So what do you DISAGREE about with Ron Paul?

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

His endorsement of Chuck Baldwin wasn't such a great idea. Some of the stuff he says is just going to drive people away from Ron Paul and the whole liberty movement. He said that the south was right in the war between the state, and that scares a lot of people. I am not very informed about the Civil War, so I can't make any comment, but that doesn't help his status to say that.

Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul have both said the south/Confederacy was justified in their secession. I agree with both of them on this and never in my life thought that I would see two candidates come along who spoke the truth regarding this matter. I know a lot of people think that saying these things are just devisive and have no bearing on modern man but that is not true. An examination of that conflict will show that many of our problems today stem from Lincoln and his actions.

 

[constituent]

statism really is a problem, though i'd vote him for gov. (if he ran on a smaller state gov. platform)

also, it'd be great if he were to use his new found celebrity to really launch some tirades against the "state," rather
than what he appears to be doing, which is attempting to build up a new faction to simply replace to old one (is
the best we can hope for really another reagan? talk about low expectations, who wants to devote time/energy
to that? ...very few, and for good reason.)

his choice though, it's just been a disappointing one.


in terms of congress, i've come to disagree w/ his aiding and abetting the use of earmarks "for the district (stolen gov't cash isn't the kinda 'help' we need.")

 

[jkr]

nuke power
the capitol investment is HUGE
maintnance & disposal cost are HUGE and DANGEROUS
chernobyl
not many continous jobs once built, i prefer agri power and material solutions whenever possible
future meltdown sites, ill pass

 

[Natalie]

Nothing. Ron Paul is right about everything. He changed my stance on abortion.

 

[ChickenHawk]

Non-interventionist foreign policy. I think the idea of complete non-interventionism is dangerous and naive. It assumes everyone will leave us alone if we leave them alone. I agree that is good policy in many cases but not all.

I also disagree with him when he says the Iraq war is "illegal" and "unconstitutional". I believe there is no case for that argument at all and it is a distraction from real problems.

 

[Uriel999]

Non-interventionist foreign policy. I think the idea of complete non-interventionism is dangerous and naive. It assumes everyone will leave us alone if we leave them alone. I agree that is good policy in many cases but not all.

I also disagree with him when he says the Iraq war is "illegal" and "unconstitutional". I believe there is no case for that argument at all and it is a distraction from real problems.

Non-interventionism is good though because at the very least we are not out actively provoking crisis and it doesn't include neighbor nations were communication or periodic help can be a beneficial thing for both nations.

The Iraq war was illegal because Congress never approved to go to war, the president just declared war. Only Congress can declare war according to the constitution.

Oh and whoever was talking about earmarks, I have heard this brought up before, but what exactly is an earmark?

 

[constituent]

Oh and whoever was talking about earmarks, I have heard this brought up before, but what exactly is an earmark?

well, in one case, it's requesting stolen money to defray the expense of marketing for a certain area industry.

compete or die, imo.

 

[lodge939]

The crappy campaign ads. I also think he needed not draw so much attention to his more drastic changes.

 

[nickcoons]

Free markets don't work for the exact same reason.

I'm going to have to disagree, unless you can provide a reason for your claim. People who act in their own self-interest (i.e. everyone), so long as they don't initiate force against anyone, are not a flaw of the free market, they are a benefit.

 

[ChickenHawk]

The Iraq war was illegal because Congress never approved to go to war, the president just declared war. Only Congress can declare war according to the constitution.

Actually, Congress did approve the war. The President informed Congress of his intent to go to war and Congress gave him the authorization. The Constitution makes the President Commander in Chief and gives the Congress the power to declare war. The purpose of this is so that neither branch of government can go to war with authorization of the other. In the case of the Iraq war there was no break down in this check on power.

 

[nickcoons]

Actually, Congress did approve the war.

Congress approved the use of force against those that were specifically related to the 9/11 attack, they did not declare war, and there is a big difference. Congress must declare war in order for the President to wage a war; the latter happened and the former did not.

 

[ChickenHawk]

Congress approved the use of force against those that were specifically related to the 9/11 attack, they did not declare war, and there is a big difference. Congress must declare war in order for the President to wage a war; the latter happened and the former did not.

The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" went much further than that. I would agree that Congress should not have given such wide authorization up front, but since this same thing has been done before, including by the founders themselves, calling it unconstitutional is very seriously debatable at best. Congress could have stopped this war at any time so I fail to see a problem.

 

[Trance Dance Master]

The way he kissed up to MLK and bashed his supporters on PBS.

 

[nickcoons]

The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" went much further than that.

An authorization is not a declaration. While it may seem that I'm picking nits, it should be noted that Congress specifically declined to vote on a declaration of war in favor of the authorization. Clearly, they understood there was a difference.

A declaration would be Congress providing their endorsement of such a war, and requiring that the President act on that. An authorization is a position of indifference that allows (authorizes) the President to make that decision on his own; and delegating powers between branches is something that the Constitution does not allow.

I would agree that Congress should not have given such wide authorization up front, but since this same thing has been done before, including by the founders themselves, calling it unconstitutional is very seriously debatable at best.

No amount of precedent changes whether or not something is unconstitutional, but it sure clouds people's views of it. Just because it's happened before doesn't change what it is.

Congress could have stopped this war at any time so I fail to see a problem.

Clearly members of Congress want the war to continue without taking any of the blame for it. This is the difference between an authorization and a declaration.

 

[The_Orlonater]

Deporting all the illegals, it can't be done. We just need to end all free social programs, and they'll be gone.

Also, I don't believe states have the right to end abortion, make drugs illegal.

 

[Trance Dance Master]

Deporting all the illegals, it can't be done.

The country is being invaded. The only reason it's not being done is because they are let right back in. All it takes is well organized militias to accomplish the task. Pay them well and it would be done within a year or less.

Also, I don't believe states have the right to end abortion

The states have no right to sanction murder. Government's job is to protect life.

 

[RideTheDirt]

On most things, I agree with Ron Paul and on the few I don't - I understand where he is coming from and the good doctor backs that position up with sound points. I "respectfully disagree".

On International intervention -- there are a lot of atrocities going on around the world, like in dafur, where we could be using our military strength for strictly humanitarian needs. I don't believe you can "hand" people freedom because, like most things, people don't appreciate what they didn't have to work for. I agree with Dr. Paul about using our economic engine to introduce a better way of life as that would be my first choice as well, but in a hell hole where innocents are suffering, I feel we do have a moral obligation to help out.

Roe vs Wade: I don't necessarily believe this is a states issue. I also don't believe that the government should be involved with it at all. Ron Paul wants the government out of the markets because its too complex a situation to be regulated by a court of law and through legislation. In the same way, I believe that the decision of abortion is far to complex, with too many factors, for legislature and if that is the case, then the default is to neither approve or deny but to leave the decision to the people, in this case the mother to be.

Regulation: Ron Paul strictly believes that the markets will take care of everything but I am not so trusting that people will do the right thing and I believe at least some regulation is needed to keep big corporations honest. I dont believe current regulation works because everyone is in bed with everyone else.

So... there are a few things where I have a slight disagreement with Ron Paul's stated positions. In a perfect world, we would have a congress full of people with Ron Paul's integrity and these differing view points could be discussed at length, with reason, without political jocking or special interest considerations so the best solutions could be reasoned out for the many and the few.

Why dont you, and every single person who uses Darfur as an excuse, form a militia, train and raise money to go to Darfur and help them. Why do you have to force everyone to fund your battle? You said "I feel we" , and I would like to know why you put me in to some group I never intended to be in. I don't believe in funding wars by stealing from taxpayers.

 

[mediahasyou]

Paul is a statist. I am not.

 

[angelatc]

I'm going to have to disagree, unless you can provide a reason for your claim. People who act in their own self-interest (i.e. everyone), so long as they don't initiate force against anyone, are not a flaw of the free market, they are a benefit.

Nope. I am not going to hijack this thread, but I think that free trade is a myth.

 

[Trance Dance Master]

Where has free trade actually worked?

Wherever free markets exist.