Are there any issues you disagree with Paul on?

[Weston White]

I never understood what that actually meant . Does National Socialist serve to be the spoken replacement for saying Fascism? Fascism clearly defined as a merge of corporation and state, of course.

Isn’t it all truly but degrees of the same? Be it, socialism, corporatism, fascism, communism, totalitarianism or governmental austerity and statism through oligarchic-demagogic decrees of democratic privatization, kleptocracy, progressivism, et al?

[CalebBetton]

I'm shakey on his foreign policy......unlike Paul, I would like to completely abandon Israel in terms of foreign aid and possibly going into combat with Iran.

[Athan]

I actually STOPPED thinking global warming was man made even before I learned of Paul. Whatever is going on with the weather, its much bigger than car emmissions. I think the sun is actually in a very hot period. Plus a volcano activity produces WAY more carbon mon/dioxide than cars do.

It could be a long hot pulse that happens every few centuries on earth. Up until a 100 years ago, people didn't really keep track of this crap globally.

I can definitely deal with the evolution thing though. That's his belief, and he respects mine. So I respect and defend him when people bring it up. Who are they to judge him?

[Spikender]

I actually STOPPED thinking global warming was man made even before I learned of Paul. Whatever is going on with the weather, its much bigger than car emmissions. I think the sun is actually in a very hot period. Plus a volcano activity produces WAY more carbon mon/dioxide than cars do.

It could be a long hot pulse that happens every few centuries on earth. Up until a 100 years ago, people didn't really keep track of this crap globally.

I can definitely deal with the evolution thing though. That's his belief, and he respects mine. So I respect and defend him when people bring it up. Who are they to judge him?

Which is one reason I like Ron Paul so much. He's one of the few government officials who truly respects other people's beliefs without shoving his in all of our faces, which most mainstream politicians do in order to gain votes. Paul is just so humble about most of his beliefs that it's unreal. He really is a gem among all the crap in our government.

As for what I disagree with Ron Paul on, there are a few things, but I can't recall them off of the top of my head. I'm sure I'll remember them eventually, although it's probably just a few small things.

[papitosabe]

I'm shakey on his foreign policy......unlike Paul, I would like to completely abandon Israel in terms of foreign aid and possibly going into combat with Iran.

first post ever and not sure if you're just trolling because he's never stated he wants to give fa to Israel or go to war with Iran... he's completely against all foreign aid, and war unless we're attacked or there is an imminent threat..

[Weston White]

You can rest assured that global warming is a deplorable charade for three primary reasons: (1) the insistent involvement of criminal mastermind Al Gore, (2) never is the real concern of carbon monoxide addressed but only the much harmless and life cycling carbon dioxide, and (3) the devising of the entire carbon tax and trade scheme, coexisting aside of the vicarious wolves in sheep’s clothing that perpetuates itself as the “green” movement or agenda.

Now this of course should be taken to discount very serious concerns with air and water pollution, smog, waste, etc., though to stretch that into the global melting of ice caps, extinction of entire animal species, endless earthquakes, and submersion of entire cities under oceans goes far beyond lunacy.

[Assassinrentao]

Ron Paul, Ron Paul....

I've found it difficult to agree with Paul , in the past, , but I've eventually come to the conclusion to support Ron Paul. The majority of Democrats , and Republicans have dogmatic allegiances to their party, and they do not evaluate the core values that once made this country so great: individualism and free enterprise. Therefore, I have to give credit to Ron Paul ; Ron Paul encourages critical, thinking individuals to intervene , in government , when their government is taking a too liberal approach in their role; government is transitioning too much power to elected officials rather than the individual. In essence, we are seeing the seeds of a tyrannical, leaning government.

Some ideas I agree with Ron Paul on are:

I agree with Ron Paul on cutting spending. You have reduce welfare spending and military spending to balance the budget. You simply can't spend money you don't have;all us pay our bills on a budget, so , why can't our federal government do the same? Also, taxation doesn't solve the problem because ultimately national taxes from military and welfare programs tickle down to the most employed workforce of our nation: the working poor and the middle class.Since there is a larger proportional of wealth loss with a lower-class income, with increases in taxes, these groups suffer the most. Eventually, our country suffers the most due to it.

I agree with Ron Paul on civil liberties because of the simple fact that trading privacy , for security , is never the correct answer because it is always the government's failure to provide security; in result, that leads to the loss of privacy. If the government wants to be secure, it should have a policy that increases homeland troops, rather than using that money to fund overseas wars that eventually instigate attacks on American soil.

I agree with a non-interventionist and a non-preemptive war foreign policy. When I say foreign policy, I'm referring to the United States as being only involved in threats that deal with our national borders. Ever since our nation has gone into preemptive war with countries , from European , Middle Eastern countries, and Asian countries we've only instigated more wars that end up ending millions of innocence lives ; along with that, our nation has seeked long-term profits of these wars; this idea our government profiting from wars in-beds an immoral image of "pain for profit" as our county's foreign image.

The individual essence of life , and liberty should be the first obligation of any government, rather than economical, political and militaristic gain, can any true American disagree with that?

However, I understand my view on military interventionism is unrealistic due to the fact our government , for the last 100 years, has created enemies that do not go away over night, but instead of engaging in more preemptive wars to kill them - we should engage the individuals that engage in the specific terror events, rather than the group because it's too expensive, and too dangerous because it gives terrorists a reason to target our citizens. In a nutshell, you don't use the same ideological tactics , terrorists use , since it is counterproductive.

I agree with Ron Paul's argument on the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs, no doubt, has lead to a disproportional amount of Americans into our prison systems. While this is obvious, the main problem is that by incarcerating such a large population , just because they digest self-inflicting substance , seems absurd because the same argument can be made for any type of substance we digest.

Do we begin outlawing Burger King's fast food because of their food is considered unhealthy?

Of course not, as individuals, we should have our own ability to make our own choices. If we want to be unhealthy, that's our choice , and not our government's choice.

Not only does the War on Drugs violate individual liberties, but it only has a snowball effect on the true, detrimental effect is a false sense of security. The War on Drugs claims to lower "crime". However, the large incarnation of adult citizens does not lower crime, but encourages crime by creating a society without parental support. This, in fact , gives youth the incentive to commit crime because they have no family system that encourages correct, moral behavior. In the end, the government gains more power because the War on Drugs gets an economic incentive for local law enforcement to depend on government spending to enforce absurd laws.


I agree with a lot of Ron Paul's views because he encourages the individual to take part , in their government, a lot more than government officials whom rather get fed a silver spoon all their lives - at the expense of our working class.

When I do disagree with Ron Paul, it would have to be issues that he leans towards religion, such as abortion , because I kinda get the idea that he'd choose a religious argument, rather than his over his libertarian views, because of preference.

I used to think about what Ron Paul would have done in the past which most of my disagreements came from , however , the problems of today, and every era requires a new way of thinking.

Our era requires limited government spending, zero government infringement on individual freedoms, and limited governmental power , in general.

To fit the times, our ideologies must adapt , just as our founding fathers intended it to be.

[PierzStyx]

I never understood what that actually meant . Does National Socialist serve to be the spoken replacement for saying Fascism? Fascism clearly defined as a merge of corporation and state, of course.

The definition of Fascism as the "merging of the corporation and the state" is actually a horrible definition of fascism. It is so much more than that. Fascism is the militarized nanny state. It promises to take care of all your needs, cradle to the grave, and in exchange demands all your liberty and freedom and absolute loyalty to the government in all ways and forms. It essentially replaces God with the Almighty State. As Mussolini said, "Everything within the State, and nothing outside of it." This is so much more than the corruption of the corporatist state, though corporatism is a step in that direction.

As for National Socialism, it is a good term for fascism, but not perfect since it is related to the racism of Nazi Fascism. But really except for that, the ideas are synonymous. And even the racism makes sense when you consider fascism was about making the perfect world for the perfect man. Read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg. Great book on this entire subject.

[ProIndividual]

I'm for open borders (free market borders - only thing required for entry is a medical exam and background check...no quotas). It's the original border policy of this country. We didn't restrict anything but the Chinese until the 20th Centruy...and that was racist nonsense too.

I'm for abolishing the state, not just turning stuff over to the States from the federal as per the 10th Amendment. But his returning to the States those powers is a step in the right direction...decentralizing not to the States, but to the individual would be my goal. I don't think, for example, any State or federal, or town, or county, or any other person has the right to tell an adult not smoke weed, eat raw food, etc.

I'm for all kinds of stuff Paul isn't for (or at least doesn't say he's for directly)...but I'm still in 95%+ agreement with him overall.

The borders thing is probably my biggest issue with him. Free markets don't have closed or even quota'd immigration. Hoppe is easily refuted when it comes to his assumptions about valuations of different immigrants. He really believes (Hoppe) that you can place arbitrary valuations on humans. If we listened to Hoppe, the guy who came here as a child of poor immigrants wouldn't have founded Google in the U.S. We also know Friedman was wrong when he said "can't have open borders in a welfare state"...data shows that immigrants migrate 99% to jobs to work, and only 1% of the time to generous welfare states. It also shows that native wealth, incomes, and employment grow with immigration, as immigration is condusive to economic growth. It's counter intutive, but deductively logical.

[ProIndividual]

It essentially replaces God with the Almighty State.

Hence why I'm against nationalism and all it's pseudo-religious symbols...like flags, anthems, oaths, pledges, etc. All brainwashing.

But that's really a good description of America today...fascist. We have militarized our police, are the most incarcerated nation of Earth (even though our population looks like a small town compared some countries), and have domestic secret police.

However, not all fascism replaces God with the state. In fact, Germany had a national religion...it was Christianity. They believed in the Aryan Jesus. The same religion most neo-nazis and Klan members follow today.

The reason for calling corporatism the definition for fascism is that Third Way Economics (Pope Leo) was the choice of fascist governments...a middle ground between communism and capitalism. Incidentally, Clinton advisor and neocon hack Dick Morris introduced Clinton to Third Way Economics during his Presidency. Keynesianism is also a form of "mixed economics" or "Third Way".

The economics of a nation combined with it's organizational methods and legal structure make it fascist.

[The_Great_Refusal]

no. none....

[Revolution9]

2. Doesn't accept evolution despite it being as factual.

I know yer banned but here is much evidence against evolution. I get so tired of the Darwin chimps jumping on logs and pounding their chests about evolution. I know my ancestors did not crawl off the plains of Africa. Their whole schtick is based on missing links. If I put a bunch of oval iron rings unjoined in front of you would you deem that a chain? That is what bozo drooldonkeys like Dawkins would have us blindered by. Enjoy the video. Lloyd is a hoot. He kicks some royal scientists butt hard.


Rev9

[fisharmor]

I'm for open borders (free market borders - only thing required for entry is a medical exam and background check...no quotas). It's the original border policy of this country. We didn't restrict anything but the Chinese until the 20th Centruy...and that was racist nonsense too.

Yes, it was the original border policy of this country - which is to say, no policy.
Border protection, immigration control, deportation, and the strategies and tactics employed (and proposed) to do these are absent from the US Constitution.
They weren't added to the Constitution before they were enacted.
Therefore they are unconstitutional.

It doesn't matter whether or not I agree with Ron Paul on his immigration policy.
He's objectively wrong.

[Terry1]

No...I've read more Ron Paul in the last month than I ever did before...and to my shame...but no...there's nothing that I've seen that I disagree with him on. I think if more people actually did their homework, they'd get behind Ron Paul too.

[ProIndividual]

Those evil Mexican immigrants, not wanting to wait an estimated 130 years to come into the U.S. legally...they should just stand in that 130 year line "like everyone else".

Does anyone rational think this is enforcable, or that it's unreasonable to break such a nonsense tyrannical law against the natural right of movement?

Puh-lease.

[ProIndividual]

dp somehow.

[MadOdorMachine]

Over time I've come to agree with him on just about everything. The one thing that I think would be disastrous is a complete, immediate withdrawal of all of military bases around the world. I like the idea of bringing our troops home and beefing up the Navy and Air Force, but a withdrawal from all of the bases needs to be staged. You can't just completely pull out of all these bases and not expect a war to break out. Two areas, in particular are the Middle East and Korea. If he were to bring all the troops home suddenly, Iran or another country would surely attack Israel. The same thing applies to S. Korea. If we pull out, there's no telling what the north will do.

He needs to do a better job at explaining this and say he would work with military commanders to minimize the possibility of war. I do think pulling our troops out is possible, but the way he presents it is a hard pill to swallow for anyone who's served.

[ProIndividual]

I know my ancestors did not crawl off the plains of Africa

So how did they occur? Did some magic ghost wave his magic wand and create you out of thin air? Yeah, that's a more plausible explanation.

As someone who believes in the Creator and also in evolution, I wonder if religious people and their anti-evolution myths (in the face of all scientific proof to the contrary) know they are exactly the opposite of the what the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason stood for, and are making people like me who do believe in a Creator but also believe in science (as it's based on facts and reason) look bad when they say things like "my ancestors didn't come from apes".

Either believe your myth or don't...but don't act like you have a good counter-argument to evolution; you don't.

[water22]

I don't agree with him on a few issues:

I don't want to abolish the Federal Reserve and have a gold standard
I don't think we should bring ALL our troops home (the ones in the middle east, germany and japan we should, but not those in Korea)
I don't like cookies, I prefer brownies.

[Jason525]

Dr. Paul used to be pro-death penalty. But he changed his position after seeing all the cases overturned later on and decided it wasn't worth the risk of executing one innocent person. It is tough to argue against that logic, no?

It is kind of hard.

I'm not the kind of person to let anyone tell me anything to make me rethink my beliefs , but i have to admit , he is right about everything else. And if there is a chance that innocent people might be put to death then maybe it isn't worth it. Besides , we can greatly reduce prison populations by legalizing things like marijuana and prostitution and getting rid of a lot of ridiculus laws we don't need.

[Voluntary Man]

once in the oval office, i suspect I'd find fault with his priorities and pacing, but, otherwise, we're pretty close, philosophically.

[Paul_Sheppard]

Nope

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

I disagree with Dr. Paul's position on the Federal Reserve. It needs to go away immediately, not eventually. I think that if it was swallowed by the depths of hell tonight, we would all wake up in a better world tomorrow.

[PreDeadMan]

For me it's probably evolution, immigration, abortion. Don't worry fellow ron paul supporters in the grand scheme of things I still vote for him lol. Funny enouhg I consider myself of the.... stefan molyneux , ian of free talk live slate but I see voting as a defensive mechanism against the state.Since politics involves everybody unfortunately, Ron Paul is easily the only one who advocates a minarchist form of government and would do the least amount of damage out of everyone else. After this election i'm un-registering as Republican and not giving a $#@! about politics ever again..... any mistakes in post i'm drunk /end of rant

[Zach Vega]

I disagreed with him during his 2011 CPAC speech when he mentioned a 10% flat tax with the option to 'opt out' of government programs. I don't want to pay any income tax to government. If I'm opting out of government programs, I don't want to pay for someone else's benefit.

Well, it'll get the ball rolling. I think that's what he meant. 'Cuz you can't do all that at once. For example, I want to abolish Social Security. But I wouldn't have it all end in one day. Probably over a decade.

[papitosabe]

yea, i agree in not getting rid of depts that fast...like he's said several times, you have to transition out of them...cut things, and make sure state gov't can handle everything smoothly...those gov't workers that lose their jobs, need time to get into the private sector...you gotta have diff transition periods for each different closure...also, for people that think that there will never be any taxes whatsoever, they're living in dreamland...if you need 911? or fireman, roads to drive on, etc etc...you gotta have some kind of tax...or is there some plan of not taxing whatsoever, and everything runs as smooth as ever?

[Michael1776]

Much of what Ron Paul says makes logical and practical sense, so I don't disagree with anything about his platform.

A day or two ago, C-SPAN had a guest from the WFP. He talked about how the organization was making great strides in eliminating hunger globally, thanks to the contributions of governments from around the world and the American private sector. As I listened to him praise the WFP, I couldn't help but be skeptical of how self-aggrandizing he was with the organization's humanitarian efforts. He gave me the impression that it was a pure, honest, and infallible organization.

At first, I reasoned that both the WFP and the American private sector had nothing to gain from alleviating starvation in poverty-stricken countries. But that was put into question several minutes later when a female caller confronted him with historical evidence that effectively contradicted his remarks. She cited how governments and their representatives were accountable for purposely starving an entire nation through war, and then deceptively sending the WFP into those countries with the message that American businesses have arrived to remedy their deplorable situation. Obviously, one could argue that such a maneuver was nothing less than a military tactic to win over the population (the illusory benefactors).

The WFP representative proceeded to address some of her comments, but noticeably failed to argue against her claim that the organization also had a militaristic role. The host of C-SPAN felt he was avoiding the claim, so she reiterated the caller's concern. Surprisingly, he chose not to address it; instead, he pointed out how the private sector was responsible for aiding the organization in its humanitarian mission.

It's one of those double standards again.

America needs Ron Paul.

[Teenager For Ron Paul]

I'm pretty skeptical about the gold standard (i think there could be a better way to replace fiat currency)
I firmly accept evolution (ron's pretty ambiguous about that)
I don't agree on putting property rights above civil rights in public places
His view of the civil war is hard to accept
I'm sensitive towards workers' protection and the environment, to a degree

That said, he's still BY FAAAAAAAAR the best choice for president, even considering third parties

[TheTexan]

He does not. I feel that if someone has the right to defend their life, there's no way you can say they have no right to control their death, especially if they have degenerative disease, or there's a disease with no hope of recovery and they feel they are instead a burden to not only their family but to society.

Spending months on end on a ventilator, IMHO, is not a way to die. Getting pumped with morphine after 6 back-to-back heart attacks, a brain aneurysm, and developing a systemic infection, IMHO, is not the way to die.

Therefor I do support it. I do not have the amount of clinical experience Dr. Paul does, but after spending a good amount of time in the back of am ambulance and doing many rounds in the ED department of a major hospital... I definitely think it's something many don't understand until they see a patient begging for "mercy."

Is he, though? I can't find anywhere he actually voted against assisted suicide. I did find one (HR 2260) where he voted NOT to ban assisted suicide, though. This was his explanation:

http://www.ronpaularchive.com/1999/1...n-act-of-1999/

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but I would like to make a couple of comments about why I do not think we should support this bill.
I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.
I disagree with the Oregon law. If I were in Oregon, I would vote against that law. But I believe the approach here is a legislative slippery slope. What we are doing is applying this same principle of Roe versus Wade by nationalizing law and, therefore, doing the wrong thing.
This bill should be opposed. I think it will backfire. If we can come here in the Congress and decide that the Oregon law is bad, what says we cannot go to Texas and get rid of the Texas law that protects life and prohibits euthanasia. That is the main problem with this bill.
Also, I believe it will indeed dampen the ability of doctors to treat dying patients. I know this bill has made an effort to prevent that, compared to last year, but it does not. The Attorney General and a DEA agent will decide who has given too much medication. If a patient is dying and they get too much medicine, and they die, the doctor could be in big trouble. They could have criminal charges filed against them. They could lose their license or go to jail.
Just recently, I had a member of my family pass away with a serious illness and required a lot of medication. But nurses were reluctant to give the medicine prescribed by the doctor for fear of lawsuit and fear of charges that something illegal was being done. With a law like this, it is going to make this problem much, much worse.
Another thing is this sets up a new agency. For those conservative colleagues of mine who do not like the nationalization of medical care, what my colleagues are looking at here is a new agency of government setting up protocols, educating doctors and hospitals, and saying this is the way palliative care must be administered. My colleagues will have to answer with reports to the Federal Government.
As bad as the Oregon law is, this is not the way we should deal with the problem. This bill applies the same principle as Roe versus Wade.
I maintain that this bill is deeply flawed. I believe that nobody can be more pro-life than I am, nobody who could condemn the trends of what is happening in this country in the movement toward euthanasia and the chances that one day euthanasia will be determined by the national government because of economic conditions. But this bill does not deal with life and makes a difficult situation much worse.
* Mr. Speaker, the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260) is designed for one purpose. It is to repeal the state of Oregon’s law dealing with assisted suicide and euthanasia.
* Being strongly pro-life, I’m convinced that the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973 is one of the worst, if not the worst, Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. It has been this institutionalizing into our legal system the lack of respect for life and liberty that has and will continue to play havoc with liberty and life until it is changed. It has been said by many since the early 1970s that any legalization of abortion would put us on a slippery slope to euthanasia. I agree with this assessment.
* However, I believe that if we are not careful in our attempt to clarify this situation we also could participate in a slippery slope unbeknownst to us and just as dangerous. Roe vs. Wade essentially has nationalized an issue that should have been handled strictly by the states. Its repeal of a Texas State law set the stage for the wholesale of millions of innocent unborn. And yet, we once again are embarking on more nationalization of law that will in time backfire. Although the intention of H.R. 2260 is to repeal the Oregon law and make a statement against euthanasia it may well just do the opposite. If the nationalization of law dealing with abortion was designed to repeal state laws that protected life there is nothing to say that once we further establish this principle that the federal government, either the Congress or the Federal Courts, will be used to repeal the very laws that exist in 49 other states than Oregon that prohibit euthanasia. As bad as it is to tolerate an unsound state law, it’s even worse to introduce the notion that our federal congresses and our federal courts have the wisdom to tell all the states how to achieve the goals of protecting life and liberty.

Basically it sounds like here that he's not ok with the Federal government being involved in euthanasia, and advocates for state's rights. He doesn't actually ever say that he would be in favor of states outlawing euthanasia, though he does seem to imply it. Could it be that he's using "state's rights" as a tool for simplicity?

I just did a search for "euthanasia" on that same site, and found this:

http://www.ronpaularchive.com/2005/0...-terri-schiavo
Clearly no one wins in the legal and political battles over the death of Terri Schiavo. Although it has been terribly politicized, a valuable debate has emerged. This debate is not about abortion or euthanasia in general, nor about death in the abstract. Its about an individuals right to life and the value of life itself. Without concern for the life of each individual, liberty is meaningless and indefensible.
This debate deals with the passive treatment of the critically and terminally ill. This type of decision is manageable most of the time without government interference, but circumstances in this case made it difficult to determine proper guardianship. The unprecedented level of government involvement, questions about which branch of government had the ultimate say, and what the explicit intent of the patient was, brought national attention to what was otherwise a family conflict.
Terri Schiavo is a unique case, and unfortunately her fate ended up in the hands of lawyers, judges, and the legislators. The media certainly did their part in disrupting her final days.
In a free society the doctor and the patient– or his or her designated spokesperson– make the decision, short of using violence, in dealing with death and dying issues. The government stays out of it.
This debate, though, shows that one life is indeed important. It is not an esoteric subject; its a real life involved and a personal issue we cant ignore, especially in this age of Medicare, with government now responsible for most of the medical bills.
Were rapidly moving toward a time when these decisions will be based on the cost of care alone, since government pays all the bills under nationalized health care. As we defer to the state for our needs, and parental power is transferred to government, it is casually expected that government will be making more and more of these decisions. This has occurred in education, general medical care, and psychological testing. The government now can protect the so-called right of a teenager to have an abortion, sometimes paid for by the government, without notifying the parents.
Free-market medicine is not perfect, but its the best system to sort out these difficult problems– and it did so for years.
Eventually, government medicine surely will ignore the concern for a single patient as a person, and instead a computer program and cost analysis will make the determination. It will be said to be more
efficient, though morally unjustified, to allow a patient to die by court order rather than permitting family and friends to assume responsibility for the cost of keeping patients alive.
Theres plenty of hypocrisy to go around on both sides of this lingering and prolonged debate. In this instance we heard some very sound arguments from the left defending states rights and family
responsibility, while criticizing the federal government involvement. Im anxious for the day when those who made these arguments join me in defending the Constitution and states rights, especially the 9th and 10th Amendments, on many other economic and social issues. I wont hold my breath.
More importantly, where are those who rightfully condemn congressional meddling in the Schiavo case– because of federalism and separation of powers– on the issue of abortion? These same folks strongly defend Roe vs. Wade and the so-called constitutional right to abort healthy human fetuses at any stage. Theres no hesitation to demand support of this phony right from both Congress and the federal courts. Not only do they demand federal legal protection for abortion, they insist that abortion foes be forced to fund this act that many of them equate with murder.
Its too bad that philosophic consistency and strict adherence to the Constitution are not a high priority for many Members. But perhaps this flexibility in administering the rule of law helps create problems such as we faced in the Schiavo ordeal.
Though the left produced some outstanding arguments for the federal government staying out of this controversy, they frequently used an analogy that could never persuade those of us who believe in a free society guided by the constraints of the Constitution. They argued that if conservatives who supported prolonging Terris life would only spend more money on welfare, they would demonstrate sincere concern for the right to life. This is false logic and does nothing to build the case for a local government solution to a feeding tube debate.
First, all wealth transfers depend on an authoritarian state willing to use lethal force to satisfy the politicians notion of an unachievable fair society. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, no matter how well intentioned, can never be justified. Its theft, plain and simple, and morally wrong. Actually, welfare is anti-prosperity; so it cant be pro-life. Too often good intentions are motivated only by the good that someone believes will result from the transfer program. They never ask who must pay, who must be threatened, who must be arrested and imprisoned. They never ask whether the welfare funds taken by forcible taxation could have helped someone in a private or voluntary way.
Practically speaking, welfare rarely works. The hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the war on poverty over the last 50 years has done little to eradicate poverty. Matter-of-fact, worthwhile studies show that poverty is actually made worse by government efforts to eradicate poverty. Certainly the whole system does nothing to build self-esteem and more often than not does exactly the opposite.
My suggestion to my colleagues, who did argue convincingly that Congress should not be involved in the Schiavo case, is please consider using these same arguments consistently and avoid the false accusation that if one opposes increases in welfare one is not pro-life. Being pro-liberty and pro-Constitution is indeed being pro-life, as well as pro-prosperity.
Conservatives on the other hand are equally inconsistent in their arguments for life. Theres little hesitation by the conservative right to come to Congress to promote their moral agenda even when its not within the jurisdiction of the federal government to do so. Take for instance the funding of faith-based charities. The process is of little concern to conservatives if their agenda is met by passing more federal laws and increasing spending. Instead of concentrating on the repeal of Roe vs. Wade and eliminating federal judicial authority over issues best dealt with at the state level, more federal laws are passed, which strictly speaking should not be the prerogative of the federal government.
The biggest shortcoming of the Christian Right position is its adamancy for protecting life in the very early, late, and weakened stages, while enthusiastically supporting aggressive war that results in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. While the killing of the innocent unborn represents a morally decadent society, and all life deserves an advocate, including Terri Schiavo, promoting a policy of deadly sanctions and all-out war against a nation that committed no act of aggression against us cannot come close to being morally consistent or defendable under our Constitution.
The one issue generally ignored in the Schiavo debate is the subtle influence the cost of care for the dying had on the debate. Government paid care clouds the issue, and it must be noted that the courts ruled out any privately paid care for Terri. It could be embarrassing in a government-run nursing home to see some patients receiving extra care from families while others are denied the same. However, as time goes on, the economics of care will play even a greater role since under socialized medicine the state makes all the decisions based on affordability. Then there will be no debate as we just witnessed in the case of Terri Schiavo.
Having practiced medicine in simpler times, agonizing problems like we just witnessed in this case did not arise. Yes, similar medical decisions were made and have been made for many, many years. But lawyers werent involved, nor the courts nor the legislators nor any part of the government– only the patient, the patients family, and the doctor. No one would have dreamed of making a federal case of the dying process.
A society and a government that lose respect for life help create dilemmas of this sort. Today there is little respect for life– witness the number of abortions performed each year. There is little respect for liberty– witness the rules and laws that regulate our every move. There is little respect for peace– witness our eagerness to initiate war to impose our will on others. Tragically, government financing of the elderly, out of economic necessity, will usher in an age of euthanasia.
The accountants already have calculated that if the baby-boomer generation is treated to allow maximum longevity without quality of life concerns, were talking about $7 trillion in additional medical costs. Economists will determine the outcome, and personal decisions will vanish. National health care, of necessity, will always conflict with personal choices.
Compounding the cost problems that will lead to government ordered euthanasia is the fact that costs always skyrocket in government-run programs. This is true whether its a $300 hammer for the Pentagon or an emergency room visit for a broken toe. And in addition deficit financing, already epidemic because of our flawed philosophy of guns and butter, always leads to inflation when a country operates on a paper money system.
Without a renewal in the moral fiber of the country and respect for the constitutional rule of law, we can expect a lot more and worse problems than we witnessed in the case of Terri Schiavo. When dying and medical care becomes solely a commercial event, we will long for the days of debating what was best for Terri.
Hopefully, this messy debate will lead more Members to be convinced that all life is precious, that family and patient wishes should be respected, and that government jurisprudence and financing falls far short of providing a just solution in these difficult matters.

This I think makes it clear that he does actually support an individual's right to suicide.

You know, ever since Amash made that Israel vote, I've seen several people here claim that Ron Paul has had some bad votes, that can't be explained. I'm looking for them and can't seem to find any, and search has failed me. I don't agree with Ron on everything, but every vote seems to have an explanation.

Are there any bad votes of his that don't have an explanation?