The Pros and Cons of Ron Paul

mimo2005 · 07-10-2007, 01:14 PM

The Pros and Cons of Ron Paul:

Pro: Against the war in Iraq & for personal liberties.
Con: Everything else

http://www.thepresidentialcandidates...-ron-paul.html

**40sondacurb** · 07-10-2007, 01:47 PM

I can't understand people's loyalty to this guy. There are more Libertarians out there with better more sensible views on things.

**Drew1369** · 07-10-2007, 03:40 PM

link don't work...

I would rather have Huckabee... but thats just me...

Anyone who wants to get rid of the IRS and drop the income tax has my vote!

RedScott · 07-10-2007, 03:57 PM

Quote:

CON: Health Care

Ron Paul is NOT for universal health care. As a Libertarian he would never support the government's involvement in health care. This is unfortunate because it's clear to me that something as basic as health care should be the realm of the government just as firemen and policemen are. Would we want a private company policing our streets? no of course not. So why do we place something as basic and important as our health in the hands of businessmen who have nothing but their profits in mind?

Ah, so this is written by a socialist. Well obviously a person who thinks that the government should own all the means of production is not going to agree with Ron Paul or most individualists on anything.

Out of curiousity though, if the profit motive is so evil, and we can't leave the important things in life to average people to provide and instead need the enlightened politicians to pay for everything, why shouldn't food and shelter be free as well? Clearly those things are much more necessary to life than "healthcare", which in and of it's self is such a vague word that it can mean anything from toothpaste to gastric bypass surgery.

Quote:

CON: Abortion

Ron Paul does not support the right of women to make their own choice about whether or not to have an abortion. He believes each state should have the ability to make their own law regarding abortion. If the states were to make their own abortion laws this would inevitable lead to most southern states making abortion illegal. This would bring us back to the dark ages before Roe. Why should a woman have the freedom of choice in New York but not in Georgia? All women in America deserve the right to make their own choices about their bodies.

Ah, so it's written by a federalist as well. Well again, not much a person who thinks one government is all we really need is going to agree with Dr. Paul on.

Ron Paul isn't running for the president of the "southern states", he's running for the president of the United States. As such, his stance on abortion is somewhat irrelevant as the supreme court decided sometime ago to forgo the constitution and put abortion under the jurisdiction of the Federal government. Since Ron Paul actually believes and abides by the constitution he wouldn't act with dictatorial power and ban abortions or even over turn Supreme Court decisions.

Quote:

CON: Education

Paul believes that the US Department of Education should be abolished. He thinks that all education decisions should be left up to the states, local governments, and personal decision. While this may seem like a reasonable position, in reality it will stretch the divide between the rich and the poor even further.

Every child in America should have the right to a good education. I believe education should become more federalized not less so. Why? Because right now children in rich districts (those with rich families) get a good education while those in poor districts (those with poor families) get a poor education. There must be more equality of opportunity in this country. All children whether poor or rich deserve a quality education. This is not only a matter of fairness to all Americans but a matter of national prosperity.

Um, yeah, because the Federal Governments done so well with improving schools in America. What a ridiculous and stupid stance. I mean is this what we really want? One national curriculum? One national standard? We honestly think people in Washington should have the final say on what our children learn and who teaches them?

Quote:

CON: Environment/Climate Change

Libertarians such as Ron Paul believe in a free market to the highest degree. This means little if any governmental oversight. This means that big businesses would have even more power if Ron Paul had his way. Big business must have governmental oversight or they will absolutely trash our environment. With global warming a scientific fact this is an extremely important point.

More socialist rhetoric here. Business men bad, politicians good, etc. etc. I suppose the author of this list, who earlier counted Paul's stance a personal liberties a GOOD thing, is eagerly waiting for a politician to declare the start of our War on Climate Change so we can quickly enact those carbon taxes on the poor and billions, if not trillions of the poor and middle class's tax dollars wasted on failed ventures in sustainable energy that could have been paid for by greedy rich capitalists looking to make a buck in the new expanding green industry.

Quote:

CON: He's against the United Nations.

While I agree with his non interventionist policy militarily the last thing America needs is to make more enemies internationally. The United Nations has done a lot of good for the world and we should be a positive part of that. Ron Paul wants America to pull out of the UN.

Wait, being against the United Nation is a con?

Ha. Ha ha ha ha.

HA!

ETA:

Quote:

I can't understand people's loyalty to this guy. There are more Libertarians out there with better more sensible views on things.

Out there? Yeah.

In the national debates? No.

**40sondacurb** · 07-10-2007, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedScott

Ah, so it's written by a federalist as well. Well again, not much a person who thinks one government is all we really need is going to agree with Dr. Paul on.

Good to know Paully is bringing us back to the politics of the 1700s; I shall have to find some works of Jay, Madison, and Hamilton in order to thwart ye darn Jeffersonian anti-federalist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedScott

Um, yeah, because the Federal Governments done so well with improving schools in America. What a ridiculous and stupid stance. I mean is this what we really want? One national curriculum? One national standard? We honestly think people in Washington should have the final say on what our children learn and who teaches them?

If that wasn't the case a good portion of this country would think the earth is only 6,000 years old and formed in a matter of days. And you know the whole house divided speech I assume, well that bodes especially true when they start teaching that Y is not a vowel in Tulsa and 3 is an abbreviation for E in San Jose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedScott

Out there? Yeah.

In the national debates? No.

touche

mimo2005 · 07-10-2007, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drew1369

link don't work...

Hi drew

Link is still working at this time .

RedScott · 07-10-2007, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Good to know Paully is bringing us back to the politics of the 1700s; I shall have to find some works of Jay, Madison, and Hamilton in order to thwart ye darn Jeffersonian anti-federalist.

meh. State's sovereignty is still a viable issue. I hope. I really really hope. Putting all our eggs in the Federal government's proverbial basket doesn't work so well as evidence in New Orleans a few years ago.

Quote:

If that wasn't the case a good portion of this country would think the earth is only 6,000 years old and formed in a matter of days. And you know the whole house divided speech I assume, well that bodes especially true when they start teaching that Y is not a vowel in Tulsa and 3 is an abbreviation for E in San Jose.

Well Y is only sometimes a vowel actually, and I'll take my chances with the science stuff rather than turn the entire education system over to Dubya, thanks. If the Federal government picks the curriculum there more likely to teach how great all their wars have been than whatever religious fears you have anyway. I mean they're probably still teaching how cool the US's entry into WWI was in San Jose and Tulsa.

**40sondacurb** · 07-10-2007, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedScott

Well Y is only sometimes a vowel actually

No, get out! Hey ma! this durnd son-of-a-gun try n' learned me up.

**Drew1369** · 07-10-2007, 05:53 PM

Now that its working I see that the guy who wrote this blog is far from biased... I agree with everything Paul is for... but to each there own... and I still perfer huckabee

**DumberDrummer** · 07-12-2007, 05:14 AM

I have to say most of those "cons" sound like the return to power of the states that I'd like to see.

bry623 · 07-12-2007, 05:24 AM

More power to the states failed. Proven from 1776-1789 (Articles of Confederation) and again from 1861-1865.

yustr · 07-12-2007, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bry623

More power to the states failed. Proven from 1776-1789 (Articles of Confederation) and again from 1861-1865.

Quote:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

bry623 · 07-12-2007, 09:11 AM

Which proves my point further. When left to their own devices, the states usually mess it up. Let the Feds handle the big things and the states handle the small things.

RedScott · 07-12-2007, 11:18 AM

How does the constitution prove your point? It doesn't prove your point at all. In fact it states that your point is unconstitutional. So what is your point?

How did the Federal Government do with Katrina?
How did it do with Iraq?
How's it going with Social Security?
Any one ever have any fun dealing with the IRS?
What about the magnificent War on Drugs?

The States didn't give up their sovereignty in ratifying the constitution. Read some history, start with the Federalist papers.

As for the Civil War, that doesn't at all prove that the States can't handle their own issues. In fact they DID handle their own issue when the southern States seceded. It was the Federal government that felt the need to kill 600,000 of our own people in order to retain it's power.

State rights are the way to go for more freedom, more liberty, and less obtrusive government. Why the hell should some greasy bottom feeding politician in Washington D.C. decide for a family in Oregon what they teach their kids? Who they marry? What they put in their body?

Furthermore, concentrated power is what leads to disasters like National Socialism in Germany, Fascism in Italy, and Communism in the Soviet Union, and ultimately the fiasco we have in Washington now when our own Federal Government is stronger than it's ever been. The fewer people making the decisions for the majority, the more corrupt your leadership is. Checks and balances and the decentralization of power is what made our country great at one time.

**Drew1369** · 07-12-2007, 11:47 AM

The states need their power back... it has been eaten away by both repubs and demo's.

Abortion isn't a big issue... why shouldn't the states handle it?

**Spatcher** · 07-12-2007, 04:22 PM

I agree about Huckabee, he's my man although I seriously doubt he'll get the vote......

Wow, I don't like this guy.

07-10-2007, 01:14 PM	#1 (permalink)
mimo2005 Manager, The Relaxation Room/Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 10,620 OS: xp	The Pros and Cons of Ron Paul The Pros and Cons of Ron Paul: Pro: Against the war in Iraq & for personal liberties. Con: Everything else http://www.thepresidentialcandidates...-ron-paul.html __________________ TSF has outgrown its server, again. Please help "Gutta cavat lapidem, non vi sed saepe cadendo"

07-10-2007, 01:47 PM	#2 (permalink)
40sondacurb #64 & #36 BACKBONE Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,722 OS: xp	Re: The Pros and Cons of Ron Paul I can't understand people's loyalty to this guy. There are more Libertarians out there with better more sensible views on things. __________________ Donate to keep the forum running "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully" -George W. Bush

07-10-2007, 03:40 PM	#3 (permalink)
Drew1369 TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Seattle, WA, USA Posts: 2,220 OS: Vista Business	Re: The Pros and Cons of Ron Paul link don't work... I would rather have Huckabee... but thats just me... Anyone who wants to get rid of the IRS and drop the income tax has my vote! __________________ Marge: We wouldn't be in this trouble if you'd just paid the heating bill! Homer: I thought global warming would take care of it! Al Gore can't do anything right!

07-10-2007, 05:53 PM	#9 (permalink)
Drew1369 TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Seattle, WA, USA Posts: 2,220 OS: Vista Business	Re: The Pros and Cons of Ron Paul Now that its working I see that the guy who wrote this blog is far from biased... I agree with everything Paul is for... but to each there own... and I still perfer huckabee __________________ Marge: We wouldn't be in this trouble if you'd just paid the heating bill! Homer: I thought global warming would take care of it! Al Gore can't do anything right! Last edited by Drew1369 : 07-10-2007 at 05:54 PM.

07-12-2007, 05:14 AM	#10 (permalink)
DumberDrummer Cymru am byth Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Oregon Posts: 5,364 OS: Windows XP Pro SP2 My System	Re: The Pros and Cons of Ron Paul I have to say most of those "cons" sound like the return to power of the states that I'd like to see. __________________ Living with Louie dog's the only way to stay sane _____________________________________________ ... and with those words so begins my lifetime of longing for the devil's warm embrace

07-12-2007, 05:24 AM	#11 (permalink)
bry623 Manager, The Conversation Pit/Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: NW Territory circa 1787 Posts: 10,464 OS: winxp pro sp2	Re: The Pros and Cons of Ron Paul More power to the states failed. Proven from 1776-1789 (Articles of Confederation) and again from 1861-1865. __________________ Scarlet and Gray in L.A. 9/13/08

07-12-2007, 09:11 AM	#13 (permalink)
bry623 Manager, The Conversation Pit/Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: NW Territory circa 1787 Posts: 10,464 OS: winxp pro sp2	Re: The Pros and Cons of Ron Paul Which proves my point further. When left to their own devices, the states usually mess it up. Let the Feds handle the big things and the states handle the small things. __________________ Scarlet and Gray in L.A. 9/13/08

07-12-2007, 11:18 AM	#14 (permalink)
RedScott Registered User Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 285 OS: Windows XP	Re: The Pros and Cons of Ron Paul How does the constitution prove your point? It doesn't prove your point at all. In fact it states that your point is unconstitutional. So what is your point? How did the Federal Government do with Katrina? How did it do with Iraq? How's it going with Social Security? Any one ever have any fun dealing with the IRS? What about the magnificent War on Drugs? The States didn't give up their sovereignty in ratifying the constitution. Read some history, start with the Federalist papers. As for the Civil War, that doesn't at all prove that the States can't handle their own issues. In fact they DID handle their own issue when the southern States seceded. It was the Federal government that felt the need to kill 600,000 of our own people in order to retain it's power. State rights are the way to go for more freedom, more liberty, and less obtrusive government. Why the hell should some greasy bottom feeding politician in Washington D.C. decide for a family in Oregon what they teach their kids? Who they marry? What they put in their body? Furthermore, concentrated power is what leads to disasters like National Socialism in Germany, Fascism in Italy, and Communism in the Soviet Union, and ultimately the fiasco we have in Washington now when our own Federal Government is stronger than it's ever been. The fewer people making the decisions for the majority, the more corrupt your leadership is. Checks and balances and the decentralization of power is what made our country great at one time.

07-12-2007, 11:47 AM	#15 (permalink)
Drew1369 TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Seattle, WA, USA Posts: 2,220 OS: Vista Business	Re: The Pros and Cons of Ron Paul The states need their power back... it has been eaten away by both repubs and demo's. Abortion isn't a big issue... why shouldn't the states handle it? __________________ Marge: We wouldn't be in this trouble if you'd just paid the heating bill! Homer: I thought global warming would take care of it! Al Gore can't do anything right!

07-12-2007, 04:22 PM	#16 (permalink)
Spatcher Henry Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,468 OS: XP Home SP2 My System	Re: The Pros and Cons of Ron Paul I agree about Huckabee, he's my man although I seriously doubt he'll get the vote...... Wow, I don't like this guy. __________________ JohnThePilot: Cenedl heb iaith, cenedl heb galon (a nation without a language is a nation without a heart) John Butler Trio: Go take a step outside, see what's shakin' in the real world - Good Excuse Paul Kelly: Just add a dollop of tomato sauce for sweetness and that extra tang - How to Make Gravy