ron paul..wow

[mattdavis11]

Call them how I see them. Want dirt?

[Moses]

Originally Posted by mattdavis11

Call them how I see them. Want dirt?

I'm just saying it's unlikely that I would not vote for a man because;
a) he says what I want to hear, and
b) he's from Texas.

Just sayin'.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

I take sammy's statement to mean that Ron Paul is more concerned with fascism than with moral decay. I wanted to know if Ron Paul's platform fails to address the issue that sammy is concerned about, or if it's simply a matter of RP no yet having a talking point on yourtube that addresses that issue.

The rise of fascism and moral decay are both problems facing our society sure.

The difference is I only want government involved with trying to solve one of them. I do not want government attempting to legislate morality - doing so smacks of theocracy.

[cmccuist]

Ron Paul is my congressman (I live in Lake Jackson). He's for doing away with the IRS, the departments of commerce, labor and education and severely cutting back many government services. That alone will get him huge support.

Funny though, he's against the war in Iraq, but for going after Iran (I'm for staying in Iraq and going after Iran).

He's pretty libertarian on a lot of "moral" legislation.

[mattdavis11]

Moses,

Both of you are Dr's, of course he's got your vote.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

The only glaring inconsistency with his "libertarian" views is his view on abortion. Alone, that's not a show-stopper for me (I think it's largely a sensationalist "non issue" with little legitimate debate/discussion value in political circles), but I do find it odd that a seemingly "small government" advocate would support government involvement in this particular area.

Like I said, not a show-stopper, but a bit odd. Possibly evidence of demons lurking beneath the surface of his (very appealing) veneer?

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by cmccuist

Ron Paul is my congressman (I live in Lake Jackson). He's for doing away with the IRS, the departments of commerce, labor and education and severely cutting back many government services. That alone will get him huge support.

Funny though, he's against the war in Iraq, but for going after Iran (I'm for staying in Iraq and going after Iran).

He's pretty libertarian on a lot of "moral" legislation.

Not sure where you get your info about Paul's stance toward Iran but this is from Paul's own mission statement...unless he has recently waffled on it like most of the rest of the phony candidates have on nearly every critical issue:

"There is no evidence of a threat to us by Iran, and no reason to plan and initiate a confrontation with her. There are many reasons not to do so, however.

Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there’s no evidence that she is working on one--only conjecture.

If Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India, and North Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon than these other countries?

If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody-- which would guarantee her own annihilation-- are zero. And the same goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state terrorist group."

Sure doesn't sound to me like Paul is for "going into Iran" as you said.

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by WI wide body

If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody-- which would guarantee her own annihilation-- are zero. And the same goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state terrorist group."

i call bull**** on this. noone could possibly believe the above statement (odds of 'zero'???). and if you agree with me on that then you have to agree that he is talking out of his ass to get support and make others look bad.

too bad.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

The only glaring inconsistency with his "libertarian" views is his view on abortion. Alone, that's not a show-stopper for me (I think it's largely a sensationalist "non issue" with little legitimate debate/discussion value in political circles), but I do find it odd that a seemingly "small government" advocate would support government involvement in this particular area.

Like I said, not a show-stopper, but a bit odd. Possibly evidence of demons lurking beneath the surface of his (very appealing) veneer?

Then you'll be glad to know Paul's issue is not more federal involvement in abortion, but rather leaving the issue to the states to decide, as the 10th Amendment meant it to be. Paul, as do many other Americans, myself included, believes Roe v. Wade was a travesty of justice, not because abortion is wrong or whatever, but because the SCOTUS invented a right that does not exist in the Const. The issue belongs with the states, not the fed. gov't. BTW, who's the last president you can name whose views on abortion ever affected abortion law in the US?

[Taz's Master]

pop, I read his stance on abortion, and it seems reasonable to me. He believes that life begins at conception. If that is really what you believe, then abortion is taking a life. So personally he is against it. But he believes that the federal government has no constitutional right to legislate the issue, so Roe v. Wade should be overturned and individual states should deal with it as they see fit. He isn't in favor of abolishing abortion, just getting the federal government out of the issue.

Agree or disagree with his ideas of when life begins, (he says they come from his medical background) but what reasonable person could disagree with his personal stance on abortion if life does indeed begin at conception?

[cmccuist]

Originally Posted by WI wide body

Not sure where you get your info about Paul's stance toward Iran but this is from Paul's own mission statement...unless he has recently waffled on it like most of the rest of the phony candidates have on nearly every critical issue:

"There is no evidence of a threat to us by Iran, and no reason to plan and initiate a confrontation with her. There are many reasons not to do so, however.

Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there’s no evidence that she is working on one--only conjecture.

If Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India, and North Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon than these other countries?

If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody-- which would guarantee her own annihilation-- are zero. And the same goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state terrorist group."

Sure doesn't sound to me like Paul is for "going into Iran" as you said.

All that was written back in 2006, but after looking at his web site and other sources, it turns out he's only for sanctions and other types of deterence - not invasion. So he's consistent when it comes to use of the military for pre-emptive actions.

I think that's a September 10th mentality that isn't realistic. But you can't be a one-issue voter anymore.

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by berettafan

i call bull**** on this. noone could possibly believe the above statement (odds of 'zero'???). and if you agree with me on that then you have to agree that he is talking out of his ass to get support and make others look bad.

too bad.

So if you were the boss of Iran you would actually consider a nuclear attack on one of the other Arab/Muslim nations of the Middle East or Israel?

Or maybe on China, Russia, or the USA?

You need to get a reality check my friend. Those folks in Iran may be goofy but they do not have a death wish!

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by cmccuist

All that was written back in 2006, but after looking at his web site and other sources, it turns out he's only for sanctions and other types of deterence - not invasion. So he's consistent when it comes to use of the military for pre-emptive actions.

I think that's a September 10th mentality that isn't realistic. But you can't be a one-issue voter anymore.

Well, it appeared by your mention of his stance on Iran that you were a "one issue" voter per why not to support him!

As for the "sept. 10 mentality) stuff...I am exceedingly tired of 9/11 being the excuse, reason, or focal point of virtually every issue. Let me put this as delicately as I can: Terrorism will NEVER bring down our nation. They could not do it if they wanted to and the fact of the matter is that is not their intention. Terrorism by definition is not taking over nations.

We have been bomb-barded by so much TERRORISM!! bull***** that the politicians now use it like "God bless America" and other non-sensical comments. If our nation is ever brought down it will be by the politicians and the equally scumy businesses that are selling out our nation. And nary a shot will need to be fired if it happens!

[cashflyer]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

I do not want government attempting to legislate morality - doing so smacks of theocracy.

I do not want the government legislating morality, but I also do not want the government facilitating immorality.

I believe there exists a point at which the government can keep it's nose out of my bedroom and out of my belief system, yet still manages to keep America from degenerating to a cesspool of violence and depravity.

Don't know if RP is the man for that, but there are others that surely are not.

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by WI wide body

So if you were the boss of Iran you would actually consider a nuclear attack on one of the other Arab/Muslim nations of the Middle East or Israel?

Or maybe on China, Russia, or the USA?

You need to get a reality check my friend. Those folks in Iran may be goofy but they do not have a death wish!

Do you sincerely believe that there is ZERO possibility that Iran would use nukes and/or supply terrorist groups with same?

I mean, really, you seriously believe that there is NO CHANCE of that happening?

I find RP's statement as quoted to be irresponsible and rash and possibly evidence of a willingness to say whatever gets the job done.

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by berettafan

Do you sincerely believe that there is ZERO possibility that Iran would use nukes and/or supply terrorist groups with same?

I mean, really, you seriously believe that there is NO CHANCE of that happening?

I find RP's statement as quoted to be irresponsible and rash and possibly evidence of a willingness to say whatever gets the job done.

Of course it is silly to say there is NO CHANCE of almost anything not happening. Once this damn snow melts I might go out and shoot a 55 on my first round. But it is a tad unlikely. Right?

It's the same with Iran mounting an attack on the USA, Israel, or any other nation. Might they get a nutcase in control who would supply said weapon to an equally nutcase terrorist group? Of course, but if we are going to worry about things like that then we should get our axx in the saddle and invsde Pakistan since they DO have anuclear weapon and they DID have an official who was trying to raffle off nuke weapons and technology in the very recent past.

Bottom line is we have our priorities incredibly out of line because of a combination of poor intelligence and inept leadership. I know that you don't want to hear that but it is what is and we have to live with it.

[Racerbvd]

[Groesbeck Hurricane]

Guys,

Look at Dr. Paul's record in congress. He rarely waivers, he tells you what he thinks, he tells you what he will do. He is consistent.

Most of the complaints here are about inconsistencies from one person or another. Or playing politics. I love it when a person steps up to the plate, pulls no punches, and someone has to hit below the belt because they aren't being lied to.

There is a reason Dr. Paul has survived so many attempts to redistrict him out of office. Read what he has to say. Listen to the man. He has integrity, whether you like everything he is telling you or not. Fiscal Conservative who speaks his mind? It's about da&* time!

[WI wide body]

Yeah, when I look at the candidates from both the GOP and the Dems I am reminded of what Robert Byrne once said:

"Democracy is being allowed to vote for the candidate you dislike least."

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by bivenator

You cannot legislate morality.

Shhhhhhh, Don't tell Pat Robertson that