were discussing ID, which seems ludicrous and I don’t believe an ounce of it, but it sucks that he said Yes anyway.
I’m going to be honest with you, it seems that you are really looking for things to pick at RP about. It’s clear you are firmly on the left side of the spectrum and Kucinich is your guy, but he doesn’t have a chance. RP has a lot of momentum and has a good shot now, so if you really want to get America out of Iraq, I’d say vote Ron Paul because you know the cash cows aren’t going to lift a finger.
Just an ideological tidbit: I can tell you get really riled up when Republicans want to start legislating morality, such as banning abortion or gay marriage. See, I’m not the same side of the debate with you on those issues, but I think you and other persons with a leftist persuasion are guilty of legislating morality and that moral is altruism.
I know your goals are very generous but what if my personal morality is that to focus only on myself. Many other people would call me selfish, greedy, etc and tell me that I’m horrible for being so, but who says that being greedy is bad? The Government? Oprah? Jesus? Who gave them the authority to deem traits such as altruism as good and selfishness as bad?
What I’m getting at is that all morals are subjective and one cannot legislate morals onto another. Think about economic liberty as an extension of personal liberty, I believe the liberty from coercive theft is quite personal.
My ideology tidbit for ya
You mentioned you don’t agree with intelligent design theory being taught in public schools, and I agree with you on that too (yet I belive it to be true). I’ve got my own theory about evolution that says it is a faith based system as well, but that is another blog.
I wrote a paper on how God has revealed himself through his creation. Maybe this will make more sense of ID:
“The Holy Trinity is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three constitute God.
Many people question the logic if:
1+ 1+ 1 = 3
then 3 cannot be 1
But consider…
1 x 1 x 1 = 1
one to the third power (one cubed)
God uses his creation to show us how he works. Consider what life is made of, where it takes place, and how long it has been around. These three things are examples of matter, space, and time. Without any one of these given examples life cannot exist. Now take a closer look at each:
Matter is solid, liquid, and gas
Time is the past, the present, and the future
Space is highth, width, and depth
Whether matter is a solid, liquid, or gas, it is still matter. The same with time, and space. The past present and future are 3 that equal 1) (cubed) The same applies to space. (three dimensions)
Each example contains three sub parts that share equal roles of working together to sustain life. If you think about it, we are living in a trinity of trinities!
God shows us through his creation that He can exist as three personages. Even we exist as three: We have a mind, body, and soul!
I believe, since we were made in the image of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, God exists much in the same way. Of course now is not the time for that wealth of knowledge, but I believe that is the promise of burying your treasures in heaven.”
hey thanks for reading this far, and I hope it made as much sense for you as it does for me!
Here is a link to the philosophy of Liberty. Which touches on Life, Liberty and the true ownership of Property.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM
again, pay attention to the number 3.
(executive, legislative, judicial)
Our founding fathers knew something about its importance
peace!
Affirmative Action is, by definition, racist. It promotes certain citizens over others based solely on skin color.
I may not be the smartest person in the world, but I know that the solution to racism is NOT more racism.
Nice article, Summer…well-researched and thought out. A great many of the replies I’ve seen so far have been pretty illuminating about Paul’s supporters, as well.
Keep up the good work.
How can you call this a political blog when it is so misguided and uniformed. Where to start? First off, I think you need to get into the mind set that Dr. Paul wants everyone in this country to have the same, equal chance. So to say he isn’t for equal-rights is absolutely absurd. All Libertarian candidates are for equality in the truest sense of the word.
And as for abortion, I think there’s one fundametnal point everyone’s missing: Paul, Romney, Clinton, Obama: none of us should care about their stance because, theoretically, the President has no authority to make decisions on abortion or gay marriage. We’re electing a President, not a dictator who tells us what to do with our bodies.
Now, Paul is anti-abortion it seems, but he makes it known that it’s a states’ right, no a federal right.
Lastly, using Paul’s anti-abortion argument to show why he’s for equal rights for all, though his abortion stance other than allowing the states to decide shouldn’t matter, aren’t we all privy to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? And while we can debate what life is, certainly I can find no one who can agree with third tri-mester abortions. So if we want to be pro-liberty and let everyone have a fair shake at life, it should start with allowing that child a chance to be born, right?
To understand this blog you have to understand the mindset of simple people.
They do not read.
Ok, establishing that….
Ron Paul votes NO on a lot of things, lots of things that other politicians are afraid to vote NO on because they are damaging politically. He does this on the basis of his principals. He typically explains why he votes No on anything in a clear manner that even the original blogger would understand if he read them. And these things are not hidden. Paul is one of the most documented politicians on the net. I see that some people have tried to explain Paul’s positions. You are wasting your time. Itwouldhave taken less time to find out where Paul really stands on these 10 point that it would have to write this hit piece.
I used to be on both the partisan left and right.
All these people are interested in is hit pieces and defamation. While Ron Paul people (myself) look past party lines. We aren’t voting for Kucinich, because Paul is running, if that weren’t the case we would be right behind the Dodds, Gravels, Kucinichs.
Actually, why are you taking the time to assassinate one of the best candidates this country has ever seen. It hurts you more than it hurts Paul. If you want DK go sell him to Democrats who are in love with Billary.
As for who Jesus would vote for?
There is a story in the bible where Jesus shows anger. The only time he does that is against the moneychangers. Moneychangers are what we have now in this country, and Paul is the biggest opposition to them in congress.
IF Jesus was voting, and the only thing that pissed him off Paul was totally agaisnt.
Who do you think he would vote for?
You have taken the story of Jesus and the money changers out of context my friend. Jesus was mad becuase the moneychangers were IN THE TEMPLE. He WASN’T mad because they were money changers.
MARK 11:15-19
15On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written:
” ‘My house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations’[a]? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’[b]”
18The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.
19When evening came, they[c] went out of the city.
Moneychangers have a part in society. It just isn’t where we worship.
I think most of this post is just a distortion or general lack of understanding where the left is trying to attack the good Dr. because, frankly, they make him look bad, and he has the balls to end the war, where the Democrats do not. They know he is taking their votes and now they try to smear him.
1. Ron Paul’s Press statement on Iran:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/58/ron-paul-right-
on-iran
He was right and they were all wrong. Pretty simple. That includes Obama and Hilary.
2. On Impeachment:
“Mr. Speaker, I rise, reluctantly, in favor of the motion to table House Resolution 799, Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors, and in favor of referring that resolution to the House Judiciary Committee for full consideration. I voted to table this resolution not because I do not share the gentleman from Ohio’s desire to hold those responsible for the Iraqi debacle accountable; but rather, because I strongly believe that we must follow established protocol in matters of such importance. During my entire time in Congress, I have been outspoken in my opposition to war with Iraq and Iran. I have warned my colleagues and the administration against marching toward war in numerous speeches over the years, and I have voted against every appropriation to continue the war on Iraq.”
3. On the Economy and taxes:
Wall Street loves him.
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/071203/0335183.html
I’d say most of these people know more about money and the economy than me, or maybe even you. Saying his ideas don’t make sense when so many in the business world agree with him……..just doesn’t make sense.
Ron Paul subscribes to the Austrian School of economics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School
And remember, our country ran fine without taxes until 1930. Why don’t you want more of your OWN money?
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document·php?id=961
Academics for Ron Paul:
http://hnn.us/articles/45267.html
The FED and money reform.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy-fD78zyvI&feature=related
On Income tax:
“Is it impossible to end the income tax? I don’t believe so. In fact, I believe a serious groundswell movement of disaffected taxpayers is growing in this country. Millions of Americans are fed up with the current tax system, and they will bring pressure on Congress. Some sidestep Congress completely, bringing legal challenges questioning the validity of the tax code and the 16th Amendment itself. Ultimately, the Liberty Amendment could serve as a flashpoint for these millions of voices”
http://ronpaullibrary.org/document·php?id=199
4. On Health Care:
Ron Paul realizes that HMOs came from the government and are a support structure for corporate interests, which is what most republicans support. He also knows that most of the baby boomers will be cashing in their social security soon. The democratic idea to create universal health care with our current spending just aren’t fesible.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document·php?id=981
It is time to take back our health care. This is why I support:
* Making all medical expenses tax deductible.
* Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
* Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
* Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.
* Reform licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and lower costs.
5. On Education:
The Department of Education currently administers a budget of about $67.2 billion per year—$57.5 billion in discretionary appropriations and $9.7 billion in mandatory appropriations—and operates programs that touch on every area and level of education. Something like 91% of elementary and secondary education funding (K-12) comes from non-federal sources. In other words, 9% (at most) of our school funding comes from the federal Dept of Education.
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html?src=gu
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html
I doubt that anybody can actually state what the DOE actually does. I know I had no idea.
You seem to that that shutting down the Department of Education would mean the end of public education. It would acutally shift responsibility and funding back to the states and free-market, which in our view would better serve the educational needs of people. If anything, there will be more money left to pay teachers without a Dept of Ed. Right now, the big pile of money starts out locally, and is sent to Washington. There are costs associated with that, so the pile gets a little smaller. The now smaller pile of money sits there in Washington, where bureaucrats count it, and weigh it, and argue over what to do with it. They have offices, and secretaries, and lunches and plane trips.
There are costs associated with all of that, and the pile gets smaller still.
Now the significantly reduced pile of money is redistributed…but not evenly or equally. In fact, some school districts might not even get the majority of their money back if they don’t live up to the demands the Dept of Education has placed upon them. Squabbles result, lawyers are hired, tests are written and printed, and evaluated by the bureaucrats before the money can be released.
Which, of course, has now decimated the original pile of money.
The students suffer, their education prevents them from meeting their full potential, and they go out into the world with an inferior education and less earning power. Which of course, results in higher taxes and more intrusion by the federal government, and the cycle starts all over again.
6. On the NAFTA SUPER HIGHWAY:
“We have some 14 states passing resolutions to oppose the North American Union and NAFTA Superhighways, amendments passed in Congress have taken away funds for North American integration projects and Virgil Goode has some 50 sponsors for his bill in the House,” Paul explained. “There are millions of Americans who oppose this globalist agenda.”
Paul emphasized he wants to “deal with the world in a voluntary fashion, through trade, travel and friendship, rather than through higher levels of government.”
“I’ve always been opposed to more government to achieve integration throughout the world,” he said.
“I reject the UN, NAFTA-CAFTA, North American Union approach,” he continued, “because to me that’s just more international government and less emphasis on the U.S. Constitution.”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=590
60
7. On Gay Marriage:
He thinks that our rights comes from being individuals, not from what kind of group you belong to. He wants to restore the constitution, our best chance and freedom and rights. That is why he voted against the patriot act.
A great interview that shows how pragmatic he is on this issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE
8. ..ion -
He sees it as a legal responsibility related to giving birth to the child, if he harms a baby an OBGYN he can get sued. Abortions were done before Roe v Wade. “Mostly we don’t need a federal police force to enforce abortion.”
So the states should decide.
Here is what Naomi Wolf has to say about him:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/finally-action-ron-
pau_b_69042.html
Put aside your partisan ideal world — sometimes issues simply transcend partisanship — and if ever there is an issue that is above and separate from party politics, it is the restoration of the democratic system we inherited. There are good people and passionate patriots across the political spectrum.
9. On Racism -
There have been some hit jobs latly attacking Dr. Paul over an article that appeared in one of his publications in the 80s.
“I didn’t write it, I didn’t state it. After 15 years it should be history.” – Dec 06.2008 Stephanie Miller Show.
Interview:
http://www.ronpauldonors.com/stephanie-miller_ron-paul_12060
7.mp3
HIs ideas on liberty and racism in America:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document·php?id=982
Also a great article on his ideas and true stances:
http://causeoffreedom.blogspot.com/
10. On general smears and attacks:
I advise everyone who doubts Dr. Paul to read this Greenwald piece. It gets to the heart of understanding Dr. Paul’s message.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/index
.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/greenwald
11. On the Spambot accusations:
http://ronpaulnewsblg.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-paul-spam-tra
ced-to-ukrainian.html
Some Facts about Ron Paul:
*Opposes the Doctrine of Pre-emptive war.
*Voted against the war in Iraq.
*Will bring our troops home immediately to protect our national security and secure our borders.
*Opposes pre-emptive attacks on Iran. Advocates a Humble, noninterventionist foreign policy
*Has NEVER voted to raise taxes or for an unbalanced budget. NEVER.
*Will protect social security for seniors while allowing younger people to transition out.
*During his 10 terms in congress Ron paul has never taken a government-paid junket
*ROn Paul has never voted himself a pay raise and does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
*Ron Paul has received more donation from active military personnel than any other candidate.
*Ron Paul
All those reasons seems like reasons TO VOTE for RP. Lets take back the government and not make it so HUGE! That, my friends, is what RP is for and why we need to vote for him. It is our moral duty to vote for him.
Yea defiantly make me want to vote for him more. Keep the hit pieces coming!
I agree with you for the most part but I think that posts like these: “10 reasons not to vote for Ron Paul” are kinda missing the point of the Ron Paul candidacy.
Ron Paul, any other time in our nation’s history, would not make a compelling candidate. He is wrong on most of the issues – in my opinion. He is not an ideal President. He is a big-L Libertarian with all the baggage that that entails (and a lot of the things he voted against that you mentioned above – affirmative action, and the like – he did so not because they were bad ideas but because he did not believe Congress had the legal authority to pass them.)
But this is not a normal time in history.
America has a two-party system which means that either the nominee of the Republican party or the nominee of the Democratic party will indeed become President.
This President will inherit, through the precedent of the Bush Administration, a greatly expanded de-facto power. They will practically become a dictator.
Any other election year, issues such as the economy, race relations, and abortion would be primary. This year it is not. The primary issues this year are the restoration of civil liberties and the return of the government to the balance of powers. These are the most important issues, trumping the others.
Say whatever else you will about him, Ron Paul seems to be the only Republican candidate who would return those powers, who would restore civil liberties. It is a hell of alot easier to get back the Dept. of Education than it would be to get back our currently missing right to trial by jury, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and right to legal representation.
A Ron Paul candidacy would go a long way to restoring those things even if you end up voting for the Democratic candidate in the general election (and my opinion is that any Democratic candidate besides Hillary Clinton would also restore those civil liberties.)
We would lose a lot of good government programs under Ron Paul – he would throw the babies out with the bathwater. The problem is that we’re drowning in the bathwater.
Read the detail. That’s ten good reasons why you SHOULD vote for Ron Paul.
I think the elephant in the room is that Ron Paul is against the Nanny State™, and those whose primary objective is to grow the Nanny State™ (and who have held control of Congress and the Executive for the past few decades) are in a panic.
This alone should be reason to support anyone dedicated to tearing down the bloated and unwieldy government to which we’ve been subjected, which never solves and only makes worse.
Affirmative action is, pure and simple, discriminatory. Some states are finally getting it, and no longer skew admission standards to professional schools based on race or gender. We still have a long way to go until we’re color- and gender-blind in admissions and hiring. Legislating unfair practices, even if they skew hiring in the reverse direction, can only engender resentment on the part of those they discriminate against and insecurity on the part of those they favor.
So let me guess… the blogger who wrote this anti-Ron Paul spew wants to vote for a member of the CFR as our next president.
Pro-war and pro-North American Union?
YOU’RE A REAL GENIUS, SUMMER.
Wow, Summer Ludwig you are an uneducated fool. Ron Paul stands for the freedom’s and liberty that our founding fathers fought for. It sounds as though you stand for discrimination, no personal freedom and choice and worst of all a socialist big government that is controlled by the corporation for the corporation.
Agreed.
“However, Paul also said that he opposes restrictions on emergency contraception.”
Paul does not oppose contraception, a more important part of this issue.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/election-2008/paul/issues
The 20,000 mile view of this is that the federal government does way too much. There is nothing about affirmitive action, regulating middle schools, abortion, marriage, the federal government owning property, or any of this stuff in the Constitution. If you want that stuff to exist, make it happen at the state or county or city level. You will have more control over your representatives at that level, and the program will probably work better because of that. At a federal level, so much goes on that no one really cares what 1 or 10 or 50 or 1000 people have to say. Each representative represents well over 650,000 people (as of the 90, so probably way more now), so good luck making a difference there. If the federal government cut back to just doing what it was created to do, regulate commerce, currency, the post, defense, and roads necessary for the post and defense, I think we would be a lot better off.
There seems to be this mentality that if anything is going to be done it should be done on a federal level. This is ridiculous and short sited. Why should my opinion apply to 300,000,000 people if only 1,000,000 in my area like it? By the same key, why should all like-minded 1,000,000 people around me have to suffer because the rest of the country wants to impose its values on me?
The debate is about where power should be based. Read the constitution. It mandates very little power to be concentrated in Washington, the rest to be left to the states. Almost the entire Federal budget is spent on things the feds should not be doing, but it would be just fine if states or counties did them.
Welfare, abortion, gay marriage, affirmitive action, wildlife reserves, education — all these things should be handled by the states. If they are good policies, businesses and people will come to the states that make the right decisions. Conversely, business and people will leave states that make the wrong decisions. People who have similar values can move to the state the most closely matches their own. People who want to make a difference have a better chance of doing so at a state or local level.
The only argument you have left is about the environment. If we get rid of immunity and damage ceilings, and allow people to sue companies who improperly affect the environment, then the federal government does not have to be in the business of regulating it. What the EPA has turned into now is less of a regulatory arm of government than it is a tool used by big business to raise barriers to entry so they do not get new competition. The fines imposed on huge monster companies are laughable in comparison to the CEOs xmas bonuses, and yet they are heavy enough to keep new companies from being competitive. Surely you do not want a system that allows companies to continue polluting and no one to challenge them?
Anyway, there is always a flip side to an argument. I hope this is constructive.
I’m sure the people of Iraq that are suffering the horrors of depleted uranium appreciate your progressive ideals.
Ron Paul wants to stop the war cost counter at the top of your website.
“Ron Paul wants to stop the war cost counter at the top of your website.”
That’s right!…and not just slow it down like ALL the other candidates. He wants to stop it dead in it’s tracks. Enough of screwing the American tapayers in this endless war.
What a bunch of bullshit propaganda.
Unnatural obsession with guns… that’s because the second amendment is one of the most important rights because it allows the people to PROTECT their rights, especially against a tyrannical government or a breakdown of social order.
Point #2 is blatantly false. In an interview with John Stossol on 20/20, Ron Paul states that he personally opposes abortion, but wouldn’t make it illegal. He would leave it for the states to decide.
While I actually don’t support him, I think stating that he’s “out to overturn Roe vs. Wade”, among your other comments, is dishonest and deliberately inflammatory. Don’t do that. I’ve read your blog before, and it’s better than that.
The whole point of my article is that what he says and his record don’t jive. Instead of just repeating his sound bites, look at my references, it’s his own record!!!
The problem with this list is that it doesn’t take into account the office Dr. Paul is running for. Most of these things, plus global warming, bother me a bit, but aren’t controlled by the executive branch.
After Busholini’s federalist regime, it’s time to put someone into the executive branch that will reboot it.
Wow. Knowingly twisting Ron Paul’s ideas, or unknowingly and completely misunderstanding them, you have no idea what the government of the United States is supposed to be. You probably even think it’s supposed to be a Democracy.
I’m a Democrat and I’m getting really tired of being called a commie!
Just because Democrats believe that the federal government should do something for the people it represents dose not mean that we want them to control our lives. You freedom loving Ron Paul supporters think we are pigs at the troff, gobbling up your hard earned money, money you should be able to keep and use on yourself. You call me a socialist I call you selfish! There are some things that must be regulated, capitalism is one of them, if you let big business have there way do you really thing they will look out for there customers or employees, ha!
BTW just remember it’s common Democrats like me who have been howling and moaning about the erosion of our civil liberty and trying to stop the WAR “most of you supported” for years now! You Ron Paul Republicans are late to the party!
I am a Democrat, I love my country, I love the freedoms and opportunity’s it provides and I would fight and die to protect the United States Constitution and The Bill of Rights!
Ron Paul is an overcompensation to the regulation of the Bush administration.
I do not want to go from one extreme of to much regulation to the other extreme of no regulation.
If you think that you can trust a big government to protect your rights then frankly you’re more than just a bit deluded. Even if it did happen for a while then people would get elected who would run roughshod over the system and screw us over… I wonder if I could come up with any recent examples…
Listen if a government does everything for you then that is the very definition of socialism. So wanting big government is wanting socialism. Just because you don’t like being called a commie doesn’t mean you’re not advocating the commie ideology. Sugarcoating it does not help. Distributing money for the common good… SOCIALISM.
As for being selfish… who the hell are you to judge me about being selfish? You want big government so you can sit on your ass and not have to give a damn about running your life. Personal responsibility is hard but if you’re an adult you should be able to handle it without being handed everything. I suppose the people sitting in their homes collecting welfare for their horde of babies they produce to get more welfare isn’t selfish then? That’s just one example and there’s thousands of ways to take advantage of the system. Excuse me if I don’t want to pay my delicious money for bullshit I don’t agree with. Screw THAT. I am not the Mother Theresa and I am entitled to the fruits of my labor.
You are offensive. I have worked intimately with people on welfare and I assure you they are not the stereotyped lazy people you lump them together as. I think it’s appalling that the Religious Right lectures about morality when almost all of them have the same bigoted views as you.
I am a Democrat and I certainly don’t feel that government should do everything, it should however; use our tax dollars to serve the people.
I have personally known people who do just that with their welfare. Reality can be offensive. Stop being so sensitive and be objective. Just because you know people on welfare who actually need it does not mean there aren’t people who don’t take advantage of it. If you deny that it happens then go ahead and lose all credibility.
I pointed to people who take advantage of the system and I did not say all people on welfare were like that. You have a habit of jumping to conclusions based on little to no information. I’m pretty sure you would love to paint me as a bigoted bad guy to support your arguments but really… I’m just a realist and I will say things that you don’t like to get my point across. Also I’m not religious at all so calling me the “religious right” is a prejudiced statement based on your own false preconceptions. Also kinda funny how you lecture about stereotyping and then toss out a stereotype. Do I even need to say hypocritical?
I could probably get all dramatic and call you offensive as well… but I’m not offended. I’m not even surprised. You seem like the sort of person who categorizes the people who don’t share your views as somehow inferior and unenlightened. We all have our reasons for believing the way we do.
Yes our tax dollars should be spent to serve the people… as outline by the constitution. If you don’t support the constitution then why the hell do you live here? If you do support the constitution then I suggest giving it a good read (have you read it at all) because there is something wrong with this country and more of the bad medicine will not help. You’ve had your experiment with socialism… it’s now time to go back to being free and responsible for our own lives.
You were flaming; the comment did not imply everyone collecting welfare is lazy, but pointed out that people who abuse the system can be as selfish as those whom oppose it.
When government grows too large, system abuses occur. You see it in the current administration’s cronyism, you see it in a slant favoring international corporations and all the way down to the private citizens. Charity should be personal, and tax money is best spent by states and communities on specific needs, not offered up to lobbyists and special interests who only serve people enough to get by.
We also need to end these wars abroad, scale down our military presence throughout the world, quit rewarding countries that possess nuclear weapons and / or sponsor terrorism with foreign aid. We need to practice actual capitalism and free trade, not highly regulated cut throat trade that destroys local economies and exploits workers.
I think the country is ready for this abrupt departure from the welfare / warfare policy that is destroying this. Ron Paul is radical in a progressive way, even though his idea is scaling back government dramatically.
I hope Dr. Paul is elected and you will see the light.
Collectivism is exactly what is wrong with this world. People who choose to lump themselves and others into groups, are already handicapping themselves to think a certain way about a person based on their appearance or lifestyle. Not all people who profess Christ as their Lord and saviour are the same. Just as not all GLBT share the same mindset.
As for Dr. Paul having this hidden agenda? Please!
One thing you might want to pay attention to: Ron Paul is known to actually sponsor legislation and vote against it just to make a point. So to give a better understanding on his record, it helps to go back through those bills, and see whether he voted on them, not on whether he sponsored them. In addition, it helps to understand the reasoning behind them.
Federal power is limited to what is mentioned in Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. Amendment 10 states that anything not enumerated in the constitution is left to the states to decide.
I will address the bills first, in the hope I can clarify what I consider to be incorrect information.
Also, in relation to one bill in particular, a stand taken 30 years ago is not necessarily proof of his position now… even the most conservative can sometimes learn something in that period.
Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities.
H.R.2030 & 4604: Making Social Security optional. Also reduces punishment for doing one’s own retirement savings.
H.R.736 & 2720: In essence, what Paul is advocating is that government actually looks for the best value, and not spend taxpayer dollars indiscriminately, in essence, “Robbing Peter to pay Paul.”
Both of these bills seem to involve removing unnecessary burdens from the taxpayer. Those who have the ability to save for their retirement can do so, and public services can be provided by the most cost-effective providers. In none of the bills do minorities even appear.
Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.
I agree with your stand to a point where H.R.2597 and H.R.392 are concerned.
However, this does not indicate a flip-flop on any issue. First, this was an attempt for a constitutional amendment, which tightly fits with the rhetoric of a strict constitutionalist. Second, there will eventually need to be a decision as to what constitutes life; you can’t allow a woman to have an abortion, and at the same time charge someone for murder if a fetus is killed. The line is blurred, and the question is where should it be drawn.
Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class.
I’ve already addressed these bills; in essence, the working class will get to keep more of their money, and decide whether or not to use Social Security.
Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.
Those with the highest incomes don’t work for their money; they invest their money, and the money comes in capital gains and dividends. Therefore, the income tax doesn’t affect them. As a result, the income tax actually increases the burden of “the working class.”
As for estate and gift taxes, The money was already taxed when it was earned, why should it be taxed again?
Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment.
H.R.2415: Permits offshore drilling, which reduces the price of gasoline. I would consider this more environmentally-friendly than bombing Iraq or getting into a scrap with Iran.
H.R.4639: Eliminates all taxes on fuel, and sells off the mining and mineral rights to all property owned by the United States. Once again, war is more environmentally-unfriendly than reducing dependence on foreign resources. More importantly, fits with Ron Paul’s anti-tax mentality.
H.R.5293: Removes heavy taxes on coal or lignite. Once again, fits with Ron Paul’s anti-tax mentality, and once again, more environmentally-friendly than war.
H.R.6936: Recreational boating is against the environment? It might use fossil fuels, true, but again, this seems mild compared to other uses of energy. Still, this particular bill is rather confusing, if not downright silly.
H.R.7245 & H.R.393: Restricts the Federal Water Pollution Control Act jurisdiction to interstate, navigable water. Seems reasonable; the federal government can focus on the interstate waterways, while the states can individually manage their own water-pollution locally (which gives enforcement better response time).
H.R.2504: I don’t really have a comment for this.
H.R.7079: Repeals federal laws regarding soil and water conservation. I’m pretty sure that the need for conserving water in Ohio is different ahn the need for such conservation in Arizona. Why have one federal law for all the different states?
Overall, environmental protection is not a federal responsibility, and should be focused on by the states; each one has a different situation in which different measures are required.
A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations.
Just off the top: The leading negative image is that the US is an expansionist empire… and they would be right. Ron Paul advocates not only the removal of soldiers from Iran and Iraq, but all over. Think of it like this: how would you like it if China built military bases in the States to “protect” us from our tyrannical government?
As for the UN: The UN is essentially a World Empire. The UN is to the member countries what the federal government was once to the states. The federal government now has direct control over the people, how long until the UN becomes the world’s overarching tyrant? How long until the member states of the UN vote for some kind of global defense initiative?
Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens.
Ron Paul personally disagrees with things like homosexuality. However, his stand is that his personal feelings have no bearing on the federal responsibility to manage such things, which is namely “none.”
As was previously mentioned, what was once protected by federal law could eventually be prohibited by federal law.
Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns.
I could make an argument on this one, except that it is more eloquently argued by one of the founding fathers, the very writer of the Constitution itself:
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
- Thomas Jefferson
Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. The fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education.
H.R.7955: Sponsored in 1980. Do you really want to equate his position now based on a law that was proposed almost 30 years ago?
However, the abolishment of the Department of Education will improve the quality of schools, and lower their costs, not increase or worsen them. When threatened by competition, you will out-perform and under-price the competition, or you will be made irrelevant. Competition is the natural enemy of greed.
Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state.
Ron Paul’s views 30 years ago notwithstanding, he has constantly argued that while he has a specific set of views, he follows the Constitution regarding this issue.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
- 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution
In essence, a public servant can be religious, and even openly religious, as long as it is considered the individual’s belief, and not the belief of the office. Alternatively, that belief must not be used to enforce or prohibit behavior.
I hope this gives you something useful to think about.
First of all, a very large portion of this article is completely false. Perhaps the only thing that is completely true is his stance as a pro-life advocate, which I think is a completely miniscule and ridiculously irrelevent topic to base a vote on, especially given all of the other important things going on in the world. Ron Paul stands for the people, and while his policies may have some drawbacks, the advantage he would bring to the people would far outweigh them. It’s time to stop throwing money and power at corrupt, power-obsessed politicians, and put some of each into our own hands for once. This article is basically advocating the idea of americans continuing to sit back and hand over every last morsel of what could possibly be construed as freedom in present day, because we’re too damn distracted worrying about trivial issues like gun control, abortion, and gay marriage (which, if you were to do your homework would find that Dr. Paul is not opposed to in the least). I personally feel that abortion should be legal, and we should have the right to choose, but I also feel that the problem is so much deeper than what we americans, for some fucked up reason, find important. Inform yourselves America. Don’t let other people tell you what to think.
It is sad that your paranoia has allowed you to buy-in to Scary Headlines about Dr. Paul’s positions on these various subjects. Most of that which scares you most can be explained best by helping you realize that Dr. Paul is not against ROE v. WADE or Minorities or anyone else for that matter. He instead believes that the various laws governing these topics should be decided by the independent States of this Union. As the Constitution never gave the Federal Government the right to legislate on these matters. Dr. Paul believes strongly in States Rights as enumerated in the Constitution of the United States of America. Dr. Paul seeks to Right the wrongs of the ever-expanding Federal Government by shrinking it to a reasonable and Constitutionally provided for Size and Scope. Any seemingly glaring inconsistencies in Dr. Paul’s positions can usually be traced back to the argument that the issues should be decided at the State level not the Federal level.
http://ninjasanddiamonds.blogspot.com/2007/12/soundproofing-ron-paul.html
This is my web site where I post a full response to your article.
http://www.ronpaul2009.blogspot.com
Yeah! What’s the problem? He’s a Conservative. This is the Conservative way. Down with Socialism! Vote for Ron Paul!
Something worth remembering is that if Ron Paul believes as fervently in the constitution as he appears to, he also believes in the checks and balances contained therein. If political majority opposes any legislation he might introduce, it simply will not pass.
It’s incredible just how blatantly ignorant all of these responders are. I keep seeing affirmative action brought up, when no one has any idea what it even is.
I’m a certified human resource professional. Affirmative Action comes in to play when two candidates have exactly the same qualifications and experience, and the white guy (non-protected class) is picked every time opposed to the black woman (protected class).
It’s just insane how many people throw out affirmative action and think it’s the same as a quota (which aren’t even used anymore).
Ohhhhhh, so that’s what affirmative action is. So how is that not state-sponsored racism?
Instead of affirmative action, why not just call in the two equally qualified people, let them examine a coin to show that it would be a fair toss, and then flip it? That’s truly the fairest way to do it.
Yes, it is funny how he supports the constitution but is fine with changing it. Kind of defeats the purpose of it (except that it requires much more consideration to amend the constitution than it does to simply ignore it). Still, he has been sticking to the constitution much more closely than any other politician even though he wants to amend it in some ways.
One of your main problems with Ron Paul, it seems, is that it gives the consumer the freedom to be ignorant or apathetic of things like the environment or a company’s business practices. I understand your view, but surely you can understand that to RP supporters, freedom is more important. And remember that there are plenty of valid reasons to disagree with democrat proposals on these issues. Not just ignorance, apathy and the principal of freedom itself.
I’m not going to debate gun control and affirmative action with you. You probably know the arguments by now.
But your abortion thing… He would deny women the right to control their bodies? Come on. This is an appeal to emotion. The debate isn’t whether a woman has control of her body. The debate is over what constitutes her body vs. a separate life. We both know this.
once again your satire is great, although missed by most…
I got through maybe 20 ridiculous “Paulite” comments before I just scrolled to the end here. Just want to say that I think your list is fantastic, and hopefully it will open some people’s eyes to the danger Ron Paul presents. If you want real change and real freedom, vote Kucinich, not Paul.
Dan0,
RP and Kucinich are two sides of the same coin. This is why Kucinich named Ron Paul as his desired running mate. He wasn’t joking, as his comments make clear.
Now, though I’m officially for Paul right now, I’d vote for Kucinich in a heartbeat. What would be ideal would be to see the two of them in a presidential debate against each other. Can you imagine what that would be like?
If you can see the value of a Ron Paul in the national presidential debates, at least consider participating in your state’s Repub. primary if possible. In my state, Virginia, we have open primaries, so I will be voting for both Kucinich and Paul.
Cheers!
See if your state has open primaries!
http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1801
Wow, thanks for writing this! As a ardent Ron Paul supporter I’ve been fumbling around the web for a piece like this for a while. I have some right-wing friends and relatives who’d really like RP if only he’s presented in the proper light, and have already forwarded this to his new supporters!
(tongue only half in cheek)
This article is basically just leftist hand-wringing. It also takes as fact that government intervention such as the minimum wage, OSHA, affirmative action and Social Security “helps” people. And if the Second Amendment doesn’t protect AK-47s, then the First Amendment doesn’t protect radio, television, or modern printing presses.
I am a Ron Paul supporter.
I appreciate this article because it stands apart from a lot of the more common anti-Paul pieces. I am glad that your article debates his message and does not attack the man. Too many people fail to realize that Ron Paul’s support is really for his message of freedom and liberty.
Ron Paul himself is a humble guy who sounds like my grandpa when you talk to him face to face. The message and the power of his populist following is addicting because it puts us, the supporters, in the spotlight and reminds us that we’re ultimately in control of our country- something that a lot of us forget. (Just like right now we’re in control of his campaign.) Ron Paul offers us the power of ‘we the people’ once again, but the price for that freedom is responsibility for oneself. That’s why some supporters act like big jerks, but others are really quite wonderful. We’re all responsible for our own actions, meaning mistakes do happen that hurt Dr. Paul’s image, but that eachof us learns from these mistakes because this is very, very personal to us.
Anyway, I wanted to thank you for this piece since my own introduction to Dr. Paul came in the way of a negative article. Once I knew his name, I then saw him in a GOP debate, the one where Guliani attacks him, and after that I was hooked. Who is this little man who defies the establishment, refusing to be squashed?
I want to state my own opinion about each of your points. I am not an expert, however, I think there are a lot of people who disagree with your statements, though this is essentially what I was taught by my painfully wasteful public education.
#1 I think that we are equal and that not one minority should be singled out for special treatment. As a woman, I feel that my viewpoint is justified. I think that treating women different than men has resulted in weaker women, not more equality. I have no reason to not believe that this is wrecking the same havoc on the African American, hispanic, or asian minorities. A lot of people share this opinion, including many minorities.
#2 I am pro-choice, but I will vote for a pro-life candidate for president. (I note that in pro-choice states the crime rate is drasticallty reduced and I question the judgement of a woman who would bring a child into this world without the guarantee of a happy childhood.) I think that the states should ultimately decide their own legislation on this. I believe in the power of compromise. Pro-lifers want abortion banned across the board and pro-choicers want it federally funded across the board. Neither is acceptable due to the fact that this is such a complicated issue. It IS the woman’s body and the government should not interfere, however, there is a point where it does cross the line and become murder. Who should decide? We can’t “trust the mother” as feminists suggest, since a mother can murder her three year old son for the same reasons that should would abort a fetus- “I can’t care for him. He won’t have the kind of life I want to give him. He’ll go to hell unless I kill him now. Etc.” We can’t trust the doctor since he could be motivated by greed or indifference. We can’t trust the government because they botch up everything they try to do and become a tool of powerful oragnizations and religious groups. *shrug* So give it to the states. It will be messy, but at least these complicated issues can be debated in a dialogue that locals can be involved in. Last time I tried to get to DC to argue with my senator it got a little difficult and expensive for me. At least I can call up Lansing or drive over to my elected representatives office anytime I need to. Keep the control local please. And as for poor women who would have to drive across state to abort the fetus, I don’t consider using tax money to perform a morally-ambiguous procedure as a good idea. Family planning is a GREAT idea, but forcing tax-payers to fund one woman’s mistakes is not fair to those of us who are extremely careful in that regard. Mean, but true.
#3 This point is debateable. I believe in the free market- that holy ideal that conservatives tip their hats to, yet never practice. (Note: The corporatism we experience today is NOT a free market system.) After working in the Ron Paul campaign and seeing the power of the Internet, I do believe in the free market. I know that this natural system cannot identify and save those who have gotten too many bad breaks in a row and are need of help. But neither can government- they just hand out free money to those who want to apply, making people dependent and stripping them of their dignity. The system of entitlements we’ve built creates an ineffective safety net that destroys the concept of ‘neighbor.’ Poor people earn the resentment of those who are forced to give. The “personal” side of giving, the heart of charity, is gone under this system. There is no love.
#4 The middle class gets burned the hardest when it comes to taxes. A 1% tax increase scoops more money from the millions and millions of middle class families than it ever could from the minority top 10% we hear so much about. I find taxes to be morally objectionable myself. Two years ago I lived in a run down apartment with holes in the wall, no heat, and an A/C that didn’t work. I worked full time at McDonalds at minimum wage and still paid taxes. I could have purchased insurance with the money that was taken from me, but instead, when I caught pnemonia and went to the hospital, I ended up with a $3000 hospital bill. (Don’t get me started on that universal health care stuff- because I couldn’t have even afforded that apartment if I had been taxed any more.)
#5 Not much to say here. To be honest, environmental policy is low on my list of priorities. I don’t like government doing it. Ron Paul says we should be allowed to sue anyone who damages (pollutes) our properties and I agree. But I see this as requiring some sort of court system reform, which would be difficult. I’d like to see any other candidate who proposes a real solution to this, however. “More government” is not a solution since it is expensive and ineffectual.
#6 I disagree with this statement also. I think we’re acting like a playground bully.
#7 Good news, the gay and lesbian community is winning, or has won, as far as I’m concerned. I understand there is a lot to do to ease the prejudices still, but the younger generation is extremely receptive to the gay and lesbian message and predictament. Ron Paul says you should be able to smoke pot if you want and he says you should be able to have sex with whoever or whatever you want too. He is no threat to the gay and lesbian community though he would not spearhead this movement politically or endorse it personally.
#8 The gun thing is a statement of power. I don’t own a gun, but I do think that gun ownership is symbolic of the power of an individual. Giving up one’s gun is surrending the responsibility of protecting yourself to the government. I don’t trust government or even the police enough to do this. But this isn’t a Ron Paul thing, this is a conservative and libertarian thing. *shrug*
#9 I’ve stated above that I am ashamed of our educational system. Personally, I think it should be put out of its misery. It has nothing to do with racism or segregation. I think every child deserves an education, but what we have right now is a system where because some children cannot be educated, no one can be educated. Everything is watered down to the point where the whole k-12 is wasteful. But we all get taxed for it and only those who pay for private school on top of the taxes get any kind of decent education.
Thank god for the Internet. I;m hoping this will change as it becomes more popular.
#10 On this one, your opinion crosses into factual error. As a humanist who leans towards the deism, I am the closest thing you can get to open-minded atheism. Ron Paul should appeal to christians, but the christian vote eludes him because he will not wear his faith as a badge, on his sleeve, in pursuit of the religious right’s votes. He knows that church and state should not mix and that congress should not pass laws on the subject. The issue is that as government takes over more and more of our lives, religion has no where to go. Even when it’s non-offensive. In fact, everyone is offended by everything anymore. Being atheist, Merry Christmas does not offend me. I saw both Narnia and the GOlden COmpass is theaters and they were both wonderful fantasies. You are free to choose what you want to believe and by removing all the choices, we are benefitting no one. Ron Paul understands this. You confuse his personal beliefs with his philsophy, which is “do as you wish” except when it interferes with the rights of another.
I understand that you see Ron Paul’s ideas as being very different and contrary to your own beliefs and experiences. I respect that opinion and thank you for your writing!
Adrienne Pass
Novi, MI
Wow! By far the best piece of Ron Paul writing I have read yet. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Ron Paul had my vote before, but now he has it carved in stone.
To the OP. It’s obvious that we have a difference of opinion about what the role of government should be. But ask yourself this question…. You said yourself that Ron is consistent, so if elected do you actually think he would just disregard everything he’s said during this campaign, all the “rhetoric”, and attempt to impose his will as you suggest?
I think you make good points about his legislation, and if I was voting for someone to be President of Education I might not vote for Ron Paul. If I was electing a candidate for energy president I might not vote for Ron Paul. If I was seeking the best person for World police commissioner, I might not vote for Ron Paul. Fortunately though, I’m voting for the President of the United States, a much easier job (although I think Ron would be great in any leadership role) and luckily education, environment, and world policeman are not job requirements for the president and should not be attempted. Protecting our liberties, providing for a strong national defense, and restricting government influence are the primary functions of a president, who understands that better then Ron Paul?
As far as the abortion issue, it’s said that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think that would make defining life, liberty and happiness pretty important don’t you? Granted, if life were defined as beginning at conception it would definitely lay the groundwork for future Presidents to impose a Federal ban on abortion (Ron Paul would never do this). So what does that mean then? Does that mean that life should be defined as beginning at birth? Personally I believe that since life essentially ends when the heart stops beating, that life begins when it starts (aprox the 5th week). I don’t have the answer to this dilemma but having life defined at conception is the least of my worries and pro choice doesn’t mean pro abortion, nobody encourages abortion, at least not that I know of. I do know one thing, and that is prohibition never works, it didn’t work with alcohol and it won’t work with abortion. I admire Ron Paul for addressing the issue of defining life in our constitution, and I think you misconstrue his purpose for doing so.
Finally, you suggest that Ron only agrees with the constitution when it supports his ideas. The piece of the puzzle you’re missing though is that he firmly believes in the proper process of amendment. For example he doesn’t agree with the 16th amendment and therefore would work to repeal it. Defining life as beginning at conception would have to be amended and not simply placed at whim. What I’m saying, is that under a Paul system any disagreements with the Constitution would go through the proper channels to amend it (while following it in the meantime), and therefore it would be the will of the people and not the will of the President, and Ron Paul will not abuse his position as so many past Presidents have.
I don’t agree with Ron Paul on some gay marriage issues and I am pro-choice.
HOWEVER, Hillary and Barack have both said they are anti-gay marriage also… the fact is, no matter who is elected, there is really a slim chance anything would change, so that is NOT a reason NOT to vote for Ron Paul
On the abortion issue, remember Ronald Reagan? He was a vociferous pro-life President who won by a landslide… twice… yet did nothing to touch Roe vs. Wade.
The chances are NIL that anything would change on this issue.
These things are not on Ron’s top agenda.
The things that are, are:
IRAQ WAR
IRS
FEDERAL RESERVE
TAXES
EDUCATION
REVERSING PATRIOT ACT, EMINENT DOMAIN, restoring habeus corpus, etc., etc., etc.
and so many other great things that, compared to ANY other candidate from either party, not just in this election, but probably for the rest of your life, you MUST evaluate based on logic, and liberal Democrats are embracing Ron Paul all over the place despite a couple of the things you mention.
Which is the worse scenario? All other candidates, Demo or Repub, except Kucinich, have pledged to keep troops in Iraq. You know Hillary is tight with the military-industrial complex, and we will see plenty of death and increased military spending if she wins, or Barack, or any Repub, that is guaranteed.
And what about the massive tax hikes promised by almost all candidates that will plunge the U.S. into another Great Depression where people who are now lower middle class will starve as they did in the 1920′s after the Fed caused that depression? The U.S. is living on credit, and the banks are crumbling.
We are spending trillions on military action around the world, not to mention pork at home. Don’t you think Ron Paul is our only chance of stopping that?
For the first time in my life, I have someone to vote for… I think have raised over $6000 for Ron Paul’s campaign and plan on much more. I hope through my efforts to bring him hundreds or thousands of votes if he places well in the primaries.
I am even considering registering as a delegate to the Republican Convention (yeeccch!) just to try to help him get nominated.
I am so glad that all us of had, in our lifetimes, a real American hero to support… especially the jaded and cynical, like Alex and I. If he is nominated I think he will win and the history books will recognize Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Paul as the standout Presidents of the first 250 years.
Ron Paul is the real thing. The media and conservatives are doing everything they can to squash support for this grass-roots, candidate of The People. He has been banned from redstate.com. The Christian Coalition and Christian Alliance is against him.
Don’t believe the lies!
He is a true American hero, maybe the last one we will ever see in our lives.
The things you say Ron Paul wants to “abolish” or “do away with” are on all accounts not true. He simply wants to remove these blanket federal agencies and place the decisions about education, gun control, drug legalization, abortion laws, etc into the hands of the states, where it belongs. Frankly, I would feel a lot better knowing that one government isn’t regulating the behavior of every citizen in the entire country. I feel that morality calls such as these belong with the states, where the population is much more homogeneous and unified in their beliefs.
So when you say that Paul is “against the rights of minorities,” that’s just plain not true. He just doesn’t believe in making it the federal government’s business to try to regulate society, just as the Founding Fathers did.
…is this satire?
Only the comments section.
Yeah that William guy he’s a riot.
Finally! Ron Paul is just as shitty as the rest of them. I would never vote for anyone who didn’t support womens right to choose.
Kucinich all the way!
I disagree with many of Ron Paul’s ideas, but so what? President Ron Paul will not be writing any laws, as that’s congress’s job. What he proposes is certainly far superior to what we have and to where we’re going. And what are the alternatives? Generally (with two exceptions), a bunch of Fascistic, bought-and payed for, lying bastards (and one Fascistic, bought-and payed for, lying bastardess). No thanks, guys!
> Kucinich all the way!
Do you trust Kucinich? Because guess who his #1 choice for VP is?
Yep.
Ron Paul.
http://www.freedomcrowsnest.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65936&start=270
Each of these points are horribly wrong. I urge people, democrats and conservatives alike to do the research themselves. Ron Paul is the best candidate for every person of every creed and every race and every conservative and every democrat. Ron Paul believes in the rights of the individual and does not need to say he supports specific groups’ rights. If you believe in fairness under the rule of law as guided by the Constitution then Ron Paul is your man. I urge people who read this garbage not to believe this empty rhetoric.
Instead of just saying something is wrong, tell us why. I researched very thoroughly and most of my references are bills and amendments that he has supported.
Perhaps he didn’t want to repeat the plethora of information already provided by the people who are actually informed about the subject… And don’t view the subject through a leftist filter.
As a well informed Ron Paul supporter all your article did for me was reinforce things I already know… and your article didn’t have any surprises really. I know when you posted it you got all excited and thought you’d change everyone’s mind. However, I’m wondering when you’re gonna realize that those of us who are well informed will just chuckle and relish the opportunity to discuss Ron Paul. So really all your article does is accomplish what I want which is exposure for Ron Paul.
No such thing as bad publicity.
You’ve also stated you support Kucinich and I applaud you for supporting someone with principles and character. He and Dr Paul are essentially working towards the same goal but using different ideologies. I understand that you want your candidate to win and by smearing Ron Paul you think that may help in some way. Oh look at the support the bad man has! If his supporters only knew his evil they’d vote for the candidate I’ve fallen in love with. Don’t count on it.
I think that if Kucinich dropped out you may just find yourself giving good ol Ron Paul another look. It’s a rare opportunity when we find ourselves with not 1 but 2 men of principle. If Ron Paul isn’t an option then I would most likely vote for Kucinich because my civil liberties are that important to me. I could grin and bear the socialism until we could fix it in the future. Couldn’t you grin and bear the policies of Ron Paul that you don’t agree with for your freedom back?
If you read the article, I did not write it with the intention of swaying neocons in libertarian clothing. I wrote the article aimed at liberal voters who were being swayed by good rhetoric but may not realize the truth behind the words. As a liberal Ron Paul stands for exactly the opposite of what I believe in, he would push his religious beliefs on the nation. I know what he says but his record doesn’t support it.
You know if there is anyone who is against people pushing their religion on to others it’s me. I hate it when people try and I think it’s wrong as well. However, I really can’t see where you get this notion that Ron Paul is going to do this. In fact his record supports the notion that he will not.
It’s obvious to me you’ve made up your mind and will try to twist things to make it look like it supports your view but I don’t see the evidence to back it up. I think you oppose him because he has differing viewpoints and it scares you. People who are scared of something are usually scared of it because they don’t understand it.
I realize that you disagree with his beliefs but touting this theory that the US will enter a dark age of theocratic rule because Dr Paul personally believes certain ways doesn’t earn you any points. It seems this truth you speak of is something that is only apparent to you and the vast majority of responses on here seem to contradict it. We know that to Ron Paul the constitution is his bible and he will do right by it. A man can have religion and not be owned by it.
To all those who argue against Affirmative Action and the things against the scholarship for blacks and blah blah blah. I direct you to:
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/most-awful/most-awful-minorities.php?page=8
Enjoy.
Interesting article. After reading all the comments yesterday and today, I am happy to see a good argument taking place.
speaking of…not really on topic with the argument…
Although I am still feel that the most effective and productive form of government would be a benign dictatorship, I find effectiveness and productiveness minor. The key word in the most effective and productive government is benign. Someone who holds great power with an incredible sense of responsibility and care could be a benign dictator. The problem with such a government is that, at some point, this responsible dictator will leave the power he/she has to a successor. This successor could be by no means responsible or caring.
Ron Paul offers a governmental role where the Federal government has little power and, therefore, little chance of becomming dangerously corrupted. It takes someone near immune to corruption and not hungry for power to demolish the potential of corruption. Ron Paul, to me, is the only candidate who will enter office with alot of power and leave the office to his successor with considerably less power. He will not be a secrative president and be very open with the people he works for, us. The less power the president holds, the less damage the president can do.
Until the day comes where people will take to the streets whenever the faintest sign of corruption occurs and drive that corruption out, I will not vote someone who may put more power in government.
I embrace some “bigger” government ideals. For example, I think Universal Healthcare could be a good thing. BUT only when the people are completely in control of their government, can they give their government the buisness of taking care of themselves.
Even then, though, let people choose to be apart of it or not. I think when it comes to healthcare, eventually most people will find the government CAN handle it well.
Good Day
Affirmative action is about as far from equal as you can get. Why not hire based solely on merit? Affirmative action tells blacks they don’t have to work as hard and it angers whites who don’t get hired because a company needs more blacks.
The reason people think we need it today is because there’s this overblown fear that hiring managers all across the country deep down are hard core racists. This is very rare (I have never seen it, but I’ll assume that theres a couple out there) and if it does happen, then customers have the choice not to do business with that company anymore. If you truly have a good work ethic, and whatever else the position calls for, you should have no trouble getting hired on your merits alone. Corporations are in the business of making money, and if you can make them more profitable with your hard work, turning you away for racist reasons would be ridiculous (and they won’t be as competitive).
Summer… your last comment is very telling… you imply that this guy is a sheep in wolf’s clothing…. and i can’t disprove you for sure….
i’m still totally into looking for a negative ron paul piece and this guy:
Comment Posted On: 2007-12-10 05:20:58
Comment by aphexmandelbrot
made the only really good points i’ve seen so far….
bottom line though is… we’re not electing a king… it isn’t all or nothing come election day…. we’re voting for someone who will uphold the constitution and listen to the population when government is making a mess of things…
sure…. hillary might be a good option and perhaps Obama
but i’m not into someone who i have to take a snapshot of and decide what most resembles my beliefs…. I’m in to someone who believes in good governance (sorry about the cliche) and will adjust his view based on what the country disagrees with simply because his view is adjustable because it’s based on axioms of societal management and not moral imperatives…
to be honest with you.. i feel like so many people fell into the trap of promise based “head shots” and i wish we would vote based on what systems would enable us “the people” to retain our power and not what them “the controlling few” would want us to buy into in order to solidify their control….
I know i can’t convince you to vote for Ron Paul and to be honest i shouldn’t… Truth be told i’m hoping you’ll vote for Kucinich because even thougn i disagree with his theories on Marco Management… i feel as though if his plans went wrong he would actually listen…
There’s nothing worse than being powerless for 4 more years… and no one feels that so deeply as those who voted for Bush.. especially those in the armed services….
I more than anything wish you understood this… and understood why i’d vote for Paul…. I’m willing to bet that i’ve done as much research as you have… perhaps its the fact that he’s a republican… I can understand that…. if things were swinging towards Kucinich i would give up my vote for paul for the party.. but christ. look what happened with KErry… we need to rethink this whole thing…. i’m ashamed that i voted for Kerry… I could speak more on this but i’m pretty sure you’re intelligent and i’d love to hear your rebuttal and hope that you can get this black jewish democrat to decide against voting for a republican.. i’d like to hear a decent argument…… somewhere… anywhere…. i’d like good reasons to vote for obama cos on some level i feel like i’m letting down a lot of traditionalists…. help me out Summer….
Elijah,
I have posted a new blog entry that will be published a little after 1pm CST as a response to you. I am also working on a more thorough referenced article regarding all of the feedback that this story has gotten.
Thank you for your comments.
This is a bunch of BS. Ron Paul is our last hope. VOTE FOR DR. NO!!
Look, I know you guys like to discredit the man, but this is just manipulative hate of Ron. The conclusions drawn are completely off.
First off, Ron Paul is not racist, the article draws this conclusion from the fact that he is against affirmative action. He is just interested in equal rights for everyone. Personally, I agree with this, I go to a good school that I had to work very hard to get into, and work even harder to afford, but many people get free money for school just for being minorities because the school has to meet affirmative action claims. How is this fair?
Second, ron paul is not against women’s rights. Though he personally believes that life begins at conception, if you know his views, then you know that his personal opinion doesn’t matter on this because he wants to delegate it to the states. He wants to let each state decide how they define this and wether they allow abortion, while keeping the federal government out of it.
Ron Paul would also not have a disatrous effect on the working class, in fact he would be giving them more power as a whole. While now, corporations have their hands so deep in government, that they don’t need to worry about keeping a good business or responding to the demands of the working class because they get laws passed that give them federal power over working class members who complain about their employment. In a free market state, the working class as a whole will get to bargain its terms.
The fourth point is a bit off…He wants to charge everyone an equal tax so this is bad for low income people..huh? Sure he would get rid of some of their tax credit, but he’s also getting rid of a lot of their taxes, period.
This comment is getting really long, but anyways, all of these points are cherry picked to be manipulatively deceptive. Just more of the same people who claim he is against stem cell research when all he is against is federal funding for it. Ron Paul would give the power back to the states to allow a wide range of policies, and even competition among the states, making sure that everyone did their part in satisfying the needs of the people individually.
Also, do not even bring Ron Paul and religion into this, he speaks about his religion less than any other candidate and never brings it up unless asked. Ron paul is not the candidate to point the separation of church and state finger at. At the very least, he wouldn’t allow his religious views to get written into federal law, which has been happening a bit too much recently. He supports freedom of religion and would give that power back to the people as well.
Hi Summer,
Even on abortion, Ron Paul votes his by his principles of non-federal intervention. For example, he very tellingly voted “no” on this one.
He’s serious about returning the matter to the states, not a federal ban, your “groundwork” argument notwithstanding.
From vote-smart.org – please check it out for a lot more info.
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
Bill Number: HR 748
Issue: Abortion Issues
Date: 04/27/2005
Sponsor:Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL]
Roll Call Number: 144
Bill Passed (House)
How members voted
.
Read statements made in this general time period.
Official Title of Legislation:
HR 748: To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent the transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws relating to abortion, and for other purposes.
Project Vote Smart’s Synopsis:
Vote to pass a bill that prohibits the transportation of a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion without the consent of a parent or legal guardian.
Highlights:
- Allows for exemptions to the law if the life of the minor is in danger or if a court in the minor’s home state waive the parental notification required by that state
- Allocates fines and/or up to one year imprisonment of those convicted of transporting a minor over state lines to have an abortion
- Penalizes doctors who knowingly perform an abortion procedure without obtaining reasonable proof that the notification provisions of the minor’s home state have been satisfied
- Requires abortion providers in states that do not have parental consent laws and who would be performing the procedure on a minor that resides in another state, to give at least a 24 hour notice to the parent or legal guardian
- Permits any parent or legal guardian to pursue civil action against those who violate parental notification laws
- Specifies that neither the minor nor her guardians may be prosecuted or sued for a violation of this act
House Passage Vote: 04/27/2005: Passed: 270 – 157 (Roll no. 144).
Senate Passage Vote: 07/11/2005: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar.
Last Updated: 10/24/2005
Here’s the vote-smart web page for RP: copy and paste, cuz I don’t html
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929
With respect, you just listed 10 issues that Ron Paul has a voting record on, which happen to match 10 for 10 what my values are. You are absolutely correct that we should research our candidates. We know Ron Paul’s positions and his voting record matches his message…. NOW, research the voting records of the other candidates as I have done and you will discover their voting records do NOT match their message. So who DO you advocate for again? I’d be happy to present you with http://www.govtrack.us hard factual data on that candidate. The record of their percentage of attendence to even show up and perform in the offices already elected to. The record of voting for/against various legislations and cross reference with lobbyist/donation sources. Ron Paul cannot be bought, we know his position and it has been solid for decades.
email me if you want to do research as opposed to opinion pieces and I’d be happy to share data with you.
Semper Fi,
Non-Partisan USMC Veteran
Camp Pendleton/Seattle
These are all reasons TO vote for Ron Paul you idiots.
Ok, maybe now that most of the crazies are gone maybe someone can answer a question for me. There seems to be some contradictions among the Ron Paul drones. Half of them seem to say the 10 reasons are a lies, while the other half says that the 10 reasons are the reasons your supporting Paul.
Since these statements cannot both be true (unless you’re crazier than I though), which half of you are right? Are they all lies? Or are they true and also the reasons you support Ron Paul?
I think you’re confused. People have denounced Summer’s points as false and upheld that her research supports the case for Ron Paul. It’s all about the interpretation and it is my belief that the author certainly puts her own spin on things (quite obvious).
You’re statement leaves me a little bewildered because no one has doubted the sources of Summer’s research at all. I’ve read all the comments and unless I missed it no one was like “lies, all lies, omg lies”.
Summer jumps to several conclusions about Ron Paul that are based on scant evidence at best. Several people including myself have pointed this out to her and she has even resorted to flaming in response to one of my posts. I’m sure she believes wholeheartedly the things she says but I find her to be a bit naive on these issues she brings up.
I truly feel that when she set out to do her research it was with the intention of discrediting Dr Paul. Having found things to her satisfaction that did so (not to mine) she didn’t delve deeper and try to understand this information to the full extent. In my opinion she had her mind made up beforehand and found facts to support her position and nothing more. This leaves her analysis of the situation a bit shallow and wanting.
This whole conversation comes down to 1 thing really and it is shown over and over and over. Small government vs Big government. Old school republican vs democrat. It’s a battle that’s been ongoing so really nothing new. However, the players ARE different and worth noting and acting upon. This could be a make or break issue for the US so I beg all of you don’t enter into any decision lightly. Do your research and explore all avenues. It will decide the future for you children and their children.
Here are 3900 reasons to vote for Ron Paul. Iraq.
That’s all 71 diggs? I wonder why the majority do not agree with you. I bet you work for obama or hillary maybe rudy? Good luck with your list, our revolution has just begun!!
Your list is a joke! Ron Paul supporters KNOW his views and ideas inside out!
I would like to see you counter this record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
Who would Jesus vote for? Jesus would vote for Ron Paul that’s who.
c’mon, summer…even the nay-sayers are wising up…http://WWW.OBAMALA.COM
but, i have a feeling you’re a woman of conviction and won’t vote for him even if you wanted to…out of principle alone. it’s ok…a little egg on your face can be a humbling, yet positive, experience.
As a formerly proud liberal who has become disaffected with well intentioned social programs which are inheirantly handicapped by increasing levels of beaurocracy, I could take issue with many of your points in this essay. In the interest of time (I’m writing this at work) I’ll mention the one which I feel you are the most wrong about- our education system. It is badly broken. In fact I would go so far as to say shamefully broken considering the potential resources this country has. We try and fix it by adding more beaurocracy and social programs, when the real problem is that we can’t even teach the basics. What happened to the “3 R’s”? I just returned to college after a 15 year absense and the young students have no concept of basic sentence structure, etc. Before we worry about all of the scolastic activities shouldn’t we make sure that the graduating class can read and write above the fifth grade level? I don’t agree with everthing Ron Paul stands for, but I do agree with his basic premise on this.
Jesus was NOT a liberal and would have been appalled at this crap.
Thats not what he told me.
This looks like a list of the Top Ten Reason’s to vote for Ron Paul. His positions seem to me to be the most promising for human rights. Anytime you limit the power of government freedom is the victor. I’m not saying there are not downsides to many of his positions, but he is the most Constitutionally oriented candidate running in ’08, and the upsides are far outweigh the downsides.
This is pretty badly reasoned and researched thinking.
There is a difference between the federal and local levels of government, and Dr. Paul basically wants to appropriate authority back to the levels it was originally intended to be at – and this is what makes him what is called a “constitutionalist”.
For example, although Dr. Paul may be against nearly all abortions, his argument isn’t to abolish abortions all together as the above would lead you to believe. The argument is that the federal government does not have the legal authority under the Constitution to deal in such matters. Abortion’s legal status would be left to the local level – e.g. the individual states – to decide. The same reasoning is behind his response to a number of other things mentioned above.
I think the main problem most people are having with Dr. Paul’s campaign is that it is the first in a long time dealing with fundamental philosophical questions of government, and most Americans are not accustomed to thinking about such things. The current system is not the only or necessarily the best way to govern ourselves. Dr. Paul represents a very fundamental shift in thinking about what our government should be. In the often rehashed question about freedom versus security, our leaders are basically telling us that we have to give up freedoms to be more secure. Dr. Paul has repeatedly stated that such tactics never work, and that we simply end up less free and less secure as a result.
I encourage everyone to read and think about the questions and arguments on their own. Please don’t let random bloggers and media outlets make the decision for you! If you want to get a much better understanding of what motivates Dr. Paul, then maybe start at the Ron Paul Library [http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/]. Please don’t let others do the thinking for you.
Anti-RON PAULers… Consider the following questions and musings…
1. Who do you support in this primary election season? Why do you support that candidate?
2. Why would you want a Cradle to Grave Nanny State? Who pays for the Nanny-State?
3. Is it right to take money from some to give for others? Is that not Socialism/Communism?
4. Do you think people would not give to charity without the governments ensuring that with Taxes?
5. Public health care is not all you think… I was stationed in the UK, had to use it, all too often it is abused or the actual care is something to be desired. They normally prescribe the stiffest drug with side effects and send you on your way. What makes that so great? Why do Canadians come to America for quality health care… Why do their nurses come to America to earn a living?
6. What is wrong with letting States decide on issues? If more things that are federalized the less places to go to
escape it, I like having the choice to leave a liberal state for a conservative state, a massive Federal Gov’t hurts that ability.
7. The issue on education is complex. Is the Fed Govt paying for K-3 and K-4 education programs going to help
children learn more? Or does that encourage parents not to be involved in the process of educating their children? Think about this. Our property taxes force people to pay for children they do not have in a “Public” school system, some parents with children in that “Public” school do not pay property taxes, is that right? If parents had to pay every dollar for that child’s education out of their own pocket, would they take an interest in their children’s education and training? I homeschool my children, I have to pay every dollar, use no public facilities, and get none of that property tax back. I pay for people that are illegally in our country, why should I have to? The NEA demands this,
demands that, what do they provide? And then teachers get the bad rap for children turning out wrong… I blame the
parents not taking an interest in their children’s life. The K-3, K-4 programs encourage both parents to get jobs
and use the “Free” daycare provided by the Fed or the State. Is it “Free”? Have you ever wondered why the cost of
owning a home is so much? If you have two income families, you can charge more for something that is not worth the
price tag. You know it is true. When one parent was in the home, most of the crap we are dealing with today was non-existent. Children were getting a better education, values and manners were something that counted in most
households, regardless of background or economic circumstances.
8. What is wrong with the Second Amendment? Why did the founding fathers want an armed citizenry? I think when you
dis-arm the people, we are susceptible to take over from within and from the outside. You take away firearms, then only the criminal will have them. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people… Goes back to that values and manners thing above.
9. What is wrong with a strong border? Is it right for the American People to pay for illegals? Should illegals get
Social Security? If you think so, then I am questioning your logic, you are a probably a mega socialist or
communist when you think everyone should have equal means. Anyone can work toward a goal and succeed in America, hard work and dedication will win. The military is one example of giving everyone a fair shake. I was dirt poor with nothing, enlisted in the Navy, worked hard, promoted, and now I am a Naval Officer. So everyone has a place to
excel, and there is equal access for all, it is a choice to serve or not to serve.
10. Abortion is it a choice? Whose choice? Whose right is being infringed? The Mom or the Un-Born Baby, how much
choice does the baby get? Should the Government pay for Abortion? Why is it that families are forced to go overseas
to adopt babies? Children are wanted by tons of people who cannot have their own. So even when people are selfish
with their own lives, that they do not want to take responsibility of their actions, there are other options than murder. Ask yourself what is the difference between 1 months in the womb or 7 months in the womb… Is it a child or not? It is not an alien species, I guarantee that.
Summary… It seems you have bought into the great Liberal Lie that Government will solve all your worries… Health
Care, Education, Welfare, Employment, then you are hooked on the lie that all Americans will have to fund. Don’t you see the more you rely on Government, the more freedoms and liberty you lose… Then you are expected to tow the
Liberal Lie Party Line, you have no choice, you rely on the government for everything, you will die without it, your
very life depends on it. That is scary… Communism is already in the Government and growing, we need Constitutionalist to restore the Republic.
RON PAUL is the ONLY CHOICE.
Stop drinking that Hatorade and buying into the Nanny-State garbage being peddled by the left. VOTE RON PAUL 2008!!!
RON PAUL can carry the True Conservative GOP, Constitution Party, Libertarians, and Reagan Democrats… No other
candidate can do that, I think that scares you and many others who depend on Government for everything.
So switch your support to RON PAUL FOR THE LONG HAUL!!!
18 Million and Growing…
The Navy Gunner sends…
Although Ron Paul supporters say he does not support group interest they seem to constantly look back to a time when the goverment only protected the interest and rights of a small white male property owning group.
Everyone else was a outsider who were denied the right to vote and could be discriminated against in jobs, housing and schools based on the likes, whims and prejudices of this group.
The only way these outsider groups (blacks, workers, women,gays) were able to achieve their rights were using the same group tatics as the ownership group.
Those are all great reasons to vote for Ron!!!
I HAVE READ THIS WHOLE PAGE! My eyes hurt & I have a headache. Ron Paul????? I have been researching him among other candidates for months now. Watching all the debates. Reading blogs & watching the news & youtube. I have voted Democrat most of my life. And in 2008 I will vote Republican (yuch, that tastes bad). I have never known a politician who stood so firmly in his record, who never voted in favor of big business over the peoples rights & freedoms, one that lobbyists won’t approach for favors, the only candidate to return a portion of his office budget to the treasury at the end of the year, one that voted against giving Reagan the congressional medal of honor because it cost taxpayers $30,000 to produce and deliver but took $100 out of his pocket and proposed the rest of congress join him in paying for it themselves (that’s integrity my friends) and Ron Paul was Reagans friend. I have never heard another politician speak the truth, even if it wasn’t popular. I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS MUCH ENTHUSIASM FOR ANY CANDIDATE! He has never taken a paid junket, never voted for an unbalanced budget and never voted for a congressional pay raise. There is a revolution going on. A Ron Paul revolution. He has broken the all time donation for one day with his supporters donating 6 million dollars in 24 hours! You must take another look at Ron. Don’t pass up a chance to turn this country in the right direction because of your party affiliation. Ron Paul gets my support & my vote.
PS Anybody know how much money we are borrowing from China to fund this war!
Great post Summer. It is a testament to how terrible the political situation is that otherwise progressive people would even contemplate voting for Ron Paul. It’s truly frightening how reactionary he is and how bad a candidate he is. A quick look at his positions will reveal that working people who care about freedom, justice, democracy and the environment cannot possibly, in their right minds, support Ron Paul. Perhaps people who are looking for an alternative to the imperialism and assualt on working people that is being performed by the Democratic and Republican parties would be interested in Cynthia McKinney’s Green Party campaign. runcynthiarun.org
1. Affirmative action IS bad because it is not in the constitution for the federal government to impose such laws.
2. It is also not in the constitution to give the government the power to enforce such a law. Ron Paul supports giving the STATES power on this issue. More power to the states. A more decentralized government.
3. Ron Paul wants to return the government to the a “constitutional size.” This means that government gets a lot of it’s power removed (i.e. minimum wage), and more power is given to local government.
So far in all of these issues you are citing things that Ron Paul is removing from the federal government. You are leaving out the 50% of the story. He is GIVING more power to the local governments where it belongs.
After reading the rest of these points they all have the same tone. You are forgetting that he is wanting to remove the income tax.
Lastly, Ron Paul wants a non-interventionist foreign policy. Think of how many Americans would be alive today if he had been in the office in 2000. And, who can put a price on that?
You have this running tally of the cost of the war on your page, yet Ron Paul is the only candidate running under the Republican party against the war!
Ron Paul has done something unprecedented in American Politics; he has somehow gotten a measurable amount of cannabis activists and medical marijuana proponents to vote republican.
Paul has also enjoyed almost total support from the 911 Truth Movement, even though Paul himself does not publicly support their theories.
I am not voting for Ron Paul, because he, like nearly every candidate, does not fully disclose his true agenda and he has a lot of starry eyed idealists thinking he is the new messiah.
I can’t see why any progressive would vote for him.
because he wants to decriminalize marijuana, end american imperialism and let the states – all fifty of ‘em – be the centers for policy innovation.
in the news recently, the governator has decided to sue the EPA because this large, clumsy, inefficient, centralized bureaucracy has denied california and sixteen other states the right to regulate it’s own greenhouse gas emissions.
i don’t know about you guys, but when the environmental protection agency forbids states to take initiative to clean up their own air, something is wrong. i bet we could logically deduct that the EPA, a federal institution, is heavily lobbied by corporate institutions.
now, people, what kind of central, militaristic government takes it orders from large, multi-national corporations?
anyone?
anyone at all?
okay, okay, i’ll give you a hint: it starts with an ‘F’ and rhymes with baptism (sorta).
i’m pretty sure that old, white, piece-of-shit conservative ron paul has my vote. i never thought i’d be voting for a republican from texas……
Ron Paul is a racist, a sexist,and a heterosexist. How do we know this? Because he supports legislation that harms the interests of these groups and opposes legislation that protects the interests of these groups. If you support Ron Paul after knowing the truth, then that makes you are racist, sexist, and heterosexist, too. If you want to be these things, that’s okay; just be honest and admit what you are. Quit trying to trick us by redefining your prejudice and desire to discriminate against members of these group as “freedom” and “liberty.” If you believe your own deception then you are a rationalizer. Whatever the case, we figured out the conservative states rights argument years ago – even before George Wallace ran for president. Paul isn’t a libertarian. You aren’t fooling us. He’s a white nationalist extremist.
Andrew, is it the case that you have an open mind, and would change your mind if further research proved these conclusions wrong?
If so, I urge you, for your sake and for all of us, to keep looking, keep listening and see if you can overcome these preliminary impressions by learning the truth.
I don’t trust anyone, and it look a lot of research before I was convinced that ROn Paul represents our best hope for the future.
So what you’re saying then summer is that you DON”T think we should get our country back to living by the constition?
Your comments show a lack of understanding… Ron Paul does not support any kind of “group rights”, he only supports individual rights. To Dr. Paul, there is no such thing as group rights.
He resists the efforts to try and categorize and stereotype a number of people into a group based on irrelevant criteria.
Skin color, sex or sexual orientation are not public issues, only to protect people from discrimination and it is ridiculous to think the government should be involved in laws that harm or support interests in “groups”.
Ron Paul thinks the government should get out of meddling in people’s personal lives.
I agree, and I am certainly not a sexist or racist.
Ron Paul in 2008!
Ron Paul is not only our cure for apathy, but also our caffeine once we completely wake up. The people that worry about the downside of a Paul Administration have very valid points, and we should thank them for pointing these things out to us. Im afraid, however that they (and likely anyone who becomes alarmed at reading what is posted below) have not grasped fully the precarious position our complacence has us in. We have been raised to believe that it is the government’s responsibility to protect us from unjustness and unfairness. This is a very pleasing notion but it is not America.
Ours is a nation based upon the premise of liberty for all. Every citizen of the United States is supposed to have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, right? Well, we have been trained from birth to just allow that thought to stop right there. Which is what our alarmed friends are doing right now. The Constitution promises to guarantee these rights exist, but it is US who must secure these rights. Not the government. Not the Constitution.
Remember – our rights are endowed to us by our creator, guaranteed to us in the Constitution, and secured by we the people.
But what does this mean? Well it means that those who would claim that Ron Paul is no friend to the working man are right, and wrong. Ron Paul is NOT a friend to the working man, but to the free man, the responsible man. Ron Paul is one who truly understands that is not the government that is charged with the defense of our freedoms but us. The government, as established by the Constitution we all claim to honor, is restricted from infringing on our freedoms in EVERY way.
A government that has the power to protect the rights of the people, also has the power to remove those rights. And that is what we have been indoctrinated to believe. Ron Paul hopes that we will see his message, and we do. But do we understand his message of freedom?
He advocates a government that remembers its restrictions, thats true, but he also hopes that the people remember their responsibilities. Once the Paul Administration is in the White House we must continue the call for freedom at congress. Let our shouts of discontent and demands for a real change echo through not only Capitol Hill, but the halls of our State houses as well. Remind our Governors that the offices they occupy exist to serve our common interests. Remind our state legislatures that it is they who most directly represent our opinions and our needs and it is they who must step up to the plate in beginning state regulation programs. State regulated wages. State regulated equality laws. State regulated abortion laws. State regulated everything!
Ron Paul is the perfect man for the job. Ron Paul is the pro-America candidate, he does not belong to the CFR and wants us out of the United Nations. Some wonder what is so bad with the UN, well in the 50+ years the UN has existed how many times have we been at war or involved in a ‘police action’? Now look at the 100 years BEFORE the UN existed…..notice anything? I could be wrong but was the UN not created to avoid warfare? And did we not fight a war to avoid being ruled by kings living abroad? Ron Paul remembers our Constitution, and remembers what it is to be American. He recognizes the good intent Bill Clinton had in signing a treaty recognizing international war crimes. I might ask you, however, how that treaty permits the laws of foreign nations to affect ordinary people here inside the US? How many war criminals – not counting those in our current administration – walk our streets? So if America is a sovereign nation, with its own laws, why do international laws apply to us? Ron Paul asks these questions. And so should you.
i could go on and on correcting allegations that Ron Paul is not the best candidate. But my point is made, i think. We must take our liberty back. That means that we must from now on march on our state capitols for social change. It is OUR responsibility to secure our freedoms, to leave it up to government is to make our rights into privileges.
As a rule I don’t reply to pingbacks, really whats the point, but this is too funny. Check it out.