Ron Paul question

I don't know that much about Ron Paul, but the research I have done on him seems pretty contradicting.

From what I understand he wants to protect our liberty and freedom almost absolutely... but not if you're a woman. Or gay.

Feel free to correct me, I'm sure you will. I would like to understand your point of view as best I can.

 

i agree. when i read his website, that was my take on the situation. i know for sure he wouldn't be representing my best interests.

 

That's how it seemed to me, also. Freedom is a huge issue for me, but so is fairness. I read a lot of his speeches and documents about the Separation of Church and State, and how he thinks it's totally unnecessary. I find that completely disturbing, even as a devout Christian. Economically, I consider myself pretty conservative, but taking welfare away is not the answer. To me it seems like he is masking bigotry and ultra conservative values with the words "freedom" or "alternative".

A lot of people on these forums would probably solely base their vote on his proposed drug policies, which, if you look at them, are pretty damned extreme. I have no problem with marijuana being decriminalized, in fact, I think it should be. But the thought of my kids one day being able to buy heroin with such ease freaks me out a little bit.

 

This really shouldn't be in the Libertarian forum. Ron Paul is not really a Libertarian, he is a Republican with a lot of Libertarian ideas. He certainly isn't 100% Libertarian, though there are a lot of Libertarians who aren't either.

Have you ever met a politician that you agree with 100%? Have you ever met another person you agree with 100%? If so you are luckier than I am. I don't even agree with friends and family on everything, so how can I expect to find someone running for political office that do?

He is a doctor, and a baby doctor at that, so I can understand his position on abortion. I don't agree with him, but I can understand where he is coming from. To me though, the whole abortion issue seems like a waste of time and is only for dividing people. In the past 30 years, with all the politics and fighting, what has it actually accomplished? Abortion seems like an non-issue. If Bush couldn't do much about it what can Paul actually do? Would he even try to do anything?

I don't think I have ever heard him talk about gays, though I am sure I know where he stands, probably in disagreement with me. But is there anyone running for president that actually supports total gay rights and marriage? Personally I think gay marriage points out the problem with the system. Why do we, any of us, have to go to the state and ask permission to marry? We should take this away from the state and return marriage to the people. Then we can marry who ever we want, however we want. Jefferson, Washington, nor Madison, or anyone else in those times, had to go to the state and get a marriage license before they got married.

Maybe you should ask yourself just how well the government does with its welfare system. Is it doing a good job or are there possibly better places people could get help? Ron Paul does not want to shut down all such systems today and throw everyone out in the cold. He still wants to help those people that need help while reducing the system, hopefully getting them off and being able to support themselves.

 

From what I understand, most people do consider Ron Paul a Libertarian, and he is the closest thing to a libertarian that America has running for President.

The abortion issue isn't all that big of a deal to me, because I really don't think that Roe v. Wade is being threatened too severely, at least not at this point. What I don't understand is Paul's logic of "total freedom", while he wants to restrict this right from women.

I totally agree with you on the gay marriage issue, but in this day and age I have learned to accept that there will always be a good chunk of people who fear gay marriage so much that they will find a way to put stipulations on everything. As of now, we haven't changed the Constitution to state that marriage is "between a man and a woman", and the one thing I like about Paul is that he opposes this, but also wants to give each state the ability to decided whether or not they want to let gays marry. I don't think it is fair to "let the gays marry", but then only recognize it in a particular state.

Another point you made that I agree with is that government welfare has a lot of problems. I definitely see what you are saying, and am concerned and confused about where we should go next in order to fix the problem. I don't believe, though, that private charities can help all of the people who need it. Yes, there are lazy and 'good-for-nothing' people who get a free ride off of welfare. Of course there are. But to punish everyone on welfare for others' stupidity and idle behavior is not the answer. Our system is flawed, and I feel it is necessary to implement some change in it, maybe a few regulations or how about giving them the bare essentials instead of the beautiful government housing I see a few blocks from my neighborhood.. those houses are nicer than mine!

I believe that the liberals and conservatives need to work together to make this country the best it can be. The more I learn, the more I doubt that any real "radical" change is going to work in the long run. We need to ease into finding real solutions, and make changes that will last and aren't risking lives in the process.

 

he's a libertarian when it suits him and a republican when it suits him.

 

I guess you could say he is a Libertarian in that he is still a Lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and has even ran for President as a Libertarian. But he is not the closest thing to a libertarian running for President. There are many people running for the Libertarian Party candidate who are much more libertarian than Paul. They have run a candidate for President every election since creation of the party. The media just does not talk about them or let them, or any other third party, into the big debates.

Paul sees life as starting at conception. Since there is life, he also feels that it should be granted all the rights that everyone else has, the right to life and liberty. He sees abortion as aggression against that life and that that life should be protected against aggression.

Now personally I agree with him for the most part. I disagree with him in that the government should take any part in taking aggressive actions against a woman for making a choice that has to do with her body.

He has a good article on his view on this some where on the net.

The sad thing is, if gay marriage were allowed by the state today, would anyone even notice tomorrow? People are making a big deal about something that they would probably never even notice, except those that are gay and want to marry.

If the government is doing such a good job right now, why do we still have private charities? One of my biggest issues with government social/welfare programs is that they are not very effecient. A lot of the money is spent on the management of the program as opposed to actually going to help people. Private charities usually run at the worse at 80% to the cause, many at above 90%. But I also feel that people feel closer to the world and those around them when they directly contribute to those issues they care about. Just leaving it to the government lets people distance themself from these realities, and actually hurts society in the long run.

I agree and that is why I think Ron Paul would be a good President. He is a uniter, unlike the divider Bush. He has already attracted people from a wide range of areas with different beliefs. But he has atleast something that appeals to many different people and atleast seems to listen and care what others have to say.

 

Somebody inform me how Paul is anti-women. Aside from the whole abortion thing. And that fact that abortion still comes up as a major issue today baffles me. Abortion will never be illegal in my lifetime, and people need to move on and look at other issues.

When he says he wants to end the War on Drugs, that's all he wants to do: end the federal war on drugs. He will move the responsibilities of enforcement and regulation of the statuses of illegal/legal drugs back into the State's jurisdiction. And I don't think many states will be legalizing Herion in 2008!

 

Legal or illegal, how difficult is it to get herion or any other drug now? If your kid wanted to try any illegal drug, would you rather deal with them and the situation yourself or would you rather have them have to deal with going through the legal system and be punished by them for consuming a substance?

 

You guys are all missing the most important point...

Regardless of what Paul's personal views on abortion are, he's not trying to infringe on anyone's rights.

He DOES NOT want the legality of abortion to be determined federally (as in, it's either legal in all 50 states or banned in all 50 states).

He wants to leave it up to each individual state to decide whether or not to keep it legal. That to me seems oh, I don't know...constitutional?

 

Ron Paul is a gimmick. He attracts all the anarchist kids and "libertarian" rebels with his "alternative" views, while still holding onto the conservative views that will get him in office. It'll be interesting to see his true colors if he's elected, which I doubt will happen...

 

Because obviously alternative views outside the establishment of the party are just plain stupid and a waste of a vote. But the fact is libertarian and what's considered conservative in the United States are often shared values from both sides. I don't see what's so gimmick about him, he's the only person running aside from maybe Kucinch who has the voting record to back up what he says.

 

i agree completely. people with anarchistic leanings but little knowledge of history think he's their candidate because he promises less government. but he won't deliver. he's going for less government interference in the business of the wealthy and privileged. he's nothing new. he's a blast from the past that carries a distinct stench with it.

 

And I suppose you think government interference in general is a good thing?

 

i think it's a little bit late for total anarchy when you have 300 million people in the country and rapidly disappearing resources to support them all. if you don't want a ravaged country torn apart by violence, disease and dispair, you need some kind of social organization that makes sense.

 

less FEDERAL government interference. STATES RIGHTS!!!! Learning a little about the history of federalism would do you some good. Anarchy is getting rid of all the government. Ron Paul advocates devolution. This means more local control of local problems, instead of big federal government passing sweeping decrees. Goddamn, this is easy to understand, come on people.

 

I know, right?

 

Exactly; agreed. These days its sold as "cool" to be an anarchist by MTV and Hot Topic.... and everyone is oh-so willing to vote for him because he's "alternative" and "non conformist"... when in reality its a lot of bs and they will soon see just what his views are if he's elected...
As for IF he's elected... I'm half and half. Part of me thinks he has no way, but at the same time he's so popular... meh, only time shall tell

 

agreed. If we went to "anarchy" now, it would be death and destruction. People these days, while generally good, can also be quite selfish and rude and violent. Just be in busy traffic on friday around 5PM. Or at Walmart 5AM when a game system is released. In the end, people will all too often turn to their own animal instincts for survival. Anarchy is a nice idea, and perhaps if it were only partial it might work, but the idea in general isn't bad, just wouldn't work yet. Not until people start growing up and maturing and actually caring for one another more. And to those of you who say we are at that time, I say not until there is no such thing as war or hunger or violence. Perhaps when the Age of Aquarius fully comes into play... I think around 2500? It sucks that I won't be around to see it.

 

There are 300 million people in the U.S., not 300 thousand.