I've been a pretty vocal Ron Paul advocate here. Many say he isn't a serious contender, but I wonder if those who say that understand what they are saying. The serious contenders are the ones who take money from special interests and the ones who are more interested in walking the party line than making a principled stance. Is this really what you want out of a leader? Most of these frontrunners aren't leaders.
Everyone loves a rebel. Well, I guess everyone actually loves the prom queen. Nix my first thought and my hope for humanity. There is a cute girl on youtube who digs Ron Paul, though. Nerds are the new studs - we all have hope.
I was reading his position on some of the issues and was feeling pretty good about him up until the marriage and the abortion thing, then he lost me. Sorry, but he does a bit of a flip flop on both of these issues. :tigereye::tigereye::tigereye::tigereye::tigereye:
I don't think Paul's stances on abortion or gay marriage flip flop at all. First of all, Paul is a devout Christian and comes from that tradition. He is a doctor and Congressman, but I've heard he has a modest home and truly tries to live a Christian lifestyle. He's given away his services as a doctor to less fortunate clients. And unlike Huckabee, he doesn't flaunt himself as the Christian candidate, instead relying on his actions. In fact, I believe Paul to be the most ethical and modest candidate running. (I don't mean to bash Huckabee, I think of all the candidates he is one of the most viable - I just think Paul is superior and still has a real chance.) To your concerns, Paul is pro-life and is not opposed to gay marriage. In both cases he believes the federal government should have no say in either. Abortion, like murder, should be a state issue, particularly because it is so controversial. The federal government is a large clunky machine and is really incapable of efficiently handling such a hot-button issue that will be reversed every time power changes hands. Paul has delivered thousands of babies and has a unique connection to this issue. As gay rights in general, Paul is of the belief that there shouldn't be distinctions for minorities, including gays. Instead of gay rights there are human rights and the same rights should be extended to all citizens. There is no need to specify gay rights. When it comes to marriage, Paul believes the government has no place in marriage in the first place. Marriage is a church function and should be governed by the church. I appreciate the chance to defend Paul because I truly believe he is by far the best choice for our country and the world. I don't want to fill the air with propaganda, I much prefer honest discussion of the issues. Please feel free to ask me questions and please consider voting for Ron Paul. I'll be spending time once finals are over hand-writing letter to voters in the early primary states. Go to Ron Paul forums (link in signature) and click on the appropriate banner if you are interested in participating.
The polls reflect that the majority support a mainstream candidate. My question is why don't people understand that most mainstream candidates are candidates that have a friendly relationship to powerful special interests. These mainstream candidates are politicians with morals that are flexible to varying degrees.
Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007) Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007) Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007) Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007) Save "snowflake babies": no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007) No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007) Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007) Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007) Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005) Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005) Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004) Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003) Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003) Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002) Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001) Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001) Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000) Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999) No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000) Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003) Protect all voluntary associations; don't define marriage. (Oct 2007) No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda. (Sep 2007) No affirmative action for any group. (Sep 2007) No need for Marriage Amendment; DOMA is enough. (Sep 2007) First Amendment was written for controversial speech. (Sep 2007) Use power of presidency to restore habeas corpus. (Sep 2007) Don't ask, don't tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007) Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006) Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005) Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004) Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004) Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003) Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998) Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002) Sorry, I didn't make these up. Heres the link... http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm :tigereye::tigereye::tigereye::tigereye::tigereye:
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist and believes it is not necessary to ammend the constitution to address the issues of gay marriage and abortion. In fact, he believes the government should be totally taken out of the equation when it comes to marriage as marriage is a religious institution, not a governmental institution. On the issue of gay rights in general, Paul is not anti-gay, he simply believes in human rights. There is no need to make special rights for gays, all human beings have inalienable rights. There is no need for the federal government to intervene on any subject related to homosexuality, at least not that I can think of, and I'm pretty sure Paul feels the same. Paul is all about limiting the scope of the federal government; most realize the great inefficiency of the federal government and Paul believes the federal government is out of control and should not be expanded, even when it comes to the issue of homosexuality and abortion. State governments should have more responsibilities in Paul's view. So while it may seem that he is pro-gay or pro-abortion when he votes against some federal regulations, the truth is Paul is simply opposing the federal nature of the proposals. Most of the things you've listed would just add to the tangle of federal government and would make things even more inefficient. There is a venue to address the issues you listed, but that venue isn't the federal government.
Look, I don't really know you. And I don't wanna say or do anything to piss you off, so lets keep it simple shall we. Let me digress, I'm not trying to take any shots at him, but I saw some things I didn't like. I'm personally supporting Fred Thompson, don't get me wrong. I don't think either one will get the nomination, my guess is its probably gonna come down to Romney or [SIZE=-1][FONT=arial,sans-serif]Giuliani. I like Fred, but I think his healths gonna come into question. Oh well, politics are a lot like football, ya never really know what ya got until you get it on the field. Besides...we got a NCG to play and thats taking up a lot of my brain!!! :tigereye::tigereye::tigereye::tigereye::tigereye: [/FONT][/SIZE]
