What the Hell is Ron Paul Thinking?

Nobody ever won a national election based on “love.”

Fear or hope (which is just the sunny side of fear): these are the things on which presidential campaigns are built.

Not “love.”

Ron Paul Revolution

6 responses to “What the Hell is Ron Paul Thinking?”

  1. Everything else we have tried has failed and cost the taxpayers billions and billions. It’s like the war on crime and drugs, the root causes of criminality have been known for years yet we still lock people up for stupid stuff like simple possession, again costing at least a billion taxpayer dollars since it’s inception. Guess what happens when a man or woman is turned loose with a bag of donated clothes and a $45 gate check? Same as when we finally check out of a foreign country that we smashed to smithereens. I dunno, maybe it’s time to read the “Red Words” again and see if they jive with out current mindset regarding those unfortunate among us, as well as the rest of the world. Just maybe we need to ladle out more soup and fewer bullets, for a start. Maybe we need less church and more “Christology”. Ron Paul has it right, we need to sweep our own porch.

  2. It’s especially ironic considering there are all types of love between consenting adults that Ron Paul thinks the State should be allowed to regulate or even criminalize. He might be pro-federalism but I cringe any time I hear someone describe him as pro-freedom or pro-liberty. He is Christian American Bigotry personified and wrapped in the 10th Amendment.

    • I’ve heard him say, “the federal government shouldn’t regulate that,” but that doesn’t necessarily imply that state governments should. I think Paul is a libertarian rather than a federalist, but I’m prepared to be proven wrong. So: cite, please.

      • Probably the most telling on his position was his article on Lew Rockwell’s page in 2003, where he said:

        “Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy”. Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.”

        He might have a different position now, but it’s hard to read a statement like “the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex…” without concluding that he supports the States’ rights to regulate bedroom activity. There’s also his sponsoring of the We the People Act of 2009 (H.R. 539), which would have removed jurisdiction from the federal courts on any matters relating to religion, sex or privacy issues, not to mention obviating all Supreme Court precedent on these matters. I’m not sure how your blog does links, but the link to the text of the bill is here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00539:@@@L&summ2=m&

        Based on his positions and statements, I have fair reason to believe RP is perfectly fine with discrimination, so long as it’s at the hands of the states rather than the feds, and decided according to “local standards.” He espouses a lot of positions that I support, but they’re unfortunately not enough to make me overlook these issues, miniscule as they may be to the overall policy debate offered by the candidates.

Leave a Reply to Justin Tapp Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.