Picking a Candidate Based on Your View of the ISSUES

Well, it really sounds like you are nitpicking and I have faith that Ron Paul would have a good answer to your criticisms. I actually trust him to do the right thing. I'm going to try to do some more research about your points, but it sounds like you are writing him off based on some minor points.

 

They are not minor points. He does the very thing he chastises others for doing. It shows a lack of character.

 

I'm curious how you formulated these concrete opinions. Is it possible that you are misunderstanding his intentions? He doesn't seem like a guy that is full of crap, especially relative to the rest of the field.

 

Following up...

Earmarking pork
Ron Paul earmarks pork on bills because he believes that while he should vote for a balanced budget, that it is the legislative branch's responsibility to determine how to spend the people's money, not the executive branch's responsibility.

He votes for a balanced budget whether he earmarks pork or not, so it isn't like he only votes against pork that he first earmarks to sneakily make himself look better. Personally, that sounds like a principled, idealogical, and well-thought out solution, so I'm having trouble understanding what you have a problem with. It seems that any disagreement you have is not with the outcome, but with the execution, which is at best a minor philosophical difference, especially in comparison to the flaws of the rest of the field. :huh:

In addition, Paul has said that the real problem is deeper than how congress decides to split up the money; the real problem is the bloated federal government that needs to be reigned in. Paul believes there are issues of varying degrees of importance - for example eliminating different federal departments is much lower on the list than reducing the amount of money we spend outside of our borders. Looking at it in this way, it really does seem you are nitpicking a subject of lower importance based on a philosophical question of execution. Is this really more important than the bloated government that the rest of the field seems to embrace?

Shrimping legislation
According to how I read Ron Paul's shrimping legislation, I don't see where he attempts to get federal monies for Texas shrimpers. What I see is that he opposes restrictive federal regulation of shrimpers while at the same time we send money to foreign competition. He believes that this doubly makes for an unfair level of competition between foreign shrimpers and domestic shrimpers. I'm a little nervous about giving up federal regulation, but Paul believes that is the responsibility of state governments and consumer groups.

I may tend to be a little more in favor of regulation in this case than Ron Paul, but what Paul supports is very much in line with his regular mode of operation and is anything but hypocritical.

 

So Paul hats government waste. He chastises others for pork legislation, but earmarks legislation himself to keep power from the executive branch. What a load. Practice what you preach. If he is so against government waste why does he participate in it?

The fact is Paul does embrace the bloated government. If the government spends $400 million on pork $400 is still spent, and the next year's budget grows by $400 million. Even if money is included in a budget pork is still wasteful and leads to future waste.

If Ron Paul beleived anything he said he already would have called an Article V convention.

 

I'd like to slightly retract my argument for now that it is only a philosophical issue considering the outcome does cost the taxpayers money. Saying otherwise isn't a fair argument and makes me seem like I'm unwilling to consider another point of view.

I'd also like to say before I continue that you seem to have easily gotten worked up about this - if Paul is a total hypocrite in terms of pork spending, and you seem to be very willing to NOT give him the benefit of the doubt, most of his arguments are still superior to those advanced by other politicians. I do wonder why you are so quick to write him off - it seems as if you might not be as willing to consider Paul as you would lead us to believe.

If Paul were to not earmark pork, his constituents would pay a hefty fine for his principled stance. While you seem to automatically assume Paul is blowing smoke, isn't it a real possibility that Paul understands the game he has to play. If he believes that the government shouldn't have the money in the first place, how irresponsible is it for him to take the money the government has taken from his constituents back while at the same time making an official statement (in the form of a nay vote) that he disagrees with the principle.

I don't think it would be fair for Paul to ask his constituents to pay for flaws in the system while constituents of other congressmen gain a competitive advantage by getting government funding. Paul's constituents wouldn't be able to compete in the system as it exists if he were to do that. At least Paul makes an official statement that he disagrees with the practice and if questioned I don't believe he would flip-flop or try to dodge the question.

I still think this is a small issue that boils down to a philosophical debate, and even if you disagree I don't understand how you can't see at least where he is coming from. If this one issue causes you to choose a candidate that is almost totally full of crap instead of a candidate that is only debateably wrong on this one issue, I feel worried about the direction of our country, particularly because you seem like an intelligent guy. In the big picture there are much more key issues than whether Paul's stance on pork spending is fallacious or not.

Ron Paul is approaching 8 million. I plan on donating more today and adding a big chunk of change on the 16th of December. The media has begun to take notice and Ron Paul is getting more airtime.

Paul lists Ghandi as his hero on MySpace, and I think this quote from Ghandi is particularly fitting...

Paul's stance is revolutionary, despite being traditional and fundamental, because the direction of politics today is so askew. He could be a great leader that will tell the people not what they want to hear but what they need to hear. Who else running for president can that be said for, particularly among candidates that are raising considerable monies?

 

How can you hate taxes, but want healthcare to be free?

That is completely illogical.

 

So what is your stance? We should allow all the illegal immigrants to stay?

It is completely irresponsible to pack up & leave without helping them sort out the mess that we helped create.

Why? Because you hate paying for this too?

Like, how? That is a pretty broad stance...

Gays are friendly too. I'm not familiar with their working habits...

Won't need it? Is this a joke?

 

Yep. Just make em pay taxes some how. Have to do this by enforcing the law on the employers, not the mexicans.

No what was irresponsible was going there in the first place, then spending $467 billion, when we have our own problems here that the money would have been better spent on.

Yes.

Not my job to figure out how. Just to state my opinion.

So.

Well, kinda, but also not. The truth, whether you want to belive it or not, is that anyone with a real capability of a large scale attack on the US is our ally. Everyone else just doesnt comply to our policing so we invent false threat. However on the small scale stuff, yeah we need some national security. And if we would just worry about ourselves and stop getting involved in every problem everywhere else in the world that need would greatly diminish.


LOL, Let me just answer all of this with one statement. The fact is I really don't give a rat's butt how they make it happen. I just want to keep as much of my money as possible, and what I do have to pay, I want to directly benefit me. Now let me make sure you understand that I am in the retail business, so sometimes helping the less fortunate helps me by giving them money to spend. Sometimes it doesn't.

 

That's beside the point. We're there, now we have to deal with it.

The truth is that America has no true allies. Any & every country in the world would love to take us out & replace us as the global leaders. It's a price we pay for being the top dog.

As for minding our own business - helping to stabilize the entire world benefit's America in many ways, not the least of which is our economy.

Universal health care will not directly benefit you unless you are too poor to afford it. Otherwise, it will screw us all. We can look forward to higher taxes & worse health care.