Ron Paul,The man America needs for President.

[Revoltingest]

I want the government to get it's hands off of my genitals....

I remember the days when that would've been a metaphor.
Alas, now we have the TSA.....keep'n it real.

 

[Spirited]

I remember the days when when such a statement was only metaphorical. Now we have the TSA.

You know what "TSA" stands for right? "Time to Search the Anus".

 

[Magic Man]

As sad as it is, more often than not, people vote on one or two ethical issues that they hold dear to their hearts.

Which means that they hold those above other things. If they have higher priorities than getting out of the wars, then they could still want to get out of the wars, but vote for a candidate who probably won't get out of them simply because that candidate has a better position in their view on those ethical issues close to their heart.

My only point is a vote for a candidate who probably won't stop the wars over a candidate who probably will is not a support of the wars. It's only a condemnation of the other candidate as a whole.

The average citizen doesn't know any more about balancing the budget than they do about balancing their checkbooks. The war has become such a non-intrusive backdrop to our society that many Americans don't even think about it all that often.

And yet, most of them are opposed to it. Again, my whole point is only that voting for someone other than Paul does not mean you're supporting the wars. It means you like the other candidate's entire package more than Paul's.

I honestly like Paul for a plethora of reasons and would have voted for him in '08 had it not been for a desperate sense of needing to prevent Obama from taking office and doing exactly what he has done. I'm tired of the government teaching individuals and even large corporations to be irresponsible. I'm tired of politicians blowing our tax dollars like a hooker on Friday night. Most of all, I'm tired of the constant flow of Liberal propaganda in the media. It's like someone ate a burrito laced with laxative and happens to own every broadcasting station and newspaper in the nation.

I want the government to get it's hands off of my genitals and go learn how to do basic arithmetic.

Thank you for that glimpse into your own little world that has nothing to do with reality.

 

[T-Dawg]

Neither of you are going to back down, though, I mostly agree with Revolt for what it's worth to the two of you.

Then you are wrong. I suppose if you are going to try and help Revoltingest with his "debates," I may as well stand up for Truth and Justice(TM) and help Mball.

America seemed to think that being black was a big enough reason to elect Obama or are we going to pretend that there were other reasons for a record number of black voters to come to the polls with the most racially biased favoritism of a political party in recorded history?

I'm sure a few people voted for Obama based off of his race, but many people undoubtedly also voted against him based off of his race. His race may have been a factor, but the main rationale behind electing him seemed to be "he's not Bush" (and possibly, "I don't want Sarah Palin in the White House").

As sad as it is, more often than not, people vote on one or two ethical issues that they hold dear to their hearts. The average citizen doesn't know any more about balancing the budget than they do about balancing their checkbooks. The war has become such a non-intrusive backdrop to our society that many Americans don't even think about it all that often.

Precisely - this is wrong, and probably the only reason the Republicans manage to get a large number of votes. (For some reason, Democrats suck at narrow-issue framing, but Republicans have mastered it, as evidenced by the plethora of Christian voters who will vote for distinctively un-Biblical economic policies in order to try and outlaw abortion and keep gay marriage illegal.)

I honestly like Paul for a plethora of reasons and would have voted for him in '08 had it not been for a desperate sense of needing to prevent Obama from taking office and doing exactly what he has done.

I suppose that's your right. I suppose you would have preferred the situation to be vastly worse than it is now under Obama, and instead have McCain, who would have largely continued the destructive policies of the Bush era?

I'm tired of the government teaching individuals and even large corporations to be irresponsible. I'm tired of politicians blowing our tax dollars like a hooker on Friday night. Most of all, I'm tired of the constant flow of Liberal propaganda in the media. It's like someone ate a burrito laced with laxative and happens to own every broadcasting station and newspaper in the nation.

... You see, this is why I disdain Christianity. "Faith" gives a justification for alternate realities like this one that operate outside of, well, truth. There's no possible way I can "reason" with someone who doesn't use "reason" or "truth" as the basis of their worldview.

The government most certainly does NOT teach people to be irresponsible. Politicians might blow our tax dollars, but the worst offenders are Republicans (at least the Democrats blow dollars on programs actually intended to benefit us, and generally less dollars blown at that). Most television media has either a neutral bias or a conservative bias, as evidenced by the fact that Republicans and Tea Partiers are actually still taken seriously at this point. In the case of radio, it has been almost all conservative ever since Reagan threw out the Fairness Doctrine. The "liberal bias" is a myth perpetrated by extremist conservatives who see anything but complete agreement with them as "socialism."

Seriously, where does this "liberal media" idea even come from? The only actual "liberal media" is the bulk of the internet, and that's simply because most conservatives thankfully don't generally make effective use of it as liberals do.

I want the government to get it's hands off of my genitals and go learn how to do basic arithmetic.

Then why do you vote Republican, who want hands on your genitals (at least metaphorically) and are even worse at basic arithmetic?

 

[Revoltingest]

Then you are wrong. I suppose if you are going to try and help Revoltingest with his "debates," I may as well stand up for Truth and Justice(TM) and help Mball.

Sigh......I'm not debating anything.
Moreover, he wasn't "helping", but rather he was pointing out agreement.
Some of us might do well to treat this as discussion, rather than a WWE tag team match.
We don't even have a guest referee or host!
[youtube]pRsjNTAu0Kg[/youtube]
WWE Raw: Pee-Wee Herman on Raw 11.1.10 - YouTube

 

[YmirGF]

The more I watch and read about Ron Paul, the less I understand why anyone would want him running anything - whatsoever...

 

[Revoltingest]

The more I watch and read about Ron Paul, the less I understand why anyone would want him running anything - whatsoever...

Ahah! I can explain.
Loopy though he is, with his competitors, we just see more of the same old same old....which is fairing particularly poorly at the moment.
We're in a deep hole, & Paul promises to stop digging.

A fun clip from MSNBC (a known right wing network)......
Eliot Spitzer: "The Federal Reserve Is A Ponzi Scheme" - Inside The Fed's Secret Pile Of TRASH*Assets - Home - The Daily Bail

 

[Magic Man]

Revolting, I have to comment on your signature. In light of all of the French-bashing that goes on in America, it was funny to read in War and Peace one Russian saying to another (during the Napoleonic Wars) how little it meant that the French had conquered Germany, since no one had ever had any problem conquering them.

Pretty interesting how opposite the perception was 200 years ago.

 

[Revoltingest]

Times change.

 

[T-Dawg]

Sigh......I'm not debating anything.
Moreover, he wasn't "helping", but rather he was pointing out agreement.
Some of us might do well to treat this as discussion, rather than a WWE tag team match.
We don't even have a guest referee or host!
[youtube]pRsjNTAu0Kg[/youtube]
WWE Raw: Pee-Wee Herman on Raw 11.1.10 - YouTube

You aren't? It looked like a fight to me.

Ahah! I can explain.
Loopy though he is, with his competitors, we just see more of the same old same old....which is fairing particularly poorly at the moment.
We're in a deep hole, & Paul promises to stop digging.

A fun clip from MSNBC (a known right wing network)......
Eliot Spitzer: "The Federal Reserve Is A Ponzi Scheme" - Inside The Fed's Secret Pile Of TRASH*Assets - Home - The Daily Bail

I disagree; Paul's promised to stop digging in some areas, like war, but he's wanting to blow up the ground with dynamite in other areas, like government regulations.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I wouldn't trust Ron Paul to govern a litterbox.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wouldn't trust Ron Paul to govern a litterbox.

I wouldn't trust Obama to 'cover'.
(This would leave him vulnerable to larger predators.)

 

[Spirited]

Then you are wrong.

Thank you for settling the debate with that insight!

I'm sure a few people voted for Obama based off of his race, but many people undoubtedly also voted against him based off of his race. His race may have been a factor, but the main rationale behind electing him seemed to be "he's not Bush" (and possibly, "I don't want Sarah Palin in the White House").

A few people? I'm sorry, that is a grossly inaccurate statement. Also, the rednecks who are still concerned about hating black people have other concerns that the Republican party generally addresses in their favor, gun control being an example. In exchange for "not Bush" we got, someone who allowed - Adding Up the Government?s Total Bailout Tab - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com - astronomical amounts of money to be spent to save companies that were not being effectively run. Take Chrysler as an example, please go buy a Chrysler, drive it for one year, and come back to me telling me that this company should be saved from the hands of consumer natural selection.


Precisely - this is wrong, and probably the only reason the Republicans manage to get a large number of votes. (For some reason, Democrats suck at narrow-issue framing, but Republicans have mastered it, as evidenced by the plethora of Christian voters who will vote for distinctively un-Biblical economic policies in order to try and outlaw abortion and keep gay marriage illegal.)

How many homosexual Republicans do you know? How many people on welfare do you think vote Republican? Many Christian people, as demonstrated by the population of this forum, are not morally opposed to gay marriage. How many homosexuals would take an inverse stance politically?

I suppose that's your right. I suppose you would have preferred the situation to be vastly worse than it is now under Obama, and instead have McCain, who would have largely continued the destructive policies of the Bush era?

Presuming that other people feel the same way you do once again. Obama Approval Index History - Rasmussen Reports™ This website helps to alleviate any illusions that you have about Obama's success. The reasonably high support he had at the beginning is shown to have dropped by around 10% within the first 3 months.

... You see, this is why I disdain Christianity. "Faith" gives a justification for alternate realities like this one that operate outside of, well, truth. There's no possible way I can "reason" with someone who doesn't use "reason" or "truth" as the basis of their worldview.

Reason is absolutely the basis of my worldview. You like the word truth, but all I see is an exclusive observation of one side of the argument. Truth weighs both options before judging, only falsehood must rely on the withholding or skewing of information to succeed in it's agendas.

The government most certainly does NOT teach people to be irresponsible.

See economic bailout, socialized medicine, and general government expansion. These are all taking responsibility and accountability away from the public and giving it to a babysitter.

Politicians might blow our tax dollars, but the worst offenders are Republicans (at least the Democrats blow dollars on programs actually intended to benefit us, and generally less dollars blown at that).

Give me numbers and resources. More than one preferably. Remember, most everyone is now in agreement that the war was a bad idea, and at the time of inception it was also supported by a handful of democrats.

Most television media has either a neutral bias or a conservative bias, as evidenced by the fact that Republicans and Tea Partiers are actually still taken seriously at this point.

Most news papers (Washington Post, New York Times, even the freaking Onion...) are liberally biased.

In the case of radio, it has been almost all conservative ever since Reagan threw out the Fairness Doctrine. The "liberal bias" is a myth perpetrated by extremist conservatives who see anything but complete agreement with them as "socialism."

The radio is mostly conservative because the target demographic for talk radio is the older population, who are generally more conservative in thought.

Seriously, where does this "liberal media" idea even come from? The only actual "liberal media" is the bulk of the internet, and that's simply because most conservatives thankfully don't generally make effective use of it as liberals do.

Probably from the amount of Liberal indoctrination I've had to stave off in every course book ever assigned to me throughout college. Physical education books that tell me social medicine is a "right" for the people in our country. History books written by Howard Zinn, the left-wing extreme Marxist. An "Intercultural Communications" book that tells me if I don't believe in affirmative action I'm am a misguided bigot. A biology book that makes no mention of the innumerable counter theories to evolution, in the absolute sense. If you gained your political affiliations from college in the last 20-30 years, you are just as indoctrinated as the YEC voters in Alabama that you make fun of so viciously.


Then why do you vote Republican, who want hands on your genitals (at least metaphorically) and are even worse at basic arithmetic?

I used the metaphor of molestation to illustrate the ever encroaching government that is being promoted and evangelized by the Democrat Party. This last little paragraph that you left me is really begging the question too much for me to even address it. Show me numbers from a source other than the war, which was more mutually supported than Obamas bailouts and other sinkhole legislation.

I vote Republican - not exclusively either, I didn't have a problem with Clinton - because politics are becoming ever more polarized, and I like the pole that I feel aims to uphold the constitution, leaves citizens alone, and seems to have a better grasp of economy. These are also, to some degree, the mission of "The Tea Party".

"As a committed group of ordinary Americans, we will achieve this by promoting candidates who commit to the original founding principles of the U.S. Constitution of limited federal government, states' rights, balanced budgets, individual liberty, freedom and personal responsibility" Tea Party official website


I recommend you stop referring to "The TRUTH", as your target audience (those who disagree with you) has made it clear that they do not feel that what you are saying is the truth. Rather than use rhetorical jargon, please use real examples. I am not an "Orthodox Republican" nor am I really even necessarily a Republican, I am more just anti-Obama. If you can give me numbers supporting your claims and constructive criticism rather than offensive personal attacks, maybe you could actually sway my opinion. Also if, upon close self-examination, you find that your opinions will not change even through the constant rebuttal of stronger, more effective argumentation, perhaps you shouldn't be debating politics, particularly as it pertains to blindness and the Sheeple.

 

[work in progress]

I wouldn't trust Ron Paul to govern a litterbox.

If there's one thing scarier than Ron Paul, it's his lunatic libertarian fans, such as the ones who were cheering and yelling out "let him die" when Wolf Blitzer actually asked a difficult question:
Audience at tea party debate cheers leaving uninsured to die

Too bad the question wasn't directed at one of the favourites, or they were asked for a followup on whether they agreed or not. That would have started alot of tapdancing on the stage because all of these Republican clowns believe the same thing....they want to destroy all government services except for military.

As for Dr. Paul:
Ron Paul’s Campaign Manager Died of Pneumonia, Penniless and Uninsured

The guy who raised millions for Ron Paul to run for President four years ago, was left to die, and the hospital is going after the dead man's mother for unpayed hospital bills....welcome to rightwing world folks! Get used to it! Even if you think you're one of the alpha males on the economic savannah, if anything goes wrong, your idealogical brethren will leave you to get devoured by the hyenas and vultures, and whatever else comes along...enjoy!

 

[T-Dawg]

A few people? I'm sorry, that is a grossly inaccurate statement. Also, the rednecks who are still concerned about hating black people have other concerns that the Republican party generally addresses in their favor, gun control being an example.

I think you exaggerate the favor people gave on the basis of racism. Many people will SAY they will vote for a black person, but in the anonymity of the poll booth, vote for the other candidate. This is called the Bradley effect.
Bradley effect - RationalWiki

In exchange for "not Bush" we got, someone who allowed - Adding Up the Government?s Total Bailout Tab - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com - astronomical amounts of money to be spent to save companies that were not being effectively run. Take Chrysler as an example, please go buy a Chrysler, drive it for one year, and come back to me telling me that this company should be saved from the hands of consumer natural selection.

I won't argue with you on the bailouts - they could have done a much better job on those, although I suspected we'd bicker about what would make it better.
But the fact remains, people voted based on who Obama was not. People who disliked Bush's policies thought that they could fix everything simply by voting in a Democrat, and clearly they were wrong.

How many homosexual Republicans do you know?

I don't know any, but the existence of the "Log Cabin Republicans" suggests that there are some.

How many people on welfare do you think vote Republican?

No clue. Probably not many, given that Republicans generally don't favor welfare.

Many Christian people, as demonstrated by the population of this forum, are not morally opposed to gay marriage. How many homosexuals would take an inverse stance politically?

What do you mean? (No, really, I'm not sure what you're asking. Rephrase please?)

Presuming that other people feel the same way you do once again. Obama Approval Index History - Rasmussen Reports™ This website helps to alleviate any illusions that you have about Obama's success. The reasonably high support he had at the beginning is shown to have dropped by around 10% within the first 3 months.

Yes, but isn't his approval rating STILL higher than that of Bush's when he left office? The fact remains that whether or not you think the sentiment is rational, people really, really, disliked the effects of the Bush administration.

Reason is absolutely the basis of my worldview. You like the word truth, but all I see is an exclusive observation of one side of the argument. Truth weighs both options before judging, only falsehood must rely on the withholding or skewing of information to succeed in it's agendas.

A fair point, but how do you know that I haven't weighed both sides? I grew up a Christian and had to grow out of it. I know what it's like, and I never want anyone else to have to live through it.

See economic bailout, socialized medicine, and general government expansion. These are all taking responsibility and accountability away from the public and giving it to a babysitter.

I agree that the bailouts should have had more strings attached, but the rest of this has nothing to do with your point.
Wanting people to have affordable medical coverage is not the same as telling them to go hurt themselves. It's wanting people to have affordable medical coverage so that they don't die unnecessarily, and so that they don't have to wait until they have to go to the emergency room because hospitals won't take them in before then.
Government expansion is... a very vague term. I assume you mean government expansion in the economy. Regulating companies to make sure they are safe and fair does is not equivalent to taking the responsibility off of the consumer any more than refraining from leaving power tools out in a child's reach is teaching him to be careless.

Give me numbers and resources. More than one preferably. Remember, most everyone is now in agreement that the war was a bad idea, and at the time of inception it was also supported by a handful of democrats.

I believe there was a chart on one of these threads, if you can find it... besides that, I'd like to throw this in:

In general, democratic presidents, with the glaring exceptions of Roosevelt (who presided over the Great Depression and World War II) and Obama (presided over the "Great Recession," which admittedly isn't nearly as good of an excuse), have made the debt go down. Notably, the democratic congress that lasted from Eisenhower to Carter managed to almost consistently bring the debt down.
In the old days, politicians were relatively decent about spending. Then the Republican saint, Ronald Reagan, came along and preached a message of low taxes (and high military spending), and within one administration we went from the world's creditor to the world's debtor. People need to realize that trickle down economics was a failure.

Actually, Reagan's presidency bears some similarities to Obama's so far. Both feature initially high approval ratings which then plummeted due to economic turmoil. Reagan's eventually recovered as the economy got back on track.
Reagan's Recession - Pew Research Center

Most news papers (Washington Post, New York Times, even the freaking Onion...) are liberally biased.

I suppose it's a matter of perspective. What's "liberal" to you probably isn't to me. I never have thought of the Washington Post as being liberal. (The Onion I can see, given it is a satire network, and liberals tend to do better in the comedy business than conservatives.)

Admittedly, I don't watch much television news, but from what I've seen, I've got no clue where people get the idea that, say, CNN has a "liberal bias." Every politically-related story I've seen from them has had a libertarian bias (ie, one spoke of "the government messing with our pocketbooks" as if that wasn't supposed to be the government's main job).

The radio is mostly conservative because the target demographic for talk radio is the older population, who are generally more conservative in thought.

True.

Probably from the amount of Liberal indoctrination I've had to stave off in every course book ever assigned to me throughout college.

That I'll give you, you've exaggerated a bit, but educated people (like professors) do tend to be liberal.
It might be just either your perspective or your classes, though. For instance, my Macroeconomics textbook staunchly defends the capitalist system, although it does admit that government regulation is necessary in some fronts (but it seems to advocate private interference whenever possible).

Physical education books that tell me social medicine is a "right" for the people in our country.

Lucky you, my physical education textbook gives me ******** about relaxation and stress release, and thus far the class has been mainly psychological nonsense.
Besides, social medicine IS a right. People have the right to tax-payer funded healthcare. Even the conservatives in civilized societies (outside the US) are in agreement on this (not even Thatcher took down the NHS).

History books written by Howard Zinn, the left-wing extreme Marxist. An "Intercultural Communications" book that tells me if I don't believe in affirmative action I'm am a misguided bigot.

Your university used Howard Zinn?!? Good government, no wonder you think there's a liberal bias... Zinn has his uses (and isn't actually a Marxist, from what I know), but I didn't think anyone actually used him as a main source, given his status as a revisionist historian...
Howard Zinn's not a terrible person or anything, as far as I know, but his works weren't intended to be objective or wholly fact-based. I can't imagine a university using his work as a textbook.
Howard Zinn - RationalWiki

A biology book that makes no mention of the innumerable counter theories to evolution, in the absolute sense.

Probably because evolution is the theory that the vast majority of scientists accept. What "innumerable" counter theories do you speak of (please don't say "Intelligent Design," it failed as a hypothesis)?

If you gained your political affiliations from college in the last 20-30 years, you are just as indoctrinated as the YEC voters in Alabama that you make fun of so viciously.

Actually, I gained my political affiliations by some combination of interacting with RF, and doing my own thinking. My view on Christianity largely comes from reading the Bible, although some other people did get me started on that track.

Oddly, I'm sort of out of place now. I'm not sure how I came to be so glaringly more extreme than everyone else here given that most of what I've learned comes from either them or common knowledge...



(Response too long, must split it in two...)

 

[T-Dawg]

I used the metaphor of molestation to illustrate the ever encroaching government that is being promoted and evangelized by the Democrat Party. This last little paragraph that you left me is really begging the question too much for me to even address it. Show me numbers from a source other than the war, which was more mutually supported than Obamas bailouts and other sinkhole legislation.

A source that Republicans are even worse at basic arithmetic, you mean?
Well gee, the war is an obvious example, but if I can't use it, how about Reagan's SDI program?
The SDI consumed several billion dollars in an attempt to gain something that was not only widely considered to be impossible, but also in violation of treaties meant to ensure Mutually Assured Destruction.
SDI: at what cost? - Strategic Defense Initiative | Science News | Find Articles at BNET
Strategic Defense Initiative - RationalWiki
As another example, Republicans seem to oppose state-provided healthcare, even though examples in other western countries demonstrate that it would be vastly cheaper than our current system of private insurance.

I vote Republican - not exclusively either, I didn't have a problem with Clinton - because politics are becoming ever more polarized, and I like the pole that I feel aims to uphold the constitution, leaves citizens alone, and seems to have a better grasp of economy. These are also, to some degree, the mission of "The Tea Party".

I don't understand. If you want to uphold the Constitution and leave citizens alone, why do you vote for the party that put forth, say, the PATRIOT Act, to name an obvious example?
(Granted, since that was passed, Democrats haven't been much better either. The right-wing shift has affected both parties.)

"As a committed group of ordinary Americans, we will achieve this by promoting candidates who commit to the original founding principles of the U.S. Constitution of limited federal government, states' rights, balanced budgets, individual liberty, freedom and personal responsibility" Tea Party official website

This wasn't necessarily the unanimous views of the writers of the Constitution, and I don't see how the Tea Party movement is at all promoting freedom or balanced budgets.
(Also, I don't know if this is still the case, but "state's rights" has historically been a euphemism for racist policies)

I recommend you stop referring to "The TRUTH", as your target audience (those who disagree with you) has made it clear that they do not feel that what you are saying is the truth. Rather than use rhetorical jargon, please use real examples.

Hmm, you do have a point there. I do tend to assume that certain things are common knowledge only to be baffled when people ask for examples... I could be better about this.
(It should be noted, however, that fortunately what is "true" is not based on personal opinion. I do my best to align my opinions with truth.)

I am not an "Orthodox Republican" nor am I really even necessarily a Republican, I am more just anti-Obama. If you can give me numbers supporting your claims and constructive criticism rather than offensive personal attacks, maybe you could actually sway my opinion.

Interesting, it seems I have underestimated you.

Also if, upon close self-examination, you find that your opinions will not change even through the constant rebuttal of stronger, more effective argumentation, perhaps you shouldn't be debating politics, particularly as it pertains to blindness and the Sheeple.

... What is this supposed to mean?

 

[Sententia]

The more I watch and read about Ron Paul, the less I understand why anyone would want him running anything - whatsoever...

I wouldn't trust Ron Paul to govern a litterbox.

Agreed.

 

[Alceste]

Ron Paul On the Issues... (Note, Ron Paul has a record of votes and issues that I support, but these following issues I find disturbing)

Abortion

• Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008)
• Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008)
• Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008)

Civil Rights

• Civil Rights Act was more about property than race relations. (Dec 2007)
• Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)
• Gender-equal pay violates idea of voluntary contract. (Dec 1987)
• Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Education

• Present scientific facts that support creationism. (Sep 2007)
• Equal funds for abstinence as contraceptive-based education. (Sep 2007)
• Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling. (Sep 2007)
• Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
• Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)

Free Trade

• Voted NO on promoting free trade with Peru. (Nov 2007)
• Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
• Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
• Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
• Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)

Immigration

• Amend Constitution to remove aliens’ birthright citizenship. (Dec 2007)
• Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)

Jobs

• Minimum wage takes away opportunities, especially for blacks. (Sep 2007)
• No “sexual orientation” in Employment Non-Discrimination Act. (Sep 2007)
• Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)
• Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)

Again, there is much to admire in Ron Paul. And I support a large majority of his voting record.
But he is a little too conservative for my tastes

Thanks for helping me get to know the man.

 

[Alceste]

[/LIST]
This is an interesting set of facts. But there is a larger picture concerning his position on abortion. From his web site....
"....the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion."
I'd like to have abortion rights granted explicitly in the Constitution, but they aren't. Paul's position looks legally sound, yet it also comports with exercising abortion rights, albeit perhaps by traveling to a more sympathetic state.

Other facts about his positions can be similarly lacking in painting a whole picture.
I think of him as conservative, but with a libertarian bent.

So it's OK with you that he wants to federally legislate that the definition of "life" (read: personhood, making it a constitutional issue) begins at conception because you think he will leave it up to individual states to decide how to go about complying with his law?

Too risky. Reproductive choice is too great a sacrifice for any woman to make, regardless of the potential tax savings.

 

[Alceste]

Alas, there are people who actually buy into such wrong-headed thinking.


Perhaps I understand your posts even better than you do...
....or perhaps you took offense because you misunderstood that I was attributing contradictory thinking to the voters, rather than you.

War is too acceptable for many, especially when waged by the guy they elected.

I don't see how your willingness to accept creationism in schools, the deadly de-funding of health care services for the poor and the clawback of reproductive choice in order to save a few bucks on your personal income taxes is any different.