Ohhhhhh, so that’s what affirmative action is. So how is that not state-sponsored racism?

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.

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)

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

A lil harsh but I have to agree. If you don’t make an informed decision what decision are you making?

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

Right. The rich and the poor alike have the right to sleep under the bridges of paris.

fools.

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

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.

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.

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.

>> 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.

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.

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.

…is this satire?

Only the comments section.

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!

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!

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.

Yeah that William guy he’s a riot.

> 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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….

You are right,most of the ten reasons listed are states rights issues,Ron Paul is my choice for sure.