What do you think of Ron Paul?

[AiliailiA]

and he will also abolish the DEA, meaning that any federal drug enforcement will be gone.

Which will only lead to the Mexican drug wars getting worse, as most states will continue to make those drugs illegal.

If there is any state where it is legal to produce the drugs, that would help a bit.

[Yootwopia]

Yes, I'm a complete downie. Fact.

Are you sure you're a Socialist? Please check wit my visual aid.

I'm basically right by the middle, a little to the left. I don't see why any left-liberal would support Ron Paul. He wants to dismantle the welfare state, wall off the border and let women's rights get shat all over with no federal recourse. This is not a Good Thing That Us Lefties Ought To Support.

[Grave_n_idle]

I am Traditional Republican and although I disagree with COngressman Paul on a lot of economic issues I think we (U.S.) need him for his consistency, ideas on maximizing civil liberties, and ideas of a non-interventionist foreign policy. What do you think of Congressman Ron Paul?

I think he's either ridiculously naive (unforgivable), actually stupid (forgivable, but should be a disqualification for office), or one of the most dishonest politicians anywhere in the world (arguably a qualification for office... but not forgivable).

[Tmutarakhan]

Right, right. But he isn't, because he turns off people who aren't on the right wing of the Republican party or under twenty-five.

I'm under twenty-five. I'm fifteen, my friend.

Demonstrating his point. When I was fifteen, I thought Ayn Rand and Friedrich Nietzsche sounded profound, but I got over it; you'll grow out of being not-turned-off-by-Ron-Paul, soon enough.

I'm usually liberal, about basically everything, but he seems like the only candidate to me that isn't batshit insane.

Well, he's not insane to the level of Cain, Perry, Bachman, or Santorum, but is rather more insane than Gingrich, who only loses it and says crazy shit once in a while. Romney and Huntsman are not insane; the problem with Romney is that he has no principles whatsoever (Huntsman does, but they are incompatible with the bulk of the Republican voters).

[AiliailiA]

Simply removing Federal laws against drugs (leaving it up to the states) could be accomplished without the rest of Paul's devolutionary agenda. Interstate commerce issues would be covered by whatever it was they did at the end of Prohibition.

[New Rogernomics]

I am Traditional Republican and although I disagree with COngressman Paul on a lot of economic issues I think we (U.S.) need him for his consistency, ideas on maximizing civil liberties, and ideas of a non-interventionist foreign policy. What do you think of Congressman Ron Paul?

I think he's either ridiculously naive (unforgivable), actually stupid (forgivable, but should be a disqualification for office), or one of the most dishonest politicians anywhere in the world (arguably a qualification for office... but not forgivable).

I would argue his policy is just as interventionist as the other Republicans, especially as he supports continued military funding and support of Turkey, additionally he supports continued de-facto denial of the Armenian Genocide. To be consistent, he would have to encourage Congress and the Senate to remove recognition of all genocides, especially the Nazi Holocaust so that Iran would love America. Though his policy is to remove all military bases and cancel all America's alliances allowing China* to have free reign in Asia so it can then terrorize the region through its nuclear arsenal and military capabilities (if it hasn't done enough of that already). He's a libertarian troll with a wallet, and a large number of brainwashed followers.
Edit: Also Russia would terrorize Europe in the same manner as China.

The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere Chinese demands on Asia:

[UNA]

I am Traditional Republican and although I disagree with COngressman Paul on a lot of economic issues I think we (U.S.) need him for his consistency, ideas on maximizing civil liberties, and ideas of a non-interventionist foreign policy. What do you think of Congressman Ron Paul?

I think he's either ridiculously naive (unforgivable), actually stupid (forgivable, but should be a disqualification for office), or one of the most dishonest politicians anywhere in the world (arguably a qualification for office... but not forgivable).

I can understand calling him naive or even stupid (if you don't agree with his aims), but dishonest? Ron Paul has got to be the most honest politician on the face of the planet. What other member of Congress returns money to the treasury and doesn't use the lavish Congressional pension that is available to him? He's extremely consistent, having said the same things for over 40 years..

[New Rogernomics]

I think he's either ridiculously naive (unforgivable), actually stupid (forgivable, but should be a disqualification for office), or one of the most dishonest politicians anywhere in the world (arguably a qualification for office... but not forgivable).

I can understand calling him naive or even stupid (if you don't agree with his aims), but dishonest? Ron Paul has got to be the most honest politician on the face of the planet. What other member of Congress returns money to the treasury and doesn't use the lavish Congressional pension that is available to him? He's extremely consistent, having said the same things for over 40 years..

Hardly, he accepts corporate donations, donations from the same corporations he complains against.

[Tmutarakhan]

Simply removing Federal laws against drugs (leaving it up to the states) could be accomplished without the rest of Paul's devolutionary agenda. Interstate commerce issues would be covered by whatever it was they did at the end of Prohibition.

In the case of Prohibition, it was thought necessary to amend the Constitution (the 18th) to grant the feds the power to ban alcohol (which everybody had thought a matter of individual liberty or state-level legislation before), and therefore Prohibition was ended by amending the Constitution again (the 21st), making it explicit that state laws still stood, and the feds would help against interstate smuggling. But the power to ban drugs was just assumed, without any amendment to the Constitution (explicitly anyway; the Supreme Court has basically had to erase the 4th amendment to make drug laws functional), so there isn't any way to abolish it.

[Wikkiwallana]

I like him. His views are good for America (mostly).

Oh fuck NO:

Paul advocates withdrawing U.S. participation and funding from organizations he believes override American sovereignty, such as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, the Law of the Sea Treaty, NATO, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.[11][44][45]
…
Paul considers it a "boondoggle" for the U.S. to spend much money policing other countries' borders (such as the Iraq–Syria border) while leaving its own borders porous and unpatrolled;[33] he argues the U.S.–Mexico border can be crossed by anyone, including potential terrorists.[52] During the Cold War, he supported Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative,[53] intended to replace the "strategic offense" doctrine of mutual assured destruction with strategic defense.
Paul believes illegal aliens take a toll on welfare and Social Security and would end such benefits, concerned that uncontrolled immigration makes the U.S. a magnet for illegal aliens, increases welfare payments, and exacerbates the strain on an already highly unbalanced federal budget.[54]
Paul believes that illegal immigrants should not be given an "unfair advantage" under law.[55] He has advocated a "coherent immigration policy", and has spoken strongly against amnesty for illegal aliens because he believes it undermines the rule of law, grants pardons to lawbreakers,[56] and subsidizes more illegal immigration.[57] Paul voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, authorizing an additional 700 miles (1100 kilometers) of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico mainly because he wanted enforcement of the law and opposed amnesty not because he supported the construction of a border fence.[58]
Paul believes that mandated hospital emergency treatment for illegal aliens should be ceased and that assistance from charities should instead be sought because there should be no federal mandates on providing health care for illegal aliens.[58]
Paul also believes children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens should not be granted automatic birthright citizenship.[59] He has called for a new Constitutional amendment to revise fourteenth amendment principles and "end automatic birthright citizenship",[60] and believes that welfare issues are directly tied to the illegal immigration problem.[61]
…
Calling the September 11, 2001, attacks an act of "air piracy", Paul introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. Letters of marque and reprisal, authorized by article I, section 8 of the Constitution, would have targeted specific terrorist suspects instead of invoking war against a foreign state.[20] Paul reintroduced this legislation as the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007.[62] He voted with the majority for the original Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in Afghanistan.[63] In April 2009, following the Maersk Alabama hijacking, he proposed issuing letters of marque to combat the problem of piracy in Somalia.[64]
…
In May 2011, Paul said he would not have ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, calling the operation "absolutely not necessary".[72] Instead he would have done it differently, stating that America should have worked with the Pakistani Authorities who in the past had arrested Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists who were then tried in court. Paul also stated that other alternatives were viable that were less of a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty, such as the initial plans of bombing the compound.
…
Paul believes the size of federal government must be decreased substantially. In order to restrict the federal government to what he believes are its Constitutionally authorized functions, Paul regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes,[80] often opposed by a heavy majority of his colleagues. For example, on January 22, 2007, Paul was the lone member out of 415[81] voting to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and Reconstruction, seeing this as an unauthorized use of taxpayer money.
Paul would substantially reduce the government's role in individual lives and in the functions of foreign and domestic states; he says Republicans have lost their commitment to limited government and have become the party of big government.[82] He would eliminate many federal government agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Education,[83] the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Commerce,[84] the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,[84] the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service,[85] calling them "unnecessary bureaucracies". Paul would severely reduce the role of the Central Intelligence Agency; reducing its functions to intelligence-gathering. He would eliminate operations like overthrowing foreign governments and assassinations. He says this activity is kept secret even from Congress and "leads to trouble".[86] He also commented, "We have every right in the world to know something about intelligence gathering, but we have to have intelligent people interpreting this information."[87]
…
However, there are criticisms[92][93] which contend that Paul's position is disingenuous because he often requests earmarks for bills that he supposedly knows will pass no matter which way he votes. For example, in 2007, he requested nearly $400 million dollars in earmarks in bills he voted against. A spokesman in the Fox News article says, "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public—and I have to presume it's not by accident." One group supporting fiscal conservatism[92] finds Paul's actions with earmarks to be contradictory and cites his 2003 speech regarding the award of a Congressional Gold Medal, at which time the Congressman declared, "I will continue in my uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution;"[88] however, Paul himself has inserted appropriations for projects such as the renovation of a movie theater and subsidies for the shrimp industry, whereas reportedly, "neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function".[93] The Congressman has responded to criticism about earmarks by providing an explanation[dead link] in his weekly column. Paul says, "In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars – than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats."
…
Paul's campaign slogan for 2004 was "The Taxpayers' Best Friend!"[94] He would completely eliminate the income tax by shrinking the size and scope of government to what he considers its Constitutional limits, noting that he has never voted to approve an unbalanced budget; he has observed that even scaling back spending to 2000 levels eliminates the need for the 42% of the budget accounted for by individual income tax receipts.[85] He has asserted that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and supports the repeal of the sixteenth amendment.[95] Rather than taxing personal income, which he says assumes that the government owns individuals' lives and labor, he prefers the federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs.[84] However, during the 2011 CPAC conference, he said he would support a flat income tax of 10 % at 19:23 of that speech.[96] A citizen would be able to opt out of all government involvement if they simply pay a 10 % income tax.
Paul has signed a pledge not to raise taxes or create new taxes, given by Americans for Tax Freedom.[97]
…
Paul has stated: "I agree on getting rid of the IRS, but I want to replace it with nothing, not another tax. But let's not forget the inflation tax."[101][102] In other statements, he has permitted consideration of a national sales tax as a compromise if the tax need cannot be reduced enough. He has advocated that the reduction of government will make an income tax unnecessary.[103]
…
In the words of the New York Times, Paul is "not a fan" of the Federal Reserve.[104] Paul's opposition to the Fed is supported by the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which holds that instead of containing inflation, the Federal Reserve, in theory and in practice, is responsible for causing inflation.[105] In addition to eroding the value of individual savings, this creation of inflation leads to booms and busts in the economy. Thus Paul argues that government, via a central bank (the Federal Reserve), is the primary cause of economic recessions and depressions. He believes that economic volatility is decreased when the free market determines interest rates and money supply.[106] He has stated in numerous speeches that most of his colleagues in Congress are unwilling to abolish the central bank because it funds many government activities. He says that to compensate for eliminating the "hidden tax"[107] of inflation, Congress and the president would instead have to raise taxes or cut government services, either of which could be politically damaging to their reputations. He states that the "inflation tax" is a tax on the poor, because the Federal Reserve prints more money which subsidizes select industries, while poor people pay higher prices for goods as more money is placed in circulation.[108]
Paul adheres deeply to Austrian school economics and libertarian criticism of fractional-reserve banking, opposing fiat currency and the inflation thereof;[109] he has written six books on the subjects, has pictures of free-market economists Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Ludwig von Mises hanging on his office wall,[110][111] and is a distinguished counselor to the Mises Institute.[112] Paul opposes inflation as an underhanded form of taxation, because it takes value away from the money that individuals hold without having to directly tax them. He sees the creation of the Federal Reserve, and its ability to "print money out of thin air" without commodity backing, as responsible for eroding the value of money,[113] observing that "a dollar today is worth 4 cents compared to a dollar in 1913 when the Federal Reserve got in." In 1982, Paul was the prime mover in the creation of the U.S. Gold Commission, and in many public speeches Paul has voiced concern over the dominance of the current banking system and called for the return to a commodity-backed currency through a gradual reintroduction of hard currency, including both gold and silver.[24] A commodity standard binds currency issue to the value of that commodity rather than fiat, making the value of the currency as stable as the commodity.
He condemns the role of the Federal Reserve and the national debt in creating inflation.[114][115] The minority report of the U.S. Gold Commission states that the federal and state governments are strictly limited in their monetary role by Article One, Section Eight, Clauses 2, 5, and 6, and Section Ten, Clause 1, "The Constitution forbids the states to make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt, nor does it permit the federal government to make anything a legal tender." The Commission also recommended that the federal government "restore a definition for the term 'dollar'. We suggest defining a 'dollar' as a weight of gold of a certain fineness, .999 fine."[116] On multiple occasions in congressional hearings, he has sharply challenged two different chairmen of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke.
He has also called for the removal of all taxes on gold transactions.[117] He has repeatedly introduced the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act since 1999,[118] to enable "America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold"; it has received virtually no mainstream news coverage.[119] He opposes dependency on paper fiat money, but also says that there "were some shortcomings of the gold standard of the 19th century ... because it was a fixed price and caused confusion." He argues that hard money, such as backed by gold or silver, would prevent inflation, but adds, "I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money."[120]
Paul strongly supports legalization of parallel currencies, such as gold-backed notes issued from private markets and digital gold currencies.[121] He would like gold-backed notes (or other types of hard money) and digital gold currencies[122] to compete on a level playing field with Federal Reserve Notes, allowing individuals a choice whether to use sound money or to continue using fiat money.[123][124][125] Paul believes this would restrain inflation, limit government spending, and eventually eliminate the ability of the Federal Reserve to "tax" Americans through inflation (i.e., by reducing the purchasing power of the currency they are holding), which he sees as "the most insidious of all taxes".[126]
…
In a December 2003 article entitled "Christmas in Secular America", Paul wrote:

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, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."[146]

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion" from the jurisdiction of federal courts.[147]
…
He believes the internet should be free from government regulation and taxation, and is opposed to internet gambling restrictions and network neutrality legislation.[152]
Paul voted against an amendment[153][154] that would have legally protected net neutrality: "One of the basic principles, a basic reason why I strongly oppose this is, I see this as a regulation of the Internet, which is a very, very dangerous precedent to set."[155] Paul was also asked, "Do you trust the Verizons or the AT&Ts of the world to give internet users equal access to all media online?" He replied, "Well, quite frankly I don't understand all the details, but if you believe in the free market you try to work out a way to solve those problems through contractual arrangements, not through depending on government regulation, so yes they are difficult and like I admit, I don't understand all those problems that we face, although the point I make is I have a healthy disregard and fear of the bureaucrats doing it because once you do that, those big companies are going to regulate, they're going to be the lobbyists and the politicians that regulate the law, and I think you'll be in worse shape."[156] He was perceived as softening this stance later.[157]
…
Paul believes that juries deserve the status of tribunals, and that jurors have the right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. "The concept of protecting individual rights from the heavy hand of government through the common-law jury is as old as the Magna Carta (1215 A.D.). The Founding Fathers were keenly aware of this principle and incorporated it into our Constitution." He notes that this principle is also stated in Thomas Paine's Rights of Man, Supreme Court of the United States decisions by Chief Justice John Jay, and writings of Thomas Jefferson. Paul states that judges were not given the right to direct the trial by "instructing" the jury.[166]
…
On 1999 House appropriations bill H.R. 2587, for the government of the District of Columbia, Paul voted for four different amendments to prohibit federal funding.[189] Of these, Amendment 356 would have prevented federal money appropriated in the bill (money "for a Federal payment to the District of Columbia to create incentives to promote the adoption of children in the District of Columbia foster care system") from being spent on "the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage", whether same-sex or opposite-sex.[190][191][192][193]
…
Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to "judicial activism".[194] For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.
In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. This act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize legal marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage. Paul co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.[194][195]
Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty".[196] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[197] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[198] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[199][200] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[199]
In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation".[147] If made law, these provisions would remove sexual practices, and particularly same-sex unions, from federal jurisdiction.
…
Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.[215] In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion.[147] In 2005, Paul voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.[216]
…
Paul has asserted that he does not think there should be any federal control over education and education should be handled at a local and state level.
…
Paul has proposed the use of education tax credits, included in his bill the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 612), which provides a $3,000 tax credit to families to choose their own schools. He has also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act, which would provide for a tax credit for up to a $3,000 donation to the public or private school of the taxpayer's choice, which would provide accountability and more money to America's schools from a local level.[226] Paul has also proposed tax credits of $5,000 per year for each family, which could be used for any school-related expenses, whether the children of the family attend public or private school or are home-schooled.[227]
…
He opposes the welfare state generally,[228]
…
As a free-market environmentalist, Paul sees polluters as aggressors who should not be granted immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability. Paul argues that enforcing private property rights through tort law would hold people and corporations accountable, and would increase the cost of polluting activities—thus decreasing pollution.[229] He claims that environmental protection has failed due to lack of respect for private property:

The environment is better protected under private property rights ... We as property owners can't violate our neighbors' property. We can't pollute their air or their water. We can't dump our garbage on their property ... Too often, conservatives and liberals fall short on defending environmental concerns, and they resort to saying, "Well, let's turn it over to the EPA. The EPA will take care of us ... We can divvy up the permits that allow you to pollute." So I don't particularly like that method.[230]

He believes that environmental legislation, such as emissions standards, should be handled between the states or regions concerned. "The people of Texas do not need federal regulators determining our air standards."[231]
…
In an October 2007 interview, Paul held that climate change is not a "major problem threatening civilization".[232]
…
Paul rejects universal health care, believing that the more government interferes in medicine, the higher prices rise and the less efficient care becomes.[citation needed] He points to how many people today are upset with the HMO system, but few people realize that HMOs came about because of a federal mandate in 1973.[244] He also points to the 1974 ERISA law that grants tax benefits to employers for providing insurance but not individuals; he prefers a system which grants tax credits to individuals.[245] He supports the U.S. converting to a free market health care system, saying in an interview on New Hampshire NPR that the present system is akin to a "corporatist-fascist" system which keeps prices high. He says that in industries with freer markets prices go down due to technological innovation,[246] but because of the corporatist system, this is prevented from happening in health care. He opposes socialized health care promoted by Democrats as being harmful because they lead to bigger and less efficient government.[247]
…
He opposes government regulation of vitamins and minerals, observing that the Codex Alimentarius proposal would even require a prescription for basic vitamins.[249]
…
Paul has also stated that "The government shouldn't be in the medical business." He also thinks that the talk about swine flu and getting vaccinated by the Federal Government is being blown out of proportion.[260]
Paul, was asked a hypothetical question at a Tea Party debate by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly requires intensive care for six months. Paul said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause. Paul mentioned he does not believe society should let the aforementioned hypothetical man die but emphasized that churches and communities – rather than governments – should take care of those in need.[261]
…
In 2006, Paul joined 32 other members of Congress in opposing the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, originally passed to remove barriers to voting participation for minorities.[263]
…
Paul wrote of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

[It] not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.[264]

…
Paul would like to restore State representation in Congress. During a speech in New Hampshire in February 2007 Paul called for a repeal of the seventeenth amendment,[267] which replaced state election of U.S. Senators with popular election. Instead Paul would have members of state legislatures vote for U.S. Senators as they had done under Article One, Section 3. Direct popular representation would be retained in the U.S. House of Representatives. Paul believes that increased representation of state interests at the federal level encourages greater sharing of power between state and federal government,[268] and that greater state participation serves as a check against a powerful federal government.

Emphasis mine.

Plus, he makes sure the Republican Party look better for Libertarian minded voters who usually wouldn't vote Republican, so he may be good in that part.

Ugh, just ugh. The GOP needs to fall apart under the weight of it's own bigotry and ineptitude, not get propped up by people who it would betray in a heart-beat.

Edit: fixed tag

[Wikkiwallana]

Socialism is further down the left-wing than me. You must be an idiot.


Ron Paul is right wing. Most of his supporters are right wing. Just because I'm left wing doesn't mean I can't agree with Mr. Paul.

Dr Paul, brother

A man who denies evolution has no right to call himself a medical doctor.

[New Rogernomics]

I like him. His views are good for America (mostly).

Oh fuck NO:

Paul advocates withdrawing U.S. participation and funding from organizations he believes override American sovereignty, such as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, the Law of the Sea Treaty, NATO, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.[11][44][45]
…
Paul considers it a "boondoggle" for the U.S. to spend much money policing other countries' borders (such as the Iraq–Syria border) while leaving its own borders porous and unpatrolled;[33] he argues the U.S.–Mexico border can be crossed by anyone, including potential terrorists.[52] During the Cold War, he supported Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative,[53] intended to replace the "strategic offense" doctrine of mutual assured destruction with strategic defense.
Paul believes illegal aliens take a toll on welfare and Social Security and would end such benefits, concerned that uncontrolled immigration makes the U.S. a magnet for illegal aliens, increases welfare payments, and exacerbates the strain on an already highly unbalanced federal budget.[54]
Paul believes that illegal immigrants should not be given an "unfair advantage" under law.[55] He has advocated a "coherent immigration policy", and has spoken strongly against amnesty for illegal aliens because he believes it undermines the rule of law, grants pardons to lawbreakers,[56] and subsidizes more illegal immigration.[57] Paul voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, authorizing an additional 700 miles (1100 kilometers) of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico mainly because he wanted enforcement of the law and opposed amnesty not because he supported the construction of a border fence.[58]
Paul believes that mandated hospital emergency treatment for illegal aliens should be ceased and that assistance from charities should instead be sought because there should be no federal mandates on providing health care for illegal aliens.[58]
Paul also believes children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens should not be granted automatic birthright citizenship.[59] He has called for a new Constitutional amendment to revise fourteenth amendment principles and "end automatic birthright citizenship",[60] and believes that welfare issues are directly tied to the illegal immigration problem.[61]
…
Calling the September 11, 2001, attacks an act of "air piracy", Paul introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. Letters of marque and reprisal, authorized by article I, section 8 of the Constitution, would have targeted specific terrorist suspects instead of invoking war against a foreign state.[20] Paul reintroduced this legislation as the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007.[62] He voted with the majority for the original Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in Afghanistan.[63] In April 2009, following the Maersk Alabama hijacking, he proposed issuing letters of marque to combat the problem of piracy in Somalia.[64]
…
In May 2011, Paul said he would not have ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, calling the operation "absolutely not necessary".[72] Instead he would have done it differently, stating that America should have worked with the Pakistani Authorities who in the past had arrested Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists who were then tried in court. Paul also stated that other alternatives were viable that were less of a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty, such as the initial plans of bombing the compound.
…
Paul believes the size of federal government must be decreased substantially. In order to restrict the federal government to what he believes are its Constitutionally authorized functions, Paul regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes,[80] often opposed by a heavy majority of his colleagues. For example, on January 22, 2007, Paul was the lone member out of 415[81] voting to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and Reconstruction, seeing this as an unauthorized use of taxpayer money.
Paul would substantially reduce the government's role in individual lives and in the functions of foreign and domestic states; he says Republicans have lost their commitment to limited government and have become the party of big government.[82] He would eliminate many federal government agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Education,[83] the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Commerce,[84] the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,[84] the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service,[85] calling them "unnecessary bureaucracies". Paul would severely reduce the role of the Central Intelligence Agency; reducing its functions to intelligence-gathering. He would eliminate operations like overthrowing foreign governments and assassinations. He says this activity is kept secret even from Congress and "leads to trouble".[86] He also commented, "We have every right in the world to know something about intelligence gathering, but we have to have intelligent people interpreting this information."[87]
…
However, there are criticisms[92][93] which contend that Paul's position is disingenuous because he often requests earmarks for bills that he supposedly knows will pass no matter which way he votes. For example, in 2007, he requested nearly $400 million dollars in earmarks in bills he voted against. A spokesman in the Fox News article says, "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public—and I have to presume it's not by accident." One group supporting fiscal conservatism[92] finds Paul's actions with earmarks to be contradictory and cites his 2003 speech regarding the award of a Congressional Gold Medal, at which time the Congressman declared, "I will continue in my uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution;"[88] however, Paul himself has inserted appropriations for projects such as the renovation of a movie theater and subsidies for the shrimp industry, whereas reportedly, "neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function".[93] The Congressman has responded to criticism about earmarks by providing an explanation[dead link] in his weekly column. Paul says, "In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars – than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats."
…
Paul's campaign slogan for 2004 was "The Taxpayers' Best Friend!"[94] He would completely eliminate the income tax by shrinking the size and scope of government to what he considers its Constitutional limits, noting that he has never voted to approve an unbalanced budget; he has observed that even scaling back spending to 2000 levels eliminates the need for the 42% of the budget accounted for by individual income tax receipts.[85] He has asserted that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and supports the repeal of the sixteenth amendment.[95] Rather than taxing personal income, which he says assumes that the government owns individuals' lives and labor, he prefers the federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs.[84] However, during the 2011 CPAC conference, he said he would support a flat income tax of 10 % at 19:23 of that speech.[96] A citizen would be able to opt out of all government involvement if they simply pay a 10 % income tax.
Paul has signed a pledge not to raise taxes or create new taxes, given by Americans for Tax Freedom.[97]
…
Paul has stated: "I agree on getting rid of the IRS, but I want to replace it with nothing, not another tax. But let's not forget the inflation tax."[101][102] In other statements, he has permitted consideration of a national sales tax as a compromise if the tax need cannot be reduced enough. He has advocated that the reduction of government will make an income tax unnecessary.[103]
…
In the words of the New York Times, Paul is "not a fan" of the Federal Reserve.[104] Paul's opposition to the Fed is supported by the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which holds that instead of containing inflation, the Federal Reserve, in theory and in practice, is responsible for causing inflation.[105] In addition to eroding the value of individual savings, this creation of inflation leads to booms and busts in the economy. Thus Paul argues that government, via a central bank (the Federal Reserve), is the primary cause of economic recessions and depressions. He believes that economic volatility is decreased when the free market determines interest rates and money supply.[106] He has stated in numerous speeches that most of his colleagues in Congress are unwilling to abolish the central bank because it funds many government activities. He says that to compensate for eliminating the "hidden tax"[107] of inflation, Congress and the president would instead have to raise taxes or cut government services, either of which could be politically damaging to their reputations. He states that the "inflation tax" is a tax on the poor, because the Federal Reserve prints more money which subsidizes select industries, while poor people pay higher prices for goods as more money is placed in circulation.[108]
Paul adheres deeply to Austrian school economics and libertarian criticism of fractional-reserve banking, opposing fiat currency and the inflation thereof;[109] he has written six books on the subjects, has pictures of free-market economists Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Ludwig von Mises hanging on his office wall,[110][111] and is a distinguished counselor to the Mises Institute.[112] Paul opposes inflation as an underhanded form of taxation, because it takes value away from the money that individuals hold without having to directly tax them. He sees the creation of the Federal Reserve, and its ability to "print money out of thin air" without commodity backing, as responsible for eroding the value of money,[113] observing that "a dollar today is worth 4 cents compared to a dollar in 1913 when the Federal Reserve got in." In 1982, Paul was the prime mover in the creation of the U.S. Gold Commission, and in many public speeches Paul has voiced concern over the dominance of the current banking system and called for the return to a commodity-backed currency through a gradual reintroduction of hard currency, including both gold and silver.[24] A commodity standard binds currency issue to the value of that commodity rather than fiat, making the value of the currency as stable as the commodity.
He condemns the role of the Federal Reserve and the national debt in creating inflation.[114][115] The minority report of the U.S. Gold Commission states that the federal and state governments are strictly limited in their monetary role by Article One, Section Eight, Clauses 2, 5, and 6, and Section Ten, Clause 1, "The Constitution forbids the states to make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt, nor does it permit the federal government to make anything a legal tender." The Commission also recommended that the federal government "restore a definition for the term 'dollar'. We suggest defining a 'dollar' as a weight of gold of a certain fineness, .999 fine."[116] On multiple occasions in congressional hearings, he has sharply challenged two different chairmen of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke.
He has also called for the removal of all taxes on gold transactions.[117] He has repeatedly introduced the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act since 1999,[118] to enable "America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold"; it has received virtually no mainstream news coverage.[119] He opposes dependency on paper fiat money, but also says that there "were some shortcomings of the gold standard of the 19th century ... because it was a fixed price and caused confusion." He argues that hard money, such as backed by gold or silver, would prevent inflation, but adds, "I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money."[120]
Paul strongly supports legalization of parallel currencies, such as gold-backed notes issued from private markets and digital gold currencies.[121] He would like gold-backed notes (or other types of hard money) and digital gold currencies[122] to compete on a level playing field with Federal Reserve Notes, allowing individuals a choice whether to use sound money or to continue using fiat money.[123][124][125] Paul believes this would restrain inflation, limit government spending, and eventually eliminate the ability of the Federal Reserve to "tax" Americans through inflation (i.e., by reducing the purchasing power of the currency they are holding), which he sees as "the most insidious of all taxes".[126]
…
In a December 2003 article entitled "Christmas in Secular America", Paul wrote:

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion" from the jurisdiction of federal courts.[147]

…
He believes the internet should be free from government regulation and taxation, and is opposed to internet gambling restrictions and network neutrality legislation.[152]
Paul voted against an amendment[153][154] that would have legally protected net neutrality: "One of the basic principles, a basic reason why I strongly oppose this is, I see this as a regulation of the Internet, which is a very, very dangerous precedent to set."[155] Paul was also asked, "Do you trust the Verizons or the AT&Ts of the world to give internet users equal access to all media online?" He replied, "Well, quite frankly I don't understand all the details, but if you believe in the free market you try to work out a way to solve those problems through contractual arrangements, not through depending on government regulation, so yes they are difficult and like I admit, I don't understand all those problems that we face, although the point I make is I have a healthy disregard and fear of the bureaucrats doing it because once you do that, those big companies are going to regulate, they're going to be the lobbyists and the politicians that regulate the law, and I think you'll be in worse shape."[156] He was perceived as softening this stance later.[157]
…
Paul believes that juries deserve the status of tribunals, and that jurors have the right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. "The concept of protecting individual rights from the heavy hand of government through the common-law jury is as old as the Magna Carta (1215 A.D.). The Founding Fathers were keenly aware of this principle and incorporated it into our Constitution." He notes that this principle is also stated in Thomas Paine's Rights of Man, Supreme Court of the United States decisions by Chief Justice John Jay, and writings of Thomas Jefferson. Paul states that judges were not given the right to direct the trial by "instructing" the jury.[166]
…
On 1999 House appropriations bill H.R. 2587, for the government of the District of Columbia, Paul voted for four different amendments to prohibit federal funding.[189] Of these, Amendment 356 would have prevented federal money appropriated in the bill (money "for a Federal payment to the District of Columbia to create incentives to promote the adoption of children in the District of Columbia foster care system") from being spent on "the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage", whether same-sex or opposite-sex.[190][191][192][193]
…
Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to "judicial activism".[194] For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.
In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. This act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize legal marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage. Paul co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.[194][195]
Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty".[196] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[197] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[198] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[199][200] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[199]
In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation".[147] If made law, these provisions would remove sexual practices, and particularly same-sex unions, from federal jurisdiction.
…
Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.[215] In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion.[147] In 2005, Paul voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.[216]
…
Paul has asserted that he does not think there should be any federal control over education and education should be handled at a local and state level.
…
Paul has proposed the use of education tax credits, included in his bill the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 612), which provides a $3,000 tax credit to families to choose their own schools. He has also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act, which would provide for a tax credit for up to a $3,000 donation to the public or private school of the taxpayer's choice, which would provide accountability and more money to America's schools from a local level.[226] Paul has also proposed tax credits of $5,000 per year for each family, which could be used for any school-related expenses, whether the children of the family attend public or private school or are home-schooled.[227]
…
He opposes the welfare state generally,[228]
…
As a free-market environmentalist, Paul sees polluters as aggressors who should not be granted immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability. Paul argues that enforcing private property rights through tort law would hold people and corporations accountable, and would increase the cost of polluting activities—thus decreasing pollution.[229] He claims that environmental protection has failed due to lack of respect for private property:

The environment is better protected under private property rights ... We as property owners can't violate our neighbors' property. We can't pollute their air or their water. We can't dump our garbage on their property ... Too often, conservatives and liberals fall short on defending environmental concerns, and they resort to saying, "Well, let's turn it over to the EPA. The EPA will take care of us ... We can divvy up the permits that allow you to pollute." So I don't particularly like that method.[230]

He believes that environmental legislation, such as emissions standards, should be handled between the states or regions concerned. "The people of Texas do not need federal regulators determining our air standards."[231]
…
In an October 2007 interview, Paul held that climate change is not a "major problem threatening civilization".[232]
…
Paul rejects universal health care, believing that the more government interferes in medicine, the higher prices rise and the less efficient care becomes.[citation needed] He points to how many people today are upset with the HMO system, but few people realize that HMOs came about because of a federal mandate in 1973.[244] He also points to the 1974 ERISA law that grants tax benefits to employers for providing insurance but not individuals; he prefers a system which grants tax credits to individuals.[245] He supports the U.S. converting to a free market health care system, saying in an interview on New Hampshire NPR that the present system is akin to a "corporatist-fascist" system which keeps prices high. He says that in industries with freer markets prices go down due to technological innovation,[246] but because of the corporatist system, this is prevented from happening in health care. He opposes socialized health care promoted by Democrats as being harmful because they lead to bigger and less efficient government.[247]
…
He opposes government regulation of vitamins and minerals, observing that the Codex Alimentarius proposal would even require a prescription for basic vitamins.[249]
…
Paul has also stated that "The government shouldn't be in the medical business." He also thinks that the talk about swine flu and getting vaccinated by the Federal Government is being blown out of proportion.[260]
Paul, was asked a hypothetical question at a Tea Party debate by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly requires intensive care for six months. Paul said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause. Paul mentioned he does not believe society should let the aforementioned hypothetical man die but emphasized that churches and communities – rather than governments – should take care of those in need.[261]
…
In 2006, Paul joined 32 other members of Congress in opposing the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, originally passed to remove barriers to voting participation for minorities.[263]
…
Paul wrote of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

[It] not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.[264]

…
Paul would like to restore State representation in Congress. During a speech in New Hampshire in February 2007 Paul called for a repeal of the seventeenth amendment,[267] which replaced state election of U.S. Senators with popular election. Instead Paul would have members of state legislatures vote for U.S. Senators as they had done under Article One, Section 3. Direct popular representation would be retained in the U.S. House of Representatives. Paul believes that increased representation of state interests at the federal level encourages greater sharing of power between state and federal government,[268] and that greater state participation serves as a check against a powerful federal government.

Emphasis mine.

Plus, he makes sure the Republican Party look better for Libertarian minded voters who usually wouldn't vote Republican, so he may be good in that part.

Ugh, just ugh. The GOP needs to fall apart under the weight of it's own bigotry and ineptitude, not get propped up by people who it would betray in a heart-beat.

When Fox news gets kicked out the country, till then the brainwashed masses will keep voting it in.

[Maurepas]

I like his Foreign Policy as well, and I am reasonably certain he'd never take money from a Banker.

Something to be said for being the only candidate not bought off before we even get started.

[AiliailiA]

Simply removing Federal laws against drugs (leaving it up to the states) could be accomplished without the rest of Paul's devolutionary agenda. Interstate commerce issues would be covered by whatever it was they did at the end of Prohibition.

In the case of Prohibition, it was thought necessary to amend the Constitution (the 18th) to grant the feds the power to ban alcohol (which everybody had thought a matter of individual liberty or state-level legislation before), and therefore Prohibition was ended by amending the Constitution again (the 21st), making it explicit that state laws still stood, and the feds would help against interstate smuggling. But the power to ban drugs was just assumed, without any amendment to the Constitution (explicitly anyway; the Supreme Court has basically had to erase the 4th amendment to make drug laws functional), so there isn't any way to abolish it.

I don't mean a constitutional challenge. Just repeal federal laws.

[New Conglomerate]

I like his Foreign Policy as well, and I am reasonably certain he'd never take money from a Banker.

Something to be said for being the only candidate not bought off before we even get started.

He also believes that we should default on our debt as a short-term debt solution.

[The Aryan Nations]

Dr Paul, brother

A man who denies evolution has no right to call himself a medical doctor.

Evolutionary Biology has nothing to do with Medicine.

[Maurepas]

I like his Foreign Policy as well, and I am reasonably certain he'd never take money from a Banker.

Something to be said for being the only candidate not bought off before we even get started.

He also believes that we should default on our debt as a short-term debt solution.

If I can't get them to tax the rich and end the Wars and the Empire(and lets face it, noone is saying that, including the worthless Barack Obama), then I'm inclined to agree with such an action.

[New Rogernomics]

I like his Foreign Policy as well, and I am reasonably certain he'd never take money from a Banker.

Something to be said for being the only candidate not bought off before we even get started.

He also believes that we should default on our debt as a short-term debt solution.

That would collapse the US government and the welfare state...oh wait.

[Wikkiwallana]

A man who denies evolution has no right to call himself a medical doctor.

Evolutionary Biology has nothing to do with Medicine.

And fluid dynamics has nothing to do with aeronautics.

[The Aryan Nations]

Evolutionary Biology has nothing to do with Medicine.

And fluid dynamics has nothing to do with aeronautics.

A. a obstetrician and gynecologist need not believe in evolution; that information has absolutely no relevance to his work.
B. He graduated in 1957. he probably was never taught evolution.
C. Fluid dynamics has much to do with Aeronautics as it has subdiciplines in Aerodynamics. you make a bad comparison for the sake of humor.

[AiliailiA]

Dr Paul, brother

A man who denies evolution has no right to call himself a medical doctor.

Don't be silly. He IS a medical doctor, by qualification. Saying he's not a real doctor is as facile a criticism as saying Obama isn't really black.

[UNA]

I can understand calling him naive or even stupid (if you don't agree with his aims), but dishonest? Ron Paul has got to be the most honest politician on the face of the planet. What other member of Congress returns money to the treasury and doesn't use the lavish Congressional pension that is available to him? He's extremely consistent, having said the same things for over 40 years..

Hardly, he accepts corporate donations, donations from the same corporations he complains against.

Corporations give to all candidates that have any amount of power. The key is, does that corporate money influence him negatively? I see no evidence to suggest it does, but am all ears to hear otherwise.

[King Koopa I]

I like what he has to say. I'm very supportive of his concept of letting the social issues be a state decision, rather than a federal one. He's one of those candidates where rather than saying it's too good to be true, I'd have to say it's too ideal to work in practice.

[Wikkiwallana]

And fluid dynamics has nothing to do with aeronautics.

A. a obstetrician and gynecologist need not believe in evolution; that information has absolutely no relevance to his work.

Except that whole "head to big for the birth canal because evolution hasn't caught up yet" thing.

B. He graduated in 1957. he probably was never taught evolution.

1957 was well after evolution became scientifically accepted, even if the information carrier hadn't been pinned down by then. To continue to deny it in 200 freaking 7 is utterly inexcusable.

C. Fluid dynamics has much to do with Aeronautics as it has subdiciplines in Aerodynamics. you make a bad comparison for the sake of humor.

Have you never heard of sarcasm?

[Wikkiwallana]

A man who denies evolution has no right to call himself a medical doctor.

Don't be silly. He IS a medical doctor, by qualification. Saying he's not a real doctor is as facile a criticism as saying Obama isn't really black.

Being a doctor is not the same as being black. The latter is something you are born with, the former is a vocation that requires an understanding of science, especially biology. To reject evolution is to reject that understanding, and thus not be a doctor but a quack, degree be damned.