Are there any issues you disagree with Paul on?

[JJ2]

I don't agree with his position on 9/11. The first time he ran I almost stopped supporting him over his views on 9/11 truthers. I continued supporting him because he wants to end the Fed which would end the power behind the 9/11 attacks and their power over America.

He is good friends with Alex Jones. That's good enough for me.

 

[cstarace]

You have a right to life. You do not have a right to death.

You also have a right to liberty.

 

[otherone]

You also have a right to liberty.

Patrick Henry gives you a choice....

 

[smhbbag]

I think the Koran is the primary cause of terrorism, with our meddling imperialism as a very distant secondary cause.

I don't believe in free trade.

I don't accept the harm principle as the proper basis for deciding whether something ought to be legal or illegal.

I know that our Founding Fathers were not libertarians.

I don't believe in individualism.

I don't believe that conscription is slavery, nor that taxation is theft.

I am perfectly fine with a draft.

I object to illegal immigration, AND a great portion of legal immigration. We need to be far more discriminating regarding who comes into our house.

I believe many of the older laws regulating sexual activity in the United States were just and proper. Adultery, homosexual sex, polygamy, and other acts should be criminal offenses.

I do not believe hyper-inflation is a short-term or long-term threat to the United States, though I would LOVE to end the Fed and be on a gold standard.

I believe divorces should be much harder to get.

I can go on, and on, and on, and on. This doesn't even scratch the surface. But rarely does a sentence come out of Paul's mouth that I actually agree with, in entirety.

I live in Glen Bradley's district in NC, and there is a reason I can (barely) support Paul, but won't touch Bradley with a ten-foot pole. That's nothing about Glen particularly - I wouldn't support Ron Paul for NC legislature either.

You all could choose to flame me, or you could learn a valuable lesson - how to appeal to someone who opposes Paul on nearly every side. I will be voting for Paul, though with plenty of reluctance.

A few basic things have me on board for Paul, and have since 2007 (and before that):

1) He's honest, genuine, morally upright, loves his wife and family, and has done right by them.
2) He isn't afraid of addressing our overwhelming financial issues head-on, and with plenty of backbone for the hard cuts (which are the only ones that matter).

and to a much lesser degree:
3) He wants to bring all our troops home (and actually would), though most of his reasoning is different from mine.

That's why I'm on board. I think, if fully enacted, Paul's libertarianism would drive us off a different cliff, but in the meantime, he wants to pull back from the one we're going over.

 

[otherone]

That's why I'm on board. I think, if fully enacted, Paul's libertarianism would drive us off a different cliff, but in the meantime, he wants to pull back from the one we're going over.

What 'different' cliff?

 

[Drex]

I think one time he want's English to be the official language. I believe there should be none.

 

[Nirvikalpa]

You have a right to life. You do not have a right to death.

That makes perfect sense, thanks for enlightening me.











/sarcasm.

 

[PierzStyx]

You know at one point I would have said federal drug laws, but not any longer. If there are going to be drug laws, then they should be at the state level only. But really I've come to the conclusion it might be wiser to have drug regulation than simple flat bans.

Other than that.....No. Not really.

 

[PierzStyx]

You also have a right to liberty.

Any right to abortion a woman may have based on her right to privacy is nullified by the unborn child's inherent right to life. When your rights threaten the life of another person, you lose those "rights". It is the same with abortion. The only real exception to this is when the pregnancy could cause the death of the mother. Then, philosophically you could see it as "killing in self-defense."

 

[Jtorsella]

I'm more moderate on foreign policy, but am certainly a noninterventionist. He convinced me on abortion.

 

[PierzStyx]

I disagree with Paul on pulling out all bases, because bases allow us to set up a deterrence to those who would attack us. If we remove all bases, a country can set up around us, and we might be trapped.

Let's look at the Cuban missile crisis for example. In a world of Nuclear Deterrence, they can shoot down our nukes because we're too far away.

I'm all for ending wars and eliminating MOST bases. But once we have the finances to maintain it (Which we do not at the moment), I simply feel there is nothing wrong with having allies who simply lend us land to borrow. I believe such can exist in a non-interventionist ideology, because such is trade, and NOT intervention in conflict!

Really? Trapped? You mean the largest, most powerful Air Force on the planet could be grounded? Or the largest, most powerful Navy could be blockaded in all ports? That seems unlikely to the point of being impossible. I'm not even sure any nation on teh planet has the military resources to do so.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was stooped by military forces here at home (well was deterred by them) not by military forces in Europe. In fact we agreed to get rid of some of our missile bases in order to get the Russians to agree to not send nukes. That is the power of diplomacy. But the Crisis wouldn't have happened if we hadn't been over seas in Italy and Turkey.

Go read "Dying To Win" by Dr. Robert Pape. He conducted the most indepth study of modern terrorism to date and concluded it was American interventionism that inspired the most terrorism against the nation, including 9/11.

 

[Jtorsella]

I think the Koran is the primary cause of terrorism, with our meddling imperialism as a very distant secondary cause.

I don't believe in free trade.

I don't accept the harm principle as the proper basis for deciding whether something ought to be legal or illegal.

I know that our Founding Fathers were not libertarians.

I don't believe in individualism.

I don't believe that conscription is slavery, nor that taxation is theft.

I am perfectly fine with a draft.

I object to illegal immigration, AND a great portion of legal immigration. We need to be far more discriminating regarding who comes into our house.

I believe many of the older laws regulating sexual activity in the United States were just and proper. Adultery, homosexual sex, polygamy, and other acts should be criminal offenses.

I do not believe hyper-inflation is a short-term or long-term threat to the United States, though I would LOVE to end the Fed and be on a gold standard.

I believe divorces should be much harder to get.

I can go on, and on, and on, and on. This doesn't even scratch the surface. But rarely does a sentence come out of Paul's mouth that I actually agree with, in entirety.

I live in Glen Bradley's district in NC, and there is a reason I can (barely) support Paul, but won't touch Bradley with a ten-foot pole. That's nothing about Glen particularly - I wouldn't support Ron Paul for NC legislature either.

You all could choose to flame me, or you could learn a valuable lesson - how to appeal to someone who opposes Paul on nearly every side. I will be voting for Paul, though with plenty of reluctance.

A few basic things have me on board for Paul, and have since 2007 (and before that):

1) He's honest, genuine, morally upright, loves his wife and family, and has done right by them.
2) He isn't afraid of addressing our overwhelming financial issues head-on, and with plenty of backbone for the hard cuts (which are the only ones that matter).

and to a much lesser degree:
3) He wants to bring all our troops home (and actually would), though most of his reasoning is different from mine.

That's why I'm on board. I think, if fully enacted, Paul's libertarianism would drive us off a different cliff, but in the meantime, he wants to pull back from the one we're going over.

Please explain why you are not an individualist.

 

[eduardo89]

Really? Trapped? You mean the largest, most powerful Air Force on the planet could be grounded? Or the largest, most powerful Navy could be blockaded in all ports? That seems unlikely to the point of being impossible. I'm not even sure any nation on teh planet has the military resources to do so.

Not to mention the only two countries that border the US completely rely on trade with the US to survive...They would never allow Chinese or Russian or (insert Muslim country here) to set up bases that would "threaten" the US

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I disagreed with Ron Paul being overly polite while campaigning against opponents.

 

[Brian Coulter]

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

YIKES...fell out the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.

 

[Evangelical_Protestant]

I guess I would disagree with states rights as he describes it. Meaning, I don't agree that Indiana should be allowed to have a forced medicare program, or be allowed to restrict drugs or firearms. Paul seems to want to get the federal government off the backs of the states, which is very good, but if I'm not mistaken he believes each state should be able to create its own regulations in the kind that the federal government has nationwide now. Indiana shouldn't be able to implement its own EPA that is not answerable to the people for example.

I'm different in that I'd be willing to support a centralized national model, only it would be libertarian and would not stretch the chains of the constitution. No more wars on the people via boogeyman tactics such as terrorism or drugs that make it possible for them to terrorize you or your family just b/c you look like some kind of weirdo.

 

[PierzStyx]

I guess I would disagree with states rights as he describes it. Meaning, I don't agree that Indiana should be allowed to have a forced medicare program, or be allowed to restrict drugs or firearms. Paul seems to want to get the federal government off the backs of the states, which is very good, but if I'm not mistaken he believes each state should be able to create its own regulations in the kind that the federal government has nationwide now. Indiana shouldn't be able to implement its own EPA that is not answerable to the people for example.

I'm different in that I'd be willing to support a centralized national model, only it would be libertarian and would not stretch the chains of the constitution. No more wars on the people via boogeyman tactics such as terrorism or drugs that make it possible for them to terrorize you or your family just b/c you look like some kind of weirdo.

To your first point, I think the idea is that the state of Indiana wouldn't be able to set up its own EPA. The people wouldn't allow it. And state legislators have to worry about what the people think as they are directly elected by them. Also it would be easier to get rid of such a thing if it dd come into existence. And worse comes to pass, you could move to a state where there was no EPA.

To your second paragraph, I'm not a libertarian. So I wonder, could there be an actual nationwide libertarian central government?

 

[opinionatedfool]

I probably agree with about 85% of Ron Paul's views. But I'm probably wrong on the 15% because I'm an opinionated fool and Ron Paul is a genius.

 

[cstarace]

Any right to abortion a woman may have based on her right to privacy is nullified by the unborn child's inherent right to life. When your rights threaten the life of another person, you lose those "rights". It is the same with abortion. The only real exception to this is when the pregnancy could cause the death of the mother. Then, philosophically you could see it as "killing in self-defense."

I was under the assumption that the conversation was about assisted suicide...probably should've read more carefully before I posted.

 

[cstarace]

You all could choose to flame me, or you could learn a valuable lesson - how to appeal to someone who opposes Paul on nearly every side. I will be voting for Paul, though with plenty of reluctance.

Accepting people like you into the movement is not a valuable lesson, it's a self-inhibiting one. This movement has never been and will never be about Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is an incredible individual and an amazing messenger, but the individual himself is not the reason why so many liberty-loving people (anarchists, minarchists, objectivists, Constitutionalists, anarcho-capitalists, and libertarians) have come together in support of this movement. He may have been the catalyst, but something much larger is on the horizon. When Dr. Paul retires at the end of his term, he'll quietly move back to his home in Lake Jackson. Then what? Does RPF and the liberty movement cease to exist? Of course not.

You're a moralist and contradict so much of what we're trying to do. Vote for Dr. Paul if you wish, but don't pretend you're "on board" with the rest of us. You're not.