Ron Paul’s Statement of Faith

I’d like to suggest looking more into Ron Paul’s policy ideas before calling him the “sanest” candidate.  He and his followers are good at projecting an aura of pragmatism,  but a closer look at his policies (the gold standard, religion, women’s issues, race, gay marriage) he’s as off-the-wall as the rest of them.

Does the cult surrounding *him* count as a religion?

Ron Paul thinks taxes are theft.  That is not sane, IMO.

Don’t worry about Ron Paul, the problem with Ron Paul is, he’s Ron Paul. He’s never going to get the GOP nomination and if he runs as a 3rd party candidate, he’s only going to likely hurt the GOP candidate.

Google “Ron Paul” “Christmas in secular America” or the “war on religion”. Then, look at the fact that one of his major issues is the gold standard. He wants to limit the Federal Reserve massively, though he has said he would not necessarily get rid of it. He wants to not have the government involved in disaster relief. He would eliminate the Department of Education. He would not raise taxes (which, while I am not certain if he has said it explicitly, would mean not having corporations pay more). He wants to end affirmative action. While I realize many people on this forum may be in sympathy with or all of those things, I find him a scary politician.

^^^From wikipedia

I’m pro Ron Paul and an atheist. I see nothing wrong with limiting the government and putting more focus on individual liberties. I am also 99% sure that Ron Paul will not let his religion influence what he does in the white house, apart from the abortion thing which still isn’t bad because all he wants is the states to decide for THEMSELVES whether or not abortion should be legal. You can’t have everything you want in a politician, but Ron Paul sure is close.

Or, that they might think that fetuses=babies. I worry about that sometimes. 

He wants to end eminent domain in general, though, not specifically from churches. Far be it from me to defend him, but he at least in theory wants it to apply beyond churches 🙂

He doesn’t want to just not raise taxes, he wants a 0% income tax for everyone. It’s kind of scary.

Better the states to decide than women, I suppose.

I sure hope states don’t decide to OK child labor, indentured servitude, state religions….you know….like before federal laws ended it.

Which states will go back to outlawing inter-racial marriage?  It would be harder to do now, but I bet a few would never have ended it without the intervention of the Federal Government.

That is actually bad.  States themselves should not be deciding on my right to choose what happens to my own body.

There’s also the fact that he wants education to be entirely privatized. (If you don’t have money, you don’t get an education.)

Don’t confuse the Defense of Marriage Act with the Federal Marriage Amendment. The latter, which was a proposed amendment to the Constitution, would have limited marriage in the U.S to unions of one man and one woman, Ron Paul voted against.Meanwhile, DOMA allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries and prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. His opposition lies NOT within defining marriage as a union strictly between a man and woman, but rather not defining marriage on a federal level whatsoever. In other words, Paul is in opposition to the federal government playing a role, in this case defining marriage (no matter the definition). Again, he wants to leave it to the states and has no desire to have sway over which way they should vote.

“not allow millions of innocent children to continue to be slaughtered with the government’s approval.”

Oh please.  Reason enough not to vote for this guy. 

Ron Paul is an authoritarian statist, just as much as many other candidates. He just hates it when it’s at the federal level. He wants it at the state level, so each state can control your life. 

He doesn’t support legalizing marijuana, he supports ending a national drug war on it. States can still make it illegal. Same goes for pretty much every other issue. He simply does not care if the state tramples on your freedoms, because hey, if you live there it must be your fault and you can move to another state if you want.

Oh, he’s also a huge supporter of genuine capitalism, where the government doesn’t help or hinder businesses. Because that worked in the late 1800s in the US.

He denies science, he’s anti-choice, and he doesn’t like when you have freedoms. He won’t get my vote.

Ron Pauls logic: as long as its not the Fed controlling your life, just the states then its ok.

“It may be acceptable to believe in the Invisible Hand, but we have to question candidates’ ability to think clearly when they believe in an Invisible Man.”
I’m gonna be honest, I’d rather have a religious leftist in office than a hawkishly pro-market atheist.

I know Ron Paul has a large following on websites like Stormfront and any person those people support, automatically gets a thumbs down from me. 

“If you don’t want to pay taxes move.”

Where? Is there somewhere that doesn’t have taxes?

People misunderstand Ron Paul all the time. When he says the federal government shouldn’t make decision on same sex marriage, he doesn’t  mean it should be legal. He means states can decide to discriminate at their own volition. He’s also against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Loving v Virginia would have been found in favor of Virginia in his world. Brown v Board of Education would have gone the other way, too. He sounds great if you’ve only heard a speech or two, but the more you look into his platforms, the crazier he seems. He treats the Constitution as if it’s some sort of infallible holy document that cannot be deviated from. I think he’s a nut.

In cases of theft, you get nothing for your payment. With taxes, you get America. A country without taxes isn’t a country; it’s a tract of land.

” Moreover, asking a ” Christian ” to not support the outlaw of abortions is ludicrious.”

Not all Christians are anti-abortion. Frankly, if I think about it I’m more surprised that so many are. There’s next to nothing in the Bible about the status of a fetus (and what is there doesn’t rise to treating it as equivalent to a person).

Somalia.  A libertarian’s paradise.

Does that definition apply to traffic citations, bank repossessions,  alimony, and child support as well?

He has also stated he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act and he is against evolution.

He is a states rights social conservative.  Maybe he is not a super social conservative, but he is just as socially conservative as Dick  Cheney.

Maybe that is why he said he wouldn’t have voted for the Civil Rights Act.

Also, Sen. Mark Grisanti, a Republican and a Roman Catholic, voted to legalize same-sex marriage in the state of New York. My point? Not all Christians are the same, except perhaps for the defining characteristic of being believers in and followers of Jesus Christ.

” I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate”-Ron Paul
“Most importantly, [he] preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life.”-Pres. Obama

granted, this quote was not found on the barrack obama campaign website, but you would be hard pressed to easily find his views on religion or any other matters through his campaign website… say, for instance, the war on terror, or domestic spying, or extraordinary rendition. pres. obama will not give a straight answer on anything, whereas ron paul, will only give straight answers on questions. agree or disagree at least the guy is willing to concisely and concretely say what he believes in and how he will implement those beliefs. for me, that kind of honesty is refreshing. 

Exactly. The Articles of Confederation have already failed. Why should we try it again?

So if Ron Paul eliminates taxes, does that mean that the military would dissolve and we would have a bunch of private armies a la Blackwater? 

If I had a 12 year old daughter and she gets raped I would like for her to have the option to abort the rapist’s embryo, so she can have some semblance of a normal teenage life.

Why do you assume I’m a liberal because we have differing views? I suppose I was a bit exaggerative when I said the second part. You’re other choices are to voice you’re opinions with your representatives, civil disobedience and/or revolt, and I don’t have any problem with that. But of course, you need a really strong movement for that. The sixteenth amendment gives congress the right to tax incomes if you want that changed you’re going to need a loud voice.

He says he wouldn’t vote for the civil rights act because he thinks private property owners have a right to segregate and/or deny service to anyone they feel like.

A “less safe means” to have an abortion? I thought the whole point was to kill the baby? How do you kill someone safely?

You’re either pretending to be stupid or you really are that stupid.  She means safe for the mother. Reading comprehension skills are your friend

“Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this–in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything–even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

After tonight’s debate, the only remotely sane one is Jon Huntsman. I feel like he is the ONLY one of them who has seen the inside of The Economist. His comments  on foreign policy were spot on, although far too nuanced for the anti intellectual crowd.

His religious views are just as bad as the rest. But he does not strike me as an anti intellectual republican. He strikes me as more of a throw back to the the Buckley type republican. I’d actually enjoy sitting down to dinner with him, I think he’d have lots of world experience he knows intimately. I can’t say I feel that way about any of the others.

He unfortunately has 0 chance of winning the primary though because of his science stands, so it won’t matter. However given how poorly Obama is leading, I actually possibly could be tempted by Huntsman. But not by any of the others.

But contrary to his other positions, Ron Paul has supported many federal restrictions on abortions, such as the federal ban on some late-term abortions. Shouldn’t that also be “left up to the states”? Apparently consistency isn’t his strong suit.

As I said above, Ron Paul has supported and continues to support Federal abortion restrictions. His “states rights” positions are a ruse to cover the fact that he’s a run-of-the-mill social conservative who happens to also be anti-military.

As a libertarian democrat and an atheist, the support for Ron Paul comes from support for a handful of basic issues.  The minimum “litmus” test for libertarians in the United States would be 1. being against the drug war, 2. being against gun control, and 3. being in favor of individual economic freedom(such as being against eminent domain for private interests).  Libertarians have trouble attracting qualified candidates due to the fact that people don’t like to run for office if it will take a relatively long time to build support.  Therefore, we get candidates like Ron Paul. I would venture to say that most libertarians would not agree with Ron Paul on his positions on abortion and religion, but he’s all we’ve got right now.

He wouldn’t legalize marijuana. He would leave that up to the states to legalize or criminalize.  

You obviously are not familiar with the idea of implied consent, which, in part, applies to the citizens of any state (in the classic political science definition not just US States) such that their choosing to live there is a de facto approval of and for the laws of that state though not expressly approved by those same citizens. Therefore taxes by definition are not theft. Unless of course there is no law that provides for them. 

Hear hear!

Since you accept that a woman is the owner of her body, then doesn’t she also own the fruits of her labor? If preventing her from aborting a fetus is immoral because she owns her body, then isn’t it also immoral to tax X percentage of her income that was produced by her body and her time that she also owns?

Gary Johnson accepts evolution. I’m not sure what his religious views are, but I’m pretty sure he is not a Christian. He is honest like Ron Paul, and doesn’t come with the kooky factor.

I tend to vote for moderate candidates, so if I had to choose the least odious candidate from the Republican camp it would be Huntsman. I lived in Utah during his tenure as governor, and we were rather depressed when he gave up his post to become ambassador to China.
The biggest reason I liked him was because he was quite adept at wrangling the bat-sh*t-crazy lot of uber-conservative legislators that dominated the Utah state congress, which I would hope he would put to play on the US congress if he was ever elected president. He also managed to secure health benefits for same-sex partners of government employees and helped reform some of the more asinine state liquor laws. He also tended to downplay his Mormonism, and in the grand scheme of things I would vote for an evolution-accepting Mormon over an evangelical christian any day.
The only thing that worries me is the possibility of him pulling a Mitt Romney and deciding overnight that he’s now ultra-conservative. Not that it matters at this point, he isn’t spouting enough populist rhetoric for the current tastes of his party.

Thats why voting is meaningless, its a vicious cycle that can never be broken.   

“If voting changed anything it would be illegal”  

Voting for two factions of the same business party isn’t going to resolve anything 

That’s why we need the Alternative Voting Method. You can list who you want the most in order or not list them. If your first vote went to the candidate in last your next will receive your vote. Then you repeat the process with the next last place candidate factoring in the new votes. Do this until the last 2 candidates. This system still leans toward a two party system, but you can vote for a third party or independent and still get a vote when he/she doesn’t come close to winning. We need a politician who will actually try and make an amendment for this.

Hey, guest, if Eisenhower called opponents of SS stupid, and he said “beware of the military-industrial complex”, then I think we would call him a Democrat these days, and maybe even a liberal Democrat, because there are damn few Democratic politicians with any backbone left at all, like Eisenhower had. He might even have been too liberal to run in a Democratic primary these days, let alone a Republican primary.

And the Democratic Party has marched in lock-step to the right behind the Republicans. What used to be the political center 30 years ago is now way out on the left fringe.

What a candidate believes – kinda important

What a candidate would probably do as president – extremely important

Ron Paul would try to1) Prioritize cuts in oversize expenditures, especially the military2) Prioritize cuts in corporate welfare3) Use 50 percent of the savings from cuts in overseas spending to shore up entitlement 4) programs for those who are dependent on them and the other 50 percent to pay down the debt5) Provide for reduction in federal bureaucracy and lay out a plan to return responsibility for education to the states6) Begin transitioning entitlement programs from a system where all Americans are forced to participate into one where taxpayers can opt out of the programs and make their own provisions for retirement and medical careRon Paul might believe in stuff that atheists disagree with, but the guy is just not that big on social issues.  If Paul is elected we should expect sweeping economic reform but quite frankly I wouldn’t expect sweeping social reform.  He’d probably veto some things, but that’s about it.Right now I don’t think we need much sweeping social reform on a federal level.  We definitely need sweeping economic reform.  Ron Paul meets this criteria.All the other candidates will send us backwards socially, and won’t change much economically.

I hate to break it to the Atheist Ron Paul supporters, but he’s a nutjob and he’s also a Creationist.

He said he believes in Creationism and doesn’t accept Evolution.

So, Doctor or no, some good ideas or no, he’s not qualified to lead in my book.

By the way, he also has a HUGE contingent of support from racists and white supremacists. Look at what people write about him on Stormfront sometime, and he has refused to reject their money and ideology.

So, please, don’t support Ron Paul if you’re sane. Just because he has a few ideas which you might like and agree with does not make him sane and does not make him a good choice.

IOW, he needs to be encouraged to run as a 3rd party candidate. 🙂

So what you are advocating is instead of 50 states, where some might discriminate, what we have instead is one big state that could discriminate against everyone?

There is so much spin here it’s delusional.  So he’s a christian.  Ok.

Does he force it down other peoples throats?  No.

Does he force his disbelief in evolution on others?  No.

Look at his record of his actions.

He’s the only congressman to opt out of their cushy retirement program because he views it as immoral.  He walks the walk.

He’s against abortions because he believes in Life then liberty then the pursuit of happiness.  He doesn’t feel it is correct to take tax money from all people to fund abortion which some are patently against.  However, he feels if the people want the freedom to have abortions they can.  Just not with tax dollars.

MORE importantly, he cares about the life of those 18 year old servicemen and women.

He’s the only anti war candidate.

Ask yourself this.  If he’s so PRO deregulation which would allow MASSIVE profits for the evil companies, why is it no businesses donate to his campaign?

He would put an end to the loopholes so the fortune 500 would actually have to pay federal income taxes.

He would put an end to the perks and big businesses would have to fairly compete.

Why are these ideas and beliefs viewed as delusional?

You are aware we have over 700 bases in over 100 countries don’t you?

Why?

She should have that same right.  Not sure what point you are trying to make…

I know what she meant, and the air was thick with irony. Hence my response.

Remind me to go inform the pro-life lobby that their secret has been uncovered. All this time, it isn’t murder that they’re concerned about, no, they only want to make sure that women everywhere remain in an unhealthy and dependent state. You have found us out.

The far more common situation is that a state doesn’t allow something, but the federal government does.

It’s kind of anachronistic. When the US young and many people didn’t travel much, I guess it made sense.

But today you can fly everywhere in a couple of hours. People go on vacation all the time or more elsewhere for work. It’s simply ridiculous to have rights in one state and lose them when you cross a border.

Taking away their ability to control people’s private lives doesn’t mean they are also losing sovereignty over things like economic policies.

*cough*…Medical Marijuana…*cough*

But it does go into the slaughter of first born.  Just one more thing that makes zero sense in religion.

RON PAUL 2012? Know WHO you vote for!

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150772620260397

Hemant, you say “Jon Huntsman? Sure, he accepts evolution and climate change, but that ought to be a given for any educated person, right? He doesn’t hide his Mormonism, though, and that could be his downfall. After all, if he believes the Joseph Smith story, what else will he fall for?”

And that kind of reaction has been really common across the atheist blogosphere recently, but there’s no evidence to suggest that religious people are more gullible or less critically thinking about nonreligious topics than anyone else. In fact, social scientists call this the Fallacy of Religious Congruence. For better or for worse, people, including religious people, are not perfectly consistent in their beliefs, actions or values, and so if we’d like to base our decisions on evidence, we shouldn’t fault religious political candidates on those grounds. What do you think?

You most certainly can separate your religious beliefs from public policy. I convinced my brother-in-law that the government shouldn’t ban same-sex marriage because the only reason he has to be against it is religious. He admitted on the spot that he had no secular reason to be against it, so he came to realize government policies that would ban same-sex marriage is enforcing his religion on other people. He said he wouldn’t support the fight, but that he would never support banning it again. The same goes for drug use policies. If there is not a secular reason to be against it (that wouldn’t also apply to cigarettes/alcohol etc.) then the government cannot prohibit it. He now recognizes that many things he thought the government should prohibit are actually personal choices that each person should make and that the government cannot prohibit an activity simply because his religion says so.

I haven’t been able to get him to come around on the issue of abortion, mainly because those against abortion aren’t necessarily against it for religious reasons–that issue is wrapped up in a person’s nuanced views on how bodily autonomy rights should be applied.

That’s why I’m not dismissing him offhand — I think the fact that he accepts evolution despite being a religious person shows that he can separate the two realms. Still, I think questioning *why* he believes the Mormon myth is a legitimate question — which parts of the faith does he accept and which does he reject? We should hear a response to that.

It amazes me that people still confuse libertarians with progressives.

And STILL nobody mentions Buddy Roemer, who is a moderate Republican with a solid jobs record and a platform based on campaign finance reform. The broken finance reform system is the reason why we have to choose between all of these shitbirds in the first place.

The counter to your argument is your 19-year old in oklahoma being able to get an abortion on that stat or one nearby, versus abortion being prohibited nationally.  

If you look at both cases, paul’s position is more likely to result in a situation you like. 

I don’t see how what you’re saying is any different from what the people you’re replying to are saying. He’s fighting for the right to discriminate, nothing more, nothing less, just like all the “states’ rights” people. They don’t want freedom for you; they only want freedom for themselves. The freedom to amass as much money as they can get away with without causing a revolution, and to piss on anyone they consider unworthy.

He’s actually far more conservative than Cheney ever was. He’s pro-Life, a Christian Dominionist (which is one of the real reasons for his libertarianism (the other is pure greed); he doesn’t want government to control the people, he wants the Church to do that instead), anti-Gay and anti-Poor (in that: he likes that they exist, since it provides the rich with good slave material, they should just not make it so obvious). 

Cheney is certainly not a Dominionist (he believes he’s the one who should be in charge, not those idiot clerics), and he’s pro-marriage-equality.

Wait, what?

I’m not supporting him in any way, I’m just saying his reasons. :/

I don’t know. :/

He might be the only anti-war candidate but his idea that states can do whatever they want (i.e. declare a state religion, stop people of certain religions from taking public office, segregating. The list is endless.) but the federal government can’t collect taxes or provide any services is absolutely revolting. I like his anti-war view and his anti-prohibition view, (although he will leave it up to states.) but the rest of his policies are quite insane.

You do know there’s a difference between libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, right?

The lack of basic understanding of what a libertarian actually is in this thread is kind of shocking.

You do know he is against our foreign military engagements, right?

Although Atheists more than anyone should see that mainstream Christianity is just as crazy as Mormonism, but just formed longer ago.

Holy generalizations, Batman!  It actually is possible to believe that neoclassical economic policies produce better results than Keynesian approaches without crafting one’s argument to better suit one’s bottom line.  One can argue against certain federal regulations with the Ninth Amendment in mind more than the Tenth.  Was that baseless caricaturizing of an entire group of people fun and enjoyable?  Because I know plenty of libertarians, and not one of them comes close to fitting your crass attempt at labeling them.

But he’s against public schools, so prayers would be just fine in a private institution.  His stance on evolution is stupid, but he might be pandering to the large number of Republican voters who call it evil-ution.

I hate the absolutists on both sides.  No-one who is ‘pro-choice’
supports the right of a woman to do what she wants with her body 1 day
before she is due to give birth, it is all a matter of degree.

Most people agree that a woman’s body is hers to do with as she pleases but, at
some point, she also becomes responsible for another living creature. 
Pro-life people falsely paint this time as conception, pro-choice use
language that appears to put this at birth.  Both positions are
untenable for anyone with a smattering of science.

So stop using such loaded language and agree that a woman is not always the complete owner of her own body.  Being the opposite of a wrong position does not always put you in the right position.  Neither does it foster sensible conversation with the people in the middle.  The correct response to crazy is not more crazy.

It sounds like we agree. I personally have no problem with national laws which set up abortion rights even over the objection of states simply because the national government is there to make laws and if that is the will of the people then it should be done. It is pretty clear that the Republican regulation laws are passed simply to shut down abortion clinics and the Republicans do little to deny this any more.

From a non smoker:

Neither of those things are true at all. Medical marijuana HAS proven to be useful in clinical trials, and in many cases it’s more effective than other drugs.

And Paul is not for legalization for purely medicinal purposes…he’s in favor of ending the War on Drugs entirely and legalizing all drugs. It’s amazing to the extent that people make assumptions about the man rather than just read or listen to what he has to say and go from there.

The difference lies in philosophy. If you don’t believe that a fetus is a life, then yeah, abortion laws are BS. If you do believe it’s human life, then suddenly they make all the sense in the world.

“When he says the federal government shouldn’t make decision on same sex
marriage, he doesn’t  mean it should be legal. He means states can
decide to discriminate at their own volition.”

Actually precisely what he says is that the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all. He thinks marriage should be a personal matter between the people getting married.

“He’s also against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

You’re confusing him with Rand Paul, and even then, he was in favor of 90% of the Civil Rights Act – the only part he was against was the mandate forbidding discrimination in the private sector, but he was very much in favor of repealing Jim Crow, and he was in favor of making discrimination illegal within the government, which is most of what the law did. In the end, he said he’d vote for it if it was the best he could get.

“Loving v Virginia would have been found in favor of Virginia in his world.”

No, it wouldn’t have. That case was won by individual rights, which is what Paul’s entire platform is based on.

“Brown v Board of Education would have gone the other way, too.”

Again, no. The Board was a government entity, not a private one. The government doesn’t have the right to racially discriminate. Now, he WOULD want to abolish federally funded public schools, so if you wanna go after that, at least you’d be attacking a legit position that he actually holds.

“He treats the Constitution as if it’s some sort of infallible holy document that cannot be deviated from.”

…Yeah, who would want a President that bases their policy on the supreme law of the land, AM I RIGHT?!

What your describing is how the Constitution was written.

“Oh, he’s also a huge supporter of genuine capitalism, where the
government doesn’t help or hinder businesses. Because that worked in the
late 1800s in the US.”

It did, actually. Look at the standard of living in the US – that’s the biggest increase it ever saw.

“I don’t understand it and it scares me, so I should attack it probably!”

If you look at the statistics on the matter, the FDA is more likely to “protect” you from a drug that actually works but gets bottlenecked in their system for years than from a drug that will kill you. It’s easy to point to the few instances where the FDA prohibited the sale of a drug that turned out to be dangerous (and often, they fail to even do that). It’s not so easy to point to the instances where the FDA delayed the release of a drug that could have saved lives.

Hmm…quote looks a lot different in context. Oopsie!

“Then, look at the fact that one of his major issues is the gold
standard.”

Yes. A standard that many believe that we left after the Great Depression, but in fact Nixon was the one to abolish it. And inflation has run wild ever since.

“He wants to limit the Federal Reserve massively, though he has
said he would not necessarily get rid of it.”

Why is this bad? A lot of people are scared by that idea, but I’ve found very few can tell me WHY it scares them.

“He wants to not have the
government involved in disaster relief.”

Just not FEMA. The National Guard and Coast Guard are legitimate disaster relief agencies.

“He would eliminate the
Department of Education.”

And why is that bad? People tend to not know that the Department of Education didn’t exist until 1980. If you look at when our public education system started to go down hill, it was…about 1980. These are the geniuses who came up with No Child Left Behind. Do you really think they’re good at what they do?

“He would not raise taxes (which, while I am not
certain if he has said it explicitly, would mean not having
corporations pay more).”

It would mean not having EVERYONE pay more. The actual effect of a tax hike is that it tends to effect the middle class the most. Rich people are more able to take advantage of tax credits and what have you, so they effectively pay a lower rate than they’re “supposed” to pay. Poor people generally get all their money back in a tax refund. The middle class has neither of those things going for them, and they’re the only ones that have to bear the full brunt of a tax increase. But we keep increasing taxes and lamenting the shrinking middle class.

“He wants to end affirmative action.”

Only the mandates that come with it.

Well…yeah. If it’s at the state level you know what state not to move to. If it’s at the federal level your marriage isn’t a marriage anywhere in the US.

Well, you felt the need to bring up her age, presumably for a reason.

Not sure about Australia, but some countries do hold elections that way.

The fact that you actually think states would legalize child labor or that they even COULD legalize state religions if they wanted to (the Constitution prohibits it) says a lot about what you know on these matters.

“He has stated in the past that he wants to get rid of the Department of
Education, in other words, he wants a private education system.”

Those two things are not the same thing. The Department of Education has only existed since 1980. Public education in the United States existed long before then.

“I’m against all wars, does  that mean I can have the federal government
not spend my tax dollars on war? No, that’s not how it works.”

You’ve just made a pretty strong argument for less government.

I will say that Huntsman impressed me in the Reagan debate. A lot of what he said made a lot of sense. I get the feeling that he won’t get the Presidential nomination, but he’s probably pretty high on everyone’s list for a potential VP candidate.

Where do you people get this idea in your head that Ron Paul would eliminate all taxes?

That would be an anarchist’s paradise, sir.

Seriously. Know the difference between libertarianism and anarcho capitalism. This is getting old.

He’s called himself pro-life many times. I’m sure you can do a quick google search on your own.

^ Paul, Ron (1999-10-27). “Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2260, Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999”.Congressional Record. U.S. House of Representatives. Archived from the original on September 8, 2007. Retrieved 2007-09-27.

As if most people have a real “choice”.  People go where opportunities and jobs are.  

The point is that tax dollars will be going to RELIGIOUS institutions, which is a violation of the separation of Church and State.  Sending tax dollars to a secular institution does not violate this. 

Not really, well that is if you have reading comprehension skills.  Otherwise you would notice that its not different at all. 

Nope. I read her stuff too and it made me hate her more actually.  I’m a Libertarian Socialist…but more narrowly an Anarchist (social anarchism)

He’s not for legalization of drugs. The only things he says is that it should be decided by states.  The only republican that I know that has actually supported LEGALIZATION is Gary Johnson.  As far as I know Ron Paul has not made known (at least publicly) his stance on drugs.  

Then I’m not dignifying your position with a response. (Except the one I just gave. Ah well, still.)

Well, you just made it even more thick, with stupidity.

For a man who, to this day, says he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act, that’s actually kind of ironic.

Only in the U.S. is Libertarianism=Right wing.  Every where else Libertarianism is actually a progressive left political philosophy.  

The funds wouldn’t go to the schools. They would be in the form of tax credits to parents which would cover all educational expenses. That’s not an establishment clause violation.

I think it’s a little different. The United States went from being a third-world agricultural nation that was a former colony to a superpower, and a large part of that was due to the 1800s industrial revolution. Do you think people voluntarily moved to the cities so they could have a worse life or a better one?

Nobody’s pretending that the 1800s were a great time to live, but without them we wouldn’t be where we are today.

The Sanctity of Life Act that he re-introduced in 2005 would have, had it passed, defined life as beginning at conception and left the enforcement of abortion up to the states. One can only assume rationally that this, then, is his stance.

Only one provision of it. He was in favor of repealing Jim Crow laws, he was in favor of desegregating the government, and he was in favor of public school integration. The only thing he opposed was the mandate on private business prohibiting them from discriminating based on race. The majority of the Civil Rights Act was stuff he would have supported.

Sorry, I meant DICTIONARIES not DEFINITIONS

*had (not have)

Libertarian Socialism is a broad political umbrella that has many political tendencies within it.  Usually when people mention anarcho-socialism, they mean S0cial Anarchism).  Social Anarchism would fall under the broader Libertarian Socialist umbrella.  

Ending the FEDERAL war on drugs does not = Pro Legalization.  He has remained rather vague there, whether he supports actually legalization of drugs or not.  He has stated that the policy of the war on drugs is a states one.  There’s a lot of conjecture on your part assuming individual states wouldn’t have some policy similar to the FED one right now

I’ve been around enough anarchist collectives to get a pretty good feel for it. Seems like nobody can quite agree on what anarchy actually is, which is precisely the problem with anarchy.

False.  Anarchism is understood well, at least by those who actually read. What differs are tactics and paths on how to construct an Anarchist society. Responses like this show me what you don’t know squat about it and just go by anecdotal evidence rather than by what is actually written about it.  If you think that the problem is anarchism is the definition then you have a lot to learn. Even genuine critiques of Anarchism understand this. 

Ending prohibition on a federal level would logically mean legalizing drugs at the federal level. At the state level, that may be a different issue.

As for Paul on drugs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMIgT_NGgek

Of course not buy what they say for political pandering or during campaigning.  If I want to know Ron Paul’s stance on an issue I would go to one of his books and read it instead of looking at his voting record, becuase that doesn’t tell me much.  

I know that Ron Paul is against the death penalty, but has he called for, supported a bill for, and voted for a federal ban on the death penalty? I can’t find one.

He’s only against the death penalty at the Federal level. He actually believes the death penalty to be a “deserving penalty” for those who deserve it, but should only be applied by the states. Though he may have recanted that position and been against it all around now

Yeah you’re right. Anyone who disagrees just hasn’t read the right things. Way to educate me instead of just be a dick, you’re really doing great work to spread your message.

I’m not sure what your problem is comprehending this. No prohibition at the federal level = legalizationa t the federal level, while the states have  aright to prhibit it at the state level.

You are still missing the point.

If it had been outlawed at the federal level, you would still argue against state rights if some states were seeking to allow abortion?

True, but they don’t believe in eating Christ’s literal flesh and blood like the Catholics do. I think what people view as strange usually depends on what they grew up with and what is foreign to them.

Again, missing the point ENTIRELY. Jesus, it’s like you completely miss on purpose. No one is comparing slavery to industrial revolution moron.  The argument is using SoL as a metric. Get your head out of your ass 

I’ll just leave this here. Watch it, and maybe we can continue after.

http://vimeo.com/13704095

As if the long your long string of lies about Ron Pauls positions were
not enough to discredit you it turns out you are a social anarchist?

Actually Libertarian Socialists are not only a oximoronically labeled but don’t give a sh*t about rights in general, any kind.    They aren’t liberties, they’re rights,  natural rights.  

Not only do you want to move issues from the federal level, you want to move them from the state level too.   You want to in effect move them down to the level of who’s strongest.  

Except somehow you want to ban private property.     Since you don’t want government I guess this anti-properties rights “law” is “enforced” by everyone just stealing stuff from everyone else, like a bunch of monkeys.

 Gonna be kinda hard to get an abortion when no one can own abortion tools including the government.    One of the purposes of ownership is to define who controls an object.  Without property rights or government control you are left with well … anarchy.    Which means anyone can walk up to a doctor giving an abortion and grab the instruments being used for whatever reason they please.

This can be seen in action when these self styled social anarchists decide they have better uses for other peoples windows, like smashing them, and stores, like burning them.

No but I have seen TAA’s video “Free Market Capitalism Fails”, and he’s a complete ignoramus when it comes to economics.    Since our main issues right now are economic and military I think I’ll take Ron Paul over a guy like 

Thou shalt not kill. One can claim that commandment doesn’t apply to a fetus because it’s not ” born ” but let’s look at the Bible and see what it says… Which is more than next to nothing.

Jeremiah 1:5

” Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. ”

Exodus 21:22

” If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. ”

God, who is supposedly the reason for all life ( Psalm 139:13-14 ), recognizes a person before they are born, and causes them to be born. Thus, killing a fetus destroys God’s work and interferes with his ” plan “. If you’re a Christian who believes in God, and take no issue of any kind with abortion then I sincerely question your loyalty, faith, and obedience to your God.

please. before 10 weeks (when 80-85% of women have their abortions) – it is classified as an embryo – and it doesn’t have a “brain” in any sense of the word.

Anarchists define “private property” (or just “property,” for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to control and exploit others. “Possession,” on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either property or possessions depending on how they are used.To summarize, anarchists are in favor of the kind of property which “cannot be used to exploit another — those kinds of personal possessions which we accumulate from childhood and which become part of our lives.” We are opposed to the kind of property “which can be used only to exploit people — land and buildings, instruments of production and distribution, raw materials and manufactured articles, money and capital.” [Nicholas Walter, About Anarchism, p. 40] As a rule of thumb, anarchists oppose those forms of property which are owned by a few people but which are used by others. This leads to the former controlling the latter and using them to produce a surplus for them (either directly, as in the case of a employee, or indirectly, in the case of a tenant).The key is that “possession” is rooted in the concept of “use rights” or “usufruct” while “private property” is rooted in a divorce between the users and ownership. For example, a house that one lives in is a possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a profit it becomes property. Similarly, if one uses a saw to make a living as a self-employed carpenter, the saw is a possession; whereas if one employs others at wages to use the saw for one’s own profit, it is property. Needless to say, a capitalist workplace, where the workers are ordered about by a boss, is an example of “property” while a co-operative, where the workers manage their own work, is an example of “possession.” To quote Proudhon:”The proprietor is a man who, having absolute control of an instrument of production, claims the right to enjoy the product of the instrument without using it himself. To this end he lends it.” [Op. Cit., p. 293]While it may initially be confusing to make this distinction, it is very useful to understand the nature of capitalist society. Capitalists tend to use the word”property” to mean anything from a toothbrush to a transnational corporation — two very different things, with very different impacts upon society. Hence Proudhon:”Originally the word property was synonymous with proper or individual possession. It designated each individual’s special right to the use of a thing. But when this right of use . . . became active and paramount — that is, when the usufructuary converted his right to personally use the thing into the right to use it by his neighbour’s labour — then property changed its nature and this idea became complex.” [Op. Cit., pp. 395-6]Proudhon graphically illustrated the distinction by comparing a lover as a possessor, and a husband as a proprietor! As he stressed, the “double definition of property — domain and possession — is of highest importance; and must be clearly understood, in order to comprehend” what anarchism is really about. So while some may question why we make this distinction, the reason is clear. As Proudhon argued, “it is proper to call different things by different names, if we keep the name ‘property’ for the former [possession], we must call the latter [the domain of property] robbery, repine, brigandage. If, on the contrary, we reserve the name ‘property’ for the latter, we must designate the former by the term possession or some other equivalent; otherwise we should be troubled with an unpleasant synonym.” [Op. Cit., p. 65 and p. 373]The difference between property and possession can be seen from the types of authority relations each generates. Taking the example of a capitalist workplace, its clear that those who own the workplace determine how it is used, not those who do the actual work. This leads to an almost totalitarian system. As Noam Chomsky points out, “the term ‘totalitarian’ is quite accurate. There is no human institution that approaches totalitarianism as closely as a business corporation. I mean, power is completely top-down. You can be inside it somewhere and you take orders from above and hand ’em down. Ultimately, it’s in the hands of owners and investors.” Thus the actual producer does not control their own activity, the product of their labour nor the means of production they use. In modern class societies, the producer is in a position of subordination to those who actually do own or manage the productive process.In an anarchist society, as noted, actual use is considered the only title. This means that a workplace is organised and run by those who work within it, thus reducing hierarchy and increasing freedom and equality within society. Hence anarchist opposition to private property and capitalism flows naturally from anarchism’s basic principles and ideas. Hence all anarchists agree with Proudhon:”Possession is a right; property is against right. Suppress property while maintaining possession.” [Op. Cit., p. 271]As Alexander Berkman frames this distinction, anarchism “abolishes private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and with it goes capitalistic business. Personal possession remains only in the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people. Land, machinery, and all other public utilities will be collective property, neither to be bought nor sold. Actual use will be considered the only title — not to ownership but to possession.” [What is Anarchism?, p. 217]This analysis of different forms of property is at the heart of both social and individualist anarchism. This means that all anarchists seek to change people’s opinions on what is to be considered as valid forms of property, aiming to see that “the Anarchistic view that occupancy and use should condition and limit landholding becomes the prevailing view” and so ensure that “individuals should no longer be protected by their fellows in anything but personal occupation and cultivation [i.e. use] of land.” [Benjamin Tucker, The Individualist Anarchists, p. 159 and p. 85] The key differences, as we noted in section A.3.1, is how they apply this principle.This anarchist support for possession does not imply the break up of large scale organisations such as factories or other workplaces which require large numbers of people to operate. Far from it. Anarchists argue for association as the complement of possession. This means applying “occupancy and use” to property which is worked by more than one person results in associated labour, i.e. those who collectively work together (i.e. use a given property) manage it and their own labour as a self-governing, directly democratic, association of equals (usually called “self-management” for short).This logically flows from the theory of possession, of “occupancy and use.” For if production is carried on in groups who is the legal occupier of the land? The employer or their manager? Obviously not, as they are by definition occupying more than they can use by themselves. Clearly, the association of those engaged in the work can be the only rational answer. Hence Proudhon’s comment that “all accumulated capital being social property, no one can be its exclusive proprietor.” “In order to destroy despotism and inequality of conditions, men must . . . become associates” and this implies workers’ self-management — “leaders, instructors, superintendents . . . must be chosen from the labourers by the labourers themselves.” [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 130, p. 372 and p. 137]

Show of hands, who likes to pay taxes? (Austin, you don’t count. We know your position)

So he’s against a federal death penalty but FOR federal restrictions on abortions? How is that in any way consistent?

Paul is a social conservative, just like the rest of his party. We can dissemble all we want to cover up that fact, but it plays right into his narrative.

While I do agree that many of the things in his statement of faith are quite quacky, it seems like it may be there to look attractive to the christian republican voters. He has done well with not bringing religious quackery into his discussion of policy.  I feel confident enough in his respect for civil liberties and equality, though, that I doubt he would be one to publicly perpetrate unabashed bigotry against atheists as the other republican candidates have done on a routine basis.

Obama is a coward and puppet

Let’s be honest, you are a dumb ass, if you have a problem with the constitution move out of this great country that grew to be so powerful in the early years by men who followed the constitution as guide line to follow which was the point of our fore fathers writing the “sacred document”. They didn’t write thcould unbent so we could follow at our own discretion