Ron Paul

[DavidOdden]

As far as I know, Ron Paul would only use the US military to defend the American homeland.

From what, Russian invasion?

[Mammon]

As far as I know, Ron Paul would only use the US military to defend the American homeland.

What if America citizens leave the homeland? What then? Should we all stay coped up in a our own little fortress here?

[DavidOdden]

What if America citizens leave the homeland? What then? Should we all stay coped up in a our own little fortress here?

Well, the isolationist position is that once you leave the Fatherland, you lose your rights and have only whatever rights are granted you by the government (if any) where you end up. Edited August 8, 2007 by DavidOdden

[DavidV]

On the domestic front, the Wall Street Journel is reporting that Mr. Paul has asked for $400 million in earmarks. Some $8 million is allegedly for the marketing of American shrimp with another $2.8 million to be spent on shrimp fishing research.

I guess he takes the position that he always votes against the bill for spending X dollars on earmakrs, but once that bill is passed he competes along with everyone else for that money. You could argue that this is justified as a means of getting some of his constituents income taxes back.

[Clawg]

What if America citizens leave the homeland? What then? Should we all stay coped up in a our own little fortress here?

The question is why other people should pay for your security in your adventures / vacation / business abroad?

@topic:

Just stumbled on this video:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=anmlPvmd1Ew

Interview with Ron Paul from 1988 when he ran as a Libertarian, unfortunately not much has changed since then

[DarkWaters]

Just stumbled on this video:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=anmlPvmd1Ew

Interview with Ron Paul from 1988 when he ran as a Libertarian, unfortunately not much has changed since then

Probably not.

At around 1:35 in the video, the interviewer indicates that Ron Paul wants to eliminate both the FBI and the CIA. Ron Paul does not dispute this. Even if Ron Paul pretends to be for "national defense" he is for eviscerating the organizations which are vital for our security.

Edited August 11, 2007 by DarkWaters

[DavidOdden]

The question is why other people should pay for your security in your adventures / vacation / business abroad?

Do you see some important difference between your actions at home versus abroad?

[Mammon]

The question is why other people should pay for your security in your adventures / vacation / business abroad?

Because you're a American citizen. The American government protects your rights, and you're rights don't forfeit once you leave a certain geographical area. That's why we have the whole concept of rights. You're life and you're property are yours and always yours. If you decide to do business with someone in another country and your ship a product to them, the people in the countries between yours can't just take the product and call it their own because it's now in their country. That's actually a socialist fallacy being copied by the liberatarians all over the place -- the concept that something is only yours if it's in your country. This is applied to things like oil, trees, food, minerals etc etc.

Your property is your property regardless of it's location. Your life is your life regardless of your location. You obey the law and respect the rights of others so you don't forfeit your own rights. Just because you leave the place where your laws are enforced and judged that doesn't mean your protection leaves you.

[TheEgoist]

Ron Paul is, on principle, against initiating physical force against a country that did not threaten or attack America. He is, on principle, for retaliating with physical force against those who attack America. Hence he supported Bush in attacking the Taliban and al Qaeda but he did not support Bush in attacking Iraq.

Bold mine.

Have you read any of the countless stories about Iranians killing American troops? How about the varied terrorist attacks all around the world sponsored by the Iranians, and various other middle eastern governments?

And " attacking the taliban and al Qaeda " is only proper if it has a face. You must attack a country, countries that support these Islamists. As far as I know, Paul was fully against attacking Afghanistan, against Iraq and is vehemently against attacking Iran. This does not seem like a man that wants to take out the enemy to me. Rather, he offers sympathy and excuses for the acts of these psychotic, pathetic individuals. After all, we deserved 9/11... Or, wait, maybe 9/11 was all just a conspiracy, like Ron Paul's number one support, a Mr. Alex Jones, says.

I do not want people who cannot see the truth when it is plainly and painfully in front of their eyes. I do not want people who support the 9/11 Truth movement in office. It's completely imbecilic and endangers my life and yours.

[Clawg]

Do you see some important difference between your actions at home versus abroad?

Yes, I see a very important difference. At the international level there is no monopoly of force, it is a state of anarchy where each country decides subjectively what is 'right'.

And rights can only be enforced (or even exist) in a system where there is a monopoly of force, i.e. where the people agreed on not using force on a subjective basis.

Countries can come together by agreeing on a common set of laws or even by merging together accepting a common monopoly of force (for example west- and east Germany in 1989). But other than that I do not see how ANY of your rights could be protected except by invasion / threat of invasion (which only works against powers without long range nuclear weapons). And of course war can create a monopoly of force if one country defeats the other.

It is pretty similar to a situation where your government violates your objective rights and you have the means to (forcefully) overthrow the government and force everyone else to live under your set of laws. Should you do it? Some Constitutions do have an article that allows the citizens to take up arms against the government rightfully if the government violates the Constitution. But the Constitution is an agreement between all the people living in the state.

Finally it comes down to the question: Are your laws objective? If they are not then who decides who is right and whose system of law is (more) 'right' / (less) 'wrong'? If both systems are 'equally' free but they both have flaws in different areas, should they then start a war over these differences? Who is then the agressor?

If those rights about which is the argument are not objective then it isn't in your interest that your country starts a war with another country.

Is there a solution when there is no such agreement? No, because if there were, anarchy would work. So I do not think that there is an objective answer involving both governments. You can only solve that problem by agreeing on common laws, i.e. by creating one common government and agree that if one government violates this agreement then the other can rightfully use force.

So let's assume that North Korea kidnapped several US citizens who were visiting North Korea because they didn't praised their leader cheerfully enough and that there is no agreement between NK and the US. In that case the government cannot invade North Korea on reasons of protecting the rights of these citizens with funds that the people of the US had given the government to protect their rights.

And at that point I agree with Mammon that libertarians have difficulties because they have no philosophical basis of rational self interest. Ayn Rand argues that the country which is freer, i.e. whose countries' citizens' rational self interest is served by this war more, is right.

So the question is: Is it (as an individual citizen) in your personal long-term interest that you start a war to protect another citizens right? Only if you are affected by the trade relations with that country. Why should you subsidize a war with a country with which you have no relevant direct or indirect trade benefits?

But if there is a self interest the US could still attack North Korea. In that case it would need a seperate agreement of the citizens of the US together with seperate funding for this specific task.

And there is the fundamental difference: As mentioned above, two countries can agree on certain laws. I would see such an agreement as a form of monopoly of force in the areas that the agreement covers. If one country violates the agreement the other country may rightfully use force to protect the rights of its citizens. And such a use of force could be done even without current popular / democratic support because of the same reason why the judiciary is a seperate branch of government, verdicts should not be voted on democratically and individual police actions should not be voted on democratically but should be decided on basis of written law. If there is no such agreement then you would need popular support, you need to give other people a say whether that invasion is in their self-interest, too and cannot use the money they donated for protecting their rights to fund a war.

To summarize:

When there is no agreement at all you should not trade with the country or visit it because you cannot rely on your objective government to protect your rights.

Edited August 12, 2007 by Clawg

[softwareNerd]

So let's assume that North Korea kidnapped several US citizens who were visiting North Korea because they didn't praised their leader cheerfully enough and that there is no agreement between NK and the US. In that case the government cannot invade North Korea on reasons of protecting the rights of these citizens with funds that the people of the US had given the government to protect their rights.

The only case you make here is one about funds. There is the additional question of risking the lives of soldiers if you are assuming that they volunteered under conditions where they could make a reasonable assumption that they would not be asked to fight this type of fight.

I imagine the following announcement from the U.S. President:

"After six months of negotiation, and even offers of funds from relatives, North Korea refused to release our citizens. Today, I am happy to announced that a few pilots and businessmen have volunteered their services and their money to put together a small force that will nuke Pyong Yang seven days from now if our citizens are not release. I wish them luck."

[Mammon]

So let's assume that North Korea kidnapped several US citizens who were visiting North Korea because they didn't praised their leader cheerfully enough and that there is no agreement between NK and the US. In that case the government cannot invade North Korea on reasons of protecting the rights of these citizens with funds that the people of the US had given the government to protect their rights.

When someone kills your neighbor and another person steals your lawn funiture do you tell the cops to ignore the killer to focus on the theif? Most rational people wouldn't because they recognize the killer as a larger threat and more important priority then the theif. If someone is roaming around freely who has proven that they are dangerous, it's not just a threat to their specific victims but to everyone else because you no live in a world where you're at a greater risk for becoming the victim.

If it can happen to you're neighbor it can happen to you.

And at that point I agree with Mammon that libertarians have difficulties because they have no philosophical basis of rational self interest. Ayn Rand argues that the country which is freer, i.e. whose countries' citizens' rational self interest is served by this war more, is right.

So the question is: Is it (as an individual citizen) in your personal long-term interest that you start a war to protect another citizens right? Only if you are affected by the trade relations with that country. Why should you subsidize a war with a country with which you have no relevant direct or indirect trade benefits?

It's still within you're self-interest because your lack of action would create a world in which your life and your property are only safer, or marginally safer in a certain geographically area. This actually limits your freedoms to a point of "your free to roam this cage we put you in." If you don't take action, which doesn't even mean starting a war, to protect one citizens rights then how can guarantee their rights will be protected at all? Does the government say "We have certain terms and conditions where, we just won't do anything about it if someone violates your rights" keep in mind that it takes another person to violate your rights. Driving your car into a tree in Germany doesn't warrant action taken on the part of America to tell Germany to prevent such a thing, however, the thing comes in where you talked about agreeing on laws. Germany can tell America to not let people like that to enter the country because they are a danger to themselves, and pontentially their citizens as well. However, if you do ram your car into a German citizen, then you actually violated the rights of the citizen and the German government can say with proof that you did something wrong and deserve punishment.

I bring it up because, say, going to North Korea and not choicing to worship Kim Jong-Il violates no ones rights and doesn't deserve punishment. Because your not a citizen of the country, you're property is protected by someone else (America) then you are not subject to their dictatorship in any sense of legality or responsibility. Basically saying that, you're free and your freedom is protected, North Korea has no right to take that away any more then it would if their soilders dropped into your home back in America.

But if there is a self interest the US could still attack North Korea. In that case it would need a seperate agreement of the citizens of the US together with seperate funding for this specific task.

And there is the fundamental difference: As mentioned above, two countries can agree on certain laws. I would see such an agreement as a form of monopoly of force in the areas that the agreement covers. If one country violates the agreement the other country may rightfully use force to protect the rights of its citizens. And such a use of force could be done even without current popular / democratic support because of the same reason why the judiciary is a seperate branch of government, verdicts should not be voted on democratically and individual police actions should not be voted on democratically but should be decided on basis of written law. If there is no such agreement then you would need popular support, you need to give other people a say whether that invasion is in their self-interest, too and cannot use the money they donated for protecting their rights to fund a war.

To summarize:

When there is no agreement at all you should not trade with the country or visit it because you cannot rely on your objective government to protect your rights.

This is what I meant by earlier, you don't need to wage a war. You can try and solve this diplomatically by making clear that it's wrong to do this do your citizens and if they refuse to give them up, then you take military actions like say, calling in the SEALs or Delta Force to locate and rescure the hostages. You have every right to do so and it's within the rest of the country's self-interest to rescue you because, it could be them next time. North Korea, in this example, would violate not only the rights of those captured but also of the people who deal with them in things like business and such. If they kidnapped a CEO of a company, the violated the rights of the family of the person and the shareholders, employees and countless people that do business with the company by doing something that hurt the companies operations and thus, the property of everyone dealing with them. Their actions hurt you, they put everyone in danger and they should get punished for such a thing.

To keep this on topic, a guy like Ron Paul doesn't understand this kind of principle, I don't think. The principle being "You violate one citizens rights, then you could violate the other citizens rights, meaning it's withing everyones rational self-interest to end you as a threat" and "Your rights are absolute, no matter where you physical location is."

The only thing relevant about international relations is who recognizes rights and who doesn't.

[Alex-Austrian]

Being only aware of Dr. Paul's position for a few days, I surmise that he thinks individuals should be free to express their religious preference without being obligated to pay homage to the traditions of other faiths, even while working in a government office, driving a public bus, working in a public school, working for a private corporation, decorating one's front lawn and the like.

I honestly do not know if this is merely his support of free speech or if this is the libertarian mentality that individuals should be free to say whatever they want in the workplace regardless of what the employer prefers or even contractually requires.

Do you just intentionally misrepresent libertarians rock solid understanding of property rights theory, or did somebody actually fill your head with misiniformation which you are simply repeating because you do not know any better?

What would posess you to believe that libertarians think they can say anything they want in the workplace?

Or do you just not understand Original Intent constitutionalism, and thus fail to recognize the bright line distinction between that which is a private facility, and that which is government?

[Spaghettim0nst3r]

There are a lot of reasons I support Ron Paul in 08.

I'm convinced he's the only candidate worth supporting.

The cons first,

He is very much against abortion, but when taken into context with the rest of his campaign this presents no real threat to limitations of freedom for women, because Ron Paul is campaigning on limiting the governments involvement on so many fronts he would render the government incapable of becoming involved in that issue. Secondly Ron Paul cannot solely pass a law by himself completely banning abortion, if this were possible for the president, that kind of law would have already been past by the faith head Bush. So this position of his is of no real significance. This is the only Con I perceive.

The Pro's:

Ron Paul is for actually declaring War when we go to War, and doing everything in our power to end the conflict as quickly as possible and return home with as few as possible casualties of our own. Whether it be Korea, Iran, Pakistan, or whatever other engagement we participate in he is explicitly against it becoming entangling. Quick resolutions to conflicts and non-interventionism. Neither Vietnam or Iraq were declared wars, and both are being lengthened because of the foreign policy of nation building and because our rules of engagement severely limit our ability to get the job done. It's been completely mishandled despite whatever good has come from it.

Ron Paul has vowed to abolish the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and our Fiat (debt-based) currency system, the welfare state, offer a way out of social security. These (the economic issues) are by Far I believe the strongest points for his campaign, and they are also unique to his campaign.

If you're unfamiliar with how destructive Central Banking, and Fiat Currency systems are, check out this movie... it will give you a rough introduction to the ideas... (and entertain you)

Fiat Currency

[gvideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5232639329002339531[/gvideo]

The reason I believe his economic standpoint is the most important is because it effects so many other things. Take for instance this web page here talking about the 10 Planks of Communism being fullfilled right now, present day, in America.

The State's violations of individual liberties cannot be achieved without all of the control on the economy, and Karl Marx understood this when he fashioned these planks. Read through them in the linked page above, and notice both how unaddressed these issues are for all other candidates running, and how eloquently addressed they are in Ron Pauls campaign.

Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist, which means he actually acknowledges his oath, unlike the faith head in office now, to uphold the principles set forth in the constitution in this Republic.

[Tabitha]

It's true, however it's irrelevant for a few reasons.

1) Ron Paul (and indeed no president) can single handedly change that. Were he capable our faithhead president would have done it already. So you have nothing to worry about. IT'S A NON-ISSUE.

2) The apparent favorite on this board is no better, he encourage the state to tax you to fund the abortions of other people.

I disagree with your implication that a president's philosophy is a non-issue. It's the principle of being anti-choice that's the problem, regardless of whether or not he could or would change any policy. His anti-gay stance is even more revealing of his philosophy. (How very "Libertarian" of him! ) No, I won't vote for a bigot, thanks.

As for 2), I agree and this is one of the reasons I won't be voting for him, either.

Edited September 5, 2007 by Tabitha

[softwareNerd]

[Guiliani] ... he encourage the state to tax you to fund the abortions of other people.

Why do you highlight abortions and not other state-funded medical procedures? If your objection is to state-funded health care, why mention abortions? If your objection is to abortions, then it is misplaced: a state-funded health care program has no business using faulty religious thinking in determining what medical procedures are funded. Edited September 5, 2007 by softwareNerd

[softwareNerd]

Ron Paul is for actually declaring War when we go to War, and doing everything in our power to end the conflict as quickly as possible and return home with as few as possible casualties of our own.

That's a nice enough position, in the abstract. However, consider this: suppose -- for the sake of argument -- he were to add "...but I think we should never do so". That would make the stated principle moot.

So, the real question is: when does Ron Paul think it is right to go to war?

And, that too is not concrete enough for a 2008 presidential candidate. The question is: will Ron Paul destroy Iran's ability to have nuclear weapons or destroy that regime in some way?

That's the important question. The rest is theory.

[Tabitha]

Good point. And the same could be said for his refusal to fund same-sex adoption. I understand not wanting to fund adoption (ie: using tax dollars). But if this were honestly his focus, he would be against funding all adoptions, period -- regardless of sexual orientation.

Hell, I'm not even a Libertarian but this guy almost makes me feel embarassed for the Libertarians.

Edited September 5, 2007 by Tabitha

[DavidOdden]

Secondly Ron Paul cannot solely pass a law by himself completely banning abortion, if this were possible for the president, that kind of law would have already been past by the faith head Bush.

...

Ron Paul has vowed to abolish the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and our Fiat (debt-based) currency system, the welfare state, offer a way out of social security.

Why doesn't the first argument negate the merit of these vows?

[softwareNerd]

Why doesn't the first argument negate the merit of these vows?

Good question David. That's the kind of polemic that backfires, because it comes across too blatantly as polemic.

Here's a metaphorical rendition, changing the spaghetti-like argument into a crisper, toastier version: "Mr. Paul is too weak to push that 200lb car, so you can be assured he won't do that; but, consider this great positive: he's promising to push that 500lb truck. Isn't that a good reason to cheer him on?"

[Spaghettim0nst3r]

GOP 9/5

Text in voters prefer Ron Paul

33% Ron Paul

16% Giuliani

Maybe if Giuliani weren't basing his campaign off "the evil terrorists" and "oh wow I'm great in NY" he might be able to persuade some thinkers.

Rudy Giuliani is a Neo-Con, not a Constitutionalist, regardless of what he.... and faux newz is trying to sell you.

It's so obvious to tonight, the air time given to the Rudy McRomney show, in comparison to the other candidates, would be a very telling graph to look at. They even accuse voters of cheating. Both Shammity and Clone said Ron Paul supporters were "dialing in their text votes" more than once. What morons, and biased morons at that. As Lance Adams points out, you cannot vote more than once from one cellphone. And there is no dial!"

Why doesn't the first argument negate the merit of these vows?

Because it's just a product of his Christian background (which no candidate lacks). His respect for the constitution, aside from Roe v. Wade is consistent.

I disagree with your implication that a president's philosophy is a non-issue.

Not quite encapsulating my position regarding his philosophy, but an honestly biased error... and you're forgiven.

I consider him to be just like all Christians, severely less than devout, and insofar as his political views coher with Christian philosophy, his political philosophy will be contradictory... the abortion issue is a good example.

His stance on Homosexuality highlights an important point, that he respects the concept of individual rights much more than he respects his religion. He is not going to pass a federal law banning homosexual marriages, because he respects their rights as individuals. Regardless of his conflicting inclinations are about them. Two conflicting philosophies are at war on the issue, individual rights vs Christianity, and individual rights won out. It's a conflict every politician goes through because in our culture its about marketing to stupid people more often than it is about communicating ideas, so candidates uninfluenced by religious belief are a few years down the road still, realistically.

So yes, I agree with you completely in that his principles are in conflict, as any issue between individual rights and Christian doctrine must be, sometimes Christianity wins out (abortion) and some times individual rights win out.

His mind is a bit clouded on the nature of human beings, in that he believes life begins at conception (even though individual rights do not)... that in combination with his religious bias enables him to rationalize "individual rights" with "killing a fetus" so only insofar as they two "seemingly coher" in his world view, will Christian philosophy be able to play a role in his political philosophy... which is a GOOD thing.

So it's an oversimplification to think his philosophy is meaningless to me, quite the contrary I think I've accurately weighed his views based on his positions, and I find them acceptable when the context of who he is running against is provided.

Like tonight, they all barked about "lowering taxes" or "substituting a fair tax" instead of an income tax... and Ron Paul being consistent declared Income Taxes would be done away with... along with the CIA (unnecessary organization) Welfare, Social Security, the IRS, and an abundance of other government operations which involve themselves in the economy (fascism).

Getting the government out of the economy will work a lot of the problems out which are seemingly unrelated to that.

Why do you highlight abortions and not other state-funded medical procedures? If your objection is to state-funded health care, why mention abortions? If your objection is to abortions, then it is misplaced: a state-funded health care program has no business using faulty religious thinking in determining what medical procedures are funded.

I'm just poking holes in the popular candidate on this forum, Giuliani from what I can gather so far (even though I'm admittedly very new), because I think he is vastly less preferable to Ron Paul. Ron Paul by the way, would eliminate Medicare. It's not his religious views that are primarily driving him as a political leader, it's his respect (even if not fully understood) for the ideas of the founding fathers, individual and property rights.

You think abortion is a big deal, but I put it into context with the issues dealing with the Economy. Handing abortions handed to the state level doesn't limit freedom 'really' because people just step over the state line and get it done. It is effectively a non-issue regardless of which way the state handles it... and as I pointed out earlier, the only reason Ron Paul becomes motivated to oppose abortion is under the guise (rationalized and wrong admittedly) of upholding the "individual rights of a fetus"... which we all agree don't exist.

How about that Income Tax which takes form you (unapportioned) sums of money every year and spends them on nothing but paying off the national debt which exists because of our fiat money system (both of which Ron Paul will dispose of)? That violation of property rights occurs on a much broader scale, it's just not in the news... I've recommended the "Fiat Empire" film on here before, and I will again. You can find it on google video, it's worth watching.

So again I can't stress enough, this man is a genuine enlightenment thinker, as secular in his political views as the founding fathers were, and when faced with an issue which pits one philosophy against another in which reconciliation is impossible (unlike abortion) he will choose the correct philosophy, and does...

That's a nice enough position, in the abstract. However, consider this: suppose -- for the sake of argument -- he were to add "...but I think we should never do so". That would make the stated principle moot.

So, the real question is: when does Ron Paul think it is right to go to war?

When we have no choice. We could, but shouldn't, be overly zealous to march around the world destroying other peoples land... we should do exactly as Ronald Reagan did to end the Cold War, until it becomes apparent that persuasion will not work, and then voraciously fight the war without these restrictive "rules of engagement" without the U.N. approval (Ron Paul is very anti World Government, which means he's against the U.N.)

Hypothetical: Ron Paul becomes president.

We immediately pull out of Iraq, and leave those people to themselves. The government assumes it's non-interventionist position, refraining from entangling alliances which do not benefit us. (Isreal is a nuclear power BTW, they don't need our "defense", if Iran attacks Israel, Iran will be annihilated.) We posture just as Ron Paul explained in the debate tonight (9/5) that we have the capability to annihilate rogue nations like Iran, but we would prefer to get along. We back off posturing aggressively, incitefully, backing off our boats near Iranian borders, and let them make their own minds up. Pursue nuclear weapons and face destruction, or act reasonably and coexist.

As we saw with the Soviets, when faced with the notion of mutual destruction (on a civilizational scale), you'll find less "radical islamists" as willing to sacrifice themselves for god... because all of a sudden the glory of Jihad becomes the reality of civilizational destruction.

What we have no is nothing but a puppet show with limitations on our capabilities, and very few productive goals in the middle east... while wasting so much money, lives etc.. in an ineffectual policy.

And, that too is not concrete enough for a 2008 presidential candidate. The question is: will Ron Paul destroy Iran's ability to have nuclear weapons or destroy that regime in some way?

If forced, but it will take a declaration of war from congress for us to engage in that, as the constitution demands.

That's the important question.

Voting on a single issue is moronic.

The rest is theory.

I don't believe Ron Pauls commitment to restoring the republic to a limited constitutional republic is a "theory." He's quite explicit about it.

Good point. And the same could be said for his refusal to fund same-sex adoption.

Funding any adoption is bogus, and discriminating on the basis of sexual preference is equally bogus.

Ron Paul would be contradictory if he were to vote in favor of federally funding adoptions by heterosexuals, but I don't believe he's been exposed to legislation having to vote one way or the other on that. Correct me if I'm wrong. In principle what he opposes is the size of government and it's role... voting FOR homosexual adoption would contradict that premise... so again, you possible have a point... but I don't see this as being a direct consequence of his religious views, because it's perfectly consistent with his political.

I understand not wanting to fund adoption (ie: using tax dollars). But if this were honestly his focus, he would be against funding all adoptions, period -- regardless of sexual orientation.

I've been attempting to find in his record where he has supported, or voted for, federally funding (heterosexual) adoption and I have not found it. If it were found he would be caught in a contradiction, if not... his limited government philosophy is still consistent.

Hell, I'm not even a Libertarian but this guy almost makes me feel embarassed for the Libertarians.

He ran on the libertarian ticket I think, in the 1990's... don't remember when (I was a young buck then).

Why doesn't the first argument negate the merit of these vows?

Because it's circumstantial that his political views and interpretive religious views "kinda sorta" mesh on the issue, in that he treats a fetus like an individual. I don't endorse his interpretation, but I recognize it for what it is, a compromise on his behalf that is completely circumstantial on the issue... when by default when religious views conflict with his political views, he chooses to reject his religious teaching, take the issue of homosexual marriage for instance. Not the federal governments job to deal with it. They are individuals, with rights, and I think it's safe to assume that in the absence of a law restricting their marriage by the federal government, the supreme court will rule in favor of their individual right to marry in a case over the issue (which I do believe will occur once states begin outlawing it). That being the natural progression of our system, I believe another figurative Roe v Wade will emerge about whether the state has the right to limit a homosexuals right to marry who he/she pleases, and since state law cannot contradict constitutional freedoms, the supreme court will over rule the fundies as it did in Roe v Wade... and the issue will settle down for a while. Ron Pauls position is to adopt the philosophy of negative rights, no one needs to give them permission to enter into a private contractual agreement (marriage), only when a state attempts to deny this, will the their rights prevail.

That's the kind of polemic that backfires, because it comes across too blatantly as polemic.

I hope my clarification made sense. This is the case, but no more so in Ron Paul than in other candidates who would for instance (Giuliani) hand you a national RFID card so "the terrorists don't win" which is a non-religiously motivated violation of privacy.

Mr. Paul is too weak to push that 200lb car, so you can be assured he won't do that; but, consider this great positive: he's promising to push that 500lb truck. Isn't that a good reason to cheer him on?

Clearly an invalid example, because of the circumstance explained above. The conflict, and alignment of opposing philosophical viewpoints within the man are prioritized correctly and only through misinterpretation (treating a fetus like an individual) does the line ever blur... and as long as the line is definite.. his political philosophy over rules his religious.

RON PAUL 08 WOOT!

[DavidOdden]

Because it's just a product of his Christian background (which no candidate lacks). His respect for the constitution, aside from Roe v. Wade is consistent.

Uh, so your argument was that he has a noxious position but it doesn't matter because as president he can't single-handedly enact an unpopular and noxious law. But somehow he would be able to single-handedly enact unpopular and non-noxious laws. And the reason he could not single-handedly enact a noxious anti-abortion law is that he is not the only candidate willing to enact such a law. Politics is wierd, but not that wierd.

[Toolboxnj]

There has been a strong groundswell on the Internet haunts on this guy, but he isn't going anywhere thank godness.

[Tabitha]

You all know that he's not going to win, right?

[Toolboxnj]

You all know that he's not going to win, right?

I'm more afraid at the intensity of his following, individuals that not only believe he will win the GOP candidacy but that he's the only GOP candidate that can defeat whomever the Dems draft for the job.