What do you think of Ron Paul?

[Farnhamia]

I approve him on a lot of point, like retreating out of Afghanistan and South Korea. Also because he is, indirectly, pro abortus.

Anyway, I disagree with him on economic view, lowering the taxes, spending less etc.

It would be a retreat to leave Afghanistan and South Korea the way Paul wants to do it. And he is not pro-abortion, no in the least. He's completely against it.

[Communist Roderikland]

I approve him on a lot of point, like retreating out of Afghanistan and South Korea. Also because he is, indirectly, pro abortus.

Anyway, I disagree with him on economic view, lowering the taxes, spending less etc.

It would be a retreat to leave Afghanistan and South Korea the way Paul wants to do it. And he is not pro-abortion, no in the least. He's completely against it.

Maybe he is not personal for abortion, but he says that the state 'has no interference about the persons' choice.'

[Farnhamia]

It would be a retreat to leave Afghanistan and South Korea the way Paul wants to do it. And he is not pro-abortion, no in the least. He's completely against it.

Maybe he is not personal for abortion, but he says that the state 'has no interference about the persons' choice.'

If he said that, he's lying:

As a physician, Ron Paul consistently put his beliefs into practice and saved lives by helping women seek options other than abortion, including adoption. And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:

* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”

Because he agrees with Thomas Jefferson that it is “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,” Ron Paul will also protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program.

That's from his official campaign web site.

[Free Soviets]

It would be a retreat to leave Afghanistan and South Korea the way Paul wants to do it. And he is not pro-abortion, no in the least. He's completely against it.

Maybe he is not personal for abortion, but he says that the state 'has no interference about the persons' choice.'

this is wildly incorrect. he explicitly is in favor of banning abortion. since the federal government won't let him do it, he wants to prevent federal courts from ruling on the subject. this position is openly a strategic one to aid in his fight to outlaw abortion.

[Free Soviets]

this raises another question. ron paul is obviously a dangerous lunatic and an ideologue for a monstrous ideology. but apparently that obviousness only applies to those who actually know about him. his fans seem to know very few true things about him. they believe lots of false ones, though. so how the fuck does that happen?


also, he's second place in iowa now - gingrich, then ronnie, then mittens. its like (the war on) christmas has come early for the democrats.

[Jedi8246]

Maybe he is not personal for abortion, but he says that the state 'has no interference about the persons' choice.'

If he said that, he's lying:

As a physician, Ron Paul consistently put his beliefs into practice and saved lives by helping women seek options other than abortion, including adoption. And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:

* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”

Because he agrees with Thomas Jefferson that it is “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,” Ron Paul will also protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program.

That's from his official campaign web site.

Which equals with restoring choice to the state.

[Jedi8246]

I'm gonna be voting for Paul in the primaries...

He's consistent, he believes in sound money, and he supports liberty.

He's a state totalitarian who wants to cripple the Federal government so that his home state of Texas can become the promised land, where segregation is legal; and the gays are forced to be silent.

Ron Paul needs to gtfo.

It's amazing how wrong people can be.

[The Halbetan Union]

He's a state totalitarian who wants to cripple the Federal government so that his home state of Texas can become the promised land, where segregation is legal; and the gays are forced to be silent.

Ron Paul needs to gtfo.

It's amazing how wrong people can be.

You don't seem to understand the end result of his strategy. Giving the states more rights and freedoms would only mean a reversal of protections granted by the federal government. While obviously my original statement is hyperbolic, the notion that the south; without federal oversight, wouldn't instate a number of inherently bigoted laws against racial minorities and gays is laughable. For crying out loud, they do it now!

[Farnhamia]

If he said that, he's lying:



That's from his official campaign web site.

Which equals with restoring choice to the state.

No, it doesn't. That "Sanctity of Life Act" would be Federal. President Paul would be a disaster.

[The Rich Port]

He's a state totalitarian who wants to cripple the Federal government so that his home state of Texas can become the promised land, where segregation is legal; and the gays are forced to be silent.

Ron Paul needs to gtfo.

It's amazing how wrong people can be.

Much like how Halbetan spun it as "crippling the state", Ron Paul spins the feds as "crippling state autonomy".

Shifting power back to the states could make for a very fucked up U.S.A. Disunity (and shitty ideals, but mostly and objectively disunity) is what's torn the Republicans asunder into 8 candidates who have no idea what they're for except that they're opposed to Obama. The fed exists to siphon the wants and desires of the states into a single source (the president). If there is no way to interfere in the injustices committed in one state, God knows what the mechanism of intervention will be.

[Jedi8246]

It's amazing how wrong people can be.

You don't seem to understand the end result of his strategy. Giving the states more rights and freedoms would only mean a reversal of protections granted by the federal government. While obviously my original statement is hyperbolic, the notion that the south; without federal oversight, wouldn't instate a number of inherently bigoted laws against racial minorities and gays is laughable. For crying out loud, they do it now!

They still can't break the Bill or Rights, regardless of other federal laws. The idea that all of a sudden gays would have their first amendment rights taken away is laughable.

The US would return to the way it should be. Each state can decide how they want their abortion laws. The government in general would be pulled out of marriage. State and federal.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

I think he's a libertarian freak.
DEMOCRATS RULE!
Sorry,but I do disagree with him on many things,such as social security,even though it is a ponzi scheme but it's mandatory and helps people, even at others' expense.

[The Rich Port]

You don't seem to understand the end result of his strategy. Giving the states more rights and freedoms would only mean a reversal of protections granted by the federal government. While obviously my original statement is hyperbolic, the notion that the south; without federal oversight, wouldn't instate a number of inherently bigoted laws against racial minorities and gays is laughable. For crying out loud, they do it now!

They still can't break the Bill or Rights, regardless of other federal laws. The idea that all of a sudden gays would have their first amendment rights taken away is laughable.

The US would return to the way it should be. Each state can decide how they want their abortion laws. The government in general would be pulled out of marriage. State and federal.

Thing is, without the federal government, there's no mechanism to either prevent it or to contest such a law.

To say "It won't happen" is ignoring the issue. Methinks it's also why Ron Paul wasn't elected the past few times he's run for president.

[The Halbetan Union]

You don't seem to understand the end result of his strategy. Giving the states more rights and freedoms would only mean a reversal of protections granted by the federal government. While obviously my original statement is hyperbolic, the notion that the south; without federal oversight, wouldn't instate a number of inherently bigoted laws against racial minorities and gays is laughable. For crying out loud, they do it now!

They still can't break the Bill or Rights, regardless of other federal laws. The idea that all of a sudden gays would have their first amendment rights taken away is laughable.

What's laughable is your poor understanding of history. The states have seldom respected the constitution and the protections it is supposed to apply until it was either made to do so by the feds or the court. Suppressing freedom of speech, the right to protest; have all been attacked in the past. What makes you think they can't happen again?

And we're not just talking about freedom of speech here, but a whole myriad of federal protections such as equal opportunity employment and housing, minimum wage and the 40 hour work week, the list goes on and on!

The US would return to the way it should be. Each state can decide how they want their abortion laws. The government in general would be pulled out of marriage. State and federal.

The States would not be pulled out marriage because the feds are. What kind of crack are you smoking?

[The Rich Port]

They still can't break the Bill or Rights, regardless of other federal laws. The idea that all of a sudden gays would have their first amendment rights taken away is laughable.

What's laughable is your poor understanding of history. The states have seldom respected the constitution and the protections it is supposed to apply until it was either made to do so by the feds or the court. Suppressing freedom of speech, the right to protest; have all been attacked in the past. What makes you think they can't happen again?

And we're not just talking about freedom of speech here, but a whole myriad of federal protections such as equal opportunity employment and housing, minimum wage and the 40 hour work week, the list goes on and on!

The US would return to the way it should be. Each state can decide how they want their abortion laws. The government in general would be pulled out of marriage. State and federal.

The States would not be pulled out marriage because the feds are. What kind of crack are you smoking?

Well, see, right after law making the state has to pull out, otherwise it'll make the states stagnant.

[Revolutopia]

Which equals with restoring choice to the state.

Why do say should the states governments have the right to violate a person's right to privacy and enforce Christian morality on its populace?

They still can't break the Bill or Rights, regardless of other federal laws. The idea that all of a sudden gays would have their first amendment rights taken away is laughable.

The US would return to the way it should be. Each state can decide how they want their abortion laws. The government in general would be pulled out of marriage. State and federal.

Yes, we know that they cannot break the bill of rights and the constitution the problem is that "constitutional" "expert" Ron Paul doesn't know that and believes that Federal Courts should not be able to strike down State laws for violating the constitution.
I.E. allowing the states to ban abortions, gay marriage, flag burning, place religious tests on office, etc despite these all being against the constitution. Honestly, he no real difference then the average Republican who also complains about wanting Abortion to become a state issue and so forth/

[The Halbetan Union]

Well, see, right after law making the state has to pull out, otherwise it'll make the states stagnant.

Tee Hee.

[The people of Zeus]

I like Ron Paul. I agree with him on most issues. The only issue I really disagree with him on is his veiws on military and war. While I don't support the neo-conservastives idea on this issue, i don't really support his either. I more of in the middle on this issue where I support certian aspects of each side...lol.

Other than that, I love the guy and still want him to win the nomination and go on to win the presidency.

[Farnhamia]

Psst, he's retiring anyway if he doesn't win this race. Which he won't. Because he's a fruitcake.

nice how we label the ones we fear most .. lets face facts here, in terms of consistency, liberty and morality, Ron Paul ONLY one there is , statistically speaking alone

Why is "consistency" a reason I should support Paul? To me it says he's living in the past, which is stances on the issues further confirms.

[Free Soviets]

Psst, he's retiring anyway if he doesn't win this race. Which he won't. Because he's a fruitcake.

nice how we label the ones we fear most .. lets face facts here, in terms of consistency, liberty and morality, Ron Paul ONLY one there is , statistically speaking alone

being consistently opposed to liberty and consistently immoral is not a good thing.
he is, however, a fruitcake. one who, if he manage to somehow actually capture the nomination, will lose on a mondale-esque scale.

[Revolutopia]

nice how we label the ones we fear most .. lets face facts here, in terms of consistency, liberty and morality, Ron Paul ONLY one there is , statistically speaking alone

In this thread we have repeatedly pointed out that is not the fact.

Furthermore, if we are going to pretend he is all that consistent and for liberty the reasons given for that stance it does leave him as being alone.

In how, you have people like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders who have also long followed their value system regarding the government also. For example, both of them opposed the passage of the Patriot Act, Iraq War and Sanders was of the only 7 senators to vote against the new defense apportions bill.

Thus, this entire argument that Paul is the only one consistent is also a lie.

[Farnhamia]

nice how we label the ones we fear most .. lets face facts here, in terms of consistency, liberty and morality, Ron Paul ONLY one there is , statistically speaking alone

being consistently opposed to liberty and consistently immoral is not a good thing.
he is, however, a fruitcake. one who, if he manage to somehow actually capture the nomination, will lose on a mondale-esque scale.

It would make Roosevelt vs Landon in 1936 look like a nail-biter.

[The Forsaken Wilderness]

They still can't break the Bill or Rights, regardless of other federal laws. The idea that all of a sudden gays would have their first amendment rights taken away is laughable.

What's laughable is your poor understanding of history. The states have seldom respected the constitution and the protections it is supposed to apply until it was either made to do so by the feds or the court. Suppressing freedom of speech, the right to protest; have all been attacked in the past. What makes you think they can't happen again?

And we're not just talking about freedom of speech here, but a whole myriad of federal protections such as equal opportunity employment and housing, minimum wage and the 40 hour work week, the list goes on and on!

The US would return to the way it should be. Each state can decide how they want their abortion laws. The government in general would be pulled out of marriage. State and federal.

The States would not be pulled out marriage because the feds are. What kind of crack are you smoking?

without intervention from the gov't, minimum wage and working hours would all be protected by unions. Marriage is under state jurisdiction. so is education, and marriage. anything not specifically provided for in the constitution is a state right. "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." ammendment X to the US constitution. the confederacy was right in princible, the federal gov't had no power in the affair of slaves whatsoever! (even though slavery is wrong) all ron paul does is support the constitution. you can't go wrong if you do that.

[Mike the Progressive]

A pseudo-libertarian, whose radical isolationist policies will destroy America and cripple the free world.

[Farnhamia]

What's laughable is your poor understanding of history. The states have seldom respected the constitution and the protections it is supposed to apply until it was either made to do so by the feds or the court. Suppressing freedom of speech, the right to protest; have all been attacked in the past. What makes you think they can't happen again?

And we're not just talking about freedom of speech here, but a whole myriad of federal protections such as equal opportunity employment and housing, minimum wage and the 40 hour work week, the list goes on and on!



The States would not be pulled out marriage because the feds are. What kind of crack are you smoking?

without intervention from the gov't, minimum wage and working hours would all be protected by unions. Marriage is under state jurisdiction. so is education, and marriage. anything not specifically provided for in the constitution is a state right. "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." ammendment X to the US constitution. the confederacy was right in princible, the federal gov't had no power in the affair of slaves whatsoever! (even though slavery is wrong) all ron paul does is support the constitution. you can't go wrong if you do that.

Then why did the southern states try to use the power of the federal government to make the northern states obey the fugitive slave laws? Hmm?