I Think Ron Paul Might Actually Be Nuts.
*Update - Ron Paul Supporters - please visit this site. Thank you to Guinness for pointing that out!
Lately, I have been getting a lot of spam about Ron Paul from bloggers on all different kinds of sites but especially personal finance ones. And at first I looked into this guy but I then started thinking that he is nuts; and I am sorry if you support him but after reading this post over at Daily Kos this morning, I am convinced he is nuts - and maybe he is even encouraging all these people to send out spam mail to all of us. Here is what the post had to say about him:
Ron Paul wants the US to withdraw from the UN.
Ron Paul has tried to repeal the Occupational Health and Safety Act, to abolish the minimum wage, and to eviscerate Social Security.
Ron Paul wants guns in schools.
Ron Paul has tried to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act to guarantee employees of federal contractors the prevailing wage and wants to make it easier to decertify a union.
Ron Paul wants to amend the Constitution to end birthright citizenship.
There are references for each one of those posts to back up their claims, so head on over if you want to read them. And while I can understand that people want a different kind of politician in Washington (believe me, I do too), I also want a sane one! Now, if you are a blogger sending me spam about Ron Paul, you can stop - I don’t support him, I won’t support him, and I will just keep adding the strange things I learn about him to this post every time you spam me! 
You might also like:
Mrs. Micah | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
Broken link.
He also hangs out with some interesting characters…probably because he needs as many supports as he can get.
gorak | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
Calling someone insane to refute a policy position is lazy and often indicates a lack of contrary evidence or analytics.
First off, in a school shooting the shooter is probably going to bring his own gun. You may or may not have noticed that school shootings happen almost exclusively in “gun free” zones. Although most people are law abiding citizens and obey gun laws, people who want to commit mass murder/suicide are inclined to ignore such statutes, and bring guns to school anyways. Imagine what Columbine would have been like if a few of the teachers had guns, or if in Virginia Tech some of the students had weapons.
Secondly, the United Nations is an ineffectual body that serves the world and the United States no material purpose. It has not stopped a single genocide or aggressive war and has only seen success when piggybacking on a US mission. It also confers dangerous warpowers on the president, allowing him to make war without a declaration and make foreign policy generally without Congress, something this president has abused to the maximum.
Thirdly, Social security is a pyramid scheme. You buy into the pyramid by giving money to the people on the top and you get the profit by finding a few more friends to pay you, and they find a few more friends… This would work if population growth was Malthusian, but that has been refuted for decades, and the pyramid scheme will not work for real growth.
And about the birthright citizenship, I don’t agree with his position but there is nothing insane about it. Abuse of the system is well known as people are incentivized to illegally immigrate because they know their children will have full rights. I support open immigration, but thats another economic can of worms…
david | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
“Calling someone insane to refute a policy position is lazy and often indicates a lack of contrary evidence or analytics” - Where did I say he was insane? I just said he sounds “nuts” - same as I think Bush is nuts - in a different way.
99.9% of schools don’t have shootings, so how do you determine which schools can have guns?
SS might be a pyramid scheme, but it has allowed my grandparents and my mom to actually be able to survive after retirement. None of them made a lot and this helps them, so I don’t mind it at all. (although there should be an income limit to receiving the payments).
guinness416 | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
David, may I recommend you direct any future Ron Paul spammers, ahem, supporters tothis site? Saves a lot of time
david | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
That is fantastic guinness, I didn’t know about that! Thanks!
Ryan | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
“SS might be a pyramid scheme, but it has allowed my grandparents and my mom to actually be able to survive after retirement.”
Their parents before them died immediately after retirement?
Becca | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
Ron Paul makes me laugh…in most ways he is the textbook case of a hardcore Libertarian. He’s only running as a Republican because, well, I’m not even sure the Libertarian party HAS a primary. If it does it certainly gets no press coverage. If you’re curious enough to waste some time on wikipedia, here’s the link for the US Libertarian Party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_%28United_States%29
I think he’s technically a Right-Libertarian, since he does not believe in abortion–he may go against the Libertarian party on this altogether and actually want the government to do something about it though.
Maxwell | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
“SS might be a pyramid scheme, but it has allowed my grandparents and my mom to actually be able to survive after retirement.”
Their parents before them died immediately after retirement?
James Madison | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
This is the same blogger who said the $11 million Ron Paul raised this quarter was really spam.
david | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
“SS might be a pyramid scheme, but it has allowed my grandparents and my mom to actually be able to survive after retirement.”
Their parents before them died immediately after retirement?
You gonna keep leaving the same comments? Since I didn’t know them, I don’t know if they needed it.
Now you can stop spamming the comments!
NH_GOP | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
Oh brother.
First of all, let this 60-year old geek give you a lesson on what is spam and not spam. If someone writes an article on their blog, and people comment on it, it is NOT SPAM. If you don’t want to see the responses then take the f’n thing out of your RSS for God’s sake!
Now, the ad hominem attack on Ron Paul is what we are used to but I shall explain to you calmly.
“Ron Paul wants the US to withdraw from the UN.”
And so do millions of us.
Getting out of the UN would be the best thing this country could do. It’s our opinion and we have a right to it. What is NUTS is your assumption that we are automatically ‘nuts’ for thinking that. Do your homework on what the UN wants to do, and is doing to YOU… and our schools. They run the public schools and are responsible for a lot of the PC nonsense and teacher brainwashing that goes on there.
“Ron Paul has tried to repeal the Occupational Health and Safety Act, to abolish the minimum wage, and to eviscerate Social Security.”
WRONG. SS should be there for those who contributed to it. But people should have a choice to OPT OUT of the scheme in favor of their own accounts…. many of us have lost millions of dollars to ‘SS’ that we can never get back.
“Ron Paul wants guns in schools.”
I agree with this. Many tragedies could have been averted if both teachers and pilots had guns. In fact, I can’t imagine that we let commercial airline pilots go up there defenseless! I always thought they had guns in the cockpit, and was shocked to find out they did not!
“Ron Paul has tried to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act to guarantee employees of federal contractors the prevailing wage and wants to make it easier to decertify a union.”
As a member of a union for 35 years I can agree with this.
“Ron Paul wants to amend the Constitution to end birthright citizenship.”
Um huh? There is nothing that says ILLEGALS can have birthright, only the children of LEGALS, are given automatic citizenship.
Wow, you should move to some marxist country and subjugate yourself to a communist dictator if you love it so much.
andy | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
“SS might be a pyramid scheme, but it has allowed my grandparents and my mom to actually be able to survive after retirement.”
Oops?? So there is nothing bad with pyramed schemes, because SOME people get the money?
david | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
To: NH_GOP
The same person was leaving the same comments under different names = spam in the comments.
Oh, and “Wow, you should move to some marxist country and subjugate yourself to a communist dictator if you love it so much.” - so Paul does not want to legislate abortion, guns in schools, citizenship? Wow, he is so NOT like a communist country where the govt. mandates my decisions for me! Weird…
Jeffrey Bubb | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
In my book, “nuts” and “insane” are pretty much the same thing. Additionally, does not the comment,
“And while I can understand that people want a different kind of politician in Washington…I also want a sane one!”
imply that you believe Paul to be insane? because if you thought he was sane, he would be an ok different kind of politician, right?
Steve | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
Your blog and comments are heartening.
Perhaps paradoxically so, since I am one of those folks who keep sending that green ’spam’ to help fund Congressman Paul’s campaign.
If the worst you in your indignation can muster in decrying Paul’s candidacy is asserting that his policy positions (dropped from the wider context) are ipso facto evidence that he is “nuts” (as opposed to “insane,” the distinction which is apparently semantically meaningful at least to you), then the Congressman is home free.
Met the guy a couple of times, voted for him the first time he ran for President, and have sent contributions to his Congressional campaigns except in years where his opposition couldn’t even find somebody willing to run against him. My gut impression at first was that he was too slick, too Beltway, despite his positions.
I disagreed then, disagree now and likely always will disagree with a few of his views — my bumper stickers read “pro-choice on EVERYTHING!” — and think he spends way too much time worrying about non-issues such as the UN, which I personally think is a good idea as a useful international diplomatic clearinghouse and debating society, although it’s absurd that the US should be expected to foot so much of the bill.
Given the alternatives, just which of the cookie-cutter clones who are running against him in the GOP would you match in terms of integrity, consistency and policy wisdom?
Or who among the knock-kneed supine weasels contending for the nomination of the Democrats whose pathetic leadership — e.g., Majority Leader Reid seems willing to cave on the FISA bill, and Speaker Pelosi took impeachment of Cheney and Bush ‘off the table’ before even taking the Speaker’s chair — is about as effective in opposition as were the pre-1990 non-communist parties in the former East Germany?
Did any of these contenders on either side of the aisle take a principled stand against the PATRIOT Act or the Iraq War? Did those who were able to, actually vote against these obscenities? If they are not part of the solution, then they are part of the problem.
If all you can find to criticize is the thin gruel on your list fortified by the lame links your fellow anti-Paul defenders have posted, then Ron Paul’s road to the White House is open and unobstructed.
Until I read your blog, I really had my doubts. No more.
Thanks!
david | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
“Ron Paul’s road to the White House is open and unobstructed.” - Now that is some comedy.
But that aside, I don’t like any of the GOP or the Democrats running - not one. But their supporters, unlike R.P. supporters, don’t send me unsolicited emails day in and day out. They don’t put fliers under my car window and in my door jamb every night. They don’t put stickers all over every available open space in my city.
In all seriousness, R.P., love him or hate him, would be better served if his FANS were not so determined to make him out to look like a loon. A lot of his “ideas” are strange enough, but the fanatical activities of his fans makes it seem worse.
Thomas | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
Do not fear going ahead to good, or going back to good or (the easy part) staying with good. Though clinging to the status quo may seem sane, it is foolish to keep doing what doesn’t work, what is wrong.
Tim Simmons | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
Get a clue, in case you haven’t noticed radical ideas always get shunned by the mainstream thats why we cant seem to move forward. That’s not what is surprising though. What is surprising is so many people think following the constitution and fact driven leadership is.
Bottom line judge a person by their record and Ron Paul’s speaks for it self.
Steve | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
>>But their supporters, unlike R.P. supporters, don’t send me unsolicited emails day in and day out. They don’t put fliers under my car window and in my door jamb every night. They don’t put stickers all over every available open space in my city.<<
Oh for the love of Pete, all your cantankerous fussing is simply because you don’t like fliers and e-mails??!! Even though you disapprove of all the other candidates??!!
If you are serious, I am astounded. ::roll eyes::
If you are being disingenuous ::wink, wink nudge, nudge:: then I am more reassured than I was before, David.
This is America. There is a political campaign underway. Pardon us, Mr. Grinch.
Why don’t you post a blog complaint about the Verizon pony commercial? Some people think that ad gives ponies a bad name and, however implausible, they make a better and more sympathetic case than you’ve been making. See http://www.chronicleforums.com
Joe | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
Like most geniuses, Ron Paul is considered crazy because he comprehends and sees things that others just can
understand. That is why he was right about Iraq and Iran when most everyone else was wrong. That’s why he will be
proven right about the financial crisis to come. And why he was right about the dangers of meddling in the affairs
of other countries, etc.
Dr. Paul was one of the very few in Washington who realized the folly of invading Iraq and had the courage to speak
out. So maybe we should be listening to him now:
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com
A Liberal re-thinks Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DueIGWpXjrU
Joe | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
Sorry for my messed up post. This is what I meant to say.
Like most geniuses, Ron Paul is considered crazy because he comprehends and sees things that others just can’t understand. That is why he was right about Iraq and Iran when most everyone else was wrong. That’s why he will be proven right about the financial crisis to come. And why he was right about the dangers of meddling in the affairs of other countries, etc.
Dr. Paul was one of the very few in Washington who realized the folly of invading Iraq and had the courage to speak out. So maybe we should be listening to him now:
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com
A Liberal re-thinks Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DueIGWpXjrU
James | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
You dont have to support everything that Ron Paul advocates. Provided he is elected, a lot of his positions won’t get pass congress anyways.
In my view, its enough to know that he’ll defintely do the following:
1) End the war in iraq. - You don’t have to be a personal finance blogger to know this war isn’t helping america one bit.
2) Restore transparency to government. All his fundraising numbers are up on his webpage - thats a good indication that the federal government will be transparent in Paul administration.
3) Lower taxes. Paul wants to phase out the IRS, probably this won’t get pass congress as well, but in all likelyhood there will be less taxation under a Paul presidency.
4) Protect and defend the bill of rights. Americans are guaranteed the right to freedom of speech, assembly, etc. All of these rights have been disrespected by the Bush adminstration. - Its high time government recognized that its proper role is as a servant of the people - not as some sort of bureaucratic nanny manager.
Finally, Paul is a strict constitutionalist. So, when you think about some of his more controvertial positions, they’re usually perceived as such because most people haven’t read the constitution and therefore don’t fully understand his reasoning.
Thanks,
James
James | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
Oh, by the way. I like what you’ve done with your blog.
jay | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
David, RP is pro-life, but he thinks the federal government should not be deciding the issue (and I agree). He would rather it be left to the states. I’m pro-choice, and I prefer how things are now, but I do think he’s actually right. Regardless, you don’t need to worry about him trying to ban abortion across the country.
I totally agree with his SS position. SS is mess - the government takes our money, whittles away at it, and then gives it back to us later; it makes no sense. And we are heading for a serious crisis as a result, because the federal government is not good at managing our money (look at our national debt for instance!). His solution means we can wean ourselves off SS, if we want, but the people who have already paid in don’t get screwed.
A lot of RP’s ideas seem radical, but he’s not at all nuts. They seem radical because he has always focused on doing what is right, not what is popular or “safe”. It doesn’t matter what the other candidates think internally, because none of them are willing to say things like “We should end the income tax” and endure the kneejerk “that’s crazy!” reaction that they’ll get from people who don’t stop to think about it.
David | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
I get that people really support him, I do…If I cared one bit about a candidate I would probably care too. But I don’t - and I LIKE politics! But his fan base have created a monster, and honestly, it is turning many people off who otherwise might actually like him!
“Oh for the love of Pete, all your cantankerous fussing is simply because you don’t like fliers and e-mails??!!”
Who’s Pete?
Joking aside, emails that I did not ask for are Spam, like it or not. - If Hillary or Mitt or any other person sent me emails/sent me junk mail, I would feel the same way.
About the only thing I agree with RP on is the war. Some of his other ideas, that I have seen, and especially when he discusses them, come across as wacky - you guys HAVE to know that, even if you support him.
James - “Protect and defend the bill of rights. Americans are guaranteed the right to freedom of speech, assembly, etc.” I would like to think that he would (or anyone would, for that matter), but since he wants to legislate a woman’s right to choose, I cannot imagine what else he might want to legislate. Next time it could be something that affects me!
Oh, and thanks for the comment, and letting us in on your thoughts (and what you think could never happen as well) on RP, I appreciate that.
David | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
Jay - I get why people like him - he’s new, different, says what he means - I just don’t agree with some of his ideas, that’s all. He is too extreme, too much - and that is why mainstream America will never vote him into office. Whether he is actually nuts or totally sane and fantastic, it’s too much to say “let’s throw away the entire system”..even if it’s a good idea! Believe me, I would love a candidate that would be different and independent about this stuff - but one has to be realistic about what platform one is running on.
jay | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
A good quote that RP gave in one of the debates is something like “The federal government always wants to prohibit something or subsidize it”. And oftentimes the federal government should not be involved in the issue. But this does not mesh well with the typical “issue scorecard” style of reporting, in which the media must say “for” or “against” for each candidate and issue.
For example, RP doesn’t support federal funding of stem cell research. But that doesn’t mean he’s opposed to stem cell research; it just means the federal government shouldn’t be paying for it. This is totally unlike Bush’s desire to actually ban it. Same goes for gay marriage; RP doesn’t want to legalize or ban it at the federal level, but Bush wants to amend the constitution to ban it completely. And same for abortion.
Luckily I read about RP through other means first, because otherwise I might not like him either, mistakenly thinking he’s against stem cell research and gay marriage. Obviously that’s not actually the case.
Our federal government keeps ballooning, taking on all the issues it can while taxing and spending as much as possible. Besides the monetary troubles we endure as a result, we’re also forced into one-size-fits-all policies. No Child Left Behind is a good example. There’s no reason that the federal government should be trying to control the education system of the country! Let the states each have their own education plan. The advantages are numerous. If there is a crappy system (like NCLB), at least it will only affect one state; you could move to find a better one. The states with poor systems can emulate the states with better ones, and there are 50 times more systems out there, so we can experiment and find something that works. Plus, it may be the case that what’s right for one state is not appropriate for another; federal control forces us into an unhappy medium.
David | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
Well we can certainly agree that NCLB is a waste of money AND our kids’ time spent in school.
I am a liberal - at least socially I am. However, I do lean more conservative on fiscal issues. That being said - if someone like RP came out as an independent but did not swing wildly for the fence as he does, I would think he would get more votes. Unfortunately a lot of his ideas (and his supporters) make him out to kind of be a lunatic that regular old Americans would never vote for…
jay | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
David, no problem if you don’t agree with some of the ideas. I hope you at least understand them, despite that the media may oversimplify them at times (such as the abortion issue).
I agree that it is hard to get into office on a platform like his : ) I don’t think it makes him “nuts”; he’s campaigning for what he thinks is right, rather than trying to find a platform that will get him into office. I’m happily surprised with how well he’s doing despite that.
Yeah, the RP supporters on the net can be pretty fanatical, for better or for worse. The larger issue, IMHO, is bringing awareness of RP and correct information about his stances to people who aren’t internet savvy. The net seems saturated already, and I think you’ll agree!
David | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
Jay- First off, thanks for at least being calm about RP. Never mind the comments, the emails I have been getting are insane. (Or nuts, as I would say)
I do know he is doing what he believes is right - but it’s just too much to get elected by the general public, that’s all - and it makes him come across as nutty
Thanks again for being rational with me, it’s appreciate after some of the comments/emails
Joe | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
I think part of the problem is that Ron Paul is just so plain spoken and honest. So he just states the unvarnished truth so it comes off as kinda crazy, especially after being completely misquoted and twisted by the media. I would just suggest looking into his ideas more, because he is socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org
Regarding SS…
Ron Paul has actually done more to save SS than most anyone in Washington. During the 90’s when politicians were raiding the SS fund for their own pet projects, Ron Paul was speaking out and insisting that the money be kept separate and safe.
And now when our Federal Government can’t afford to pay the bills yet still want to keep spending and expanding the war — Ron Paul has a solution to balance the budget and save SS. The solution is to scale back our 1 trillion dollar/year overseas empire, by bringing most of our troops home from of the 700 bases in 100 countries around the world.
jay | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
No problem! And I echo the “social liberal, fiscal conservative” feeling.
I’m afraid you’re right that it’s too much to get him elected. Sad but true. Unfortunately I don’t see any other candidate that is pushing for real, sensical change like this - they are all taking the opposite approach of pushing whatever seems popular to get elected. Makes me depressed about our country. And it makes me realize the advantage of not doing anything unnecessary at the national level, or the state level, when it can be done at a lower level - the smaller the constituency, the greater one’s individual efficacy. I feel like I could make real change happen in my city, but not in my country.
Nice blog, btw! I found it through this post, but I’ve been checking out the rest of it since.
J.P. | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
If you’re a very left liberal (a la Kos) I can see why Dr. Paul would be a hard sell. Frankly, I don’t blame you for being annoyed. But I think the pushiness of his fans is due to frustration because of the media blackout.
Mrs. Micah | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
Do Ron Paul’s supporters remind anyone else of Kiyosaki-ites? Or Ramsey-ites (but a bit more rabid)? Or Scientologists?
Chill pills needed all around.
Mrs. Micah | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
p.s. The ronisright.com site is pretty true. If you act like a loon, everyone will think your candidate is one too?
How much are rabid commenters and flamers responsible for Ron Paul’s negative image? Hrm. Seriously.
James | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
While we are on this thread, a number of personal finance bloggers have formally endorsed Paul. Myself included.
http://bloggersforpaul.blogspot.com/
He does have the support of more than just a few spammers and crazies.
Richard Wicks | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
I had to comment on this:
“SS might be a pyramid scheme, but it has allowed my grandparents and my mom to actually be able to survive after retirement.”
It’s not going to help you.
That notwithstanding, it COULD have helped you, and the only reason that it never will is that the money that was sent to Social Security was all stolen by the same group of thieves running the program.
How much has been stolen since 1935 - when the bill was signed into law?
Well, rough guesstimates are about 60 trillion dollars worth. Where did the money go?
The Vietnam war, the CIA overthrow of the democracy of Guatemala in 1954, the CIA overthrow of the democracy in Iran in 1953, the Vietnam war, that kooky SDI plan of Reagan’s, Iraq War I, Iraq War II, Blackwater, and a whole host of other crap I can’t even think of.
I don’t have any problem giving money to a good cause, really I don’t, but I have huge problems when I’m giving money over to a good cause only to have 90% of the money pilfered and not used for the good cause.
It’s the same reason I research charities that I donate to. Have you given any money to the American Way? Unicef? HSUS? Peta? The Red Cross?
Surprise, only a SMALL FRACTION of the money was actually used for it’s stated goal.
But as bad as they are, they are at least voluntary, Social Security is not.
Tom | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
Well, I’m not American, but I know this. 401k has silent costs which most Americans are not aware. More money you have ‘invested’ into the program, the higher are the cost of maintaining this program (this goes for pension fonds in Europe, too).
SS in other hand, doesn’t work not just only in U.S. but in entire world. Why? Because U.S. is not printing its own money. Europe is not printing its own money. And when a country is not printing its own money, then the money they have is credit taken from bank.
U.S. has something like 9,174 billion dollars of government debt. And Americans pay taxes in order to pay that debt. And it’s not just in U.S. - it’s happening in entire world… that people just pay taxes in order for the government to be able to pay the debt which they own to banks. (in U.S. The Federal Reserve is really just a corporation represented by private banks).
Good luck on your discussion about who you support or not… because none of the candidates never will be different or better. Because none of these people really have power to change anything. Even U.S. president just has the presents of power, but no real power on decision making.
Real decisions are not made by its governments. Never. (Since 1918)
david | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
Thanks for the comments everyone, I appreciate when we can have a discussion between the 2 sides!
Randy Rowe | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
I think its funny how they call us spamers, we dont spam we just have alot of support. The traditional news media wont give him a fair shake so we go online and its working, hes goin to be on the glenbeck show on tuesday the 18th.. An he may raise close to 20 million quarter
Jason Marcel | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
Look, Ron Paul is not nuts. And with the way Congress is, he’ll have a tough time scrapping a lot of gov’t programs and huge wasteful Departments. That’s a given. But he’ll end the wars, bring all the troops home, and even bring the one’s home from Germany and Japan and elsewhere where they no longer should be.
Do that and scrap the Patriot Act and Homeland Security and return to Haebeus Corpus and the Geneva Convention and I’ll be very happy.
If it takes a nut to finally give us some freakin’ liberty, than so be it. Go Ron Paul!!!
Modern Worker | Dec 14, 2007 | Reply
“If it takes a nut to finally give us some freakin’ liberty, than so be it. Go Ron Paul!!!”
I can’t help it, this kind of spirit is what increasingly attracts me to the Paul campaign
Bottom line for me though… anyone but Hillary.
Wayne | Dec 14, 2007 | Reply
“Wow, he is so NOT like a communist country where the govt. mandates my decisions for me! Weird…”
You obviously haven’t read up on Ron’s abortion position. Sorry that your knee-jerk reaction to this issue is causing you so much trouble. Ron Paul wants the federal government OUT of the abortion issue period. That’s very different from using government and supreme court power to legislate it. If states want to legislate and state-fund abortion and abortion transportation, that’s up to the folks in that state to decide. Or if people in a certain state want to ban abortion outright, that’s their right in a democratic republic where local government still has power and simplistic decisions are made about very heated issues and applied equally to all states regardless of the constituents and their opinions.
One other note he’s a baby doctor fer chrissakes! How COULD he
be very much in favor of abortion?
Your reactions are proof that this ‘one issue voting’ mentality is destroying politics, when you ‘like Ron Paul on war, but not other stuff’ and that other stuff so far appears to be just the abortion issue, which you have yet to grasp his constitutionalist limited government position on.
You also whine that Ron Paul supporters, ‘crazy nutjobs’ who love freedom are causing too much critical thought and bothering you.
MC | Dec 14, 2007 | Reply
love the comments teaching the author!
(but after seeing this blog, I can already tell the closed-mindedness is to the core and part of the authors identity)
David | Dec 14, 2007 | Reply
MC- I am so far from being closed-minded, you have no idea. However, I am closed-minded about kids and guns, which your email address suggests that you are in favor of. (kidsloveguns..are you serious?)
And sure, I am learning - from those people who take the time to write a worthwhile comment.
And Wayne - It’s not one issue - Abortion is only one issue that is mentioned, and it’s far from the most important one for me.
Modern Worker - I am with you about Hillary!
jay | Dec 14, 2007 | Reply
I’m with you guys too. If I have to choose between Rudy and Hillary, I’m leaving the country.
Alex | Dec 14, 2007 | Reply
I think David is being very fair and open minded by providing us a forum to discuss the issues.
It is the internet, blogs, YouTube, as much as Ron Paul’s message that gives me hope for America. Traditional passive TV and print media did not allow for feedback and corrections. All we could do is yell at the TV or crumple the newspaper as they spewed their lies, and distortions. But this new media is changing everything allowing the truth to find it’s way to the surface through debate and discussion.
Your willingness and courage to discuss politics and allow uncensored statements of opinion speaks highly of your integrity. Thanks!
(although the title of the blog article is somewhat provocative which might explain some of the heated responses.)
David | Dec 14, 2007 | Reply
“(although the title of the blog article is somewhat provocative which might explain some of the heated responses.)” - you caught on to that, did you?
Bob | Dec 14, 2007 | Reply
George Mitchell’s report — and the reactions to it — caused me to wonder how professional baseball might be different if Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul withdrew from the race for the White House and, instead of serving as commander in chief, replaced Bud Selig as commissioner of baseball.
Craig | Dec 14, 2007 | Reply
The writer of this blog is obviously a liberal social democrat who has no understanding of individual rights and free market economics, how they work, and how we have lost our way by attempting to solve all of our problems through expanding government power. I don’t agree with Ron Paul on everything but he is head and shoulders above any of the other candidates running for President. His popularity would indicate that perhaps we a seeing a shift in philosophy and a rejection of the status quo of the mainstream media.
plonkee | Dec 14, 2007 | Reply
Wow. There is seriously a candidate that wants to withdraw from the UN. Amazing.
Guns in schools. Bad. No, I take that back, awful. I can just see a school shooting where say a teacher did much more harm than good because they panicked with a gun in their hands.
But otherwise, vocal rabid admiration is just so last century. Survey says: he’ll never get in.
David | Dec 14, 2007 | Reply
Craig - “individual rights”? You are right - liberal democrats don’t want or understand individual rights , so how could I understand it?
I am for individual rights for everything - it is RP who is not entirely for all individual rights, according to his platform….
barry b. | Dec 14, 2007 | Reply
Since when did you start accepting conventional wisdom?? So I guess we must be limited to agreeing with whatever the North Eastern part of this country says?? Afterall they know everything and run our public education and universities. Just keep going along with conventional wisdom. It’s done well by you so far.
David | Dec 14, 2007 | Reply
barry-
A. I don’t accept it - but I am realistic.
B. I don’t live in the North East.
Joe | Dec 14, 2007 | Reply
Regarding the post # 49. I would simply suggest visiting these sites:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com
Honestly, I could explain each one of those positions so they make perfect sense but there is no point when they are already explained in the websites above. I promise you will have a lot of ‘aha’ moments. Check it out for yourself then decide.
Lazy Man | Dec 14, 2007 | Reply
I won’t get into my political thoughts one way or the other. I’ll just say that I have received unsolicited e-mail, fliers, and all that stuff by one candidate. The more I receive these, the more annoyed with the candidate’s supporters I get.
It doesn’t really matter if the candidate is Gumby or the Green Latern. He should direct his supporters away from unsolicited email and polluting the environment (where 98% of those window fliers end up 4 seconds after they are discovered) on his behalf.
Tim | Dec 15, 2007 | Reply
Things take on a life of there own. In allot of cases R.P. is being judged by what a few supporters do. Are we so shallow we fail to miss the message?
Have you looked past the small stuff to see the bigger picture? It’s no wonder why we get B.S.’d so easy. Every body wants a smooth talking,presidential looking,(what ever that is)candidate. I’m always surprised to see what makes people make their voting decisions.
We can only blame ourselves if this keeps happening.
Educate ourselves on the issues, study the candidates and be passionate about our right to follow through with our decisions!!!
NCN | Dec 15, 2007 | Reply
Ron Paul actually has some pretty decent ideas..
I’m not saying I’m going to vote for him, but I like the idea of smaller government, lower taxes, staying away from preemptive war, protecting our sovereignty, and promoting personal responsibility.
NCN
Can we be real | Dec 16, 2007 | Reply
So I guess we’re just supposed to ignore Ron Paul’s association with white supremacists because he’s all about being against the war. Sorry, but Ron Paul’s agenda is straight out of the skinhead/militia play book of conspiracy theories. I don’t understand how one can be against war, but ok with hate mongering.
I don’t care that he’s against the Iraq war. The people he’s associating himself with tells me that he’s not really interested in preventing future ones.
jay | Dec 18, 2007 | Reply
“Can we be real”, just because Ron Paul has the support of some white supremacists doesn’t mean he is one himself. They have to vote for someone after all. If RP wasn’t in the race, and they voted for someone else, would that candidate “be associating” with white supremacists as well?