Ron Paul said the C-word
Last night, Ron Paul revealed (not for the first time) his right wing social agenda in response to a question about Bush’s past mistakes. According to Ron Paul, we’ve gotten away from “Christian philosophy” when we enacted pre-emptive war. I’m not sure why Paul felt the need to say “Christian” but judging by his legislative history, it’s because he wants to push a Christian view of society.
In 2004, Ron Paul supported and praised HR 2028, the Pledge Protection Act. The sole purpose of this act is to allow states to mandate that “under God” be allowed in the pledge. How libertarian is it to wink and nod at states forcing religion onto people?
Once again, Ron Paul fails to protect the rights and freedom of the citizens of the United States.
June 6th, 2007 at 6:27 am
If you listened carefully, you’d know that he said that certain issues should be decided at the local level, which is about as libertarian as you can get. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a group of people enacting laws that they all agree with, and imposing them on themselves.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:57 am
ditto aloe.
So, what other words would YOUR candidate forbid the use of? I would like to start learning the code words for what they’re really saying.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:41 am
I’d prolly “ban” for a candidate the n-word, and the g-word. Anything that is meant to discriminate.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:53 am
I think Ron Paul is more of a Constitutionalist than a libertarian.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Ron Paul is a Christian.
However, his use of the word in the debate refers to the Just War concept, a Western base-line in deciding whether to go to war. Should the Just War criteria be taken from the table because it historically and, to some extent, ideologically is labelled Christian?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” — First Amendment to the Constitution. I do not see how removing violations of this is failing to protect the rights and freedom of citizens.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Dar don’t worry it just seems like Shane is trying to discredit Ron Paul any way he can imagine.
June 6th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Anyone who doesn’t like Ron Paul must have serious problems. Why would someone be against a candidate that believes in, and has consistently voted for, upholding the constitution? Do they WANT government to tax, take care of, and control them? Do they not want to be free? Are they just attacking freedom, liberty and all of the other good things in the world, because they’re looking for a reaction, looking for attention?
June 6th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Mike,
Why don’t you go ask women, homesexuals, and atheists who would have their freedoms trampled on if Ron Paul got his way.
Get a clue.
June 6th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Before wasting your time with these posts, why not research Ron and understand what and most importantly, WHY he has a particular stance. It isn’t that hard to grasp. If you listen to the debate, Ron was the only person on stage who defended the RIGHT to be a homosexual. You have your facts mixed up, once again. =(
June 6th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
[quote]Why don’t you go ask women, homesexuals, and atheists who would have their freedoms trampled on if Ron Paul got his way.[/quote]
You’re the one that needs to get a clue. Ron Paul has consistently said that these issues need to be decided on a local level, not federal. The only fair thing is to make a decision on these issues locally because not everyone is going to agree.
June 6th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
jron:
How generous of Ron Paul to defend the right for homosexuals to exist. That’s very noble of him. Of course, if they want equal protection under the law..I guess Ron doesn’t think much of that.
June 6th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Ryan:
Ron paul can continue to say it over and over again, but that doesn’t make him any less wrong.
June 6th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Keep up the good work Shane. I don’t trust him. He cherrypicks core libertarian values that he knows will appeal to a broad audience, just like Bush. Bait and switch. If you want to know the whole story, read the entire Texas Republican Party Platform, and the Constitution Party Platform. The threat of Theocracy has been carried all the way to DC and this guy will just make matters worse.
June 6th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
For the record, when asked by Wolf Blitzer (as a group) if any of the Republican candidates would allow gays to serve openly in the military, Ron Paul stood silent. The military, my states rights friends, is a federal issue, and Ron Paul flunks the discrimination test.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Ron Paul has never, AFAIK, been associated with the Constitution Party. He is a Libertarian, and was our candidate for President. As for his association with the Republicans, it does exist, obviously, he is on stage with them. But as you may have noticed, he tramples the party line whenever the party line is wrong. Therefore, you can infer very little about Ron’s positions by reading the Republican platform. An example: the Republican platform probably supports the war. Ron does not.
As for gays in the military, I’m not sure why the disconnect between Ron’s verbal answer (he quotes Goldwater, “you don’t have to be straight to shoot straight”) and says that if conduct is a problem, either heterosexual or homosexual, the conduct should be dealt with. I cannot explain the lack of a raised hand later, but if that is to be my biggest disagreement with Ron, more power to him.
Since Ron is a strict Constitutionalist, there is no reason to believe that he would attempt to impose his religious beliefs on others. This is what matters. Yes, he’s a Christian. So were many of the founding fathers who wrote the First Amendment. I am not a Christian, hell, I don’t even have the faith to be an Atheist, but I will not disqualify a man because of his faith. I would, of course, vote against a man who intended to impose it on me, but that is not Ron Paul.
June 12th, 2007 at 9:43 am
When I saw the title I thought you were referring to the other C-word that is restricted in use by the Washington Politicians today.
I thought you were talking about the Constitution.
June 15th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
I think that you’re taking him out of context when you are getting stuck on the “Christian philosophy” point. Although the notion of a“just war” goes back before the Christian era, linking it to Christianity is really just recognizing Thomas Aquinas’s additional definition points.
The war was “sold” to the US as being morally justifiable. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to explicitly reference the framework that Bush used as his justification in a debate.