For Ron Paul Voters: Have You Ever Analyzed Paul's Policies with a Magnifying Glass?

Look, Ron Paul's policies have merit. However, someone like myself, who gets to the heart of policy understands the subtleties that can separate an excellent policy from a dangerous/inadequate/ineffective/unconstitutional one.

 

I read some of Paul's positions on this issue and realize I was somewhat mistaken on this. Paul has often been an outspoken proponent of state's rights, and I assumed that this was where he stood on this issue. I look like I was wrong on this particular position. You are correct that he just does not like abortion.

My personal opinion on the matter for the curious is that I'm a cheap bastard, and I just don't want to pay for it. My personal opinion on this is there are always at least two people more deserving of a bill for this kind of stupidity than ME. If this cost reduces demand for abortions, and profit margins for abortion clinics, then too bad, so sad.

 

Your personal opinion is valid, but trying to Constitutionally justify the Sanctity of Life Act would have been disingenuous. For some reason, there are a couple social stances where Dr. Paul deviates from his strict Constitutionalist philosophy. For example, he feels that DOMA is necessary. There are three Constitutional arguments why the law is unconstitutional, one of which has not been challenged through the courts. It just goes to show that Paul is not the strict Constitutionalist he says he is. He does appropriately fit the label of believing in the Constitution until he doesn't.

 

Paul has stated that he puts life before liberty. His position has not changed.

For some this is a deal breaker but for me, I just have to look at the other candidates to see that there are far worse issues with them.

 

I am not denying a change in his specific stance on the matter. Furthermore, I would not blame him for taking such a stance. After all, he was a medical doctor who delivered babies for years. His experiences obviously showed him how the process of birth is one of life's miracles. Looking at his abortion stance in relation to others, the lack of Constitutionality is evident. For libertarian ideologues who valued consistency, that should be a concern.

 

You may be underestimating my cheapness here. I'm pretty darn frugal with what I want others to spend my money on. I also don't like all the foreign wars we've seemed to jump into. Obama still hasn't brought the troops home as promised. Paul's the only candidate to come out in open opposition to military intervention anywhere. Why don't we just admit that our government likes to spend our money. We'd still be in Vietnam if Nixon wasn't impeached. (But that was probably a righteous war.) I don't know if I can recall an elected president other than Truman to actually end a war...

 

I am not underestimating your cheapness. You are actually bringing into light your cheapness, which I largely sympathize with.

 

Ron Paul blamed us last night. But then he's not a real candidate is he?

And I'm not ignorant nor any kind of a phobe. What I am is experienced. Including military combat experience.
I've had a successful business career, starting 2 different companies from scratch and selling with a mfg plant and offices in 5 countries. That happened because I have the ability to properly analyze a situation and make the best decisions. So immature pipsqueaks that will never amount to anything and are gullible and foolish, are even more foolish calling me names. But if it allows you to be happy, enjoy.

 

Ya, look what your compromise has gotten us so far.

Unchecked gangster capitalism that has not only wrecked our economy, but the world economy as well.

Expanded powers for an already bloated government.

We've been lied into one war, and have fought another failed war for teen years, at the cost of trillions, and thousands killed and many more thousand wounded.

We are up to our eyeballs in debt.

And last of all we have a dysfunctional government.

Your assertion that libertarians want civil war, is one of the many bluntly false claims you've made on this forum.

 

Irony. Thank you for pointing out yet again you are not ready to debate on this forum. When you down talk people for using insults and then do nothing but.

 

I cannot figure out a way to talk UP to a group of unthinking fanatics that reside at the bottom of a well of fantasy..

3 candidates

One has been a successful businessman and a Gov. of one of our most populous states.

As a businessman he created hundreds of thousands of jobs and made millions for himself too. That is a good thing to the intelligent.
As a Governor he turned a $3 billion shortfall into a surplus by cutting spending and increasing taxes. He lowered unemployment rates from the mid 5% to the mid 4%. In campaigning he says he will do the same as president.

Paulobots, without a shred of proof, claim he is lying.

Another candidate was a member of Congress, like Paul. Only this one managed to get the budget balanced and create a surplus that eventually saved the nation over half a trillion that we never borrowed and thus do not have to pay interest. And he cut welfare.
As a candidate, he says he will do the same as president.

Paulobots, without a shred of proof, claim he is lying.

Then there is Paul. He has been in politics for 36 years. The only time he has not been a member of Congress is when he has run for higher office, Senator, or president. In each of those attempts he was beaten HORRIBLY. None were anywhere near 'competitive.' He is constantly reelected in his little Congressional district. But just trying to garner half the state as a Senator, he was defeated, in the primaries, by a newly frocked Democrat turned Republican. And his first 2 presidential tries didn't amount to a footnote.
He says he is for term limits and has run for reelection a dozen times. How is that justified?
He says some really stupid things but he also says some very good things. But in all his time in politics, he has NEVER managed to get a single one of his important issues passed into law.

Paulobots, without a shred of proof, claim he is truthful.

My failing, I do not understand how to talk up or across to that kind of blind adoration of nothing at all.

 

You make some valid points.

Regarding his policy initiatives of the Fed Res, it is frightening to think how the global financial community would react to, and, how the Fed Res itself would respond (viciously uncooperative comes to mind) to being disassembled.

The monster being destroyed would be a sight to behold, that is certain.