Ron Paul, right on some issues, wrong on most

[Mathematician]

Specifically looking at the field of presidential contenders, Ron Paul is the only Republican who I feel warrants some praise; while others [including self-described 'liberals'] have been bought out by the Machine, Ron Paul has kept heart with his libertarianism. He's gained some attention for his opposition to the Patriot Act, NAFTA, and the Iraq War. For awhile I fell into the field of Ron Paul hopefuls.

But after reading into his other oppositions, all I can say is, wow. Now I know why I'm a liberal and not a libertarian. Some topics most progressives/liberals would take issue with:

- Ron Paul was against giving financial aid to Katrina victims, asking, "Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government? Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?"

- Ron Paul wants to return to gold standard.

- Ron Paul wants to ban all abortions

- Ron Paul believes gays shouldn't have the right to adopt, voting down a bill to allow Washington DC homosexuals such rights.

- Ron Paul wants to get rid of welfare, minimum wage, social security, and medicair. He's also against universal health care.

- Ron Paul is against hate crime legislation.

- Ron Paul voted to drill in Alaska, voted against the Kyoto Protocol, does not believe in a carbon tax, and believes the government should not be involved in the "greening" process.

- Ron Paul voted against the Amber Alert.

- Ron Paul voted to continue citizen oversight without civil oversight.

- Ron Paul doesn't believe in the seperation of church and state.

- Ron Paul is against all forms of collectivism, actually attacking liberals with some harsh words. "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."

- Ron Paul believes there is a "War on Christmas."

Seriously, this guy scares me on some issues. Not giving Katrina victims aid because it would be stealing? :no: I don't know any liberal who would even think of such a thing.

 

[eudaimonia]

Seriously, this guy scares me on some issues. Not giving Katrina victims aid because it would be stealing? :no: I don't know any liberal who would even think of such a thing.

That is what scares me about liberals.


BTW, several of those positions are really conservative, and not libertarian. Ron Paul seems to be a "mix" of the two.

Here is my list of those exclusively conservative positions:

- Ron Paul wants to ban all abortions

- Ron Paul believes gays shouldn't have the right to adopt, voting down a bill to allow Washington DC homosexuals such rights.

- Ron Paul doesn't believe in the separation of church and state.

- Ron Paul believes there is a "War on Christmas."


These positions worry me, though I would probably still vote for Ron Paul if I could.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Mathematician]

I don't see how giving aid to our own countrymen is stealing. And why vote down the Amber Alert?

I'm sorry, but this collectivist Leftist just can't see himself agreeing with those positions.

 

[eudaimonia]

I don't see how giving aid to our own countrymen is stealing.

There's nothing wrong with giving aid to anyone -- if it is with your own money. If you are being generous with other people's money (through coercive taxation) then you are taking what isn't yours, and that's known as stealing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Mathematician]

Unfortunately, that depends on what you view the purpose of government as. I think we should agree to disagree.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi GeneCosta,

Shouldn't everyone be against forms of collectivism, not just conservatives and libertarians?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

My bad, it's a liberal only thread.

 

[eudaimonia]

Unfortunately, that depends on what you view the purpose of government as. I think we should agree to disagree.

If you think that the purpose of government involves stealing other people's money, then I think we'll have to.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ciscokid]

I think Ron Paul supports ideas/programs like the amber alert but he doesn't feel that the Federal Government needs to be running it....and he's right.

Let the local and state governments run programs like this....stop looking to the Federal government to resolve every single solitary problem the world has.

 

[jamaesi]

I was wondering who Ron Paul was since I saw a bumper sticker for him on a car that cut me off in traffic a couple days ago. Now I know. I doubt he'll ever be elected.

 

[Mathematician]

I think Ron Paul supports ideas/programs like the amber alert but he doesn't feel that the Federal Government needs to be running it....and he's right.

Let the local and state governments run programs like this....stop looking to the Federal government to resolve every single solitary problem the world has.

Yes, because kidnappers won't dare cross the border into a state that hasn't implemented the AA.

I'm interested in what's best for the community and individuals, not what isn't taken over by the state. For the sake of the children, the amber alert needs to be a national system.

 

[Blindinglight]

I saw a church bulletin mentioning him. Wasn't quite sure who he was. Now, I know who he is, and hope he doesn't get elected.

As for Amber Alert...honestly....I haven't seen or heard ONE alert since it was enacted. People like me read the news paper, browse forums, and don't get watch much live news coverage (or TV for that matter), or listen to radio broadcasting that much. I have heard that lottery machines will automatically print an alert when they come about.

 

[Zephyr]

Man, there's a few things on there that I'm not too big on, but from the looks of it I really like this guy. Too bad he doesn't stand a chance.

 

[Booko]

*** MOD POST ***

This is the liberal-only forum.

Please use an appropriate forum to express your political point of view.

Thanks.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

On first glance, this sounds like Neal Boortz. Claims to be libertarian-leaning, but in reality, is probably a hard-core economic as well as social conservative.

 

[Grappleberry Punch]

Yes, it's why I can't stand libertarians either. It's easy for a rich racist-as-hell white politician to say "no aid for Katrina victims", isn't it? Because all those people chose to live on the coastline, right? And welfare just turns all those poor people into lay-abouts! Why can't they just get jobs, like me?

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e., support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

(I wonder why?)

"Politically sensible blacks are outnumbered as decent people... I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Positively cannot stand this man. If he is elected, I will be pretty upset. I won't be surprised, but I'll be upset. Some of his views don't even sound Libertarian. Banning abortions?

 

[Aqualung]

Wow, a libertarian who is pro life! Sweet!

 

[yossarian22]

- Ron Paul is against hate crime legislation.

I actually agree with this.

 

[yossarian22]

I'm interested in what's best for the community and individuals, not what isn't taken over by the state. For the sake of the children, the amber alert needs to be a national system.

Did you really have to pull the "Think about the Children!" argument for this?
While its a great idea, only 30% of the alerts are actual abductions.

 

[Grappleberry Punch]

Did you really have to pull the "Think about the Children!" argument for this?
While its a great idea, only 30% of the alerts are actual abductions.

Well, yea, it's basically made for children. And what does it matter what percentage of the alerts are so-called "Actual abductions"?

There's also nothing wrong with hate crime legislation. The intent behind a crime is always taken into consideration, and if your intent behind graffiti, murder, stealing, is to deliberately intimidate or terrorize a racial or religious group, then it might result in higher sentencing for you.

Scratching someone's car by accident is different from scratching it because they cut you off is different than scratching it because it belongs to a black person who has the audacity to try to attend your school, and those who don't seem to get this happen to be the same ones who are rarely on the recieving end of such crime.

Did you kill someone because you were being careless, because they were threatening you, because they were coming to arrest you, because you let your emotions get the best of you, because you needed the money, because they were an official in a public office in a nation that you disagree with politically, or because you saw them holding hands with another of the same gender? It all ends up impacting your sentence.