Ron Paul

I know I’ve done a lot of blog blurbs about Paul recently, but I wanted to really explain what I appreciate so much about this man, and why I’ve donated to his campaign.

First, he wants us to get out of Iraq. I understand what the Neocons wanted to do, and it makes sense in some ways. However, what we’ve found is that you cannot change people’s hearts through force. The Middle East is an absolute powder keg and it will always be that way. And the radical Islam that we are facing right now will not be defeated short of making the entire region a nuclear wasteland. I don’t think even the most absurd neocon would resort to nuclear annihilation of the Middle East. When we go in there with force and try to change regimes, all it does is play into the hands of the fundamentalists. They say that we are coming over there to occupy their land and destroy Islam and take their oil. They attack us, then we go over there and take out their government and the radicals say, “Look, the Americans are coming over here just like we said they would. You must defend Allah” etc. I know for a fact that many of you who read my blog (who are not pacifists) would not stand for a foreign country invading our land and “policing the streets”. Until your last breathe you be using any and all options in order to try and remove the invaders. And that’s exactly what’s happening there. We are just fighting “terrorists” anymore. We’re fighting average citizens who used to look at us favorably but who now feel they are defending their families and their rights as Muslims. We tried the neocon plan, and it failed miserably. Lets get out and be a good example. For those of you that are Christians, you should understand this principle of leading by example rather than force. Force (or law) never changes people’s hearts. Only Grace and Love and action can.

And besides the war, Ron Paul governs by philosophy rather than by polls. He hasn’t and won’t change his philosophy in order to get the “purple people who drink coke” vote. He has a political ideology and he won’t compromise it. Whether its free markets or absolute liberty… whether its not taking money from PACs or refusing medicare and paying for services himself (he’s an OBGYN)… the man has principle and character and values, something that’s been lacking from Washington for a long time.

Here’s his blurbs from the debate… tell me what you don’t agree with here.

Advertisements

13 responses to “Ron Paul

  1. Just a point, making the middle east a nuclear wasteland (excepting Israel of course) – which seems to be the policy quietly advocated by most of both party’s elite – wouldn’t stop “radical islam.” In fact, it would continue to do quite the opposite. If doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity, then our government has been insane for a good long while. Let’s euthanize it.

  2. he is not about liberty. He is against abortion. He is for less control on purchasing gunss which is pro crime. He is for relegating to the states all social programs. Do you want your governor running everything? dig deeper.

    vote-smart.org

  3. Jiffy, nice try.

    Ron Paul doesn’t discuss abortion on his official campaign website (which should say enough on his stance), but this is what is said on Wikipedia about Ron Paul on abortion:

    “Ron Paul links his pro-life position closely to his libertarian views.[23] Paul supports allowing individual states to decide on the legality of abortion citing that it is not an enumerated power of the federal government.[24] Accordingly, he has challenged Roe v. Wade for its unconstitutionality”

    The fact that Ron Paul idealogically opposes it, but believes it should be a matter for the states is a pro-liberty position as it allows people to decide for their own state how to handle it. I’m glad it’s available to those who chose abortion, but no one can honestly disagree with him that Roe v Wade is unconstitutional. It is, but it’s like a poorly cobbled together bridge which is so important that no one dare tear it down to build a proper suspension bridge.

    I don’t know where your idea of his stance on guns came from. It isn’t mentioned in his website or in the wikipedia entry for him. Regardless, how is gun control pro-crime? Are you in favor of owning handguns? shotguns? assault rifles? dynamite? rocket propelled grenades? napalm? ICBMs? nuclear bombs? If you said no to any of the before, you are infringing on my second amendment, bitch. See how it gets out of control? Everyone is for arms control. Some people are just more sane about it than others.

    His thoughts on relegating social programs (and really, most federal government programs) to the states goes back to the amendment in the constitution that says that any power that isn’t specifically given to the federal government is given to the states. We’ve gotten away from that, which is sad.

    Montana wanted to experiment with no speed limit during the day. The feds stopped that by threatening to revoke highway funds. Louisiana tried out a 18 years drinking age, but then decided that they like well paved roads more than they like teenage drinking. California and a bunch of other states let you smoke pot as long as you get a prescription…but the feds still bust people as its against federal law. Some states even allow gay marriage, but the feds allow the other states to ignore that (even though the Constitution kind of forbids the feds from letting some states ignore marriages from other states).

    Each of the above cases shows what’s best about our system, and what’s worst. Each state was intended to be its own government, only loosely held together in a federation with minimum interruption from the federal government. Time and power has allowed the federal government to grab power from the states, and that is bad because it allows citizens from all the other states to tell what the citizens of one state what they can or cannot do.

    And to answer your question, yes, I do want my governor to run everything. You know why? Because the states by law are required to keep a balanced budget and stay fiscally sane. Our federal government has no such obligation. If we pawned off even a fraction of our federal beaurocracy on the states, we’d be much better off.

    Also, concerning his profile on vote-smart.org, note the only indication of his platform is a test that he last took in 1996…yes, the first year he was in Congress. If you look at his responses, it is classic libertarianism, but I guarantee you that he took it one time and say, “forget this nonsense” because silly people like you were taking all of his answers out of context rather than understanding that he really wants to fundamentally change the way we do government.

    I now feel like I accomplished something important today.

  4. vote-smart.org. left side click your way to ron paul and his answers to the national political action test…

  5. oh….btw….he has refused to take it this year, further murkying up his record. Knowing that they only change their views to get votes i went back to 96….very clearly antiabortion….pro gun

  6. Jiffy, like I said in my response, he has refused to take it every year that he has been in Congress except the first one. He realized that he could not answer the questions honestly and not look really crazy when those answers are looked at out of context.

    He says he would support a bill to not allow abortion in any circumstances. This is because he doesn’t think the federal government should say anything about it. He thinks it ought to be up to the states, but you can’t tell that if you just look at that one question.

  7. i’m against big government is a convenient cloud to hide behind.

  8. A lot of people think that “Jesus was the son of God” is a convenient cloud to hide behind for Christians. It’s hard to get out behind something that is at the core of your beliefs.

    Jiffy, read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. It will explain a lot.

  9. I’ve read it. trash for the mucous minded masses….thanks for the tip though

  10. Yes, the 1100 page Atlas Shrugged is for the “masses” like the ironman is for the couch potato set.

    You can criticize Atlas Shrugged for a lot of things. It is pretentious. It is somewhat atheist. It occassionally lacks emphathy and heart. You can’t criticize it for as “trash for the mucous minded masses” without a bit more defense.

    Shitting on Rand on this blog isn’t very smart.

  11. my apologies. I wasn’t impressed enough to read anything else written by this author….nuff said

  12. Pingback: Volunteer Voters » Pragmatism Has It’s Privileges

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s