Ron Paul is Seriously Flawed as a Candidate.

[spiteface]

Precisely. And this is not even close to radical. It's a basic understanding of the "freedom message".

Umm how could killing off your customer base on purpose possibly be good for business?

The result of the FDA is exactly the opposite of its intended purpose. Many people are quick to assume a medicine is 'safe' because some bureaucrat but his stamp on it. Some people are prevented by force from taking medications that they want to because another bureaucrat refuses to put his stamp on it and are worse off. Some companies can crush competitors by lobbying the FDA not to approve competing treatments. The FDA serves to restrict choice in health thereby artificially decreasing the supply of said treatments, which must ultimately lead to higher prices for the consumers. Good for pill companies. Bad for consumers. End the FDA yesterday!


Man if i wanted someone telling what was ok, and what was not, and then FORCING me to do what they say, I would still live with my parents..

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'd like to seriously flaw that guy's face.... oops, looks like someone beat me to it. see his myspace page? ha.. that guy is a fat ass

 

[QWE]

you guys are so quick to attack this guy. This is NOT the way to get voters! Those are real concerns of many potential RP supporters! The best would be to respectfully respond to this and logically show why Ron Paul is right.

But honestly, I completely disagree with the Christian crap. Ron Paul and anyone else has the right to be Christian and serve the American people, but there is something called the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment! Creating a Christian state in any way, shape or form is an obvious violation of it. There is NOTHING in the constitution that supports Ron Paul's claim - and his claim that the Founders would support that is shaky at best!
Any true libertarian would see that both Church and State are better off when separated! This does NOT mean prevent the two from intersecting, this means prevent the two from supporting the other. I'd rather have a secular (read: no religion, agnostic, NOT atheist) state than a government that ends up like Israel or Iran (except with a Christian emphasis). The people should be free to exercise religion and the government should not be endorsing religion (any religion or religion in general) ESPECIALLY not at the federal level.

 

[brandon]

you guys are so quick to attack this guy. This is NOT the way to get voters! Those are real concerns of many potential RP supporters! The best would be to respectfully respond to this and logically show why Ron Paul is right.

But honestly, I completely disagree with the Christian crap. Ron Paul and anyone else has the right to be Christian and serve the American people, but there is something called the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment! Creating a Christian state in any way, shape or form is an obvious violation of it. There is NOTHING in the constitution that supports Ron Paul's claim - and his claim that the Founders would support that is shaky at best!
Any true libertarian would see that both Church and State are better off when separated! This does NOT mean prevent the two from intersecting, this means prevent the two from supporting the other. I'd rather have a secular (read: no religion, agnostic, NOT atheist) state than a government that ends up like Israel or Iran (except with a Christian emphasis). The people should be free to exercise religion and the government should not be endorsing religion (any religion or religion in general) ESPECIALLY not at the federal level.

Thank god,someone making sence and being reasonable.

I worry some people here are just becomming ron paul sheep.

Think for yourselves people. Ron paul is only a mortal, and all mortals have flaws.

Some paul supporters started a satire page of fred thompson. On the forums they parody the neocons by attacking anyone who doesnt 100% agree with them. Sadly many people here are being exactly like that, but for real

 

[Kregener]

A simple Google search and 30 minutes of reading would show any THINKING person why Ron Paul is right.

 

[Ron Paul Fan]

you guys are so quick to attack this guy. This is NOT the way to get voters! Those are real concerns of many potential RP supporters! The best would be to respectfully respond to this and logically show why Ron Paul is right.

I agree with this. Calling him retarded or a fatass is a horrible way to try and win an argument and win supporters. I don't agree with everything Ron Paul says, but I still support him. I hope that you wouldn't start calling me names as well. The best way to deal with this guy is to provide him with facts and reasons why Ron Paul's way would work better than what we have now.

 

[brandon]

A simple Google search and 30 minutes of reading would show any THINKING person why Ron Paul is right.

cmon man...you are making bill o'reilly type arguments. There is no logic in what you just said. A person can very easily think and conclude that ron paul is wrong.

I think RP is right on most issues, but not all.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I am free to attack everyone and anyone.. the consequences in doing so is another story

 

[bbachtung]

Despite being an avid atheist, I have no problem with Ron Paul's correct interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

You have to remember that the Bill of Rights was only supposed to apply against the federal government, which was supposed to be very small, with powers limited to those enumerated in the Constitution (most are found in Article I, section 8), so any religious references made by federal officials would be nearly meaningless. It is especially clear that the 1st Amendment was intended to apply ONLY to the federal government because it starts with the word "Congress" ("Congress shall make no law . . . ").

It was only with the rise and misinterpration of the 14th Amendment that led to the "incorporation" of certain parts of the Bill of Rights against the states and local governments (one notable exception to this is -- of course -- the 2nd Amendment because everyone knows that guns are evil and they don't really deserve protection).

Misusing the Constitution is wrong, and Dr. Paul is right to stand up against applications of the 1st Amendment against non-federal actions. We have state constitutions for a reason: to protect us from overreaching state governments, just as the federal constitution is supposed to protect us from an overreaching federal government.

Look on the bright side, with a Ron Paul presidency, the federal government will have very little to do, and deciding what kind of decoration Salt Lake City's public square can have around Christmas will no longer be the job of the federal courts. Small is beautiful; let's return power to the states.

As usual, Ron Paul put it more eloquently and succinctly than I ever could:

The Supreme Court also has ignored the obvious point that the amendment applies only to Congress, and not to the states. This means that while the federal government cannot pass laws restricting religion or use federal funds to give preference to one religion over another, state and local governments retain the right under the 10th Amendment to set their own policies regarding religious expression.

 

[brandon]

thanks for that clarification bbach. That is a wonderful counter argument. Much better then calling the guy who wrote the article an idiot or a fat ass.

 

[jmunjr]

First of all, there is no way in hell that the writer of that article is or ever was a Ron Paul supporter... This is an attempt at bullshit to get people to dislike Ron Paul...

I've been a big time Ron Paul supporter but the guys has some valid points. Not all of them are valid though. I too have some serious unanswered or insufficiently answered questions about Paul.

A lot of Constitutional Amendments should have been passed giving the federal government the power to do certain things instead of the huge bureaucracy of departments that were put in place.

If Paul gets into power and downsizes the government there will be a lot of holes in areas of govt that our nation has gotten used to. Most of them won't need to be filled, but many will.

Paul just brushes these off with the idea that privatization will take care of the problem. Keep in mind though that abuses by industry and corporations and other "private" organizations in the 19th and early to mid 20th centuries are what led to a lot of new regulations, laws, and the departments in the first place to protect the people and consumers. Certainly some were created due to abuses and corruption.

Sure, in many cases mismanagement by the entities assigned to enforcing these laws created a bigger problem, but removing them altogether opens the door for a repeat of abuses. This includes the possibility of a less safe food supply, employment abuses such as child and excessive labor, poor wages, extreme educational inequities, just to name a few.

I am for downsizing the government but not necessarily for eliminating key components of it completely. And yeah the above ones mentioned are debatable as to their importance but you get my point.

Times have changed so much in the past 50 to 100 years that changes to the Constitution were necessary to adapt, but these didn't happen. Instead the federal gov't bypassed the process and built new agencies and administrations without approval of the states to cope with the supposed problems. Get rid of these agencies and the problems return.

And to reiterate, I have been a big supporter of Paul for a long long time, but sometimes he just doesn't have answers that suffice when dealing with some of the changes he proposes.

PS - and also where does it state specifically about the separation of church and state? The Constitution just says "Congress shall write no law..." though many of our founders alluded to it in their own writings..

 

[brandon]

Umm how could killing off your customer base on purpose possibly be good for business?

Obviously it wouldn't be good for business, but the market takes time to regulate itself. People would have to die first, and then the company would lose business, as opposed to have some type of regulation outside the market to prevent this form happening in the first place.

Additionally, theree are many industries who are already killing there customers on purpose such as tobacco and fast food.


no i dont think government regulation is the answer to everything, but there are two sides to this argument.

 

[QWE]

Despite being an avid atheist, I have no problem with Ron Paul's correct interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

You have to remember that the Bill of Rights was only supposed to apply against the federal government, which was supposed to be very small, with powers limited to those enumerated in the Constitution (most are found in Article I, section 8), so any religious references made by federal officials would be nearly meaningless. It is especially clear that the 1st Amendment was intended to apply ONLY to the federal government because it starts with the word "Congress" ("Congress shall make no law . . . ").

It was only with the rise and misinterpration of the 14th Amendment that led to the "incorporation" of certain parts of the Bill of Rights against the states and local governments (one notable exception to this is -- of course -- the 2nd Amendment because everyone knows that guns are evil and they don't really deserve protection).

Misusing the Constitution is wrong, and Dr. Paul is right to stand up against applications of the 1st Amendment against non-federal actions. We have state constitutions for a reason: to protect us from overreaching state governments, just as the federal constitution is supposed to protect us from an overreaching federal government.

Look on the bright side, with a Ron Paul presidency, the federal government will have very little to do, and deciding what kind of decoration Salt Lake City's public square can have around Christmas will no longer be the job of the federal courts. Small is beautiful; let's return power to the states.

As usual, Ron Paul put it more eloquently and succinctly than I ever could:

I agree that it wouldn't be so bad with Paul's interpretation, but I believe it would be better if the two were separate.

Also, I don't understand how the 14th amendment is misinterpreted by the courts. It seems fairly obvious to me that the due process clause incorporates those rights to the states (and the 2nd amendment isn't due process, in my opinion, although I could see how it might be considered one).

I understand what Ron Paul's view is - but his view is not outlined in the Constitution, he only believes in the ability for the federal government to conduct itself in such a way. May I ask, why does he think it is BETTER to have Christian values in the government, when (in his view) constitutionally it is only allowed to do so, not mandated. The government has a choice to not entangle itself with religion at all - why not do that? Why is that a bad thing? That's the main problem I have.

 

[bbachtung]

I agree that it wouldn't be so bad with Paul's interpretation, but I believe it would be better if the two were separate.

Also, I don't understand how the 14th amendment is misinterpreted by the courts. It seems fairly obvious to me that the due process clause incorporates those rights to the states (and the 2nd amendment isn't due process, in my opinion, although I could see how it might be considered one).

I understand what Ron Paul's view is - but his view is not outlined in the Constitution, he only believes in the ability for the federal government to conduct itself in such a way. May I ask, why does he think it is BETTER to have Christian values in the government, when (in his view) constitutionally it is only allowed to do so, not mandated. The government has a choice to not entangle itself with religion at all - why not do that? Why is that a bad thing? That's the main problem I have.

What about the 1st Amendment makes it a "due process" right?

I could see that argument if the courts had stuck to those rights that relate to procedures (i.e., right against self-incrimination in criminal proceedings, right to counsel, etc.), but certainly not with regard to free speech and free exercise of religion portions of the 1st Amendment (although the right to petition for redress of grievances might be a procedural right).