What's wrong with Ron Paul?

[Texarkandy]

I am a somewhat avid Ron Paul supporter, don't agree entirely with everything - but he's the only presidential candidate who is in line with a lot of my ideas about how things ought to be with the Fed Govt.

Now I realize of course he doesn't have a snowballs chance - & never did after not making a good showing in NH - However, I am curious what people of various political persuasions "don't like" about Ron Paul

- what is it that turns(ed) you off?

 

[retire@40]

Simple. He has no sense of reality.

 

[ladelfina]

I like his anti-war position and fiscal calling-to-account.. his past racism not so much.

 

[mickeyd]

He's got a lot of quirky ideas that do not seem to be well thought-out. Here's a couple from his web site.

It is an outrage that waiters, waitresses, and other service-sector employees have to pay taxes on the tips they earn. The IRS makes an estimate of how much service-sector workers will make in tips, and taxes them on it even if the taxpayer did not actually earn as much as the IRS' estimate!

So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.

 

[ladelfina]

How are those quirky? I agree 100%. The outrage is not paying taxes on tips.. but that the government makes up a number for you when you legitimately earned less. (Solution is eliminate tipping and just pay waitrons a living wage.)

 

[Gumby]

I respect the man for his anti-war position. I dislike his libertarianism;the government can and should be a force for good in our society.

 

[Texarkandy]

I respect the man for his anti-war position. I dislike his libertarianism;the government can and should be a force for good in our society.

Just a thought, but it occurred to me that:

"government" + "force" = tyranny

 

[Marquette]

Sorry for the Miss Teen what's their face splice in, but this video shows, in my opinion, some of what is both right and wrong with Ron Paul:

YouTube - John McCain and Miss Teen USA South Carolina

 

[Texarkandy]

Sorry for the Miss Teen what's their face splice in, but this video shows, in my opinion, some of what is both right and wrong with Ron Paul:

YouTube - John McCain and Miss Teen USA South Carolina

Cute video - I enjoyed -
but I don't understand how it shows what is "wrong" (in your opinion) with Ron Paul?

 

[HFWR]

I prefer Les Paul...

[-]As[/-] For a Libertarian, he has some rather Christian-Rightish ideas...

 

[Martha]

For example, Ron Paul said when stating his opposition to abortion:

"As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there's a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there's an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it."

My response:

--so how does the delivery of a baby tell you when life begins?
--and what do you mean by life?
--"legal life there?" Has he read Roe v. Wade?
--the unborn doesn't have inheritance rights if not born alive
--if there is an injury or killing, the state determines what consequences there are.

No doubt about it, eh?

(I know, I am walking on thin ice, but this sure was mushy thinking)

 

[laurence]

Yeah, once I saw his neo-Nazi affiliations I was done. I'd rather vote for that other Texan, Kinky Friedman.

 

[CybrMike]

I am also a big Ron Paul supporter and have donated to his campaign. As far as his "neo-nazi" affiliations, yes there were some crazy newsletters in the early 90's with racial slurs, he said that although it was his newsletter, other people were writing the articles and he didn't read it close enough before release. He has since apologized for it and rebuked the content of the letters.

Every politician has skeletons in their closet. (e.g. McCain's Gook comment ).

I always considered myself a republican but lately cannot believe that the repubs want to try and keep us in Iraq and every other damned nation in the world. At this point I say **** it, bring all the troops home, save 1 TRILLION dollars per year, and get our fiscal house in order. All things Ron Paul said he would do. Otherwise this country is going to continue its downward spiral into debt.

Unfortunately, only a very small percentage of the American public seems to agree with me, so I guess I'll just have to wait and see what happens. Better believe I've got some guns and gold though, just incase.

 

[Gumby]

Just a thought, but it occurred to me that:

"government" + "force" = tyranny

Damn you sharp-eyed Paultards. You've cracked my secret code. I don't suppose I should even mention the 3rd and 16th letter of each of the Psal... (er never mind).


P.S. -- I recommend Reynolds Heavy Duty. You don't want to trust something this important to the cheap generic version.

 

[Texarkandy]

For example, Ron Paul said when stating his opposition to abortion:

"As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there's a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there's an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it."

My response:

--so how does the delivery of a baby tell you when life begins?
--and what do you mean by life?
--"legal life there?" Has he read Roe v. Wade?
--the unborn doesn't have inheritance rights if not born alive
--if there is an injury or killing, the state determines what consequences there are.

No doubt about it, eh?

(I know, I am walking on thin ice, but this sure was mushy thinking)

If you read the quote you posted above carefully & objectively, you will note that the point he is making concerns the hypocrisy of how the State considers the unborn to be a "life" in every respect - except when it comes to abortion.

I'm somewhat ambivalent on abortion as a federal issue myself - As I understand Ron Paul is opposed to abortion on a personal level (as a doctor) - but believes that as a matter of law abortion should be a State issue - that's fine by me (& doesn't really sound like a hard Christian-right position).

Although we know he's a plain-vanilla Protestant, I've never heard him quoting the Bible to support a position.

 

[Texarkandy]

I prefer Les Paul...

[-]As[/-] For a Libertarian, he has some rather Christian-Rightish ideas...

Other than his stance that abortion should be a State issue, what would those ideas be?

As a freethinker myself, I don't want Christian-Right "policies" running my government - but I certainly won't discriminate against someone just for being a devout Christian, that would be the height of hypocrisy.

(Note: I'm not trying to convert anybody here, just trying to understand what people's perceptions are & why)

 

[Texarkandy]

Yeah, once I saw his neo-Nazi affiliations I was done. I'd rather vote for that other Texan, Kinky Friedman.

That would be kind of like someone opposing Obama because of his "Nation of Islam affiliations", don't ya think? O0

 

[Texarkandy]

Damn you sharp-eyed Paultards.

And same to you Liberal-Fascists!!! (as long as we are going to sink to name-calling)

(just kidding, couldn't help it)

 

[Martha]

If you read the quote you posted above carefully & objectively, you will note that the point he is making concerns the hypocrisy of how the State considers the unborn to be a "life" in every respect - except when it comes to abortion.

I'm somewhat ambivalent on abortion as a federal issue myself - As I understand Ron Paul is opposed to abortion on a personal level (as a doctor) - but believes that as a matter of law abortion should be a State issue - that's fine by me (& doesn't really sound like a hard Christian-right position).

Although we know he's a plain-vanilla Protestant, I've never heard him quoting the Bible to support a position.

I did read what he said carefully and objectively and that is why I saw mush. The state does not give inheritance rights to the unborn--you have to be born alive to inherit. States differ on penalties regarding injury to a woman and her fetus. There is no federal crime. In any event, you have to draw lines and the line is not drawn at conception. Embryos are thrown away, are naturally expelled by women, and I am not aware of any place in the US where it is a crime to dispose of an embryo or to cause the death of an embryo.

Yes, he does not want federal involvement in the abortion question but he supports a state's right to criminalize abortion with the criminals being the "abortionists" as he calls them. He is old enough to remember the days before Roe v. Wade when abortions existed, they have always existed, but were not safe and not legal. I guess he doesn't care.

Sorry though for bringing up abortion. This topic is one that should be on the list of forbidden moderator topics, but I got pulled in.

I don't understand why Ron Paul, and others like him are such advocates of state's rights. I thought the Libertarian position was one of individual rights. But many of these guys, including Paul, seem to hold the philosophy that the federal government has little power but the states have tremendous power that the federal government cannot limit. For example, Clarence Thomas is an extremely strong state's rights advocate. Under his construction of the constitution the federal government could not bar a state from enacting a state religion. That would be up to the states. No individual freedom there.

 

[Rustic23]

Martha,
Not a historian, but didn't Jefferson and Hamilton have the same arguments over States Rights vs Strong Central Government. Seems like there has always been a disagreement in the country.

 

[RunningBum]

It rubbed me wrong how you'd see so many "Ron Paul is The Man" or "Ron Paul definitely won the debate" comments after online stories covering debates and other events. No substance behind the comments. It reeked of a small group of online junkies assuming many identities and bombarding a message board. In fact at first I wondered for awhile if his candidacy was just some kind of joke to see how far they could take it.

Likewise with all of the signs, all it shows is that someone is shelling out a bit of money and stepping away from their keyboard for a few hours to put them out.

I guess they figured they needed to get his name out there and talked about in whatever way possible. It turned me off.

I haven't seen that much from him to make me take him seriously. Admittedly, I havne't looked that hard.

Ideally I would love libertarianism to work. Get the government out and let the market handle things. Unfortunately, you see too much of things like companies prodding very sick cattle to the cattle house to realize that there are too many unscrupulous businesses that need government regulation and inspection.

 

[aenlighten]

As a former libertarian

I have to say libertarianism is simple minded, narrow, and selfish. It is the propaganda of the powerful to preserve and promote their power. Ricardo showed how this would lead to a class of rentiers owning society making economics the dismal science. It replaces the tyranny of the government with a myriad of petty tyrants, more circumscribed in the extant of their power but much more powerful within their fiefdom. Democracy is the worst system of government other than all those others tried.

 

[haha]

Just a thought, but it occurred to me that:

"government" + "force" = tyranny

Or, Government = Force = Tyranny

Ha

 

[Texarkandy]

.......... I don't understand why Ron Paul, and others like him are such advocates of state's rights. I thought the Libertarian position was one of individual rights. But many of these guys, including Paul, seem to hold the philosophy that the federal government has little power but the states have tremendous power that the federal government cannot limit......

I think they get that odd idea from the fact that the United States Constitution enumerates specific powers for each branch of the federal government - and then in Article X of the Bill of Rights states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[bright eyed]

I think they get that odd idea from the fact that the United States Constitution enumerates specific powers for each branch of the federal government - and then in Article X of the Bill of Rights states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Then you're contradicting your own point because the constitution protects everyone's freedom of religion and if a state makes an official religion, people in that state's constitutional rights would be taken away.