Who is Ron Paul?

[Spiker]

I have been seeing his signs all over San Diego as a drive to work, then in TF2 last night, and then he was one of the matches for me in the candidate finding tool Timey posted.

Anyway, I spent some time on his websites yesterday, after his supporters raised a record $6 million in one day. I am not usually too interested in politcal debate, but I realized I needed to be informed.

http://www.teaparty07.com/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
http://youtube.com/user/RonPaul2008dotcom

[Diraker]

I do not support Ron Paul's opinions about religion and christianity in the US. Here's an article written by Ron Paul on this topic.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Although I would guess that you (Spiker) do. To me his history is wrong, his opinions on the "secular Left" are wrong, and his interpretation of the Constitution is wrong.

Ron Paul also was on the Daily Show at least once and he was talking about some things that seemed really odd. Like radical changes. I will try and find a clip tomorrow.

I am also not anti-war so where other liberals might find his opinions about Iraq worth supporting, I do not. To me the most important issue for this election are judicial nominees. From what I've read about Ron Paul I can not be assured he will appoint/nominate judges that I would like. Judges that respect our secular Constitution.

With that said, IMO, of the republicans Ron Paul isn't as bad as the others. He's not a neo-con and he's not part of the religious right (again this is a political term, not an disparaging term).

By all means though, learn about his stances, his issues, and vote in the primaries for him. I admire anyone who lacks apathy regarding politics.

eta: before I leave for the night I do want to say that there are some issues that I absolutely agree with Ron Paul on. Mainly regarding civil liberties and the extent of government power.

RL calls

[Cinnabar]

http://www.mikegravelismyhomeboy.com/images/mikegravelhomeboy.gif

[Spiker]

Dirakar,

Thanks for the link, I had not read that opinion by Ron Paul but it is actually in line in my opinion with the Constitution, and less governmental control over our lives, therefore more personal freedom / responsibility. So I was pleasently suprised.

Ron Paul is self described as a staunch supporter of the constitution, and to that end I don't think he means to impede our first ammentdment freedoms, whether they be to worship, or to choose not to.


The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.

I think Ron Paul's views on freedom, peace, reduced government, and defending the constitution are refreshing.


Congressman Ron Paul is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the “one exception to the Gang of 535” on Capitol Hill.

[Ablate]

i could forgive the god fanboy-ness for his other policies.

[Vaildez]

The fact is.. He still has a pornstar name.

[Mourne]

Ron Paul has my vote so far. We'll see how things go from here.

[Silver]

I am voting for Ron Paul and in my professional opinion his interpretation of the Constituion, in most cases, is spot on.

As for his stance on religion...

He supports State's right and if the people of a praticular State want to outlaw abortion he supports that State's right to do so. As much as I am for freedom of choice, he is 100% correct... there is NOTHING in the Constitution that allows for abortion, and Roe v. Wade as much as I support it, was a terrible decision from a Constitutional persepctive.

[Aradorn]

i want a president who supports the fair tax =\

[Soulein]

I'm not a fan of Ron Paul's foreign policy, and some of his ideas are simply outdated. His attitude on the economy and the role of government is right on in my opinion, however his non-interventionist ideas kill the whole deal for me.

The vast majority of his support comes from the internet, though the amount of money he has been able to raise is encouraging. The man is a hit with the kids, especially political independents/libertarians. His chances for winning are slim, I think. But his affect on the Republican Party could be rather positive for economic and social conservatives. Overall, I would say he is the "Darkfall Online" of candidates... he sounds good conceptually, but a Paul administration isn't going to happen.

[waar]

Ron Paul seems cool at first but stupid shit like believing in the gold standard and this quote:

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility.

make it really hard for me to like him.

[Ablate]

Yea, the gold standard is a crazy thing to support :icon_roll

[Konrad]

I am in full agreement with his views on constitutional integrity and many domestic policy issues...however his Jeffersonian views on foreign policy are ridiculously naive and if you dig further you will find he has some pretty batshit ideas i.e. conspiracy theories.

[waar]

He supports State's right and if the people of a praticular State want to outlaw abortion he supports that State's right to do so.

Personally I think "leave it up to the state" is just a cop-out for not wanting to form a real opinion, but that's just me. :P

[Mutt]

lol thats a pretty bunk quote

[Diraker]

I don't want to hijack this thread but I think (and this is in response to Spiker) that in his religion opinion article Ron Paul fails to point out what he means by "public displays of religion". When secularist like myself talk about "public displays" we are distinguishing displays by the government from displays put up by people. The distinction of "public" is just like how we distinguish public schools from private schools. Publics schools are run by the government. Private schools are run by people.

So where the People are afforded freedom to exercise their religion the government is not. That is the whole point of the Bill of Rights, to LIMIT what the government can do. So when secularists say that we want to remove religion from public displays we are talking about government agencies NOT individuals. People can still express their religion in public as much as they want and the government can't (because of the free exercise clause) stop them.

Anyway Ron Paul misses this entirely. So to me, his claims about supporting the Constitution are hollow.

eta: Ron Paul on the daily show (not sure if the link will work but i found it on comedy central's web site)

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=87974&title=rep.-ron-paul

and on colbert

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=88505&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=%2Fmotherload%2Findex.jhtml%3Fml_vid eo%3D88505&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true

eta2: abridged version...Ron Paul equivocates (the word "public") to create a strawman of the intentions and motivations of the secular left. The equivocating also creates a misrepresentation of the results of actions taken by the secular left. i.e. the People's freedom to exercise religion is still intact

[Cydus]

I'll be voting Ron Paul. I watched his first debate and was hooked.

[Oakbone]

He was/is an OBGYN, I could never vote for someone who has been around that much Clam. It might affect his judgment :P

[Silver]

I could never vote for someone who has been around that much Clam. It might affect his judgment :P

i.e., William Jefferson Clinton.

[Diraker]

I am voting for Ron Paul and in my professional opinion his interpretation of the Constituion, in most cases, is spot on.

As for his stance on religion...

He supports State's right and if the people of a praticular State want to outlaw abortion he supports that State's right to do so. As much as I am for freedom of choice, he is 100% correct... there is NOTHING in the Constitution that allows for abortion, and Roe v. Wade as much as I support it, was a terrible decision from a Constitutional persepctive.

The fourteenth amendment gives "equal protection under the law" to "all persons born" under the constitution. And, as you know, the Constitution is what the supreme says it is. This is why judicial nominees/appointees are so important.

eta: didn't mention a right to privacy (at least limited privacy), termed in the majority's opinion "a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy"; as in what happens inside one's uterus

one can read the judges opinions here

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

eta: sorry about all the edits...RL is busy over here...anyway I should say that I am personally against abortions but I am pro-choice. Me, I just choose not to have one or encourage others to have them. I sort of like the slogan, "pro-child" "pro-choice".

[Forecast]

I had no idea that such a man exists. Thank you for your posts, guys! (I don't have TV access so I'm a little behind in my politics).

And btw, Roe v. Wade is an awful decision. Abortion rules should be left up to the states #1. And #2 states should be cautious of criminal and civil matters regarding unborn children and the rights of a father. It seems everyone is always overlooking those issues and concentrating on the classic "IT'S MY RIGHT I'M A WOMAN YARRRRRRRRRR" argument.

[Spiker]

The First amendment (or any other constitutional provision) must be strictly construed to reflect the intent of the Founding Fathers. The language is clear- Congress simply is prohibited from passing laws establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. There certainly is no mention of any "separation of church and state", although Supreme Court jurisprudence over the decades constantly asserts this mystical doctrine. Sadly, the application of this faulty doctrine by judges and lawmakers consistently results in violations of the free exercise clause. Rulings and laws separating citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings simply restrict religious practices. Our Founders clearly never intended an America where citizens nonsensically are forced to disregard their deeply held beliefs in public life. The religious freedom required by the Constitution should not end the moment one enters a school, courtroom, or city hall.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/239/religious-liberty-thwarted-by-the-supreme-court/

Dirakar, I am not sure I see Ron Paul talking about the 'public' that your reference but my understanding of his opinion, when he talks about the public, I thought he meant the rights of private citizens. When he speaks of the government, I believe he speaks of those who act in an official capacity as part of the government. In fact I find that his opinion and yours appear to be in agreement, in that the constitution limits the government, but not the freedom of the people (public), private citizen.


So where the People are afforded freedom to exercise their religion the government is not. That is the whole point of the Bill of Rights, to LIMIT what the government can do. So when secularists say that we want to remove religion from public displays we are talking about government agencies NOT individuals. People can still express their religion in public as much as they want and the government can't (because of the free exercise clause) stop them.

Anyway Ron Paul misses this entirely. So to me, his claims about supporting the Constitution are hollow.


eta2: abridged version...Ron Paul equivocates (the word "public") to create a strawman of the intentions and motivations of the secular left. The equivocating also creates a misrepresentation of the results of actions taken by the secular left. i.e. the People's freedom to exercise religion is still intact

[Spiker]

Which part doesn't make sense? Clearly the constitution doesn't set up a government with the role of being the moral compass, nor the educator of our children / us in morals. It sets up a government to protect the people from corruption of power (itself), and from external forces (governments). And from other citizens who might harm the citizens.

It is not the original duty of the government to educate or set morals, it is my responsibility for my own family. I don't want a government that takes this freedom and responsibility from me. You can choose your church or lack thereof, but you cannot choose your government, which means group think begins to win in regards to morality. So no I don't want the government in the business of morals.

Ron Paul seems cool at first but stupid shit like believing in the gold standard and this quote:

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility.

make it really hard for me to like him.

[Diraker]

Right but when us "secular Left" speak of "public" it's referring to the government. As in public schools, not in public view. So when he says that the secular left wants to get rid of public religion he's suggesting that we want to restrict People's (capital P) religious expression. This is false. For example, students can pray in school, there just can't be school lead prayer. Once you represent the government (ex: public school teacher) you are not allowed to use the the machinery of the state (ex: the school) to express your religious views. The difference is huge and Ron Paul fails to recognize this.

It's also worth noting that Ron Paul leaves out the word "respecting an establishment of religion". This is misleading because it's an important word. In this context it means, 'even making the appearance of'.

And also the first amendment is based on Jefferson's Virgina Statute for Religious Freedom. Ironically baptists of the time were insisting on a separation of church and state (because they were at odds with catholics) and in Jefferson's famous letter to the Danbury Baptists he says that the first amendment is a wall of separation.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

bold by me

Now Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was being written up, hashed out and voted on. But James Madison, also known as The Father of the Constitution several times mention a wall of separation. So where Ron Paul talks about the 'intent of the founding fathers' he is talking BS.

Also since then the supreme court has used the term "separation of church and state" many times. Where Ron Paul says "decades" he should have said "century".

Wow this is getting too long. I have RL to take care of. Bottom line is that at least in that article I linked, Ron Paul demonstrates poor knowledge of history and misrepresents the intentions of (hmm let's say) proponents of the establishment clause.

And again I don't want to derail the thread. I am talking about things Ron Paul has written. Things that to me, disqualify him from my considerations for president.

[Cydus]

I'm not pretending to know a lot about politics, I don't. I do however think I am a good judge of character. In this day and age I feel the presidential position in itself impacts far less that it used to. It is mostly a figurehead position, and I feel that I should vote for the person with the best character, that will project the country in the best way possible to other nations and to ourselves. I feel Mr. Paul presents a wonderful opportunity to backtrack a little from the beurocratic politicking that is so prevalent nowadays.

[Mourne]

Speaking of candidates...

Did anyone see the Huckabee Christmas commercial with the glowing "cross" subliminaly placed in the window? It's just the cross sections of the window pane, but they're glowing and strategically placed lol. Pretty pathetic to me.

[Diraker]

Yeah I saw the pundits talking about it. Here's a clip for those who might have missed it.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/19/donny-deutsch-is-frightened-by-huckabees-floating-cross-ad/

For me, being overtly religious is unseemly.

[Aradorn]

wheres my fair tax candidate =\

[Riley]

Oh no! I just looked at all my cabinets and shelves and they are vertical and horizontal too!

[Mutt]

Oh no! I just looked at all my cabinets and shelves and they are vertical and horizontal too!lol

[Mourne]

Oh no! I just looked at all my cabinets and shelves and they are vertical and horizontal too!

Are they glowing and behind your head right now? zomg!

[Diraker]

yeah because it was unintentional; those politicians would never do something like that

/eyeroll

[Diraker]

I can't let comments like this go uncommented on.

Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, ...

Ron Paul claims to be a constitutionalist but apparently he has never read the constitution. There are exactly zero references to god in it. Also the declaration of independence only mentions a "creator" "nature's god" and "providence", deistic concepts of god. "Replete" my ass.

Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

In as much as the first amendment protects government from religion it protects religion from government. If christmas becomes a casualty it's because government got their hands on it when they made it a federal holiday. This is what happens to religion when it's mixed with government. As a supposed proponent for small government why does he support governments officially establishing religious holidays?

[Diraker]

alright alright another post...

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/12/when_fascism_co.html

Here is Ron Paul commenting on Huckabee's cross ad. Note how I take the two central themes of tis tread and tie them together? I'm so good...nah it's just coincidence.

eta: and Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q