Much as the other republicans would like to paint him as a libertarian, he's a registered republican. Own up to it republicans. He's part of your party.
im all about Ron Paul right now. hes the the right man to adjust everything wrong in government back to a legitimate level of respectability.
I just cant stand that people dont want to vote because he is in a different party. Its like if I won the lottery bought a car I always wanted but then threw it away because It was the wrong color.
well then what can you do. if we are all really that fucked not to vote for someone who looks at the bigger picture and can make things right, then maybe this country needs to go to shit, so we can rebuild it back up to make it better.
I'm not a fan. His stance on women choice is weak, he has showed no support for stem cell research, and I disagree with him on immagration as well. He voted for banning gay adoption. (My sister is a lesbian who may adopt with her wife within the next few years) He wants a constitutional amendment for school prayer... I think there were a few other positions I disagreed with.
yeah, i disagree with what HE believes about gay rights and abortion and all that hoo-haa. but he's brilliant enough to make it OUR choice whether or not its legalized or not. and he's all about states rights. so if you dont like the laws about abortion or whatever your into, you can run off to a whole different land of people who agree with you. he want to make it our choice, not his.
That favors people who have the financial means to move to another state on a whim of a policy change. That's not in the cards for many. And it wouldn't be about our choice or his anyway, presidents just have crude persuasive power in getting legislation past. The strongest power of a president is likely electing supreme court justices (and other powerful office holders), and he would elect supreme court justices in his political court. They would likely support many policy's I would disagree with. Ron Paul is not an ideal candidate for someone of my political leanings.
While I respect your concerns, they are weak as compared to the issues of the gold standard vs. fiat currency (see the "federal reserve," "inflation," and also "slavery" - all three mean the same thing); income tax, (read: slavery), privacy, liberty, (btw, liberty includes the right to marry and/or adopt whoever the fuck you want as long as you aren't imposing on another), and constitutional rights. Actually, your concerns are completely unfounded as he leaves those subjects up to the individual states, as the Constitution commands. Think again, and think some more. Respect.
I'm very undecided by this point. Likely I agree with Dennis Kucinich on more issues than any of the other major canidates. Although I am very much opposed to his positions on gun control, on free trade, and find his positions on GMO's to be a little concerning. I don't really have an ideal canidate in mind. I hope by early 2008 someone can change my mind. Honestly I doubt it.
I find a gold standard to be an archaic trade system, I support an income tax, and I don't feel a canidate who votes against gay adoption would be a canidate who would necessarily favors adopting ''who the fuck you want''. As I mentioned, moving from state to state only favors the affluent, and the fact that he has voted for banning gay adoption in the District of Columbia in 1999 indicates that he doesn't consider such issues to be entirely up to the state.
Fair enough on that. OnTheIssues said 'voted for banning gay adoption in DC.' While it is a consistent libertarian position, it was also proposed by people who's interest in the issue was prejudice, not spending theory. So is his moral position of how money should be spent, helped the lynching mentality of this legislation. I still think it isn't endearing for his voting record, and in my view, shows perhaps a black and white perspective on issues like this.
so you would hang someone for one vote they made almost 9 years ago? what about all of his awesome votes, and ideas.. I dont know, maybe youre just closed-minded. I heard a lot about him when Aaron Russo mentioned him(who i just found out passed away...a tragedy) and then forgot about him, even seeing his canvassers(ron paul revolution) in a local town I kind of brushed it off...but after being kinda diehard democrat just because i hated bush, i realized, hey wait... i did like this guy ron paul back a couple years ago...and once i watched some more videos and heard him speak hes the only person(excluding dennis) who knows or cares what theyre talking about... hes not a sleazy politician and even though i used to love kucinich and would like to say he'd be great for our country, i dont think he'd ever get elected, and i dont know that he would do a good job..hes got the ideas, but not the experience.... Ron Paul has both, i dunno, maybe im just riding the wave of recent passion that I received after watching some videos... regardless, I'd give him a chance... he's a hell of a lot better than the current president..and a helluva lot better than anyone else that ive seen stand on that stage.. so hell yes, im supporting him! much lovin'light
I have a problem with his being extremely pro-life. Im a pro-choicer, always have been, and I think its a womans right to choose. Im not trying to get on an abortion topic...what im trying to say is i love half the things he talks about, and at the same time, the other half i am opposed to. Im on the fence with this guy....a Republican from Texas.....again?? And he does lean a bit too much to the libertarian side for my taste.
No, I'm saying he's not my ideal canidate because philosophy on the role of government completly contradicts my own. Calling that close minded is unnecessarily hostile. Love'N'Light.
While Ron Paul is very pro-life, he doesn't belive the federal government should have any say in abortion at all and it should be state issue.
Ron Paul supporters at DC Peace march. http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/09/16/ron-paul-supporters-at-dc-antiwar-protest/
