Ron Paul: Bringing the Crazy.
If you have not been to ronpaul2008.com, Ron Paul's wikipedia page, or the List of Ron Paul's Political Positions I suggest you read them. Ron Paul raised $4.2 million yesterday which is impressive given that he has a touch of the crazy. Before any of you join the "Man, I hate paying Income Taxes...vote Ron Paul!" bandwagon of insanity here is some useful information.
Privacy v. Abortion:
Ron Paul wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. "I think we ought to return the issue to the states so that local opinions could better determine the specific regulations concerning this deeply personal issue." The problem is that Roe v. Wade ruling was based on privacy, "According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." According to ronpaul2008.com Ron paul maintains a strong belief in privacy and personal liberty. So Ron Paul wants to overturn Roe v. Wade (a ruling based on upholding personal privacy) yet also argues that personal privacy is important and must be protected. So apparently he'll wave the privacy flag so long as doing so harms no zygotes.
Religion:
The War On Religion by Rep. Ron Paul, MD:
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."
Given that the statement is obviously and self-evidently, historically, and demonstrably false there is no need to elaborate. But, on a related issue...
Constitutionalist Libertarian:
Ron Paul's schooling is in Medicine and after his graduation from Duke University School of Medicine his residency was "in obstetrics and gynecology". So, while I would trust him to inspect my vagina I don't think I would trust him to interpret the Constitution.
Birthright Citizenship:
Ron Paul wants to end birthright citizenship. "As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong." While that may seem sensible in some situations, if made retroactive this would mean that no one is a U.S. Citizen.
But not all bad:
On the plus side, Ron Paul voted against a flag burning ammendment, votes against internet regulation, and wants to shrink the government significantly.
So, in summary?
While lower taxes and a smaller government which eliminates needless social programs does sound like a blessing, a theocracy led by a gynecologist would probably not behoove anyone.
16 comments:
"Ron Paul wants to end birthright citizenship. "As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong." While that may seem sensible in some situations, if made retroactive this would mean that no one is a U.S. Citizen."
It's not worth my time to rebut your entire post. It neither uses anything resembling logic nor demonstrates any sign of an intelligent argument. I'll just attack the most flagrantly ignorant statement you made. There is a difference between ILLEGAL immigration, and legal immigration. Birthright citizenship for ILLEGAL immigrants is asinine. Rewarding people for breaking the law is the exact opposite role of government. When you reward ILLEGAL immigration, you get more of it. Birthright citizenship should only be granted to those who are here legally. Legal immigration is part of what had previously made this country great. ILLEGAL immigration burdens this country tremendously.
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
A real American would go to the Statue of Liberty and rip the plaque containing that poem from its base, apparently.
Again an argument that is based on neither reason nor fact. Why don't you address the facts on ILLEGAL immigration. You have instead lumped people who are breaking the law with people who are obeying the law. Legal immigration is a boon to our economy, more workers allows for economic growth. ILLEGAL immigration is a burden on our economy, safety and security. Why don't you address those facts, instead of trying to bring in irrelevant propaganda.
I am pro-choice to a point. And so are you. Nobody wants to legalize the destruction of a 7 month old, unborn child.
So, at what point is pro-choice okay, and at what point should it be illegal? The obvious point is the point at which an unborn human has the right to life. Maybe that occurs at conception, maybe that occurs when there is a heart-beat, maybe that occurs when the child can survive outside of the womb on its own, maybe that occurs at birth. I'm not sure which one it is, and I am damn sure that the Supreme Court doesn't either.
"ILLEGAL immigration is a burden on our economy, safety and security. Why don't you address those facts, instead of trying to bring in irrelevant propaganda."
I don't grant your premise that Illegal immigration is a burden on our economy, safety, and security. Aside from people saying "ILLEGAL immigration is a burden on our economy, safety and security." I've never encountered any statistics or data that indicate that my life would be considerably better if there were no illegal immigrants.
"I am pro-choice to a point. And so are you. Nobody wants to legalize the destruction of a 7 month old, unborn child."
I'm entirely ok with the destruction of a 7, 8, or 9 month old fetus. We aren't running low on people and if we need more people we can always make more.
Anyone can make an argument that arbitrary lines as arbitrary lines. I think "birth" is a sensible line and definition of when life begins and other people can make baseless arguments against the line. That's fine.
But my question is what authority would you use rather than the Supreme Court when constructing laws to uphold these rules?
Because when dealing with the constitutionality of a law I tend to think that the Supreme Court is an excellent source to provide a ruling.
States rights are adorable and all, but do we really think it sensible that in S. Carolina abortions could be illegal but in N. Carolina abortions could be legal and tax-deductible?
I think that is absurd and I don't think anyone who really gave a shit about the issue would think it the sort of thing each state could decide for itself.
I think it far more sensible to let each person choose for theirself what is right for them and the states and federal governments can shut the hell up about it and leave people alone.
I'm entirely ok with the destruction of a 7, 8, or 9 month old fetus. We aren't running low on people and if we need more people we can always make more.
I'm glad you were able to discredit your opinions by stating such an asinine statement. A nine month old fetus has legal rights. To flagrantly disrespect human life by being so flip about it does more harm against your stance than any contrary stance could show.
"To flagrantly disrespect human life by being so flip about it does more harm against your stance than any contrary stance could show."
And arguing for the existence of some sort of "value" to human life in spite of daunting evidence to the contrary makes you an idealistic tool forever obsessed with fabricated self-aggrandizing delusions to distract you from the objective truth of reality.
"And arguing for the existence of some sort of "value" to human life in spite of daunting evidence to the contrary makes you an idealistic tool forever obsessed with fabricated self-aggrandizing delusions to distract you from the objective truth of reality."
Again your view speaks volumes about how misguided you are. Every human life has value, even yours. The Constitution, and the principles America is founded on, are rooted in the inherent value of human life. I find it hilarious that you'd quote the Statue of Liberty while shunning the Constitution. I'm thrilled to see that you keep talking about your nihilist views, as your are even less credible than I originally thought. What's next for you - some holocausts jokes?
"Again your view speaks volumes about how misguided you are. Every human life has value, even yours. The Constitution, and the principles America is founded on, are rooted in the inherent value of human life. I find it hilarious that you'd quote the Statue of Liberty while shunning the Constitution. I'm thrilled to see that you keep talking about your nihilist views, as your are even less credible than I originally thought. What's next for you - some holocausts jokes?"
I could totally provide some holocaust jokes if you like.
When confronted with the prospect of defending their beliefs in the value of human life the founders turned to "We hold these truths to be self-evident."
They can't justify it or found it in reality. They can't provide evidence.
They just decided to declare some self-evident truths.
America is founded on the North American, Carribean, and South American plates tectonic.
The United States of America and America are demonstrably not equivalent.
Come back, eric!
I was having fun.
I simply find your discussion isn't worthwhile. Your viewpoints are not backed up by any substance. To talk about Ron Paul being being a OBGYN in a sarcastic or negative light is juvenile at best, and more aptly described as idiotic. His extensive experience in the medical field is a invaluable asset as we look to change our broken health care system.
You clearly cannot see that there is a difference between ILLEGAL and LEGAL immigration. To put it in simple terms, we pay quite a bit of taxes as legal citizens. When all is said and done, we pay about half of what we earn to the Government. While we do not get our monies worth, we still do get some services our of this deal. ILLEGAL immigrants do not pay into this system. They can simply leech off of it, especially our Welfare and Heathcare systems. This costs every hard working citizen money.
Since you are anti-Ron Paul, why don't you address some real issues, using some actual fact based points. Try these two for starters.
1 The US Dollar is dropping like a rock. Ron Paul has a plan to stop monetizing debt, and restore value to the Dollar. What would your plan be?
2 Our constant meddling in the affairs of other nations has made us hated by many across the world. Ron Paul plans to remove our troops from foreign nations and remove the incentive for attacks on us. We cannot be in a state of perpetual war. We will go bankrupt. How do you address this issue? Have you read Bin Laden's Letter to the American People?
1 The US Dollar is dropping like a rock. Ron Paul has a plan to stop monetizing debt, and restore value to the Dollar. What would your plan be?
According to this Ron Paul seems to think:
-We do have some options to minimize the suffering. If we decided to, we could permit some alternatives to the current system of money and banking we have today.
-Already, we took a big step in this direction. Gold was illegal to own between 1933 and 1976. Today millions of Americans do own some gold.
-Gold contracts are legal, but a settlement of any dispute is always in Federal Reserve notes. This makes gold contracts of limited value.
-For gold to be an alternative to Federal Reserve notes, taxes on any transactions in gold must be removed, both sales and capital gains.
-Holding gold should be permitted in any pension fund, just as dollars are permitted in a checking account of these funds.
-Repeal of all legal tender laws is a must. Sound money never requires the force of legal tender laws. Only paper money requires such laws.
Grasping for historical precident (gold standard) and "boo government" idiocy may seem like a reasonable way to solve complex, nuanced problems I don't presume to understand anything involving economics. I do, however, know that there people who actually do undersatnd economics and for a living study the topic.
I would collect these people and ask them for their thoughts and enact those changes rather than assume that the gold standard and "small government" can fix everything.
2 Our constant meddling in the affairs of other nations has made us hated by many across the world. Ron Paul plans to remove our troops from foreign nations and remove the incentive for attacks on us. We cannot be in a state of perpetual war. We will go bankrupt. How do you address this issue? Have you read Bin Laden's Letter to the American People?
We are not self-sufficient enough to be an isolationist country. And while going to war for oil and pretending to be the principal of the world are asinine foreign policies I do not think that calling everyone home and hiding is a sensible means by which one can survive in the real world.
Additionally, I'm pretty sure that if every U.S. troop left Iraq tomorrow they would still hate us and it would not be the case that roses and bunny rabbits would frolic in the streets of Baghdad, arm in arm with Jews and Muslims and Santa.
I've read through Ron Paul's positions on many topics. I've yet to encounter "nuance". Which is problematic, given that we don't live in an idealistic-crazy-land.
I'm all for small government, though. And I would be happy for Ron Paul to be elected and gut the entire system so that someone sensible could go in 4 years later and rebuild something sensible.
The problem is Ron Paul's boner for Christ, which would probably be detrimental.
You provided nothing of substance again. Your response on economics is basically "I don't know anything about that money stuff, guess I better leave it to people who I perceive as experts" I am educated on the subject of Micro and Macro Economics. It is a subject matter which everyone should study. It is how the world works. It essential to a accurate understanding of politics, society and the results of the our policies. To be ignorant on this subject is inexcusable if you're going to try and discuss politics. To discuss Iraq w/o understanding Neo-Colonialism practices and mercantilism ideology is to discuss it as a child. It is simply not worth my time to discuss monetary policy with someone who has not put in the effort to be informed.
Ron Paul, and anyone who has ever studied economics, understands that you simply cannot monetize debt in the long term. As a nation, we are in the hole over 9 trillion dollars. Other nations are starting to dump their dollars, buying up American businesses and other assets that will not suffer from inflation as severely as the dollar. The plan of a competing currency, based on hard valued goods, and making the monetization of debt illegal is the only way to have sound money. Your simplification of "Grasping for historical precident (gold standard) and "boo government" idiocy" shows your total lack of understanding.
"The problem is Ron Paul's boner for Christ, which would probably be detrimental."
Here, it seems, is the real heart of the matter. You clearly show that you are just bigoted. Ron Paul is Christian, and you hate him for it. It disgusts me how closed minded you are. Your views have been asinine. Your arguments have had no facts to back them up. You have tried to misconstrue the facts but the bottom line is clear. You are simply ignorant and hateful. Have fun telling your Holocaust jokes. I'll stick to the less hateful and more productive pursuits.
Post a Comment