The dark side of Ron Paul, Part II
My last post on Ron Paul generated a lot of hits and comments. Most comments were negative and in some cases contained ad hominem attacks on me. I realize that Ron Paul is the darling of the blogosphere so this response was not unexpected. Digg users are especially in love with Ron Paul. However, despite all the comments against my conclusion about Ron Paul and his desire to use the power of the federal government to push his right wing social agenda, I’m not budging. I believe I’m correct. I did a little more digging and I think I’ve found more evidence to support my case, and in addition, the case that Ron Paul cherry picks what issues he thinks the federal government should be involved in.
Some choice quotes from Ron Paul:
“If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.” I wonder what he would say if the majority in Alabama didn’t want interracial marriage to be legal.
“All Libertarians believe that you should never use force to bring about changes – they reject an act of aggression. A fetus is alive. It’s human. It has legal rights. If you kill it you have committed an act of aggression.” Sure doesn’t sound like a pro-choicer to me.
The net result of all this, is a vote for Ron Paul is a vote against the reproductive rights of women and the the rights of homosexuals. If you feel that women don’t deserve to make choices about their own bodies, or that gays aren’t deserving of the same rights of contract (after all, a marriage is a contract), by all means vote for Ron Paul. Feel good about yourself that you will be voting to usher in a whole new era of discrimination.
I, for one, want to vote for a candidate who believes in equal protection of everyone underneath the law. I want a candidate who will stand up and say two consenting adults can do anything they want so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. I want a candidate who gets *all* government out of the tough decision on whether to have an abortion or not. Ron Paul is not that candidate.
I don’t know who I will be vote for. It certainly can not, will not, be Ron Paul
June 5th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Here is my philosophy… Those are debates for another day. Democrats will push those agendas on their own time, under their own chance.
Here is a chance for some real change as to the SIZE of government. When he says “I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state” I think you pick the anti-homosexual message for him.
What he is saying is that judges don’t have the ability (under the constitution) to set up new laws. That is the legislature’s job. I think he also believes that the federal government doesn’t have the legal right to tell people what the definition of marriage is. It isn’t in the constitution… therefore it is the states rights. I think he would defend Massachussets right to alter marriage just as strongly as Texas’s right not to.
From what I see he doesn’t play partisan roles, he sticks to his guns and those guns are the Constitution as written, and limited government.
And I think after so many years of democrats and republicans increasing the power of the feds so that states can’t determine anything themselves it’s about time someone reduced the fed’s power.
Roe vs. Wade can be overturned a dozen times in the next century as Republicans and Democrats each take office and control the senate/house… but this is a rare deal, someone who will return power from big government to the people…
Please put off the “typical issues” for one election (and don’t kid yourself he’ll be re-elected) and consider the bigger picture.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:32 am
I wish I had time right now to address all this b/c you’re completely off base. The federal government doesn’t have the authority to regulate Homosexual Marriage or Abortion without amending the constitution. You’re case is very weak b/c you don’t know the bounds of the Constitution. I’ll try and come back later.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Tye:
If you want states to be able to discriminate against homosexuals and women, be my guest.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Actually, if you leave gay marriage to the states, that would allow at least some states to allow gay marriage.
That is better than the position of many Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, who openly oppose gay marriage and who aren’t even willing to allow the states to make their own determination.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:16 am
ron paul definitely does have more conservative views, this is why hes running as a Republican and not as a Democrat. he has repeadedly stated however, that while he does believe in pro-life, anti-gay marriage policies, these are not near the top of his agenda, he is far more concerned (and rightly so) about the Federal Reserve system, rampant war and nation building, illegal immigration, and other issues that actually matter, please, please, do not turn this debate into another one about issues that on the national level dont even matter, like abortion and marriage, Ron Paul has even stated that if he were President, all of those things would be left up to the states to decide, after all thats how its directed in the constitution, and he has never voted against it.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Who cares if these things aren’t “at the top of his agenda”?
What is important is that is his agenda which he has shown over a period of years.
That his followers are willing to throw the gays and women’s reproductive rights aside so they can pursue their Libertarian fantasies is appalling.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
I think it’s time to let this one-trick pony go ignored.
I’m sure he has a dog in this show - likes the war with iraq, or likes that 50% of us may 96% of taxes. Maybe he likes Americans constanty fighting with each other over issues that states could easily solve. Who knows the rea lintent behind his words.
Some people come to rely on goverment so much, the thought of real freedom terrifies them. You wont get through to everyone in a single election. 10-20 years form now if this blog author has any sense, he will look back at his actions and realize he was part of the problem while criticizing the peole that were trying to be a part of the solution. He will likely be ashamed - just as mnay of us our ashamed of some actions we took when we were younger. It’s all part of the maturation process.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Eric Boyer,
I will never be ashamed of not supporting politicians who are for the discrimination of gays and the restriction of women’s rights.
Pfft. You talk about “real freedom”? Taking a blind eye to bigotry should be your shame 10-20 years from now.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Yes I do talk about real freedom. Real freedom allows people to do things you don’t agree with. If I sell my used car - I can decide to not sell it to a women. When I go looking for a job, I can decide to not work for a hispanic male between the ages of 40-50. It’s stupid to do those things - cuts off my nose in spite of my face - but preventing people from living their life the way they want isn’t freedom.
Ron Paul supports a constitutional view of government. So do I.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
If the state of Alabama popularly voted to ban marriage between two people of different races, would you support that? Sounds like your kind of “constitutional” theory.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Absolutely. Because if one state chooses to act in a way I don’t agree with, I can move to another state.
What you are supporting is idiotic. You are granting the federal goverment ever increasing power to preserve your freedom. Anybody with even the slightlest inclination of why our constitutiton was created would laugh you right out of the bulding based on your views.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Eric, how is Ron Paul actively or passively working to stop me from marrying my boyfriend freedom?
It strikes me that it keeps me a second class citizen in a growing theocratic society which is federally funding “faith based” initiatives.
Ron Paul’s “constitutional government” is a smoke screen.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Let it be known to the world that Eric Boyer is cool with bans on interracial marriage. Let freedom ring!
June 5th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
amoirae,
I don’t understand your question at all. The only thing Ron Paul has done in regards to marriage is prevent one state from dictating ltheir laws to another state.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Eric is now using the arguments that opponents to interracial marriage used before the Loving v Virginia verdict.
Sacrificing some so the Libertarians can go for their own agenda. Leave some behind because they’re not as important. Sounds like standard Libertarian self-serving garbage.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Nice straw man Shane - but that really is all you got.
If I lived in a state that was heavy handed in individual rights - I would move to another state and would cease spending my dollars on the state I disagreed with.
what I wouldn’t do is steal one states right to legislate as they see fit.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
All I have is your bigoted attitude. That is true. All I’ve been able to do is reveal your bigotry. You got me there.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Our federal government was designed because a loose collection of states couldn’t defend themselves properly
Americans that wish to choose their leaders based on marriage rights is doing us all a tremendous disservice.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Shane - arguing what’s in ones heart on the internet isn’t possible.
I care about individual rights. The End.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
I didn’t have to argue, you made very obvious what’s in your heart, or perhaps lacking.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Americans who choose their leaders based on tax refunds, dismantling government, and their own ideology over keeping everyone legally equal and free are an abomination and an insult to the Constitution they claim to love.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
amoirae
I do have libertarian leanings. One man’s garbage is another mans treasure.
What I don’t have, is racist tendencies - at least not real ones. I would be lying to say I feel equally at ease in a group where I am the lone white person - but I think that is somewhat natural - atleast for someone of my age that didn’t grow up with alot of diversity around me.
I view Ron Pauls attitude on the constitututon refreshing. I think my state can come to its own conclusion on how best to handle education, abortion, and gay marriage issues. I want the federal government to protect individual liberties (marriage is a group) and ensuring our nation survives future storms.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Of course some people wouldn’t support such a ban, but that doesn’t change the fact that democratically elected leaders will have proposed and implemented it. How dare you act as though you are so pro-freedom when you can’t even step back and recognize that you are ALSO trampling over the rights of other people. Just because you feel that you are taking the moral higher ground by being pro gay/interracial marriage doesn’t mean that it should be implemented nationwide. The fact is that democracy works best in tighter groups (ie. states), where decisions can be more clearly made by a smaller range of opinions. For example, it is clear that popular opinion in Massachusetts differs greatly from that of Alabama. However, despite the fact that you may agree with one state more than the other, you must respect these varying opinions, no matter how unjust they may seem. To force your liberal moral beliefs on others is nothing more than left-wing “Giuliani”ism.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Shane - I feel the same for you.
I’m trying to express Ideas. you seem to be interested in sound bites.
I trust readers stumbling upon our exchange will see clearly who’s intentions are pure and who’s are not.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
And FYI I am completely for gay/interracial marriage. I am a white Canadian, my girlfriend of 3 years is Chinese and I have a cousin who is gay and happily married.
Just in case you try to pull any of that ignorance you dropped on Eric.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
You refer to it as “gay marriage”. It’s marriage which is being kept for heterosexuals under a guise of it being a religious institution. More often than not, it’s a legal marriage by a Justice of the Peace.
Marriage should be open to two consenting adults regardless of gender who are over the age of consent.
Having one state that allows equal marriage rights and another that doesn’t is insane. Were we to have had that 40 years ago there would still be some states actively using Jim Crow policies and keeping marriage racially seperated.
Your views are anachronistic, simplistic, and thoroughly naive.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
I love how people like Eric can debate whether I and others like me should have rights removed or ignored and treat it as a debate and nothing more.
Your intentions are far from pure, Eric. You’ll push Ron Paul no matter who gets trampled in the process.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Dave,
Whose rights are being trampled if two consenting men or women decide to get married?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
amoirae :
I agree with your views on marriage wholeheartedly. What I don’t believe in is imposing my morals on other people. If popular opinion was to go against what I believe, I would accept that fact, for that is a great principle of democracy.
What is naive is to believe that everyone should conform to your beliefs because you think that you have taken the moral higher ground.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Dave,
Aren’t people who are explicitly voting for laws to *ban* gay marriage forcing their moral beliefs on others?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
And banning my ability to marry who I want *isn’t* imposing views on me?
Isn’t that removing some of my rights and making me a second class citizen, denying me equality under the Constitution?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Shane :
Stop your circular arguments. It is impossible to please everyone, this is a fact. My point is that since you cannot please every living soul, you should try to please the majority of them. If you keep misinterpreting what Eric and I are trying to say, there is no point in speaking with you at all.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Dave and Eric, you can dress up your Sophistry any way you want.
What you both support is allowing rights for minorities to be contingent on the whims of the majority. That is bigotry.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Dave - I support gay marriage in my state as well.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
So, if we can’t please everyone we should appease the majority and deny the minority rights?
Dave, you are intellectually dishonest.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
amoirae :
My beliefs are far from bigotry.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.
How is accepting popular opinion (regardless of what side I’m on) an act of bigotry? Do tell.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
marriage isn’t a right
It originally was a religious institutiton, then goverment decided to reward people for being part of this institution.
that should be the real argument - why is the government rewarding groups, it is supposed to treat people as equal individuals. But since one group is being rewarded, I support my state to treat other groups equal.
I don’t support increasing the size and role of federal government just because other states might think differently however. That is just making the current problems we face worse.
Two posters take that to mean I’m racist or a bigot. I trust American’s are smart enough to see through their games. Otherwise, maybe I should respond with the same cheap rhetoric.
How’s this “I’ll chase Shane to the gates of hell”
June 5th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
I take anyone who would allow bans on interracial marriage as a bigot. I’m not sure what you think is a game exactly. Gay couples being discriminated against by the state and the federal government don’t think it’s a game.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Dave,
Bowing the majority doesn’t make you a bigot per se, but it does make one weak. Just think of all the times in history the majority was wrong. Have you forgotten slavery, Jim Crow laws, no suffrage for women, bans on women in the military?
I mean, jesus, sack up man.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
The defintion itself indicates that Shane and amoirae are bigots. I have a say in my state, so I will use it to make sure groups are treated fairly - in my state.
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.
I feel when you start giving the federal government too much power, it leads to massive corporate lobbyists, and the will of the people gets drownded out over the roar of 300 million people arguing about damn near everything under the sun.
This attitude resonates with many, many Americans. If you happen to be one of these free thinkers- check out http://www.RonPaul2008.com
June 5th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
And what exactly do you propose as an alternative to “bowing to the majority”? Authoritarianism?
If you are trying to give me a history lesson, then consider the fact that as a species, human beliefs have tended to shift towards individual liberty, given TIME.
Rather than implementing your plan in one fell swoop, why not do it properly by setting a good example in one state (where popular opinion supports yours) and have others become JEALOUS of your koombayah community. This way you can assure that you are actually helping to shift general beliefs towards you, rather than simply forcing everyone to conform all at once and act like everything is fine.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
You know Dave, that’s a great idea. Maybe we should have only freed the slaves one state at a time over a course of fifty years. Even better, for women’s suffrage, how about a round robin double elimination tournament system!
June 5th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Shane - name one other democratic country that required a civil war to end slavery.
I’ll be waiting.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Shane, if you believe that what I said translates to your pathetic sarcastic comment, you are sadly mistaken.
If you would like to discuss this properly and look at all perspectives WITHOUT simply attempting to make others feel inferior, I am more than happy to hear everyone out.
If you want to continue your little game, I’m afraid that I’m not completely down with that.
Enjoy your afternoon
June 5th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
I’m not attempting to make you feel inferior. I was simply pointing out the idiocy of your statement. It’s not my fault you decided to say “Rather than implementing your plan in one fell swoop, why not do it properly by setting a good example in one state” in response to my comment talking about serious civil rights embarrassments we’ve had in this country.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Idiocy is believing that it’s better to slap a band-aid on a wound, rather than attempting to fix the broken bone underneath it.
Convince your American peers (ie. the Bible Belt) that your solution has merit and reason before you force them into it. Otherwise it is you that is being weak.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Dave,
Your attitude is the same attitude that perpetuated Jim Crow laws and second class citizenship for blacks in this country. It’s the same attitude that denies gays equal treatment under the law, and prevents women from making free reproductive choices.
If that all makes you feel better, good for you. I’d rather do what’s right, do it now, and get on with life.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Eric,
I don’t know what relevance your comment about the Civil War has, other than, it demolishes Dave’s attempts to make it a states rights issue.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Enjoy your trip Shane.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Eric,
I guess that would be a dig if there really was a Hell.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Brush up on your history Shane - That way you can actually debate ideas and not drop to your straw men of calling people racists or bigots.
The relevance is we are the only nation that had to kill one another to end slavery. It was going to happen eventually - but we are the only nation that forced the issue and went to war over it.
There are no easy answers when it deals with sins of the heart. You think there are - because you live in a simplistic world of right and wrong. You think allowing a nation of 300 million decide for a state what is right solves the problem. It doesn’t. As Dave pointed out much more elegantly then I have, you are simply slapping a band-aid on a broken bone and shouting mission accomplished.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Eric,
I didn’t call you a bigot, you announced to the world you were. That’s on you, not me.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
“Taking a blind eye to bigotry should be your shame 10-20 years from now”
“I didn’t call you a bigot”
Whatever Shane. Your integrity is on trial.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
“The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them.”
- Mark Twain
Keep fighting for it and you will one day get it. I admire your resolve, but in the end I would merely like to point out that such an abrupt change in policy will bring forth new dangers and injustices. “Blowback”, if you will
Let people learn for themselves, show them what is so great about your ideas and make them DESIRE it. Beliefs cannot be exported at the point of a (metaphorical) bayonet!
June 5th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Eric,
I might have put a name to it, but you announced your beliefs to the world that bans on interracial marriage were fine with you. That’s all you buddy.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Dave,
That approach works great when you’re talking about tax cuts, social spending, etc. It doesn’t work when you’re referring to civil rights.
The problem you have, imho, is that you have a hammer (states rights) and everything you see is a nail.
June 5th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Shane,
You continue to argue from the same position of dishonesty. People will pick up on that. I’m not fine with bigotry - but I’m a realist - you can’t stampt it out in a voter booth.
Social revolution takes time. Forcing our belifs on another state doesn’t solve the problem. A better idea is to peacefully protest - I stated I would move out of a state that was too repressive of individual freedoms and would do everything in my power to hurt that state economically.
You tell Dave it doesn’t work in regards to civil rights - not true. You mentioned Jim Crowe laws - those came primarily because the North forced a social revolution on the South before they were ready.
It is clear you want desperately to point us as the bad guys - and you couldn’t be further from the truth on this issue.
Now I;ve had my fill of your tainted views. It’s your site - so you will have the last word reghardless. We lit a small wildfire in the back of your mind. Sometimes it takes time to brush off the false ideas that manifest themselves over the years. If your heart truly is pure, you’ll come around eventually.
June 5th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
I don’t need to point to you as a bad guy. You’re doing that all on your own.
June 5th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Dave, you asked: How is accepting popular opinion (regardless of what side I’m on) an act of bigotry?
In accepting a popular opinion that discriminates it makes you a cowardly bigot.
Marriage, for Eric’s edification, existed before Christianity.
Eric and Dave are comfortable with a discriminatory status quo and will make rationalizations until they turn blue in the face.
June 5th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
amoirae :
Once again, you need your head checked. Accepting popular opinion has nothing to do with cowardice. It is possible to accept the will of the people while simultaneously attempting to curb their opinion. It has absolutely nothing to do with “being comfortable” about discrimination. The fact that you constantly feel the need to play the bigotry and racism cards is evidence that you have absorbed nothing from this discussion and I had may as well be talking to a wall. If you insist on such a counter-argument, then I must say that the only bigoted opinion here is yours, where you show constant intolerance to what I say despite the fact that I agree with you on the main issue at hand. What I do NOT agree with is your naivety in believing that social change can occur overnight without dangerous consequences. Change is achieved through gradual dialogue, reasoning and persuasion. This leads to a more uniform agreement with fewer future disputes (potentially dangerous ones, ie. maniacal religious bombings at abortion centres) and a greater sense of unity within the nation. The fact is that no matter how strongly you feel about a political topic, there is always someone who is going to disagree with you, and in order to make an orderly and effective social change, popular opinion is required at the foundation. If you cannot agree with this point, then there is no sense explaining it further.
You may think that such a path would be cowardly, but at least it’s better than a homegrown Iraq.
June 5th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Dave,
Accepting popular opinion at the expense of the dignity and respect of fellow human beings, and not standing up for what is right, is indeed cowardice. It’s not statesmanship. It’s not “gradual dialogue, reasoning, and persuasion”. It’s weak.
June 5th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
“It is possible to accept the will of the people while simultaneously attempting to curb their opinion.”
This means that people must continue to stand up and fight for what is right, despite temporary setbacks.
Please read what I say before you type, I provide that courtesy to you, all that I ask is for you to reciprocate. I’m beginning thoroughly convinced that you read the first few words of a sentence and go straight to the reply.
Idiot.
June 5th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Dave has the nerve to insult people and yet his arguments are weaker than Bush’s poll numbers. Pathetic.
You’re a bigot making excuses to defend it for you and Ron Paul.
June 5th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Ok, if you say so
June 5th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
No, reality says so and I’m just reporting it.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
“If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of ……â€
I think you could insert any statement here, and he would fight the same way. That’s why is position is so centered on principles.
Ron Paul’s view on the Federal Government makes him the perfect candidate because he’s all about taking powers away from the position he’s trying to get elected to.
I don’t think any state should have the power to stop gay marriages, but that power shouldn’t be taken away by the federal government (they could then take away other rights, too). The constitition needs to be amended. Notice that’s how Republicans decided to attack the issue. Pro gay rights crowd has to do the same thing. In the mean time, let’s hope state’s either stay or get more liberal on this issue.
Sorry, for being a Ron Paul apologist. Until, I’m ready to run for President, I have to support someone with his view points on the roles of Federal Government.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:50 am
You know in a way homosexuals are asking for more rights. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex that they want just like I can. I suppose it is all a matter of perspective.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Yeah, discrimination is all about a different “perspective.”
June 6th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Kind of like the glass being half empty or half full.
June 6th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Exactly. Racism can be reduced to pointless proverbs.
June 8th, 2007 at 7:51 am
After having read through both articles and all the comments, I think I can now comment.
Shane, I know this is your site and you will get the last word, but I think you are off target. I especially love how you accuse others of making ‘ad hominem’ attacks against you (which I really didnt see) but then you turn around and call people who disagree with your opinion racists and bigots. You also throw out ALOT of strawman arguments.
Ron Paul, doesnt really support giving rights to certain groups of people, such as gays, or miniorities because all that leads to is more disparit laws and more enequality. He thinks that ALL individuals should have rights and ill go to his speach from the New Hampshire debate:
——————-
REP. PAUL: I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way.
So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.
——————–
June 8th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Shane,
My questions to you is:
I think we can surmise that you wont be voting for Ron Paul. Who do you feel is a more qualified candidate, which candidate do you feel more matches your ideals?
Do you have a better candidate to vote for, or did you simply express your hatred of Dr. Paul?
June 8th, 2007 at 8:14 am
brad,
I only brought up the word bigot when one commenter said he would be cool with interracial marriage being banned if it was the will of the people. So I won’t apologize for bring up the word bigot for someone with that attitude. And mainly what you call “straw man” arguments, aren’t really mine, but the other person’s ridiculous ideas applied to another situation.
And as I said, at the last debate, when asked if he would changed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, Ron Paul didn’t speak up.
I haven’t decided who to vote for as of yet, just who I’m not voting for.
June 9th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Technically, the recent Cathart decision makes it all the more necessary for a decentralization candidate to get elected to office. Because of the Cathart decision the Supreme Court upheld the federal government authority to regulate abortion and even outlaw procedures. No longer are women subject to the tyranny of moralizing states, but the tyranny of a moralizing Federal Government. I would sincerely hope that the states rights views of Ron Paul are true and would leave most of the big questions to the states and their own constitutions. One can flee the capriciousness of a state, but no one has a constitutional right to flee the united states.
Moreover, one of the biggest barriers in the homosexual marriage question is the Supreme Court deference to states on issues of discrimination of gays, using the lowest tier of scrutiny in determining equal application of state laws. The only times any “anti gay” laws were overturn were when there was a belief that the State action was driven by an animus toward homosexuals or infringed in the fundamental right of intimate association. The right of intimate association does not require state recognition to exercise it nor are state laws that define marriage as a union between one man and woman (many of which date back to before the word homosexual was invented) reveal an animus toward gays, rather it just shows an assumption that men and women marry and they cant picture any other paring doing so. If there were any animus in marriage laws its against polygamy and incest, not gays.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Shane, you miss the point completely. By giving power to the states, you’re openning up the possibility of some states enacting discriminatory laws, true, but you’re also openning up the possibility of the federal government enacting discriminatory laws for the entire nation. It is better to risk a few states with bad laws, then risk the entire nation having bad laws.
FURTHERMORE, if you really believe the federal government should expand its powers into the realm of the definition of marriage and abortion rights, then you should advocate a change to the constitution. This is what Ron Paul has said: that the current attempt by the federal government to impose legislation upon the entire nation are unconstituional, and that if Americans want the federal government to do so, then the constitution needs to be amended.
The constitution will not be worth the paper it is written on if it is ignored when it is deemed convenient.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Mike,
First off, I’m a registered libertarian in the state of Kansas. I’ve posted a pictyure of my registration before. This isn’t a matter of me believing in a small federal government or not.
This is about Ron Paul using the federal government to promote his own religious beliefs on others, and restricting the rights of others.
I don’t want to live in a country where “states rights” is thinly veiled code for hating on gays an women.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Okay…. I just figured it out. I just found out where all of Ron Paul’s supporters are….. they are responding to this blog. State’s Rights ( pronounced “rats” in the south) was the issue leading to the civil war. The issue of slavery was the emotional gun powder used to incite the battle.
In the last six years we have seen individual liberties abridged by a fear mongering moron and the puppeteers who pull his strings. These people have turned hate and malice into an industry. There will never be solutions to the serious issues in this country when the solutions is “states rights”. That friends, is passing the buck by politicians who were born without spines and/or testicles. With both his manhood and his spine missing, I am amazed that Ronb Paul could dance that Texas Two Step so well in the debates.
Nice job, Shane, of smoking out these bigots. It was intersting to see how the thinly disguised hatred began to flow as you called each of them out, comment by comment. We shold all feel better that Ron Paul wingnut followers apparently represent only 1% of the people.
Ron Paul got a couple of flippant comments off in what was a deadly boring debate. He got some press; his 15 minutes of fame. Frankly I think this good ol’ boy has had a little too much “bourbon and branch”.
Henry David Thoreau had it right when he wrote “Not less government, but no government now!”
August 21st, 2007 at 12:06 am
The people as a whole should be able to vote on these personal issues.Not state government nor federal government.Ron Paul is leaving the personal issues up to the americans of each state to vote on(not himself,not the federal,not the state governments).If the people as a whole/majority are against certain issues in each individual state then that should be LAW in that state.The minority of personal issues(gay marriage and abortion) should not be forced to be accepted by the Majority of the state because of a few people.Also on the other side if the majority accept gay marriage and abortion in a particular state and the minority doesn’t accept it than the minority loses and the law should be in favor of the majority.
This is what Ron Paul is saying.He is NOT bigoted in any way towards personal issues.He is basically saying he does not want to run our lives.He is a christian and believes that our sins are our own.Let God deal with people and what they believe,not Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is neutral and has personal preferences but knows that a good leader has to accept his views and that of others to keep peace.
The main thing we need to worry about is Freedom and truth.Ron Paul is not afraid to represent both in the face of the NWO opposition even though his life and that of his family is at risk for going against the nazi like government establishment hell bent on running our lives and making us their slaves by spoon feeding us their ideologies(while claiming freedom to make us think we have it and don’t even realize we are losing it),stealing from us through taxes so we are poor,telling us we can’t use herbalist doctors because they are dangerous(when really they are a threat to big pharma because they actually CURE and for people to be healthy 100% of the time would make big pharma poor),and forcing us to PAY for welfare and SS for illegal immigrants with our hard earned tax money when they haven’t paid a damn dime into it and we can barely afford to support our own families because of the taxes we HAVE to pay for them and a war we don’t agree with.Ron Paul wants to give the liberties and money the federal government have stolen from us. He cares!
Is Freedom too much to ask for?Why would he want freedom and then turn around and take it from pro-choicers and gays?He would not.He may not agree but he has no agenda to steal your freedom to run your own lives the way you see fit.His voting record and speeches (on You Tube: Neo-Conned by Congressman Ron Paul Pt.1-11)prove he is a man of his word and can be trusted not to give us the freedom we crave.
Stop and use your brains.Ron Paul is our only hope to liberty in the USA(Jesus is #1 freedom in our lives).Lets not screw up a once in a life time chance over the small things because he isn’t worried about those and does not want to force us to live the way he would live in thought and actions(this is a true leader),he wants us to have free thought,speech,and prosperous lives OUR WAY and NOT HIS or governments way.He DOES NOT(want to) nor will he, run our lives.The BIGGEST picture(freedom from CFR/NWO elite slave masters in which he is the only candidate who is NOT one of them) of all is at stake if you do not realize your BIAS against Ron PAUL
One thing we can all agree on is we want freedom and he is our only earthly(Jesus is our freedom 1st) ticket to that dream in the USA,whether you are black,white,etc.,gay,straight,pro-choice,pro-life–we all have the same goal/FREEDOM!.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:12 am
I mean Trusted TO give us the freedom we crave as individuals(gay,pro-choice,etc.).Sorry about that mistake.
I personally don’t agree with homosexuality or abortion either but who am I to tell you how to run your life.That is between you and God or whatever you believe.Ron PAul thinks from this view point to.He can have his opinion on isssues but not impose them on you and make them law just because he doesn’t agree with them.He will not do that.Freedom is freedom for ALL people no matter what their culture,beliefs,or lifestyles are.Ron Paul supports the last sentence I just said.Don’t be bigoted against him because his beliefs and opinions don’t agree with yours,then you are doing the very thing you accuse him of doing.When I know he is neutral-live your life the WAY you want,not the way he or government wants you to live it.
May 5th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Ron Paul also supports sodomy laws. Not exactly a libertarian stance. But I have had the same experience you had when I dare tell St Paul supporters about his real record. They are a fanatical bunch who have delusions about their candidate and they don’t like being confronted with contrary evidence.