Supporting the Separation of Church and State

10 Reasons Not to Vote for Ron Paul

Categorized: Politics, Republicans

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!

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. 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 Preview Image

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.

274 Comments

  1. This is a bunch of BS. Ron Paul is our last hope. VOTE FOR DR. NO!!

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. Paul makes no sense

    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.

  8. See if your state has open primaries!

    http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1801

  9. 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

  10. Equal discrimination is NOT equal rights!

  11. 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!

  12. These are all reasons TO vote for Ron Paul you idiots.

  13. 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?

  14. 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.

  15. Here are 3900 reasons to vote for Ron Paul. Iraq.

  16. 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.

  17. 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 …

  18. 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!

  19. 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.

  20. Who would Jesus vote for? Jesus would vote for Ron Paul that’s who.

  21. 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. :)

  22. >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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. Could not have said it better myself, Jojy Igwaboo.

  26. 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

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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

  30. 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.

  31. Jesus was NOT a liberal and would have been appalled at this crap.

  32. Thats not what he told me.

  33. >>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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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!

  36. Harry Reasoner

    Active military personnel have donated more money to Ron Paul’s campaign than any other candidate. What does that tell you?

  37. 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.

  38. 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!

  39. 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!

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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…

  43. Liberal Weenie™ ?
    lol

  44. god does not exist, sorry for the reality check

  45. you must be a white boy! ha!

  46. 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.

  47. Those are all great reasons to vote for Ron!!!

  48. Great rebuttal!!

  49. >>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.

  50. 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.

Pingbacks