Want to support him but one thing really bothers me...

[filmmaker58]

I think it's a testament to the man's integrity. Yes I believe Cheney is a criminal, but a vote without an investigation is simply a political move, and Ron Paul believes that even your worst enemies should not be denied the rule of law. It's like me hating smoking but recognizing someones right to smoke as long as others don't have to suffer from it.

He's a better man than I. My first act as President would be to declare them all enemy combattants and send them to Guantanimo for at least a couple weeks of waterboarding before I close it down.

 

[rg123]

You could also go to www.ronpaullibrary.org. You will find over 100 writings by Dr. Paul on the monatary system their and alot of other stuff too some over 20 yrs old.

 

[me3]

I don't think thats something for the government to decide though. I have mixed feelings about the abortion issue and I think there are very reasonable arguments for just about every side of it.

I think the constitution didn't define it for that very reason. Is there a way to contact Ron Paul about this and get a direct response? Thanks again.

You can contact the campaign through ronpaul2008.com to get clarification on positions, however it is probably unlikely that Dr. Paul will be able to respond directly.

 

[spiteface]

I don't think thats something for the government to decide though. I have mixed feelings about the abortion issue and I think there are very reasonable arguments for just about every side of it.

I think the constitution didn't define it for that very reason. Is there a way to contact Ron Paul about this and get a direct response? Thanks again.

Hi castor,

My previous response may have gotten buried before, but you can find many of Dr. Paul's writings on life and abortion here. RP also did a very good interview where he discusses this topic here.
I think you'll see that as a physician he treats the subject very seriously rather than jumping on one side or the other and simply berating the opposing side. Hope this helps.

 

[castor]

Oh don't get me wrong, I have read his views on abortion and I think he has great arguments that he is in a very good position to make.

I think I must have written my question poorly. Let me try to explain better.

I am a very dissapointed american. I don't like our education system. I think it promotes conformity and focuses on making people good employees rather than creative independent individuals. So Im very glad to see his positions on home schooling.

I am also very dissapointed in the mass media. It could be such an amazing tool for education, but instead it seems to be used to influence peoples thoughts and guide their decisions to those that are supported by well financed interests. Regardless of whether or not they have good intentions their role should be informing the masses as best they can. I am amazed I didn't hear about Ron Paul until recently.

The main thing that bothers me is the lack on honesty and integrity in politics. I hear politicians using words like honor, values, terrorist, and freedom in every other sentence and the hypocrisy of it all makes me sick. Thats why I was floored when I heard about Ron Paul. He seemed to be the real deal. Thats when I found this bill of his. I don't see how he can reconcile a bill that would define when life begins at a federal level is he is supposed to be a large supporter of states rights and individual liberty. It raised a flag for me.

So far I've narrowed down my choices to Paul, Obama, and Kucinich. I can't find out much on Obama as he hasn't been in politics for very long but for some reason I feel like hes telling me what I want to hear.

I personally don't think abortion is right. BUT ... I think the issue is far too complex for anyone to be able to tell another person they can or can't do it. Thats why that decision needs to be left up to the people. I just want to know how Ron Paul justifies his position on states rights and individual liberty, with trying to pass a bill that would define life at a federal level.

 

[Lord Xar]

From what I understand, you should omit Kucinich immediately as he is pretty much a socialist. And you cannot have Liberty or prosperity with socialism. Infact, individuality is lost with socialism. Based on your writings, you seem to want "freedom" and "individualism" --- Kucinich is very far removed from this, so is obama. Ron Paul is your only choice.

I think what it boils down to is, what is important to yourself. You can ask a hundred questions and be satisfied with 40 of them, but if your most salient positions are not clarified it won't move you.

I respect kucinich's honesty but I think his views on the constitution might be a little suspect as socialism is in direct opposition to the constitution. You cannot be one and then parlay the other.

 

[surf]

Castor, welcome to the board. you share many of the viewpoints on this forum relative to abortion. personally i tend to brush off the issue by saying that - since i'm not a gal - i shouldn't be making this decision. it's a weak argument, but i've always thought Ron's response to this issue does make sense. For the election, he is taking a "states rights" viewpoint, and as President i believe he would do the same.

i hope you join the fight (campaign)

 

[Shii]

I don't see how he can reconcile a bill that would define when life begins at a federal level is he is supposed to be a large supporter of states rights and individual liberty. It raised a flag for me.

Your point is legitimate-- the other posters aren't addressing it. This bill doesn't actually do what it looks like on the surface. It would define life as beginning at conception. But this would not make abortion a federal crime. The federal government does not legislate against murder! It's not in the Constitution.

Recently in New Hampshire, Ron Paul said that he felt there should not be a federal mandate to legalize all abortion, since it is clearly a gray area (should it be legal 3 hours before birth? 3 days before birth? 3 weeks?). He felt that each state should decide the law. Granted, this is worse than commanding states to leave it to the individual, but looking at Ron Paul's core belief, constitutionally this is the correct way to handle it. The Constitution says nothing about leaving abortion legal, and the federal government should not just grab for that power because they think it's a good idea--they should work within the rule of law.

 

[knightk]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

Ron Paul on Abortion^

 

[RonPaulLibrary]

Castor, welcome to the forum.

Ron Paul explains his vote on Cheney's impeachment here:

http://ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=976

 

[EvoPro]

States would still have the right to keep it legal to a certain point, even if life was defined at conception.

I personally think they should define that life begins at 4 to 5 weeks, when the heart starts beating. While it's not perfect, I think there is no real prefect answer and conception just seems to soon.

 

[spiteface]

I personally don't think abortion is right. BUT ... I think the issue is far too complex for anyone to be able to tell another person they can or can't do it. Thats why that decision needs to be left up to the people. I just want to know how Ron Paul justifies his position on states rights and individual liberty, with trying to pass a bill that would define life at a federal level.

As I understand the bill, it seems to be directly in line with what you are saying. Yes, it defines life but it specifically states that it is not a federal matter and that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction at all in what states decide on the matter. Life is currently defined by the supreme court and always will be defined at the federal level whether we like it or not. This bill was an attempt to use the proper branch of government for definition and to strip federal jurisdiction - precisely because it is a complicated issue that would be handled better at a local level. If I got something wrong, my apologies, someone can correct me.

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

The way I see it, most of the things that would disqualify you from supporting Paul would also disqualify you from supporting most, if not all, other candidates. I doubt there's any issue where that would work the other way around.

 

[lucius]

Hello. I just heard recently about Ron Paul and the amount of support he has from people. I started to read up on and I have some questions and conclusions:

- I really like his honesty. I don't believe our government represents the people and I don't believe the current administration reflects any of the ideals I associate with america.

- He wants to get rid of the fed. I don't like how the fed charges interest when it lends to the government, but I was reading that the fed is good because it can pour money into an economy to put it back on track if its faltering. I am not sure though because as much as I hate to admit it, the whole federal reserve system confuses me. Can someone knows about it tell me their thoughts on it?

- Here is my big one. There was a vote recently to impeach Dick Cheney. Ron Paul voted to put it on the shelf. Kucinich voted the opposite. Cheney is a traitor to the United States as well as Bush. If Ron Paul has so much integrity in upholding the constitution, why did he not vote to impeach one of its most aggressive attackers? I really want to like this guy, but I don't think I can support someone that refuses to take action against domestic enemies like Cheney. I am hoping he had a good reason for it. Does anyone here know?

Welcome, we need a good doctor...

 

[steph3n]

No one will agree 100% with anyone but Dr Paul is certainly closest to what I believe

 

[castor]

Yeah I understand that. I disagree with him on some things like healthcare and corporate regulation. I actually think some social programs are great. At least they could be.

But I know he really believes what he is saying like Kucinich and that is refreshing. Thats why the whole conception bill and impeachment thing concern me. What it comes down to is, I just want someone thats going to be honest and open with me. I would like our president to be someone I can respect and look up to. Someone that represents we the people.

I have not yet seen a president I trusted. They all seem to have been keeping things from the public. Ron Paul is very blunt and seemingly honest and thats a huge plus in my book. I know that if him or Kucinich are president, they won't take money from corporate lobbyists and they will serve in the best interests of the people.

I don't know much about political science so my ideas aren't really well founded. I would love to see a debate between Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky. It would be great to see two honest and knowledgeable people discuss the merits and pitfalls of their political ideologies.

 

[steph3n]

I think this isn't the proper place (thread) for a friendly debate on corporate regulation. But I will put it pretty bluntly, the corporations control the regulators, which simply gives them a monopoly or a price fixing situation.

Exhibit A: Southwestern Bell/AT&T
Exhibit B: Pharmaceutical companies.

Yeah I understand that. I disagree with him on some things like healthcare and corporate regulation. I actually think some social programs are great. At least they could be.

But I know he really believes what he is saying like Kucinich and that is refreshing. Thats why the whole conception bill and impeachment thing concern me. What it comes down to is, I just want someone thats going to be honest and open with me. I would like our president to be someone I can respect and look up to. Someone that represents we the people.

I have not yet seen a president I trusted. They all seem to have been keeping things from the public. Ron Paul is very blunt and seemingly honest and thats a huge plus in my book. I know that if him or Kucinich are president, they won't take money from corporate lobbyists and they will serve in the best interests of the people.

I don't know much about political science so my ideas aren't really well founded. I would love to see a debate between Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky. It would be great to see two honest and knowledgeable people discuss the merits and pitfalls of their political ideologies.

 

[syborius]

simple tactic

Hello. I just heard recently about Ron Paul and the amount of support he has from people. I started to read up on and I have some questions and conclusions:

- I really like his honesty. I don't believe our government represents the people and I don't believe the current administration reflects any of the ideals I associate with america.

- He wants to get rid of the fed. I don't like how the fed charges interest when it lends to the government, but I was reading that the fed is good because it can pour money into an economy to put it back on track if its faltering. I am not sure though because as much as I hate to admit it, the whole federal reserve system confuses me. Can someone knows about it tell me their thoughts on it?

- Here is my big one. There was a vote recently to impeach Dick Cheney. Ron Paul voted to put it on the shelf. Kucinich voted the opposite. Cheney is a traitor to the United States as well as Bush. If Ron Paul has so much integrity in upholding the constitution, why did he not vote to impeach one of its most aggressive attackers? I really want to like this guy, but I don't think I can support someone that refuses to take action against domestic enemies like Cheney. I am hoping he had a good reason for it. Does anyone here know?

Simple reason:

he needs to get elected by the delegates from each state first, before he is elected in the general election. There is a good portion of the base that sees this as a political ploy, nothing more. Ron Paul still needs the GOP apparatus to get past the primaries, as much as we all despise shooter, its better not to rock the boat in that way early on. If he gets past the primaries he will be much more aggressive. You need to realize, this is still politics, and one must tread carefully to get out of the starting gate, WHY? because one man can't change the system over night. It will take time, finesse, energy, and winning over a base that is still very much confused on the war, and quite possibly on oily dick.

 

[Broadlighter]

Wow, thanks for all of your responses! Glad to see that many of them were polite. I found an article on what happened and how the GOP tried to force it to the floor to embarrass the democrats. But I don't understand how that would embarrass them. I know Pelosi said the Dems wouldn't impeach (that amazes me) but what would really happen if it was forced to the floor?

Another question I have is on Ron Pauls bill HR 1094 - Sanctity of life act. I know he personally is against abortion, but he says that he supports the states right to decide those matters. Yet in this bill he seeks to make the definition of life start at conception. That would make it a federal law right?

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1094_ih.xml


How is this in line with states rights?

Thanks for the responses!

I'll admit that I'm not fully in agreement with Ron Paul on his stance about abortion, but to understand his position you have to understand that our individual rights do not come from the government - they come from the Creator or nature if you are an atheist. Rather the government is tasked with protecting those rights. What Ron Paul has said is that this is such a crucial and personal matter that it should require more of a local decision rather than have it decided at the federal level. He wants to strip away the federal government's right to rule on this issue - which would enable the states to decide on the matter.

Even though Pro-choice people believe that would effectively eliminate a woman's right to choose, I don't think that would happen across the board. Some states will keep abortion legal, some will outlaw it, some will set a standard such as banning late term abortions and some will do nothing at all.

The problem I have with the federal government setting a standard for when life begins is that once they've done that, it will set the political forces in motion to try and change that definition. Before you know it, abortion will be legal again and a person is not a person until he turns five.

I think the best case scenario is that the Federal government get out of that issue and the states follow the federal government's example.

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

Yeah I understand that. I disagree with him on some things like healthcare and corporate regulation. I actually think some social programs are great. At least they could be.

In my opinion, people are better off spending their money on their own services, so one way to help them is to cut spending so you can cut taxes on them. Paul would end the American empire, which costs us hundreds of billions a year, and would work to balance the budget and pay off the debt, interest on which also costs hundreds of billion a year. Then cut corporate subsidies and pork-barrel spending and institute a flat tax or national sales tax, which would save billions on administrative and other costs compared to our current tax code in addition to not penalizing savings and investment the way our tax system does now. Suddenly the American economy is infused with upwards of a trillion dollars per year. And since inflation is under control, your money goes further than it used to.