Are there any issues you disagree with Paul on?

[vidiots]

I support paul i even voted for him in my state but im wondering what areas people here disagree with him on. For me personally:

1. Doesn't believe in Global warming.
2. Doesn't accept evolution despite it being as factual.

 

[sailingaway]

You might want to research your assumptions.

Ron Paul's views are nuanced. He isn't a bumper sticker.

He is religious but says his views don't preclude evolution, however, he resents questions about religious beliefs being raised as if they were a religious test for office. He also believes the earth does what it does in temperature. His belief in the limits on the federal government govern his views of law, so it doesn't matter whether he thinks humans are involved or not.

 

[eleganz]

Global warming differs from global climate change.


You knew that right?

 

[specsaregood]

I support paul i even voted for him in my state but im wondering what areas people here disagree with him on. For me personally:

1. Doesn't believe in Global warming.
2. Doesn't accept evolution despite it being as factual.

Interesting how both of your issues are religion based. At least you acknowledge to yourself that global warming isn't factual.

 

[Brett85]

I take a stronger stance than Ron on the issue of border security and illegal immigration. I support the death penalty as well. Those are probably the main issues I disagree with him on.

 

[specsaregood]

I take a stronger stance than Ron on the issue of border security and illegal immigration. I support the death penalty as well. Those are probably the main issues I disagree with him on.

Dr. Paul used to be pro-death penalty. But he changed his position after seeing all the cases overturned later on and decided it wasn't worth the risk of executing one innocent person. It is tough to argue against that logic, no?

 

[vidiots]

Interesting how both of your issues are religion based. At least you acknowledge to yourself that global warming isn't factual.

How is Global warming religious based. Is there not actual data to show it or prove the theory.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

I don't support what he says on the campaign trail about who committed the 9/11 attacks. Other than that, I'm pretty much lock step with him on everything.

 

[TIMB0B]

I disagreed with him during his 2011 CPAC speech when he mentioned a 10% flat tax with the option to 'opt out' of government programs. I don't want to pay any income tax to government. If I'm opting out of government programs, I don't want to pay for someone else's benefit.

 

[vidiots]

Global warming differs from global climate change.


You knew that right?

No honestly lol whats the difference

 

[specsaregood]

How is Global warming religious based. Is there not actual data to show it or prove the theory.

You know it is a religion, subconsciously if anything. Other wise you wouldn't have said "believe in". Which requires acceptance without absolute proof, belief. Just like every other religion.

 

[vidiots]

You know it is a religion, subconsciously if anything. Other wise you wouldn't have said "believe in". Which requires acceptance without absolute proof, belief. Just like every other religion.

Yes i said it that way because you dont have to believe it. You technically dont have to believe any thing in life do you? Like gravity does that make it wrong? or that the earth is moving or that it has an orbit.

 

[sailingaway]

How is Global warming religious based. Is there not actual data to show it or prove the theory.

despite what they teach you in school, it is highly debatable. Not that the earth changes temperature, or how did we have ice ages and vinyards in England, tropics in Antartica, as scientists say we did, but that is is causual or without glaring inconsistencies like the middle age warming period with no manmade emissions.

But man changes the world so much, it seems to me we must do some things. But this world wide cap and trade scheme for marketable securities is the OPPOSITE of what you would do if emissions were the driver. It would push all manufacturing to third world areas where there are few pollution controls so that worldwide emissions would go up. It would also shift jobs and money there. Which seems to be the actual purpose of the law, since it would make emissions worse, not better.

 

[Constitutional Paulicy]

99.99% of RP supporters favor Dr. Paul's primary objectives which are to restore America by bring us sound money and slashing the national debt. Bringing our troops home. Ending the degradation of our civil liberties by eliminating the Patriot Act, NDAA, etc.

Who cares about the secondary issues that some of us may differ over. They seem extremely petty in comparison.

 

[specsaregood]

Yes i said it that way because you dont have to believe it. You technically dont have to believe any thing in life do you? Like gravity does that make it wrong? or that the earth is moving or that it has an orbit.

That is all well in good. If you don't thnk that global warming has become a religion, you should step back and evaluate it a bit more. As far as evolution, you don't understand the nuances of Dr. Paul's position, it isn't that he doesn't accept evolution. But I'm not gonna speak for him, he devotes an entire chapter to the subject in his book "Liberty Defined". Its a good read, I recommend it.

Edit: FWIW, here is one of the current high priestesses of the global warming cult.

 

[vidiots]

despite what they teach you in school, it is highly debatable. Not that the earth changes temperature, or how did we have ice ages and vinyards in England, tropics in Antartica, as scientists say we did, but that is is causual or without glaring inconsistencies like the middle age warming period with no manmade emissions.

But man changes the world so much, it seems to me we must do some things. But this world wide cap and trade scheme for marketable securities is the OPPOSITE of what you would do if emissions were the driver. It would push all manufacturing to third world areas where there are few pollution controls so that worldwide emissions would go up. It would also shift jobs and money there. Which seems to be the actual purpose of the law, since it would make emissions worse, not better.

Good points actually. Not sure what to believe now I think i went along with that because i was teached in way for it to be fact pretty sure it was science or just in general.

 

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

I disagree on certain envrionmental issues.

 

[Working Poor]

I love this part of his book "Liberty Defined" on creationism -vs-evolution at the end he mentions he would like to see some proof of evolution in wars and how much mankind kills one another.

http://youtu.be/2eiR_U8vhIo

 

[Kregisen]

There aren't any issues I outright disagree on. I'm still neutral on ending the fed because I'm not yet convinced another solution works better (I do want it fully audited though) and I'm also sort of neutral on the death penalty, but definitely see his point.

I think I agree on everything else.

 

[vidiots]

I love this part of his book "Liberty Defined" on creationism -vs-evolution at the end he mentions he would like to see some proof of evolution in wars and how much mankind kills one another.

Link is not working.