![[FSF Associate Member]](http://www.notsosoft.net/images/getButton){kind=small}
Ron Paul on the Some of the Issues…
So this article is dedicated to pointing out Ron Paul’s dangerous stance on the issues, and his own inconsistencies. I think conservatives, liberals, and even libertarians have much to fear and lose in a Ron Paul candidacy.
Abortion, from a conservative or neo-con stand-point
Ron Paul, according to OnTheIssues.org, assures us that he respects the “sanctity of life,” yet he voted no twice on making it a crime to harm an unborn child while committing another crime (Apr, 2001; Feb, 2004)… such as beating or murdering the mother, or drunk driving resulting in hitting the mother, etc. This is a rather inconsistent stance, I mean, either life is sacred and we work to protect unborn children, or we don’t. Despite his prior work delivering babies, I do not consider this person someone who would protect life if he had to.
Abortion, from a liberal or libertarian stand-point
When it comes to the legal stand-point of abortion, Ron Paul has actually supported putting the Federal Government in control of what people can and cannot do with their bodies. He has on several occasions (May, 2005; May, 2007; Sept, 2007) voted against all manner of embryonic stem cell research funding, and has even voted to make it illegal to perform (that’s the May 2005 one). He has voted yes on banning “partial-birth” abortion (Oct, 2003), he has voted no on any funding for any organization that is in any way involved with abortion (May 2001) in both the US and abroad, including Planned Parenthood. He has also voted to intentionally fund medical groups that do not support abortion (Sep, 2002) in a fantastic display of his willingness to promote one viewpoint over another even if it means that he’s gotta use tax-payer dollars to do so. This, of course, flies in the face of his small-government with small-spending philosophy.
Civil Rights, from a conservative or neo-con stand-point
Ron Paul has consistently opposed defining marriage as between one man and one woman. He has voted against this at least twice (Jul, 2006; Sep, 2004). He has voted down the making permanent the USA Patriot Act (Dec, 2005)–which while I disagree with it, many conservatives believe that this legislation is necessary to protect the people. Ron Paul also voted no on a constitutional amendment banning the desecration of the flag (Jul, 2003).
Civil Rights, from a liberal or libertarian stand-point
Ron Paul has shown that he is willing to use the Federal government and tax-payer dollars to fund and legislate his inconsistent agenda. Ron Paul has voted to ban same-sex couples from adopting children in DC (Jul, 1999) and he has voted against affirmative action to help level the playing field for minorities in colleges (May, 1998). Ron Paul also has been quoted in a GOP debate at St. Anselm College (Jun, 2007) as stating that we should not allow homosexuals to be open in the military, but instead we should retain our “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. He rambles on to try to try to spin this as “if it’s being disruptive for either straights or gays it’s a problem,” but he doesn’t address the fact that it is acceptable under this policy for heterosexuals to acknowledge their spouse or the person they’re dating, while for homosexuals this is not acceptable.
Unfortunate Conclusion
The unfortunate conclusion I must draw here is that Ron Paul doesn’t know what the hell he wants. He’s not for civil rights consistently, he’s not for the sanctity of life consistently. But when it comes to his so-called libertarian ideals of hands-off, small government, and small spending, Ron Paul has shown us quite well that he will consistently be for using government power and tax-payer money to further his agendas by making gay adoption illegal, stopping birthright citizenship, and prejudicially funding only those who support his views on abortion.
Popularity: 34%
This entry was posted
on Friday, December 7th, 2007 at 09:22 and is filed under Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Stumble it!
Hmm… I don’t get your points, I guess. Let’s take them point by point.
Abortion- How can it be a crime to harm the unborn child during the commission of a crime but not a crime to abort a fetus? If that law is in effect then all abortion performing doctors are guilty of crimes.
Embryonic cell research- Of course he’s against it. How do you think embryonic cells are harvested? See abortion.
Partial birth abortion- Do you really think Dr. Paul would be FOR partial birth abortions? Gimme a break.
Federal Gov’t defining what marriage is- Clearly Dr. Paul would oppose the federal gov’t saying what marriage is or isn’t.
Patriot Act- Come on…do you know anything about the Patriot Act. If flies in the face of the Constitution, across the board.
Desecrating the Flag- While abhorrent there should certainly NOT be a constitutional amendment protecting it. For godsakes, it represents the nation, the constitution, and the first amendment right to freedom of expression.
Affirmative Action- Discrimination is discrimination, no matter what color you are, and it’s unconstitutional.
Gays in the military- Have you been in the military? It is not the civilian world, it is not a ‘job’. It is a family unit. You might as well complain about females not being in front line combat units. The reasoning is the same.
Again, I just don’t understand your arguments. Dr. Paul bases his decisions on the Constitution, and nothing else. It’s about time someone did.
Greg, it would appear that you missed the point of my article. I’m not arguing any of the issues, I’m pointing out Dr. Paul’s position on the issues. And I was pointing them out from multiple vantage points. It doesn’t really seem like you understand the very premise of the article at all.
Ron Paul is a neo-con fascist disguising himself as a libertarian. He is in opposition to much of what this country values. His paranoia of things such as NAFTA, among other things, has led him to believe that the government should be reduced rather than reformed. Ron Paul will destroy the US, and possibly the world.
Although, according to the AP nation-wide polls, Ron Paul isn’t even in the top five. Have fun with your campaign while you can folks.
Greg, aside from the fact that “partial-birth” abortion is as accurate as the “compassionate” conservatism oxymoron, the fact remains that the rights of “children” are the concern of the state only from conception up to, but not including, delivery, and those “generous” standards only exist for American offspring (and possibly some others with whose countries we are not at war).
At the point of free speech and the other bona fide constitutional arguments, you had me cheering, for as long as it lasted. Affirmative action is no more a constitutional issue than social programs are, but that’s where we liberals (and radicals) diverge from the philosophy that individuals are solely responsible for their life situations while corporations get a free pass, welfare out the wazoo, and the unintended benefit of the Constitution to boot!
hey i just want to tell you that i admire you for posting up anti-ron paul blogs!! it is so hard to find anti-ron paulist that are openly against him because a lot of the ron paul revolutionaires are pretty cut throat individuals that attack you if you say you like a different candidate!! but ya, just had to tell you that you rock!! and i think together we can fight the revolution!!!
cassy: Thanks for your support. I would like to let you and everybody else know that there is no revolution. Ron Paul and his campaign are no different from any other obscure politician’s campaign. Lyndon LaRouche’s folks have been swearing that he’s a revolutionary candidate–and I wouldn’t argue against their claims that he’s different–but that doesn’t mean that he’s actually going to ever win or change anything.
Ron Paul is just another Ross Pirot pimple on the backside of the Republican party, and I for one am hoping that he motivates that party to put forth a candidate that isn’t complete crap. So far it looks like the Republicans have brought knives to the Democrats’ gun fight, and the Democrats are really looking quite good right now… even to many conservatives.