Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Chippy

Ron Paul

Recommended Posts

Nice. You quote a liberal-biased site as your source for the last one.

Edited by theking1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice. You quote a liberal-biased site as your source for the last one.

 

Just because it isn't what you want to hear doesn't make it any less true..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice. You quote a liberal-biased site as your source for the last one.

 

Just because it isn't what you want to hear doesn't make it any less true..

Just because it is what you want to hear doesn't make it any more true...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice. You quote a liberal-biased site as your source for the last one.

When pointing out bias you have to actually prove that the bias influenced the evidence presented in a way that makes it unreliable. I can't just dismiss a FOX report on a giant car crash as completely false because FOX reported it.

 

Plus, you cherry-picked 10% of a response giving evidence that Doddsy's post was fairly well supported and ignored the overall point.

 

Regardless, I posted the original text of one of the articles two posts above my previous one. Here it is again, though: http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp...2%2Fgannon.0793

 

And this site has photos of the original text that my source referred to: http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccal...tters-revealed/

Edited by heb0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice. You quote a liberal-biased site as your source for the last one.

Next up, all books are fiction because of Harry Potter

Edited by Arianna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But looking at alot of what Doddsy says I still find him very scary.

Too bad it was factually incorrect and full of liberal bias.

'He doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state.

 

He believes abortion should be illegal. Paul voted 'Yea' in favor on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000, proving that he doesn't oppose abortion simply because he thinks it should be a state issue. It was a Federal ban, after all.

 

He doesn’t support the repeal of DoMA and didn’t support the repeal of DADT. He voted in favor of the bill that lay the groundwork for repealing DADT, the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 and in favor of a related amendment.

 

He doesn’t support putting more money into inner-city schools, but does support vouchers for religious schools. He supports tax credits for families who home school or send their kids to other schools, and sponsored a bill that would basically give families money to donate to a school of their choosing.

 

He believes creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools. I found one piece of evidence for this. The question was loaded as hell, and I suppose he could just be uninformed, but his answer is pretty indicative of a "teach the controversy" standpoint.

Q: Academic freedom is threatened when questioning the theory of evolution. An Iowa State astronomer was denied tenure because of his work in intelligent design in May 2007. Censoring alternative theories--dogmatic indoctrination--has replaced scientific inquiry. Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?
PAUL: Yes.

 

He doesn’t believe HIV causes AIDS.His son, Rand Paul, is a member of a group that questions the link between HIV and AIDS. However, I haven't seen anything that says either of them have explicitly stated this belief. Paul has apparently published articles in his newsletter concerning AIDS that were homophobic and racist, but he seem to be more guilty of overstating the link rather than denying it.

 

His newsletter spouted horrible racist content for twenty years. He denies writing any of it, but if he allowed this content to go out under his name, he either approved it or was so ignorant of both the type of people he associates with and the type of content going under his name that he shouldn’t be trusted to run anything. Scarily enough, this is completely true

 

It all seems pretty factually correct to me,for the most part. Certainly nothing to be dismissed with a wave of the hand.

Let's focus on medical opinions first. That closest to their area of education and expertise. HIV and AIDS are strongly positive in correlation but it's not causation. A person can get AIDS without having HIV (5% of AIDS cases were HIV-negative according to the CDC c. 1989) and a person with HIV does not necessarily get AIDS. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

As for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban--it's typically an abortion in the latter half of a pregnancy (from mid-second to third trimesters). To me, the procedure is akin to murder--especially into the third trimester. There have been children born with <6 months gestation and such it's quite possible that the fetus was viable outside the womb.

 

On a side-note, both Ron Paul and Rand Paul are part of AAPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's focus on medical opinions first. That closest to their area of education and expertise. HIV and AIDS are strongly positive in correlation but it's not causation. A person can get AIDS without having HIV (5% of AIDS cases were HIV-negative according to the CDC c. 1989) and a person with HIV does not necessarily get AIDS. Correlation does not imply causation.

I think the scientific community disagrees that there is only correlation and not causation.

 

...has been fulfilled in tragic incidents involving three laboratory workers with no other risk factors who have developed AIDS or severe immunosuppression after accidental exposure to concentrated, cloned HIV in the laboratory. In all three cases, HIV was isolated from the infected individual, sequenced and shown to be the infecting strain of virus. In another tragic incident, transmission of HIV from a Florida dentist to six patients has been documented by genetic analyses of virus isolated from both the dentist and the patients. The dentist and three of the patients developed AIDS and died, and at least one of the other patients has developed AIDS. Five of the patients had no HIV risk factors other than multiple visits to the dentist for invasive procedures

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Un...causesAIDS.aspx

 

Regardless of whether it's true, the "look at these exceptions" claim has has also been used to argue that smoking doesn't cause cancer. There were industry scientists in the 70s who claimed that, since not everyone died from smoking and cancer had other causes, there wasn't proof that smoking was harmful. Both that and AIDs/HIV denialism are pretty fringe positions, and neither disproves that HIV causes aids. I would think that 95% of AIDS cases testing positive for HIV would be pretty strong support for the claim that HIV causes AIDS, actually.

 

Any candidate who supports groups that make that claim (especially if they're a medical doctor) should be scrutinized pretty heavily.

 

As for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban--it's typically an abortion in the latter half of a pregnancy (from mid-second to third trimesters). To me, the procedure is akin to murder--especially into the third trimester. There have been children born with <6 months gestation and such it's quite possible that the fetus was viable outside the womb.

 

On a side-note, both Ron Paul and Rand Paul are part of AAPS.

I'm pretty against late-term abortions as well. I was just pointing out that Paul let his opinion trump his claims of being anti-federal power. If that's the only thing against him, he has the most consistent voting record I've heard of, but I was just pointing it out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy”. Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.”

 

Ron Paul is all about Liberty it seems....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy”. Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.”

 

Ron Paul is all about Liberty it seems....

He wants to leave it to Texas citizens to decide how sex is regulated.

 

I hate to argue this on a primarily liberal forum since I'll probably be called a homophobe, but it's not Washington, DC's job to impose gay tolerance upon the states. That's up to the states themselves to figure out. Under Ron Paul, the federal government merely acts as a protector of the United States, providing defense, law enforcement and the Supreme Court. Everything else is up to the states.

 

That's how federations work, and the most recent federation that tried imposing the will of its central government on its sub-entities no longer exists.

Edited by theking1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy”. Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.”

 

Ron Paul is all about Liberty it seems....

He wants to leave it to Texas citizens to decide how sex is regulated.

 

I hate to argue this on a primarily liberal forum since I'll probably be called a homophobe, but it's not Washington, DC's job to impose gay tolerance upon the states. That's up to the states themselves to figure out. Under Ron Paul, the federal government merely acts as a protector of the United States, providing defense, law enforcement and the Supreme Court. Everything else is up to the states.

 

That's how federations work, and the most recent federation that tried imposing the will of its central government on its sub-entities no longer exists.

 

Even at a state level it's just stupid. I mean how do you even enforce it to begin with?

 

I also have to say citizens of any state actually deciding anything is a joke since its always the views of the Representative that are used to determine decisions even if the overwhelming majority views otherwise.

 

In 2011 no one should be harassed or told what they can and can't do by any government state or federal unless it has potential to hurt others. It's the simple matter of forcing religious views on the citizens of a country where one of the founding ideas was separation of church and state. The founding fathers are rolling in their damn graves.

 

Constitutionally this is not a religious country therefore purely religious views without any scientific backing should not be legislated.

Edited by Emo Nemo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy”. Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.”

 

Ron Paul is all about Liberty it seems....

He wants to leave it to Texas citizens to decide how sex is regulated.

 

I hate to argue this on a primarily liberal forum since I'll probably be called a homophobe, but it's not Washington, DC's job to impose gay tolerance upon the states. That's up to the states themselves to figure out. Under Ron Paul, the federal government merely acts as a protector of the United States, providing defense, law enforcement and the Supreme Court. Everything else is up to the states.

 

That's how federations work, and the most recent federation that tried imposing the will of its central government on its sub-entities no longer exists.

 

Even at a state level it's just stupid. I mean how do you even enforce it to begin with?

 

I also have to say citizens of any state actually deciding anything is a joke since its always the views of the Representative that are used to determine decisions even if the overwhelming majority views otherwise.

 

In 2011 no one should be harassed or told what they can and can't do by any government state or federal unless it has potential to hurt others. It's the simple matter of forcing religious views on the citizens of a country where one of the founding ideas was separation of church and state. The founding fathers are rolling in their damn graves.

 

Constitutionally this is not a religious country therefore purely religious views without any scientific backing should not be legislated.

I'm not stating an opinion on gay rights here, I'm just voicing what I think about State vs Federal power. Whether or not you support gay rights, the truth is that it's not the federal government's business and Texas legislature should be allowed to decide for themselves.

 

If you want to make sexual freedom a guaranteed constitutional right across the entire country, you will need to do so in a constitutional amendment.

 

As I said before, the state governments, not the feds, are supposed to be responsible for regulating the day-to-day lives of their citizens. Ideally, the federal government's main role is to make sure the Union stays united, that the constitution is interpreted properly (through the US supreme court), and to pay for things like defense.

Edited by theking1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The gold standard is a terrible economic policy and any economist will tell you this.

 

It would cause massive inflation. There is not nearly enough gold to back the trillions and trillions of US dollars in circulation today.

 

This is his main flaw actually.

Alan Greenspan supports a gold-standard. He's an economist and used to be the chairman of the Federal Reserve. Some Austrian economists also favor a gold-standard.

 

I think you're misinterpreting what Ron Paul's intentions regarding this matter. What he wants to do is

along with the fiat paper money system.

 

With the current system, money can be generated at the stroke of a key. Banks do this all the time. For example, student loands. The *moment* you sign the document(s) for a student loan, the fiat money is created. The money never existed until someone signed the document(s). Paper money is flawed. It can be printed and electronically created at will. Gold, silver, and other precious metals on the other hand are not subject to this. There is only a limited supply of them on Earth and cannot be created at will.

 

As Ron Paul puts it,

.

 

 

He believes marriage should be dealt by the church, not by the government. He is pro-trade, pro-life, pro-constitution, pro-small government, and pro-personal liberty. He wants to decriminilize and legalize marijuanna, heroin, all of them. Yes, to me that seems a little extreme. However, I believe it all boils down to the people's choice whether or not they choose to do them.

 

Here is a video of Ron Pauls speaking about the section above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws7Zp41fByE

 

 

It's funny that Ron Paul is so against federal subsidies and government handouts, yet in 2007 voted against ending subsidies for oil exploration: http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_2007-040.htm

 

Here's why he probably voted no. Search "Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies." Also, have you read the bill yourself? How are you sure if the bill in question was strictly on removing subsidies, or if it was a provision part of a larger piece of legislation that Ron Paul opposed for other reasons unrelated to the subsidy removal? He is against government control of the market.

 

I haven't been able to find an official statement from Ron Paul on why he voted against it. Yes, it does appear that voting no for this bill goes against some of his principles. There was probably something in that bill that was against his principles, and therefore voted no.

 

In response to the article you posted: According to Ron Paul, he had no idea that someone was writing under his name and apologized for not having payed closer attention. He also said it was brought up for "political reasons". Now, I have heard about him "admitting" passing it through back years ago. However, the article he alledgedly was part of doesn't sound like how Ron Paul speaks at all.

 

Source:

 

Alex Jones has definately been making more sense (more evidence, interviews, discussing news) than in the past. He has said pretty crazy stuff in the past and sometime still does. One has to investigate for themselves the credibility of what one says. Otherwise, we will end up with another liar in office.

 

 

 

He accurarely and concisely predicted the economic crisis and other things (

). There is more behind the curtain than what appears on the outside. However, one must be willing to go out and search around and prod.

 

 

If you want to learn about his political views, Wikipedia has a page.

 

 

More directly on my personal view: The reason why he is so popular, I think, is that he resonates with the American people with their dissent for big government and other issues (unnecesarry wars, paper money, taxation, etc) . He uses, what I think, sound logic; he doesn't sound like other (status quo as Ron Paul puts it) politicians. When I listen to him or watch videos of him, I see that he tries to back up everything he says with a concise explaination as well with citing past examples.

 

I mean, why was the mainstream media trying to ignore him? He even says himself that

. It just seems so awkward to me and it's intrigued me to research more and more about him. Edited by Warrior Zynk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think he's just another nut running for president. He's supported by 4chan because they like people like them (slightly insane). You know, hivemind and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I think he's just another nut running for president. He's supported by 4chan because they like people like them (slightly insane). You know, hivemind and all.

 

I love how you base your opinion on someone saying they're a nut just because some website/forum supports him. Personally, I think every other candidates is a "nut" and a probably a globalist, and I don't go on 4chan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I think he's just another nut running for president. He's supported by 4chan because they like people like them (slightly insane). You know, hivemind and all.

 

I love how you base your opinion on someone saying they're a nut just because some website/forum supports him. Personally, I think every other candidates is a "nut" and a probably a globalist, and I don't go on 4chan.

You got that backwards. Actually, what I said was the other way around.

Edited by Fang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron Paul is what you'd call a "classical liberal"(someone called a libertarian in the present) and does share some of the philosophies of modern day liberals and also libertarians,except for abortion.He's against abortion not solely on religious reasons.He's for a decentralized federal government,limiting the size of the federal government and letting the state and local governments decide on certain issues for themselves.States' rights is important for a country this large which has its share of differences.

 

His signature issue is his fight against the Federal Reserve.I think imposing a gold standard would be a problem,but the Federal Reserve needs to be audited.The Federal Reserve is as "federal" as Federal Express.In other words,it's really private with the government electing members to a Board to direct,I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys don't mind me making the government smaller while expanding its control over people by banning abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys don't mind me making the government smaller while expanding its control over people by banning abortion.

 

He doesn't want to ban abortion on the federal level. He wants to leave that decision to the individual states. His personal views on abortion is that it shouldn't be practiced, while at the same time he believes whether it is legal or not should come from the ninth and tenth Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys don't mind me making the government smaller while expanding its control over people by banning abortion.

 

He doesn't want to ban abortion on the federal level. He wants to leave that decision to the individual states. His personal views on abortion is that it shouldn't be practiced, while at the same time he believes whether it is legal or not should come from the ninth and tenth Amendment.

Regardless, that's expanding government control over people which =/= making government smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys don't mind me making the government smaller while expanding its control over people by banning abortion.

 

He doesn't want to ban abortion on the federal level. He wants to leave that decision to the individual states. His personal views on abortion is that it shouldn't be practiced, while at the same time he believes whether it is legal or not should come from the ninth and tenth Amendment.

Regardless, that's expanding government control over people which =/= making government smaller.

I think the point is it makes federal government smaller.

Fair enough.

 

One sort of off-topic question, though. If some states ban abortion, how will that help when others don't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys don't mind me making the government smaller while expanding its control over people by banning abortion.

 

He doesn't want to ban abortion on the federal level. He wants to leave that decision to the individual states. His personal views on abortion is that it shouldn't be practiced, while at the same time he believes whether it is legal or not should come from the ninth and tenth Amendment.

Regardless, that's expanding government control over people which =/= making government smaller.

I think the point is it makes federal government smaller.

Fair enough.

 

One sort of off-topic question, though. If some states ban abortion, how will that help when others don't?

It doesn't matter. The point is that instead of imposing a federal law on all the states, Ron Paul would rather have them choose for themselves. It's the principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The gold standard is a terrible economic policy and any economist will tell you this.

 

It would cause massive inflation. There is not nearly enough gold to back the trillions and trillions of US dollars in circulation today.

 

This is his main flaw actually.

Alan Greenspan supports a gold-standard. He's an economist and used to be the chairman of the Federal Reserve. Some Austrian economists also favor a gold-standard.

 

I think you're misinterpreting what Ron Paul's intentions regarding this matter. What he wants to do is

along with the fiat paper money system.

 

With the current system, money can be generated at the stroke of a key. Banks do this all the time. For example, student loands. The *moment* you sign the document(s) for a student loan, the fiat money is created. The money never existed until someone signed the document(s). Paper money is flawed. It can be printed and electronically created at will. Gold, silver, and other precious metals on the other hand are not subject to this. There is only a limited supply of them on Earth and cannot be created at will.

 

As Ron Paul puts it,

.

I think your misunderstanding the banking system a little. Banks don't just type in x$ and x$comes out, they create money backed by economic activity:

 

Farmer deposits £100 in the bank

Bank lends out £95 to a fish processing company

Fish processing company spend £95 on building a new factory, money is transferred to builders of factory

Builders deposit £95

 

Now through the £100 savings the bank has made £195 in circulation, if this process is repeated then the figure increases - however the figure is backed by economic activity (the building of the factory), rather than thin air.

 

The banks usually keep a reserve ratio of about 5% but it seems fair that the federal reserve provide short term money to help banks keep their loans rather than have a bank collapse and the economy. This money is usually paid back (and taken out of the economy)+ Low interest rates are a great way of stimulating demand in the economy.

He believes marriage should be dealt by the church, not by the government.

But why should church have the right over marriage, marriage is not exclusive to religious people.

 

I also disagree with the state control over social issues, it makes more sense that laws are processed through a liberal constitutional framework rather than having crazy medieval laws allowed. (like the sodomy laws)

 

Other than that I'm not fond of Ron Paul because he has a hardcore right wing economic agenda that would create huge income disparities and poverty. :(

Edited by Cruelle de vil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The gold standard is a terrible economic policy and any economist will tell you this.

 

It would cause massive inflation. There is not nearly enough gold to back the trillions and trillions of US dollars in circulation today.

 

This is his main flaw actually.

Alan Greenspan supports a gold-standard. He's an economist and used to be the chairman of the Federal Reserve. Some Austrian economists also favor a gold-standard.

 

I think you're misinterpreting what Ron Paul's intentions regarding this matter. What he wants to do is

along with the fiat paper money system.

 

With the current system, money can be generated at the stroke of a key. Banks do this all the time. For example, student loands. The *moment* you sign the document(s) for a student loan, the fiat money is created. The money never existed until someone signed the document(s). Paper money is flawed. It can be printed and electronically created at will. Gold, silver, and other precious metals on the other hand are not subject to this. There is only a limited supply of them on Earth and cannot be created at will.

 

As Ron Paul puts it,

.

I think your misunderstanding the banking system a little. Banks don't just type in x$ and x$comes out, they create money backed by economic activity:

 

Farmer deposits £100 in the bank

Bank lends out £95 to a fish processing company

Fish processing company spend £95 on building a new factory, money is transferred to builders of factory

Builders deposit £95

 

Now through the £100 savings the bank has made £195 in circulation, if this process is repeated then the figure increases - however the figure is backed by economic activity (the building of the factory), rather than thin air.

 

He believes marriage should be dealt by the church, not by the government.

But why should church have the right over marriage, marriage is not exclusive to religious people.

 

I also disagree with the state control over social issues, it makes more sense that laws are processed through a liberal constitutional framework rather than having crazy medieval laws allowed. (like the sodomy laws)

 

Other than that I'm not fond of Ron Paul because he has a hardcore right wing economic agenda that would create huge income disparities and poverty. :(

I'm with you on this one.

Especially the church-marriage thing. It should definitely be a government thing, because there's more than just the people being put together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, Alan Greenspan was influenced by Ayn Rand. He was wrong. He admitted he was wrong. Now he wants all of the bush tax cuts to expire.

 

Go figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy”. Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.”

 

Ron Paul is all about Liberty it seems....

He wants to leave it to Texas citizens to decide how sex is regulated.

 

I hate to argue this on a primarily liberal forum since I'll probably be called a homophobe, but it's not Washington, DC's job to impose gay tolerance upon the states. That's up to the states themselves to figure out. Under Ron Paul, the federal government merely acts as a protector of the United States, providing defense, law enforcement and the Supreme Court. Everything else is up to the states.

I understand his reasoning on that. However, I think that would mean that he's not so much a Libertarian as a strict Constitutionalist. Every definition of Libertarian that I have seen simply defines the ideology as someone who favors small government involvement in both economic and social matters (i.e. someone who agrees with conservatives on the economy and liberals on personal freedoms). He seems to be fine with state involvement in personal freedoms (e.g. gay marriage/abortion bans)--just not with federal involvement.

 

Note that none of this is really an argument against what you said. I'm just trying to figure out if I'm understanding him correctly.

 

 

He believes marriage should be dealt by the church, not by the government. He is pro-trade, pro-life, pro-constitution, pro-small government, and pro-personal liberty. He wants to decriminilize and legalize marijuanna, heroin, all of them. Yes, to me that seems a little extreme. However, I believe it all boils down to the people's choice whether or not they choose to do them.

 

Here is a video of Ron Pauls speaking about the section above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws7Zp41fByE

From the video and other statements I've heard him make, the best I can reason is that he may personally be mostly Libertarian, but his official stance is not a Libertarian one. Perhaps he just pushes the "leave it up to the states" mantra in order to appease Conservative despite his differing views on personal liberty. However, if he's being honest, he's not pro-personal liberty. He's simply anti-federal power. Based on his statements, if a state banned gay marriage, abortion, prostitution and the sale and usage of drugs, he wouldn't be opposed to it. A Libertarian would say that states shouldn't have the power to encroach on personal liberties. I don't hear him saying that.

 

 

It's funny that Ron Paul is so against federal subsidies and government handouts, yet in 2007 voted against ending subsidies for oil exploration: http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_2007-040.htm

 

Here's why he probably voted no. Search "Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies." Also, have you read the bill yourself? How are you sure if the bill in question was strictly on removing subsidies, or if it was a provision part of a larger piece of legislation that Ron Paul opposed for other reasons unrelated to the subsidy removal? He is against government control of the market.

 

I haven't been able to find an official statement from Ron Paul on why he voted against it. Yes, it does appear that voting no for this bill goes against some of his principles. There was probably something in that bill that was against his principles, and therefore voted no.

I actually happened across that page when trying to find his vote on the bill. But it's explanation for the opposition is simply some nonsensical propaganda about Communism (although how removing subsidies equals Communism is beyond me). Besides, our subsidies go to foreign oil producers, too, not just domestic ones. I doubt that's Ron Paul's position, though if it is I have lost considerable respect for him.

 

I looked at the text of the bill, though, and it looks like you're most likely right on his reasoning. I would disagree with his priorities, but there is much in the bill that he would probably disagree with: efficiency standards, funding for research of alternative energies, etc.

 

In response to the article you posted: According to Ron Paul, he had no idea that someone was writing under his name and apologized for not having payed closer attention. He also said it was brought up for "political reasons". Now, I have heard about him "admitting" passing it through back years ago. However, the article he alledgedly was part of doesn't sound like how Ron Paul speaks at all.

 

Source:

I wasn't implying that he wrote it at all. I actually feel like it's highly unlikely that he wrote it, as the only connection he has with it is that it was published in a journal under his name and of which he was the editor. However, my concern is simply that he allowed those types of writings to pass by over a span of years in a newsletter for which he was, in the end, responsible. I find it very hard to believe that he was unaware it was being written, and that concerns me.

 

 

I agree with you about his style of speaking, and that is why I have the respect I do have for him. He is consistent, attempts to support his points as best as possible and, in my opinion, genuine. What keeps me from voting for him is that some of his stances concern me. He is very principled and very ideological, and while this isn't an inherently bad thing, I think what has resulted in him is a politician who would have been very good prior to the industrial revolution, but today is not able to address many of the problems facing us. His dependence on and belief in the infallibility of the free-market means that he not only refuses to address many problems facing us (resource degradation and depletion, water shortage, climate change, overpopulation), but even at times denies their existence. I think he is a very intelligent man and a very capable leader, but not the leader that we need at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.