Who is for Ron Paul and Why?

POSTED BY: Wulfenstar
UPDATED: Friday, February 8, 2008 16:08
VIEWED: 6511
PAGE 1 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

WULFENSTAR

Monday, February 4, 2008 8:33 PM

Just wondering where he stands on things....heard some garbage that he doesn't believe in evolution...is this true?

SERGEANTX

Monday, February 4, 2008 9:10 PM

He's said he doesn't think it's the whole story. He's a Christian and is in the same boat they all are - trying to make God fit in a world that keeps explaining him away.

Anyway, I'm for Ron Paul. He's not the ideal candidate, but he's the only one still in the race, Republican or Democrat, who's serious about changing things. He acknowledges that we are attempting to run a worldwide empire, using our military to protect markets and resource for our corporations, and he wants to end it. He wants to maintain a strong defense and engage in proactive diplomacy, but he doesn't think that we need to occupy half the nations on the planet to do that effectively.

He was against the Iraq War from the beginning and he's the only candidate I've heard say point blank that he would end it as soon as possible, bringing ALL the troops home. He recognizes that stomping around invading countries on a whim doesn't make us safer, it just makes us despised.

He's also a steadfast libertarian. That means he's for individual rights and constitutionally limited government. He would make a real reduction in the size, scope, and expense of the federal government. He's set a goal of reducing federal bureaucracy and overhead to the point (by roughly a third) that we would no longer need a federal income tax. He would get rid of it and replace it with nothing.

Moreover, unlike the other candidates, his voting record actually supports his proposed policies.

As the strongest supporter of the Constitution:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
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.

On the minus side (in my opinion), he is against abortion, but believes it should be a state issue, i.e. the federal government shouldn't have anything to say about it. That means he would probably appoint federal judges friendly to repealing Roe vs. Wade, leaving states to decide for themselves. He's a doctor, an ob-gyn, so I can sort of see why he's not a fan of abortion, though I see it differently.

There's also dirt on him that can't entirely be dismissed. In the early nineties he published a newsletter that included a few articles with some pretty ugly racial remarks. He's philosophically opposed to racism at it's core and has spoken against it repeatedly, but somehow that stuff got in his newsletter. He says he didn't write it. But he refuses to divulge who did, claiming that they don't know. The 'word on the blogs' is that the articles were written by Lew Rockwell, a strong Paul supporter who still associates with Paul, though he's not officially part of his campaign. This would explain when he doesn't want to say who wrote them.

Anyway, it was nearly twenty years ago, and compared to the nasty junk that's out there on the mainstream candidates it's pretty trivial. It brings him down from a 90% candidate to an 80% candidate, in my opinion. But since none the others break 30% on my scale, he's really the only choice.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

KWICKO

Monday, February 4, 2008 9:12 PM

I know Hero loves him!

Sweeping generalizations are always wrong!

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, February 4, 2008 10:27 PM

I intend to vote for him even if I have to write him in, and imma Anarchist.

A - He believes in Constitutional Compliance.

Meanin the Gov needs to actually OBEY the Constitution instead of distorting it's meaning or ignoring it to justify almost anything...

Being as that is my MINIMUM level of tolerance for Government, he's prettymuch it, as far as potential candidates go.

B - He does what he says.

Ron puts his vote where his mouth is, none of this mealy-mouthed doubletalk, he votes in strict accordance with the US Constitution 98.5% of the time, and he will vote "NO" on anything that isn't Constitutional even if he is the ONLY one on the hill voting that way.

In fact, they call him "Doctor No." up on the hill for that very reason.

When the man says he'll do something, he'll damn well TRY - and since most of what he wants to do is in absolute accord with what *I* want, he has my support.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FLETCH2

Monday, February 4, 2008 11:28 PM

I can't vote for him, but I believe him to be honest, which is rare enough in a politician to be worth supporting. Don't agree with him on a whole lot of things but admire the fact that he believes in something and backs what he says with what he does. He's had my respect on that basis alone for many years.

THATWEIRDGIRL

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 12:06 AM

I think the federal government has gotten too big. We've sacrificed too many personal liberties for my taste. So, I'm supporting Paul because he's a libertarian. I trust him to do or try to do what he says he will.

I agree about the drop to 80%.

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 12:21 AM

Sargeant you dont leave much else to be said.. thats a pretty fair summation. although i personally would go as far as to say that im almost in complete argreement with him, especially where it counts(anti-NWO)

i checked out some of Rons interviews from 1988, and you just have to admire someone who can remain consistent and principled for so long. hes a breathe of fresh air, amidst his competitors like Romney and McCain who change positions by the election cycles..

but most of all, finally, we so called 'conspiracy theorists' have a voice, and one that lends validity to arguments that we have been adamant about for a long time. where are all the 'loony' accusations about the Fed, or the NAU now?? Ron broke through the elite/media barrier, so i see this as our chance to restore our country before we pass the point of no return(if we arent their already).

what amazes me the most though are the hypocrisies coming out of the the republican party. to shun a libertarian the equivalent of a constitutional prophet really says a lot about where their 'money is', and its not where their 'mouthes' are. at the end of the day, the wealthy are too apathetic and complacent to see that the middle class IS being wiped out, and tinkering around the edges of the current (illegal) system isnt going to work. thats why this election is pivotal, because this country cannot stand 4 more years of spending and deficits, before we have an outright revolution.

i see the RP campaign as our non-violent attempt at change, and by that i mean constituional 'restoration'. if we get a socialist like Obama or a psuedo-con like Mitt, then things may get ugly

YINYANG

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 2:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Just wondering where he stands on things....heard some garbage that he doesn't believe in evolution...is this true?

Still not as scary (IMO) as this gem from 2003:

Quote:

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God [what?!], would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

And, for somebody who likes the Constitution so much, he's really against Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment (add the colon back at the end or the links don't take you anywhere):

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.j.res.00046:
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.j.res.00046:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.j.res.42:

Even if libertarianism was something I thought would work in America at the present time (I'm all for small goverment, just not that small), Ron Paul strikes me as an odd character.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 4:04 AM

Well, I guess if it's a choice between someone who doesn't accept evolution and someone who thinks we should kill for the oil companies, I'll choose the former.

Seriously, he may be an 'odd character' (honesty is particularly 'odd' by Washington standards), but he's not a power-hungry liar and that's a lot more important to me.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FLATTOP

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 12:59 PM

Ron Paul may not be 'quite right', but that beats the 'completely wrong' proposed by the rest of the candidates.

----------
Remember to vote! http://www.usbmicro.com/misc

Sign up NOW! http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=11&t=25704
More Information: http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html

1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE