Does anyone disagree with Ron Paul on one or more issues?

[richard1984]

Several people have made comments lately on the disparity of opinions held by Ron Paul supporters (and many of these people have tried to suggest that these differing opinions will tear the Freedom movement apart, which is a ridiculous notion--let's not confuse the RonPaulForums with the "real" world ;)).

So I was wondering: Who disagrees with Ron Paul on one or more issues, and what are those issues?


I, personally, cannot think of any issue that I disagree with Ron Paul on (as far as politics is concerned), but that's just me.

Does anyone disagree with Dr. Paul on any particular issues? And if so, what are those issues?

[itsnobody]

No nothing, not even to the slightest extent...

[paulaholic]

I disagree slightly on gun control. Nothing else comes to mind.

[quickmike]

I think he likes chocolate chip cookies a little more than I do, but thats about the only difference I can see.

[richard1984]

I disagree slightly on gun control. Nothing else comes to mind.

Would you mind giving a little more explanation (this is a very interest topic for me since I've been sheltered from guns my whole life)?

[libertythor]

I disagree on a few issues, but how many people agree with everything for their candidate?

Most people who voted for Clinton or Bush didn't agree with everything they said.

[0zzy]

"Internet Regulation"
He voted against "Internet Service Provider Regulation", not particularly "Internet Regulation". If that vote went through, the ISP companies would have control over what their users can and cannot access on the web. I, for one, do not want ANYONE regulating my internet. I dont want it to look like this:

http://i7.tinypic.com/5z6vt4n.jpg

[RP08]

On any personal opinion I've had differences with, he has clearly qualified it by saying "The Federal government has no business involving themselves in these matters." 'Nuff said. He's entitled to his; I'm entitled to mine; the Fed is entitled to rule virtually none of it.

[Phil M]

*I'm hesitant about Paul's monetary policy (though ever since the Fed began lowering the interest rate every time the Dow Jones goes down 100 points, I've been reconsidering)
*I disagree to an extent with his state's rights philosophy (The tenth amendment reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.")
*I don't think life begins at conception, otherwise the police should be questioning mothers of still born babies for manslaughter (though I think restricting it in the third trimester is wise)
*I have a different cultural outlook than Paul, but I don't think that's relevant to policy decisions.
*I doubt there's any serious plan to create an NAU.
*I don't get where he got this idea that nation building began with Woodrow Wilson, that title probably goes to Teddy Roosevelt.

Other than that, I'm pretty much in agreement with him.

[lucius]

I am here for this: restore constitutional government, which supplant all other issues for me.

[richard1984]

"Internet Regulation"
He voted against "Internet Service Provider Regulation", not particularly "Internet Regulation". If that vote went through, the ISP companies would have control over what their users can and cannot access on the web. I, for one, do not want ANYONE regulating my internet. I dont want it to look like this:

http://i7.tinypic.com/5z6vt4n.jpg

Don't you think that in a free market ISP companies that overly limited the internet access of their subscribers would go out of business pretty quickly? Who would do that? It would just cost extra money, and it would be bad for profits.

[wgadget]

No, there is no issue I don't agree with him on...He's my dream candidate.

[richard1984]

Oh, I disagree with him on 9/11...but that's not really a "political issue" (i.e., it doesn't really affect how he would act as president) as much as a personal opinion.

(To clarify, I don't think that 9/11 was just the result of government incompetence.)

[Ron Paul Fan]

I disagree with him on the war. We should stay and finish the job. I'd hate for our soldiers to cut and run without honor. If we don't defeat them over there, they'll come over here and kill us all! I also disagree with him on his freedom message. The purpose of government is to keep its citizens safe no matter what the cost. If we have to get chips inserted in our bodies so that they can track us better then we should do it because the government knows what's best for us. If they have to take all of our guns away then we should comply without a fight. We are the United States of America, not the divided states of America. Finally, I disagree with him on his free market principles. I think the government does a good job when it takes over and runs things. I do want free universal health care because it's free and it's for everyone. How can you lose? All of the poor people will be taken care of and it'll be no cost to us! Ron Paul for President!!!!!

[Joe Knows]

Several people have made comments lately on the disparity of opinions held by Ron Paul supporters (and many of these people have tried to suggest that these differing opinions will tear the Freedom movement apart, which is a ridiculous notion--let's not confuse the RonPaulForums with the "real" world ;)).

So I was wondering: Who disagrees with Ron Paul on one or more issues, and what are those issues?


I, personally, cannot think of any issue that I disagree with Ron Paul on (as far as politics is concerned), but that's just me.

Does anyone disagree with Dr. Paul on any particular issues? And if so, what are those issues?

I really can't think of anything. I tried to go to the websites and answer the questions to find out my perfect candidate. They all come up Ron Paul. One was at 88%. The other was at 96%. I really don't know where we differ.

[Joe Knows]

I disagree with him on the war. We should stay and finish the job. I'd hate for our soldiers to cut and run without honor. If we don't defeat them over there, they'll come over here and kill us all! I also disagree with him on his freedom message. The purpose of government is to keep its citizens safe no matter what the cost. If we have to get chips inserted in our bodies so that they can track us better then we should do it because the government knows what's best for us. If they have to take all of our guns away then we should comply without a fight. We are the United States of America, not the divided states of America. Finally, I disagree with him on his free market principles. I think the government does a good job when it takes over and runs things. I do want free universal health care because it's free and it's for everyone. How can you lose? All of the poor people will be taken care of and it'll be no cost to us! Ron Paul for President!!!!!

Wow, It looks like we have a FredHead on board. :) :)

[MsDoodahs]

"Does anyone disagree with Ron Paul on one or more issues?"

My disagreement is pretty basic:

Ron is a minarchist, and believes it is possible to keep gov't limited.

I am an anarchist, and believe that it is impossible to keep gov't limited.

:)

[itsnobody]

Oh, I disagree with him on 9/11...but that's not really a "political issue" (i.e., it doesn't really affect how he would act as president) as much as a personal opinion.
What about 9/11...that blowback was a major contributing factor? It's not really his opinion, its what the CIA, FBI, etc...says


"Internet Regulation"
He voted against "Internet Service Provider Regulation", not particularly "Internet Regulation". If that vote went through, the ISP companies would have control over what their users can and cannot access on the web. I, for one, do not want ANYONE regulating my internet. I dont want it to look like this:

http://i7.tinypic.com/5z6vt4n.jpg
The Free Market will naturally take care of this, less people will use a certain ISP if it's known to regulate the internet....its really stupid to have a law preventing it, this leads to more regulation, less freedoms,

[literatim]

I personally don't believe in international exchange of currencies.

[aksmith]

I'm not a big secure the border guy. I worry that the people and technology used to keep illegals out will someday be used to keep us in. That's the way it usually works in history. And I think illegal immigration has been used as a distraction from the unconstitutional war in Iraq and its failure.

And I am a person who wants a bright line between religion and state.

Other than that, I think RP and me see eye to eye on everything else. That's about 98 percent concurrence and it's about 60 percent more than I've ever been able to agree with a candidate before.

[PaleoConservative]

I disagree with DR. Paul slightly on abortion. While I understand his posistion that it's a state rights issue, I am unable to take that stance. If protecting the life of it's citizens isn't the job of the federal government what is?

Gay Marriage: I think the full faith and credit clause might require a constitutional amendment.

Trade with China: We shouldn't be having buisness as usual with a country that steals our trade secrets, persecutes Christians etc.

[American]

There are a few issues that are fuzzy for me but overall I dont see any real alternative in the next election. Honesty in todays politics goes a long way with me.

He is saying the right things about the things that concenr me most, Illegal immigration, and our participation in the Middle east.

[richard1984]

Wow, It looks like we have a FredHead on board. :) :)

or someone who's spent too long on the fredthompsonforum.... ;)

[SeanEdwards]

I think I read some where that Paul thought courts should be free to post the 10 commandments, and I'm a little uneasy about that. I really don't like the idea of government displaying overtly religious bias.

[paulaholic]

Would you mind giving a little more explanation (this is a very interest topic for me since I've been sheltered from guns my whole life)?

I fully support the right of any law-abiding citizens to carry a gun, but I think that the Founding Fathers did not envision today's advanced weapon technology when they wrote the Constitution. That is why I think automatic weapons or any other type of firearm that is usable for the sole purpose of going on a killing spree should be regulated at state levels.

[dukker]

I disagree on his stance toward global warming.

Firstly, he states there is scientific debate on both sides of the issue. I don't think either of us are qualified to make a scientific assessment of the issue, but really the only people denying global warming are fringe scientists - the worlds leading sceince organisations, research institutions and top scientists have pretty much formed a consensus that global warming is occuring.

To my knowledge, Paul believes the best way to protect the environment is a respect for private property rights. I agree, with qualification. Most environmental problems can be solved this way except for those that make it impossible to contract for compensation all those third parties that have been unintentionally adversely affected. Global warming is one of these situations.
I don't however think an approach as some ill informed greenies would suggest by using the brute force of the government to tax the people and subsidise green energy is the way to go. This is immensely inefficient and the government would have no idea the best way to do this.

The best way to solve global warming, and this is the position of Milton Friedman as well, is to price carbon and let the market decide the best and most efficient way to reduce emmissions. However this requires government intervention. It isn't something that can be left to the market because the currently there is no market for clean air. It is a similar situation to intellectual property protection like copyrights and patents. Both of these are legal fictions, and you can view them as government intervention. If it were not for copyright legislation, authors would not get a life+70 years monopoly on their works. But we need that intervention for the market to price original works.

[erowe1]

I disagree with him on the Iraq war and have no hesitations whatsoever about supporting him as far and away the best presidential candidate since Reagan, if not since Coolidge.

[Nefertiti]

I don't agree with his stance on internet gambling. I think it is a business that brings no good. In fact, I would ban all kinds of gambling businesses because they simply rob the individual for the benefit of corporations. While I am personally against all gambling, I think if anything were legal it should be private gambling between individuals. It's ironic that office football pools are illegal but organized corporate gambling isn't. At least in the former no one is skimming off a profit.

And I am more enamored with Buchanan's protectionist philosophy of using tarrifs on foreign trade, which Ron Paul is against. For example, our automobile industry suffers because the Japanese tax our cars highly and we don't tax their cars. Not only are we losing market share here, we are losing it abroad because they tax our cars making them less attractive there.

[RP4ME]

*I'm hesitant about Paul's monetary policy (though ever since the Fed began lowering the interest rate every time the Dow Jones goes down 100 points, I've been reconsidering)
*I disagree to an extent with his state's rights philosophy (The tenth amendment reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.")
*I don't think life begins at conception, otherwise the police should be questioning mothers of still born babies for manslaughter (though I think restricting it in the third trimester is wise)
*I have a different cultural outlook than Paul, but I don't think that's relevant to policy decisions.
*I doubt there's any serious plan to create an NAU.
*I don't get where he got this idea that nation building began with Woodrow Wilson, that title probably goes to Teddy Roosevelt.

Other than that, I'm pretty much in agreement with him.


No plans for an NAU - please! Its already being done whther you belive it or not...
its not going to happen politically - noone woudl vote for it - theyd be too scare of a good lynching. No, its happening economically and a dollar crisis could be an easy way to do this....its happening by unchecked illegal immigartion 9 despite the "terror threat" - see SPP you tune - CNN NAU DOBBS...Look at the EU's constitution.....its stealth to most of america

[richard1984]

What about 9/11...that blowback was a major contributing factor? It's not really his opinion, its what the CIA, FBI, etc...says

Ha. No, no. I completely agree with the reality of the blowback phenomenon.
I just don't think the WTC 1 & 2 (not to mention WTC 7...) could have collapsed like they did as the result of the Boeing 767 impacts. Controlled demolition makes the most sense to me. I don't claim to know the details or exactly what happened, but I do declare that those buildings should not have imploded!

The only implosion should have been metaphorical (i.e., the definition of 'implode' that reads: "to suffer from total economic or political collapse, e.g., as a result of poor management and financial insolvency").

[RP4ME]

I disagree with him on the war. We should stay and finish the job. I'd hate for our soldiers to cut and run without honor. If we don't defeat them over there, they'll come over here and kill us all! I also disagree with him on his freedom message. The purpose of government is to keep its citizens safe no matter what the cost. If we have to get chips inserted in our bodies so that they can track us better then we should do it because the government knows what's best for us. If they have to take all of our guns away then we should comply without a fight. We are the United States of America, not the divided states of America. Finally, I disagree with him on his free market principles. I think the government does a good job when it takes over and runs things. I do want free universal health care because it's free and it's for everyone. How can you lose? All of the poor people will be taken care of and it'll be no cost to us! Ron Paul for President!!!!!

HAHAHA!

[MGreen]

Abortion. Though I agree that it's preferable to let the states handle the issue, I personally think that early abortions are legitimate. I don't think it can be considered a living being until lights start going off in the brain. But Paul is the first politician I know to come up with a real answer to the issue, and his actions in the House prove that he's not just using it as a political tool to gain votes.

I'm also undecided on my thoughts of the border and immigration and gold/sound money. I don't know enough to have a solid stance on backing the dollar on gold, and I see good points on both sides of the immigration issue. Though I definitely agree that we should build the fence; I don't see any reason not to. You can still have a healthy amount of immigration while keeping the border secure.

Other than that, I'd have to say I agree with him on just about everything.

[PennCustom4RP]

I fully support the right of any law-abiding citizens to carry a gun, but I think that the Founding Fathers did not envision today's advanced weapon technology when they wrote the Constitution. That is why I think automatic weapons or any other type of firearm that is usable for the sole purpose of going on a killing spree should be regulated at state levels.

I can go on a killing spree with a ball peen hammer....Guns don't kill people...people do.
Automatic weapons increased rate of fire allow for a better Defense...I do not want to have to reload while being attacked...the same reason a shot gun is better for home defense..more lead in the air...

[RP4ME]

I can go on a killing spree with a ball peen hammer....Guns don't kill people...people do.
Automatic weapons increased rate of fire allow for a better Defense...I do not want to have to reload while being attacked...the same reason a shot gun is better for home defense..more lead in the air...

are automatic weapoons banned?

[Brian4Liberty]

Several people have made comments lately on the disparity of opinions held by Ron Paul supporters (and many of these people have tried to suggest that these differing opinions will tear the Freedom movement apart, which is a ridiculous notion--let's not confuse the RonPaulForums with the "real" world ;)).


Disparity of opinions? lol

Of course. You can't spend all day debating issues you agree on! :D

[bdmarti]

I all about Paul and his politics, except for two tiny areas.

For one thing, I think I would be more open to some limited, protective, tariffs than Paul would be. In general I don't like the idea of a protective tariff, but I can see some instances where they might be justified. I don't know how much Paul would move on this...He's a reasonable guy...but still.

The other tiny place I dissagree with Paul is that I think there should be a death tax. A huge death tax. Paul does not like the death tax. I feel that death is the only appropriate time for society to redistribute wealth, and in particular, to reallocate the means of production and capital excess. I think this is appropriate, and sometimes required to prevent classification and aristocracy from forming.

I'm not saying we should tax you for your grandfather's watch, such mundane things should be ignored. I'm talking about the absurdities of people like Paris Hilton. She's a moron and she makes more money in interest for a day than I can earn in a year. I'm more than happy to compete with Paris Hilton and everyone else with a level playing field (or even remotely close to level), but when you start the game with billions of dollars in inheritence it takes a complete fool to not win.
I feel that a tax on things like homes above median size for a county/city, land beyond the average amount owned, and stocks would be very appropriate. Stocks in particular would be appropriate. Hell, I'd even be open to exempting or credting family businesses (sole proprieter/parnership) a great deal to protect things like the corner store and the family farm.

If we came close to implimenting Paul's dream policies those things might turn out to be unnecissary.

In any case, Paul is the only candidate that wants to move in even remotely the right direction.

[skiingff]

I disagree on his stance toward global warming.

Firstly, he states there is scientific debate on both sides of the issue. I don't think either of us are qualified to make a scientific assessment of the issue, but really the only people denying global warming are fringe scientists - the worlds leading sceince organisations, research institutions and top scientists have pretty much formed a consensus that global warming is occuring.

To my knowledge, Paul believes the best way to protect the environment is a respect for private property rights. I agree, with qualification. Most environmental problems can be solved this way except for those that make it impossible to contract for compensation all those third parties that have been unintentionally adversely affected. Global warming is one of these situations.
I don't however think an approach as some ill informed greenies would suggest by using the brute force of the government to tax the people and subsidise green energy is the way to go. This is immensely inefficient and the government would have no idea the best way to do this.

The best way to solve global warming, and this is the position of Milton Friedman as well, is to price carbon and let the market decide the best and most efficient way to reduce emmissions. However this requires government intervention. It isn't something that can be left to the market because the currently there is no market for clean air. It is a similar situation to intellectual property protection like copyrights and patents. Both of these are legal fictions, and you can view them as government intervention. If it were not for copyright legislation, authors would not get a life+70 years monopoly on their works. But we need that intervention for the market to price original works.

I'm kind of hesitant of the libertarian view of the environment. The way I see it:
1) Pollution creates health hazards. Individuals have to pay themselves to maintain their health. Therefore, pollution is stealing.
2) Destabilization of the biosphere is initiation of force.
3) Allow that the minimal state is justified.
4) The minimal state must prevent and punish violations of the nonaggression principle.
5) Therefore, environmental regulation in a minimal state is justified.

I really think selling all federal lands, to include national parks, is absolutely ludicrous and private owners would NOT "care for" government land better than the government. Protected land owned by the government is NOT cared for at all. But that's the point. WE DON'T NEED PEOPLE TO "TAKE CARE" OF PROTECTED LANDS... MOTHER NATURE DOES THAT FOR US... all people do is INTERFERE with nature. How about, we protect the lands and leave them alone? It's a good policy, it shouldn't be reversed. Again, the only thing that a private landowner would do is DESTROY the land and INTERFERE with the natural process. Or else why would they buy it?

Protection of natural habitats may very well be the only thing government does right. I think libertarians are really going into the fringe when people hear them say, "sell all parkland to private owners."

[0zzy]

hah. I laugh at those who think the free-market will work the ISPs out.

The ISPs have NO RIGHT REGULATING THE INTERNET. They have the right to what they have, which is ACCESS to the INTERNET. They give you a certain amount of speed per second to access the internet, but by blocking websites or slowing them down they are infringing on the websites' property.

Each city usually only has 1 broadband option and 1 DSL option. It is a definitive monopoly everywhere I've lived.

Today no one really regulates the internet (except for the case when the FCC or FBI take down some websites), and I want it to be kept that way. The bill in which Ron Paul voted against only regulated the business, not the internet.

[PennCustom4RP]

are automatic weapoons banned?

Not yet, but some 'assault' rifles are, and clip limits are in effect. I do not want my ability to defend my hearth and home impeded in any way by the Govt.

[barcop]

I don't agree with his stance on internet gambling. I think it is a business that brings no good. In fact, I would ban all kinds of gambling businesses because they simply rob the individual for the benefit of corporations. While I am personally against all gambling, I think if anything were legal it should be private gambling between individuals. It's ironic that office football pools are illegal but organized corporate gambling isn't. At least in the former no one is skimming off a profit.


You're joking right? Well then I want to ban alcohol because bars rob my right to stay sober. Oh wait... if I don't want to drink and waste my money on booze then I don't go to a bar.

Please.... if you are against the freedom of individual rights to gamble where and how they choose... then you are not for freedom of individual rights at all.

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

I disagree with him on the war. We should stay and finish the job. I'd hate for our soldiers to cut and run without honor. If we don't defeat them over there, they'll come over here and kill us all! I also disagree with him on his freedom message. The purpose of government is to keep its citizens safe no matter what the cost. If we have to get chips inserted in our bodies so that they can track us better then we should do it because the government knows what's best for us. If they have to take all of our guns away then we should comply without a fight. We are the United States of America, not the divided states of America. Finally, I disagree with him on his free market principles. I think the government does a good job when it takes over and runs things. I do want free universal health care because it's free and it's for everyone. How can you lose? All of the poor people will be taken care of and it'll be no cost to us! Ron Paul for President!!!!!

Oh No! Because we didn't take the fight to the Fred Thompson forum, they're coming here! Arm yourselves, men! Take up your weapons and carpet bomb the Fred Thompson forum post-haste!

[dircha]

are automatic weapoons banned?

Yes and no.

Private ownership and transfer of automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 was banned under, ironically, a piece of legislation called the Firearm Owners Protection Act.

It is possible to purchase a fully automatic weapon from the dwindling pool of those registered before 1986, but you must receive permission from and notify local law enforcement, and you must register the location of the weapon with the federal government.

However, there are various well-documented post-ban semi-automatic assault rifles that can be modified using kits and parts, illegally, to be full automatic. Or so I've heard.

[Ron Paul Fan]

You're joking right? Well then I want to ban alcohol because bars rob my right to stay sober. Oh wait... if I don't want to drink and waste my money on booze then I don't go to a bar.

Please.... if you are against the freedom of individual rights to gamble where and how they choose... then you are not for freedom of individual rights at all.

I've already had this fight with Neferti and it's no use. Making online gambling illegal goes against everything that a free society and personal responsibility is suppose to be. Me sitting here and gambling on my computer does no harm to anyone else. If I lose all of my money and run up more debt than the Federal Reserve, then that's my fault. I'd be curious to see how Neferti thinks about the alcohol issue that you raised. That can hurt other people if someone gets behind the wheel drunk and kills someone else or themselves. Should we ban alcohol? People get in crashes because they talk on their cell phone while driving. Should we ban cell phones? Ban cars? What's next on the governments ban list? We have lost our sense of personal responsibility and Ron Paul is here to restore it.

[dircha]

Not yet, but some 'assault' rifles are, and clip limits are in effect. I do not want my ability to defend my hearth and home impeded in any way by the Govt.

Except for the exceptions I noted in my previous post, automatic weapons are effectively banned.

There are plenty of semi-automatic weapons available of course, but the poster was asking specifically about automatic weapons, meaning full auto.

[lucius]

I've already had this fight with Neferti and it's no use. Making online gambling illegal goes against everything that a free society and personal responsibility is suppose to be. Me sitting here and gambling on my computer does no harm to anyone else. If I lose all of my money and run up more debt than the Federal Reserve, then that's my fault. I'd be curious to see how Neferti thinks about the alcohol issue that you raised. That can hurt other people if someone gets behind the wheel drunk and kills someone else or themselves. Should we ban alcohol? People get in crashes because they talk on their cell phone while driving. Should we ban cell phones? Ban cars? What's next on the governments ban list? We have lost our sense of personal responsibility and Ron Paul is here to restore it.

Hallelujah!

Full Tilt Poker - Open to US Players - 100% Deposit Bonus
100% Deposit Bonus - Up to $600! Full Tilt Poker welcomes poker players from all over the world, including US players. Learn from the Pros as you play alongside your favorite players at both real money and play money tables. Sign up today! http://www.fulltilt.net/

[richard1984]

Abortion. Though I agree that it's preferable to let the states handle the issue, I personally think that early abortions are legitimate. I don't think it can be considered a living being until lights start going off in the brain. But Paul is the first politician I know to come up with a real answer to the issue, and his actions in the House prove that he's not just using it as a political tool to gain votes.

I'm also undecided on my thoughts of the border and immigration and gold/sound money. I don't know enough to have a solid stance on backing the dollar on gold, and I see good points on both sides of the immigration issue. Though I definitely agree that we should build the fence; I don't see any reason not to. You can still have a healthy amount of immigration while keeping the border secure.

Other than that, I'd have to say I agree with him on just about everything.

To me, if you have an induced abortion (not withstanding circumstances involving things like rape, putting the mother’s life at serious risk, the morning-after pill, and other cases of emergency contraception--the circumstances should be handled locally on a case-by-case basis) it is basically ending a human life. If you treat an embryo or fetus like a tumor then you are committing an act of violence against another (truly helpless) human being.

I also think that a boarder fence is a bad idea. For one (like Ron Paul said), if you don't do something about the incentives for coming over here then you won't put an end to the problem (they'll just go around the fence--over water). The best way to stop illegal immigration is to take away the reasons they come here in the first place. A wall would be a terribly expensive waste of time. Not to mention that a boarder fence would spoil the terrain and the fact that a fence works both ways (and I don't like the idea of being fenced it).

And as far as the gold standard/sound money idea is concerned--I like it!! :D I love the idea of investing in precious metals (things of the Earth and of real value). I can't wait to start making a real income so that I can start investing in gold and silver. I'm looking forward to the day that I can come home with a sack full of gold and silver coins--treasure! :cool: (of course, it makes sense beyond that, too, but that's the immediate appeal)

[ButchHowdy]

We are not wall people, but even Ron said it was WAY at the bottom of the list.

As soon as I heard the words 'Carbon Tax', I knew that Global Warming was simply a new religion. Ron ain't buying it either.

[Karsten]

I disagree with him on the war. We should stay and finish the job. I'd hate for our soldiers to cut and run without honor. If we don't defeat them over there, they'll come over here and kill us all! I also disagree with him on his freedom message. The purpose of government is to keep its citizens safe no matter what the cost. If we have to get chips inserted in our bodies so that they can track us better then we should do it because the government knows what's best for us. If they have to take all of our guns away then we should comply without a fight. We are the United States of America, not the divided states of America. Finally, I disagree with him on his free market principles. I think the government does a good job when it takes over and runs things. I do want free universal health care because it's free and it's for everyone. How can you lose? All of the poor people will be taken care of and it'll be no cost to us! Ron Paul for President!!!!!

At first I though "wtf??? why are you a supporter?" but i get the joke. very funny.

[richard1984]

Disparity of opinions? lol

Of course. You can't spend all day debating issues you agree on! :D

Yes. Though I think that often being debate just to debate--you know? They get stuck defending and attacking and don't make any significant progress.
But what I was initially referring to were several comments I've read lately that were concerned with the disparity of opinions (ridiculous things like: "half of us are liberal Democrats and half of us are conservative Republicans--we're never going to be able to work together to succeed! :( "). You know what I'm talking about?

[Akus]

Several people have made comments lately on the disparity of opinions held by Ron Paul supporters (and many of these people have tried to suggest that these differing opinions will tear the Freedom movement apart, which is a ridiculous notion--let's not confuse the RonPaulForums with the "real" world ;)).

So I was wondering: Who disagrees with Ron Paul on one or more issues, and what are those issues?


I, personally, cannot think of any issue that I disagree with Ron Paul on (as far as politics is concerned), but that's just me.

Does anyone disagree with Dr. Paul on any particular issues? And if so, what are those issues?
I believe some one has already started a thread like this a little while back.

But anyway.

Ron Paul's border solution is bullshit. And so is he resistance to North American Free Trade Agreement. Someone needs to industrialize Mexico. Might as well be us.

[Corydoras]

Sure, I disagree with him on the topic of mandatory vaccination. I think it's not just perfectly all right to require vaccinations for someone to attend school, it's the only sane thing to do. I also disagree with him on national sovereignty and pandemic containment.

[EvanVolm]

-deleted-

[Karsten]

As a Libertarian Party member/ temporary Republican so I can vote for Ron Paul in the California primary, I disagree with Ron slightly on immigration. I appreciate his views on national soverignty. However, I believe this can be accomplished without a restrictive immigration policy. We never have to join the NAU, or accept a unified currency. However, I don't believe "illegals" are the problem. I don't think the governmnet has the right to tell people where they can walk. I see the border fence as unnesasary spending. I don't think the government should defend against an "invasion" from another culture, because I don't think the government should be involved in "regulating" culture. If an "illegal alien" tresspasses on someone's private property, then it is a crime. However, I definantly agree with Ron Paul that there should be no governmnet benifits to illegals, and that if we had a truly free economy and people were prospering we could be "a lot more generous in our immigration policy".

I agree with him 100% on everything else.

[Karsten]

Sure, I disagree with him on the topic of mandatory vaccination. I think it's not just perfectly all right to require vaccinations for someone to attend school, it's the only sane thing to do. I also disagree with him on national sovereignty and pandemic containment.

Even though there's mercuy in the vaccines?

[MikeStanart]

I think he likes chocolate chip cookies a little more than I do, but thats about the only difference I can see.

I'm appalled by the fact that he did not include pecans when speaking about chocolate chip cookies.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I only disagree on abortion... but we agree on that it should be left to states

[richard1984]

On the global warming issue (to get right to the point, without no flimflam--besides the reminder that "scientists" are politically influenced/motivated creatures, too), I think that our government probably already has technology advanced enough to put the age of the gasoline powered automobile behind us rather quickly.
If this is the case, I believe that Dr. Paul would declassify that technology. Doing so would send our economy sky rocketing. And with our recent Ron Paul victory (and, thus, the reestablishment of Freedom and such), we'll be able to do very well in the future ahead.


(Of course, do realize that I also believe in UFOs (not that we've recovered alien technology necessarily...--just that there really are UFOs)...though I don't claim to understand them/know what they are--but I like to think that they're comparable to historical accounts of Angels.... :) I just think things like the NASA video footage, among many others, are...unexplained. :D ...Sorry, that really doesn't have anything to do with the rest of my post... :o )

[Corydoras]

Even though there's mercuy in the vaccines?

You bet. Absolutely.

Read THE HOT ZONE by Richard Preston and THE COMING PLAGUE by Laurie Garrett. Also BETRAYAL OF TRUST by Laurie Garrett.

[max]

I dont agree with turning a blind eye to oppression in foreign nations. I oppose going to war for other nations, but we have a moral duty to exert economic pressure on brutal murderous regimes like China and Israel for example.

[dircha]

On the global warming issue (to get right to the point, without no flimflam--besides the reminder that "scientists" are politically influenced/motivated creatures, too), I think that our government probably already has technology advanced enough to put the age of the gasoline powered automobile behind us rather quickly.


Advanced alien technology, by chance?

Once upon a time when I was a young man working night shifts I listened to Art Bell too. :)

[MikeStanart]

I only disagree on abortion... but we agree on that it should be left to states

That's what so beautiful about a "Republic"!

The entire US isn't subjugated to one decision for everyone.

By doing things at a local level; everyone is happier, and much better off.



So even if people on this board agree / disagree on something.... We can All AGREE on a REPUBLIC!.

[Qiu]

I think Ron's is a little too rigid regarding nonintervention.... I think in the Value Voters' Debate he said that he wouldn't put pressure on Sudan's government

I'm all for not invading countries for our own economic imperialism, but we should still use our position in the world to influence other governments. Even Thomas Jefferson supported the idea of economic embargoes.

Still, he has a more sane foreign policy than any other candidate.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

I disagree with his assessment on chocolate chip cookies.

[cujothekitten]

I'm not completely sold on gold yet. As we've seen with the petrol dollar, our country seems perfectly ok with invading nations to secure assets. I think switching to gold might make that happen more.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

That's what so beautiful about a "Republic"!

The entire US isn't subjugated to one decision for everyone.

By doing things at a local level; everyone is happier, and much better off.



So even if people on this board agree / disagree on something.... We can All AGREE on a REPUBLIC!.

yup.

My reasoning: I don't like the practice of abortion, but a federal ban would just infringe on state's rights, it would also drive abortions to the black market, making it illegal does not eliminate it. You don't think there would be more dangerous procedures preformed? Females would try to do it themselves more often, you'll get "doctors" that are unqualified, increased usage unsanitary equipment, drives prices up, but still, you don't end abortion. Why not just leave it to the individual? Prices will be driven down, self abortions would be reduced, government saves money, you'll have qualified doctors, etc I think it should be left to the individual....but, we are the UNITED STATES of America, so it should be left to the states. It's not like the 2nd amendment, there's no amendment stating "women may abort their fetus" so it should be left to states, gun control is purely unconstitutional

[bygone]

http://www.slabiak.dk/forum_pictures/thread-sucks-yoda.jpg

[dircha]

I dont agree with turning a blind eye to oppression in foreign nations. I oppose going to war for other nations, but we have a moral duty to exert economic pressure on brutal murderous regimes like China and Israel for example.

I tend to agree. I see no Constitutional argument against injecting the values of our population into the legitimate foreign policy activities of our federal government. In fact I think we must, that we do necessarily.

Just as with a declaration of war, our values as expressed through our elected representatives will, necessarily, influence, and should influence, decisions made within the scope of legitimate foreign policy activities of our federal government.

Just as if our nation were overwhelmingly pacifist this should - will - influence the decision of our elected representatives to declare war, so also our values and philosophy should - will - influence the tariffs we levy.

So while I believe it is legitimate, whether it is expedient in producing the desired outcome comes down to an economic analysis.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'm not completely sold on gold yet. As we've seen with the petrol dollar, our country seems perfectly ok with invading nations to secure assets. I think switching to gold might make that happen more.

gold AND silver.. not just gold ;)

[jpa]

"Internet Regulation"
He voted against "Internet Service Provider Regulation", not particularly "Internet Regulation". If that vote went through, the ISP companies would have control over what their users can and cannot access on the web. I, for one, do not want ANYONE regulating my internet. I dont want it to look like this:

http://i7.tinypic.com/5z6vt4n.jpg

Why wouldn't you switch ISPs if that happened? Shouldn't we be more focused on getting choice & competition in the ISP market than encouraging the fed to make laws over what an ISP can/can not do?

[walt]

it's no longer about issues for me, it's seeing a core philosophy and that we must all be retrained in our belief systems.

[Silverback]

I think on monetary issues he's a bit old-fashioned, but only because he's been fighting the good fight on the issue since before many of us were born.

I'm of the opinion that national currencies are or soon will be an anacronism.

24 hour digital markets for everything make legal tender unnecessary, the marketplace is perfectly capable of determining what asset is most liquid, most desireable, that's how gold became money in the first place.

I think Ron understands this on some level but his long experience fighting for "gold" and the technological handicap inherent in his generation result in his arguement being a bit awkward.

The important thing we need to get across to the masses is there can be no free market capitalism without free capital markets, and by fixing interest rates we fix the price of money, and that the economic and political consequences of that fact impact everything.

[ThePieSwindler]

I'm all for allowing states to figure out whether or not to allow gay marriage or abortions. But stem cell research? It should be a no brainer to research this to the max.

Why use taxpayer money for the government to do research? Are not private universities good enough? Or even state universities using their own funds from tuition etc, could pursue this research. He never said it shouldn't be researched, he just said he wouldnt use federal tax dollars to do so.

[erowe1]

I'm all for allowing states to figure out whether or not to allow gay marriage or abortions. But stem cell research? It should be a no brainer to research this to the max.

If you want to support stem cell research or any other kind of research, nobody has ever gotten in your way of doing that. But don't make the IRS steal my money to fund that.

[Stinger44]

On any personal opinion I've had differences with, he has clearly qualified it by saying "The Federal government has no business involving themselves in these matters." 'Nuff said. He's entitled to his; I'm entitled to mine; the Fed is entitled to rule virtually none of it.

With that said, I believe I disagree with Dr. Paul on capital punishment, which is really a state issue. Therefore, I have no disagreement with him on any federal government issue.

[ThePieSwindler]

I think on monetary issues he's a bit old-fashioned, but only because he's been fighting the good fight on the issue since before many of us were born.

I'm of the opinion that national currencies are or soon will be an anacronism.

24 hour digital markets for everything make legal tender unnecessary, the marketplace is perfectly capable of determining what asset is most liquid, most desireable, that's how gold became money in the first place.

I think Ron understands this on some level but his long experience fighting for "gold" and the technological handicap inherent in his generation result in his arguement being a bit awkward.

The important thing we need to get across to the masses is there can be no free market capitalism without free capital markets, and by fixing interest rates we fix the price of money, and that the economic and political consequences of that fact impact everything.

Actually thats what ron talks about alot, and his position is mischaracterized as wanting to go "back" to the old gold standard. He doesn't talk about "going back" to the gold standard, as much as allowing competition of currencies. He said the main thing to do is legalize gold and silver because they are supposed to be legal tender under the constitutional clause, rather than just taxable assets. He said the market should sort out what currency would be dominant -fiat, metals (not necessarily gold.. palladium, silver, other stuff - just increase and legalize competition). Thats what his exact policy is on the matter, and ill see if i can find where he talks about it. It might just be in the google interview.

That also means, of course, that digital currencies would have free entry into the marketplace as well. Though of course, black hats and phishing becomes ever more of a problem in that environment.

[ronpaulyourmom]

I disagree on his abortion stance. He believes that life begins at conception, but I personally believe life begins at the start of the 2nd trimester or thereabouts.

If you believe wholeheartedly in evolution then you accept the notion that life can form from the environment given the right factors and enough passage of time. The idea that a human embryo is life is based on the fact that, within a short amount of time, this embryo will become a living human being. It's the 'potential' argument.

But if you expand the timescale, and get away from our very narrow / brief idea of time in human terms, then there's lots of rocks in space out there that have the potential for life if given a billion years to produce it or whatever. Without a solid understanding of what can constitute life, whether it must be the same factors that produced carbon-based life here on earth or something else, and without knowing just how long this Universe will be around for and to what extent there is a ripple effect of causation in the physical universe, you cannot rule out even one particle in the universe as having the potential for life, or being important to future life. This example is loony I know, but I equate killing an embryo to being about as murderous as typing on my keyboard.

On this basis, I feel that the life at conception argument fails as a definition of life. Life must be defined as self-awareness, and we must strive to understand what constitutes self-awareness. If somebody wants to come at me with an argument that says single-celled or small multi-cellular life forms are self-aware, that approach may hold some weight with me.

[philipsantamaria]

I'm PRO-CHOICE and know that mankind has significantly contributed to GLOBAL WARMING.

as far as foreign and monetary policy...and state's rights...I'm with Dr. Paul

[mport1]

I can't think of anything I don't agree with.

[Ready2Revolt]

I disagree with only two issues but I probably just don't understand how a PAulistic society would handle them. I think in order for people to be free they must have a sound mind and body. I think and heath and education should assured by the govenment, but not necessarily regulated or administered by it.

I would gladly pay taxes to assure that after collage people are free to choose a career based on personal choice rather then money to pay for stundent loans. MAybe we would see more pro bono work from lawers, more free clinics from doctors......

As for healthcare, I don't think profit should be considered in life and death situations.

I am willing to overlook these issues though to see the money we spend overseas to comeback home. Settling the whole Middle East problems by letting them take care of themselves is my highest priority. No federal taxes is also great icing on the cake though.

[ronpaulitician]

Abortion.
Border fence.
Religion.

[aksmith]

I dont agree with turning a blind eye to oppression in foreign nations. I oppose going to war for other nations, but we have a moral duty to exert economic pressure on brutal murderous regimes like China and Israel for example.

I assume your mother was scared by a Jew when she was pregnant with you. But the noble Palestinian people do indeed deserve our support, eh? They have benefited mankind with all of their great inventions and cultural advancements.

How about we do the same with all those Muslim nations that oppress and murder their own people. That would include every one except for Turkey. I have to assume you agree with that, right? Like how the Hamas government oppresses and brutalizes the poor unfortunates who got trapped in Gaza.

[Suzu]

There's just one thing I disagree with him about: nuclear energy. He says it's "clean". No way!!! And I can't believe no one else on this forum disagrees on this issue.

Replacing coal-fired electric plants with nuclear is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. Developing wind and solar energy options can't possibly cost as much as building reactors.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

There's just one thing I disagree with him about: nuclear energy. He says it's "clean". No way!!! And I can't believe no one else on this forum disagrees on this issue.

Replacing coal-fired electric plants with nuclear is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. Developing wind and solar energy options can't possibly cost as much as building reactors.

who cares? let the free market handle it

[ronpaulyourmom]

There's just one thing I disagree with him about: nuclear energy. He says it's "clean". No way!!! And I can't believe no one else on this forum disagrees on this issue.

Replacing coal-fired electric plants with nuclear is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. Developing wind and solar energy options can't possibly cost as much as building reactors.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348

Just one example of how nuclear power is evolving, there's already existing plants out there that are way safer and produce way less waste than reactors built decades ago. If the free market was given space to innovate in this field, you would see truly clean and cheap nuclear power that would have even less of an environmental footprint as wind and solar.

[mikelovesgod]

I disagree with DR. Paul slightly on abortion. While I understand his posistion that it's a state rights issue, I am unable to take that stance. If protecting the life of it's citizens isn't the job of the federal government what is?

Gay Marriage: I think the full faith and credit clause might require a constitutional amendment.

Trade with China: We shouldn't be having buisness as usual with a country that steals our trade secrets, persecutes Christians etc.

You bring up the same objections that I do.

[Qiu]

There's just one thing I disagree with him about: nuclear energy. He says it's "clean". No way!!! And I can't believe no one else on this forum disagrees on this issue.

Replacing coal-fired electric plants with nuclear is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. Developing wind and solar energy options can't possibly cost as much as building reactors.
Well we've made improvements on nuclear energy already since we stopped building plants. They are much safer and cleaner than they were in the 70s. Just imagine how much better they could be now if the market actually had an incentive to develop them.

[RevolutionSD]

Not that it makes any difference because I disagree with most other candidates on just about everything, but my 2 issues with RP are:

1) Abortion. I'm pro-choice. However, I don't mind his stance that the states should decide. It's tolerable to me.

2) The border fence. To me this goes against libertarian principles. I don't want the government to build any wall along the border. It will cost the taxpayers and it won't help. All we need to do is END THE WELFARE STATE, which RP agrees with me on.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I disagree with DR. Paul slightly on abortion. While I understand his posistion that it's a state rights issue, I am unable to take that stance. If protecting the life of it's citizens isn't the job of the federal government what is?

Gay Marriage: I think the full faith and credit clause might require a constitutional amendment.

Trade with China: We shouldn't be having buisness as usual with a country that steals our trade secrets, persecutes Christians etc.

Gay marriage? Why d we even have licenses for it? lol it's a non government issue

Chinese trade: let the free market sort it out

[Rivington Essex]

I have nuanced differences:

[hells_unicorn]

Initially when I first started supporting him I thought he simply supported a blanket return to the Gold Standard based upon current ownership of Gold, which would be problematic. Later he elaborated on this and talked about wealth actually being measured by real commodities (not only Gold, but all commodities), I understood his actual view and support it.

Other than this, which is now a non-issue, there really isn't anything I disagree with him on.

[ThePieSwindler]

I at first thought he wanted to restrict even legal immigration, but then saw that he voted for increased H1-B visas. He also voted for the border fence not beucase he thinks that will truly solve the problem, but it would at least help mitigate the problem while we tried to get our house in order. Time and time again he harps on how it is the welfare state that is the problem, and illegal immigrants are really scapegoats for a larger issue at hand, and thats a view i wholeheartedly agree with. Like he says, if we had a healthy, free economy, we actually would WANT more workers to come in, and only those that would want to work hard would come to the US if there were no free incentives. So basically, i used to think i disagreed with him on immigration, but it turns out he has the best stance on it of ANY candidate.

[mikelovesgod]

Gay marriage? Why d we even have licenses for it? lol it's a non government issue

Recognition of inheritance rights by the gov't. I don't like gov't licences, but I don't want public recognition of sodomite marriage as a protection of the common good. Whether or not you disagree is a different question.


Chinese trade: let the free market sort it out

It's not just a question of free trade, but moral responsibilities to a Communist nation that funds evil activities and is an enemy of the state.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Recognition of inheritance rights by the gov't. I don't like gov't licences, but I don't want public recognition of sodomite marriage as a protection of the common good. Whether or not you disagree is a different question.



It's not just a question of free trade, but moral responsibilities to a Communist nation that funds evil activities and is an enemy of the state.

If your church doesn't want to marry gays, then they won't lol why do we need licensing? That's stupid

China: Well, they're no enemy of mine

free market would be more efficient in sorting it out. Do companies want to do business with a country that supplies them with compromised goods? Not when the American companies will be held liable for what they sell, so I think the free market is better at sorting it out. Companies will either:

a. inspect their imports themselves

or

b. stop doing business with China

[singapore_sling]

I disagree with pulling out of the UN. Im 17 and really active in my school's model United Nations program and I have come to some conclusions about the UN. First of all it isn't necessary for us to pull out, but its a good place for us to engage in dialogue with other nations and share ideas and collaborate on key issues. I do however think that the US shoulder's way to much of the cost and burden associated with operating the UN. However, the UN doesn't have much in the way of enforcement so we really don't have to do what they say. I think it is useful in discouraging countries that are acting aggressive towards other nations. That's basically it. I agree with alot of what he has to say about the UN, but I just don't think its necessary to leave it.

[aksmith]

You bring up the same objections that I do.

The full faith and credit clause may not really be a problem. It's been interpreted to mean that "judgments" are given full faith and credit, but "policy" is not. That means that if someone is gay married in one state, maybe he'd be able to enforce a judgment against his partner's assets in a second state, but the marriage itself isn't necessarily recognized in the second state.

[austinphish]

of course people disagree with something he says, that would be bizarre if it were otherwise.

[MicroBalrog]

I disagree on the war, but people here already know this.

Also I find his policy on the Fed not sufficiently libertarian.

[Johnnybags]

presents them but more importantly I trust his judgement. The rest want to expand Washington power, I want it gone. Only other way around it is term limits, its the long time hacks that ruined the country.

[trispear]

I disagree with him on a number of issues.

Regulation. I believe in it in certain areas. I agree with him that the government/market should always allow competition.

But there are a few items that are better served by a monopoly government or heavily regulated corporation like water/sewer/electricity. Sometimes is impractical with current technology to have competition in all these areas. I've been told ever since cable has been deregulated that it has shot through the roof. (I believe competition from the internet and satellite will eventually level this).

Also, I have been a victim of the hospital system who as a noninsurance holder has been overcharged 6x the amount insurance would pay (and I did pay the bill). Your health is not like electronics where you can pick or choose based on the price - even if it's just because of the location where you are at and the next best price is an hour away if it's an emergency.

America pays much more per capita for health and it's members are in poorer health than in Great Britain, France, or Canada (all government subsidized). I believe socialized medicine is not so bad. Alternatively, there is Germany - where the employer has to provide medical insurance - even a McDonalds employee. This way companies like Wal-mart don't dump their employees onto the tax_payer/medicaid while the Walton family makes billions.

Apparently the non-subsidized system there is much cheaper, my self-emloyed 40ish brother gets full coverage for 200 euros (~$280). And the service there is one of the best in the world.

Also, there are reports where regulation also helps certain markets greatly:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/AR2007082801990_pf.html

I agree with his economics in certain markets but some markets are inherently closed and the same dynamics just don't apply IMHO. I agree with him on the constitution - a libertarian on the Federal level is fine with me with different states catering to locals and in competition with each other to provide the best service.

I am voting for him because he and Mike Gravel are the only two honest candidates and not full of bs like the others.

[Nash]

Abortion: I'm pro-choice but I think the states choice argument is totally fine.

Illegal Immigration: I'm an open borders person but I also understand that welfare and open borders doesn't work. I'd just assume get rid of the welfare and let the problem solve itself. RP is stacking the deck on this issue which I suppose is more realistic since getting rid of all welfare is unlikely.

That's about it. Note I think socialism isn't inherently awful when implemented at the local level but I think it's awful at the federal level so I probably wouldn't vote a hardcore libertarian for mayor of my city, but for president I can't think of anything more perfect.

[nexalacer]

"Does anyone disagree with Ron Paul on one or more issues?"

My disagreement is pretty basic:

Ron is a minarchist, and believes it is possible to keep gov't limited.

I am an anarchist, and believe that it is impossible to keep gov't limited.

:)

What she said.

[LibertyEagle]

Chinese trade: let the free market sort it out

I'm not so sure about this one either. If the Chinese are spying on us and they have been, I don't see how the free market is going to solve this. I doubt it would give a flip. I'd like to hear Dr. Paul's reasoning, because he usually can explain it quite well.

I'm also torn on the abortion issue. Protecting life is a Constitutional function, right? I can see how the penalty part would be a state issue, but I don't get why an unborn's life is not protected by the Constitution and thus a federal matter. Can anyone clear this up for me?

I also would like to hear more from him about the medical care problem in our country. I don't see how it's going to be remedied until insurance companies and their associated lobbyists are totally disbanded. Can we throw out the lobbyists for big pharma while we're at it too?

[nexalacer]

It's not constitutional because violence is not the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Period.

[LibertyEagle]

It's not constitutional because violence is not the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Period.

Ok. I'm learning here, so let me ask another question. If a state decided that murder of any kind was not to be prosecuted, then that would be up to them, right?

[constituent]

Ok. I'm learning here, so let me ask another question. If a state decided that murder of any kind was not to be prosecuted, then that would be up to them, right?

yes ma'am. i think the issue here is over the fed gov't jurisdiction in 'protecting' rights, versus punishing the offenders of anothers' rights.:confused: maybe.

in other words, i think it is the job of the gov't to protect rights... but i'm not certain of any authority to 'punish' anyone.

[nexalacer]

Ok. I'm learning here, so let me ask another question. If a state decided that murder of any kind was not to be prosecuted, then that would be up to them, right?

That's the idea. Violence is the state's business, according to the constitution.

[constituent]

oh yea, and i disagree w/ him on immigration and special treatment
for large energy corporations looking to capitalize through subsidies
and special treatment in terms of taxation.

[nexalacer]

The problem with the issue of abortion though, is even though a fetus is alive, according to most definitions of life, it is also a parasite until after it is born. Unfortunately, I think the fact that it's life depends on another life to exist, it cannot be considered a full human yet, as humans do not have to depend on another person to live.

That said, I have the understanding that after the second trimester, fetuses can live outside the mother's body. At this point, it is no longer a parasite, thus should be granted all considerations for any other human life.

[trispear]

The problem with the issue of abortion though, is even though a fetus is alive, according to most definitions of life, it is also a parasite until after it is born. Unfortunately, I think the fact that it's life depends on another life to exist, it cannot be considered a full human yet, as humans do not have to depend on another person to live.The same critique applies to babies though:)

Disclaimer: Abortion never was a hot button issue for me. I am Pro-C up to an extent, but Ron Paul is the first person who actually has me reconsidering the issue as he is the first pro-lifer that doesn't sound like a religious panderer to me.

[constituent]

The same critique applies to babies though:)

Disclaimer: Abortion never was a hot button issue for me. I am Pro-C up to an extent, but Ron Paul is the first person who actually has me reconsidering the issue as he is the first pro-lifer that doesn't sound like a religious panderer to me.

second that... particularly the baby part... no, a baby cannot survive w/out the parents outside of the womb... they're just as dependent on their mothers outside as in (albeit the demands change somewhat).

[LibertyEagle]

yes ma'am. i think the issue here is over the fed gov't jurisdiction in 'protecting' rights, versus punishing the offenders of anothers' rights.:confused: maybe.

in other words, i think it is the job of the gov't to protect rights... but i'm not certain of any authority to 'punish' anyone.

Ok. Then, it would still be Constitutional for the federal government to categorize abortion as murder, right? But, it would be up to the states how and if to prosecute it?

[TheIndependent]

I disagree on what commodities should be used as hard currency, but those things can be ironed out later on.

[constituent]

i think so...

but is it their place to 'categorize' murder?? see, that's where i'm clueless.

[LibertyEagle]

oh yea, and i disagree w/ him on immigration and special treatment
for large energy corporations looking to capitalize through subsidies
and special treatment in terms of taxation.

He's against corporate subsidies though, I thought. :confused:

[nexalacer]

The same critique applies to babies though:)

Disclaimer: Abortion never was a hot button issue for me. I am Pro-C up to an extent, but Ron Paul is the first person who actually has me reconsidering the issue as he is the first pro-lifer that doesn't sound like a religious panderer to me.

I'm talking in a strictly biological sense. A parasite is an organism that feeds off of another in various relationships (mutually beneficial, co-existing without effect, or causing harm). I'm not going to argue which one a baby is, because until I have one inside me (i.e. until never), I can't know. However, it is a parasite. A baby, is not a parasite, biologically, as it can be fed and taken care of by others once it is born. A fetus cannot. A fetus can only feed on its mother, thus in that relationship, it IS a parasite.

Edit: Oh, and talking about abortion in presidential races is the reason why the Moral Majority, or the Christian Conservatives, or whatever should all take a long walk off a short cliff as far as I'm concerned. This is a perfect example of missing the forest for the trees.

[nexalacer]

Ok. Then, it would still be Constitutional for the federal government to categorize abortion as murder, right? But, it would be up to the states how and if to prosecute it?

If violence is out of bounds for the constitution, why would they have the authority to define various forms of violence?

[atilla]

i disagree with him on many issues, but i still think he's a real man, not bought and paid for like most politicians. when i was younger and first heard of him i bought his whole economic platform. i ended up studying financial economics in college, served time in the military, did missionary work with indians in the mountains of east-central mexico and spent lots of time turning over many theorys in my head.

now i am very much an internationalist nationalist. by that i mean i recognize there is not any regard for the people of this "nation" by the politicians in this country. that includes ron paul. although he does make many nationalist arguments in the end he takes some positions, like h1b visas and unlimited free trade which are supposed to benefit the economy, but in fact do not benefit the nation. economic growth is not the ultimate good. unfortunately many people take a superficial understanding of things like "ricardo's theory of comparative advantage" and misunderstand the ultimate consequences for the nation. these policies may be good for economic growth but they are in effect nothing more than "labor arbitrage", ie. equalizing labor rates between the U.S. and the 3rd world for the profit of the "arbitrageurs", the multinational corporations.

this is why i'm forced to be an internationalist, there is no government to protect my nation, so i must protect myself by seeking the best life possible, which will ultimately lead me out of this country to retire where the living is cheep and the girls are friendly.

i think the 3 most nationalist politicians today are ron paul, ahmadinejad, and hugo chavez. if they were running for election here i would probably vote for chavez. chavez is a real man, he would make guilliani cry like a pussy if you locked them in a fighting cage.

[nexalacer]

I disagree on what commodities should be used as hard currency, but those things can be ironed out later on.

I disagree that you, or anyone, are smart enough to decide what commodities should be used. Gold and silver are usually suggested because the market has chosen them for as long as there has been some type of money. I'm pretty much for the government not even thinking about currency. Let the market take care of it.

[nexalacer]

i disagree with him on many issues, but i still think he's a real man, not bought and paid for like most politicians. when i was younger and first heard of him i bought his whole economic platform. i ended up studying financial economics in college, served time in the military, did missionary work with indians in the mountains of east-central mexico and spent lots of time turning over many theorys in my head.

now i very much an internationalist nationalist. by that i mean i recognize there is not any regard for the people of this "nation" by the politicians in this country. that includes ron paul. although he does make many nationalist arguments in the end he takes some positions, like h1b visas and unlimited free trade which are supposed to benefit the economy, but in fact do not benefit the nation. economic growth is not the ultimate good. unfortunately many people take a superficial understanding of things like "ricardo's theory of comparative advantage" and misunderstand the ultimate consequences for the nation. these policies may be good for economic growth but they are in effect nothing more than "labor arbitrage", ie. equalizing labor rates between the U.S. and the 3rd world for the profit of the "arbitrageurs", the multinational corporations.

this is why i'm forced to be an internationalist, there is no government to protect my nation, so i must protect myself by seeking the best life possible, which will ultimately lead me out of this country to retire where the living is cheep and the girls are friendly.

i think the 3 most nationalist politicians today are ron paul, ahmadinejad, and hugo chavez. if they were running for election here i would probably vote for chavez. chavez is a real man, he would make guilliani cry like a pussy if you locked them in a fighting cage.

Interesting post. The part that really peaked my interest was "economic growth is not the ultimate good." What, in your opinion, is the ultimate good? How do you see that good being accomplished?

[constituent]

He's against corporate subsidies though, I thought. :confused:

in principle yes, but he's been waffling on the two new proposed Nuclear Plants in
Matagorda County and plugging nuclear left and right (not so much lately,
hopefully things have changed).

sorry, i'm kinda extremist, but i view the power grid as the welfare state's
largest festering wound.

[jacmicwag]

Interesting to see how many pro-choice folks are willing to support Ron. And even a few pro-war people - now that's a surprise.

I like the idea of stripping down the government but what do we do with all of those unemployed government workers? I've also wondered if this is something the President can do on his own like ban the IRS or abolish the Department of Education. Or will this languish in Congress for years.

I'm a big supporter of not policing the world but what happens if we change our polices and bin Laden's buddies still don't invite us to dinner. Do we convert to Islam to get them off our backs? In 98' bin Laden wrote an Open Letter to America and said we must convert in addition to changing policy. Others in the radical Islam movement have said recently that our conversion is just as important as a change in policy. Let's hope they back off this demand because I don't see a good mix between freedom-loving Paulites and reverse crusaders.

[Roxi]

"Does anyone disagree with Ron Paul on one or more issues?"

My disagreement is pretty basic:

Ron is a minarchist, and believes it is possible to keep gov't limited.

I am an anarchist, and believe that it is impossible to keep gov't limited.

:)


this is also about how i feel... there are a few things i disagree with him about but i believe hes the most honest, sound, intelligent guy up there and if he doesn't win this country is in a lot of trouble

[atilla]

Interesting post. The part that really peaked my interest was "economic growth is not the ultimate good." What, in your opinion, is the ultimate good? How do you see that good being accomplished?

how about enjoying life as the ultimate good, i've left my christian past behind. supposedly that would make me a hedonist, but i definatly don't look like what the definition of hedonist is supposed to be. i don't drink alcohol, use drugs, smoke, over-eat. i don't live in a fancy neighborhood, drive a fancy new car or wear fashionable clothes.

what i do enjoy is working out, watching the cats play in the back yard, talking to people who understand my way of life and making sweet pretty girls feel good (i've more often found such girls in asia and latin america than in this country). my way of life takes not so much economic growth, in fact economic growth tends to tear up the wide open spaces which i also enjoy. we need not more people to fuel economic growth, we need fewer people to fuel quality of life.

i'm intrigued by what's happening in japan and russia. without immigration and with an aging populous their populations are in decline. so far russia is not transitioning well, but japan looks promising.

when i lived with the mexican indians,(this was an area not accessible by road) who had no electricity, no running water or toilet facilities (they had a communal latrine) and houses made of sticks and leaves, i found them to be happy and gracious. to be sure some of the men would go into the city to work for a time, but mostly they made do with what they got out of nature and their gardens. really i would say they were in general happier than most americans. could americans live like that now? not with the current level of population.

strangely enough, i met a jew in ciudad de puebla who called me on my efforts with these indians. they were happy, why should i try to force a religion on them and introduce them to our way of life even more than they had been to that point. he also encouraged me to read nietzsche. most jews hate nietzsche and consider him to be an evil nazi. just goes to show there are good jews and bad jews.;)

so, is it a good thing to work 65 hours a week, husband and wife, to have two new cars, a big house in the right neighborhood, a giant plasma tv? that, is economic growth. slavery to the banks, slavery to the "man", the marginal increase in wealth from low-priced chinese goods at walmart are offset ten fold by the decrease in wages from competing with third world labor. when my parents grew up in the 1930's they were "poor" living on farms and ranches, but they actually had more leisure time than the average american today.

ironically i've seen immigration opponents many of whose positions i support (other than building a wall along the border), say that one of the worst things about latin immigration is their culture which they are not assimilating to the american standard. they complain that the mexicans don't value the american way of living, true, they value spending time with their family and friends. they don't like following the rules and regulations of orderly (anglo) society, true, they are dirty libertarians. (yes, in my "not the right neighborhood", most of my neighbors are mexicans.)

really, i enjoy going to a jam session with 20 or 30 amateur musicians over going to some concert, (in fact i won't go to the concert). i prefer cooking a meal at home to going to a restaurant (in fact, i only go to a restaurant if absolutely necessary, ie traveling or something). i'm a lost soul in a strange land, but, i'm still happy. i could even be happy living in guillianis fascist state, but i would prefer a little piece of peace in that lala land of tan friendly girls and cheep produce.

[SeanEdwards]

There's just one thing I disagree with him about: nuclear energy. He says it's "clean". No way!!! And I can't believe no one else on this forum disagrees on this issue.

Replacing coal-fired electric plants with nuclear is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. Developing wind and solar energy options can't possibly cost as much as building reactors.

Nuclear is about 1000000 times cleaner and safer than coal energy.

Wind and solar do not currently generate enough energy to meet our societal needs.

[mikelovesgod]

Ok. I'm learning here, so let me ask another question. If a state decided that murder of any kind was not to be prosecuted, then that would be up to them, right?


It's not murder, it's genocide and an attack on an entire group of people, the unborn, hence it's federal and protected by the state. If it was isolated I could see it, but when a group of people attack the innocent as a systematic attack it's more than murder, it's infanticide.