Why not Ron Paul?
 

Some of my local racing friends were discussing the Federal Reserve system and a few other inane things when somebody mentioned how super awsome Ron Paul is.

I googled his info and so far I like what I read. But I'm interested in other viewpoints from the PPOT brain trust.


A few talking points:

Constitutionalist
Opposes presidential autonomy
Rejects a welfare state / nanny state role for the federal government.

Says that the Republican Party has lost its commitment to limited government and has instead become the party of big government.

Regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, and taxes.

Unwillingness to vote for proposals not expressly authorized by the Constitution.

Supports states' rights, tighter border security, gun ownership, voluntary school prayer, and a return to free market health care.

Opposes the income tax, the federal War on Drugs, and foreign interventionism.

Advocates withdrawal from NATO and the United Nations.

He's got some issues too but it's hard to argue with most of that. When you read his positions it makes you wonder how the major parties got so confused.

I agree with 95% of his opinions. IIRC, he does however want an immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq, a move I think would be a mistake. (Some level of stability must come first, IMO.)

When I hear him speak, I can't but help think of FastPat.

Why not? A heavy dose of common sense and responsibility delivered too soon would throw the nation into chaos.

Because he's insane?

We can't have that in politics.

Explain, please.

Like uh Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Diane Fienstien, need I go on?

I know there is a spilt of opinion here on whether FastPat was insane or just infantile, but as you might remember, Ron Paul was his favorite candidate. Even so, I admit it is a bit harsh to suggest he's insane, he's probably just an eccentric posing as a Libertarian.

If you watch and listen to him long enough you might come to the same opinion as me. It's easy for anyone to put up a web site with all the right buzz words - constitutionalist, pro-property rights, taxes only for necessary government spending - that get people like us all excited. But you have to look beyond the code words to see who's standing behind the curtain. I'm just concerned he's stumbled on a bunch of populist-sounding buzz words that cover up a rather odd view of the world. For instance, regularly votes against all new spending? I'm as conservative as the next guy, but a bridge I drive over every day at about 6 pm collapsed at about 6 pm. I like the government spending reasonable amounts of money on bridges and roads. I like driving my car on public roads. I can make my living because I am able to safely and quickly drive my car from my home in the suburbs downtown to my office and back. I'd like the government to initiate some new spending to build a new bridge that will get me home safely without me having to snake through the backroads. I don't like government waste, but saying no new spending for anything is not just making a point, it's weird.

Like uh John, Paul, Ringo, George...

I was actually looking for a bit more discussion about the guy and his stance on issues, as opposed to just meaningless one-line comments.

I guess you do need to actually explain rather than just throw some names out. What's the tie in you refer to?


MRM- So FastPat likes Paul. Pat also likes Porsches.
You may be right... he may be just saying all the things people want to hear.

I hate when politicians say one thing and then do the opposite. From what I've been reading, his voting record seems pretty consistent with what his PR people are saying are his ideals - and additionally seems to be pretty consistent across his career.

I'm getting a little lost here. Look at my first post. I didn't say the guy's a savior but the list of his positions at the top of the post has a lot of merit.

The poor repair of MN bridges is not the responsibility of the Federal government. It is the state who failed. Ron Paul advocates a smaller Federal government, placing greater burden on individual states, and likewise, giving states more funds with which to play.

was just watching C-span books.

the author gives facts that gov't spending and growth has increased exponentially since women were allowed to vote. Men are basically fixed in their politics by age 30, but women change as they grow up and and are swayed to the progressive movement when they have kids.


i figure this all this women crap started when they were allowed to wear shoes.

i liked what i heard from him a great deal in a couple TV interviews. he makes too much since to be considered to seriously and thats a shame.

T$

Why not Dr. Ron Paul???

Let's see, he's consistent. He looks you in the eye. He says what he believes. He is not every one's cup of tea.

Yep, he doesn't make it with the desperate housewives, reality show this and that, spouse swap, swinging crowd.

Of course, I've been a fan of Dr. Paul for several decades!!!!!

The state failed and let a bridge fall, but Ron Paul wants to reduce the role of the feds and give the money directly to the states? The state that failed to keep a freaking bridge from falling down? The general irresponsiblity of state governments in things like this are the prime example of why our federal form of government is so important.

The bridge that fell was on the interstate highway system. If left to the states (and Ron Paul) we would not have an interstate highway system. The bridge that fell was built with federal money, inspected by state and federal inspectors, and with primary repair responsibility on the state - a state that didn't want to spend any money on the bridge if it didn't come from the feds. It will be rebuilt with federal money. I hope it is built to federal standards, not state specs that are influenced by the builders' lobby.

How is Ron Paul going to reduce the role of the federal government and give more money to the states? That's oxymoronic. Instead it's a fair description of liberal Democratic dogma.

Huh? :confused:

IMO, Dr. Ron Paul looks better than the rest of the weak GOP field. When the primary election rolls around, he'll probably be the guy that gets my vote.

That's how liberals expand the control of the federal government, by paying the states to do things and build things. The money comes with strings and the projects usually look better to the states when they are spending someone else's money.

One must only review New Orleans post-Katrina to understand how the Federal government will take care of constituents.

I don't see how Ron Paul could be any worse than the same bullcaca we've elected in the past. He might be able to shake things up enough to make some meaningful changes.

A lot of good ideas in an unelectable wrapper.