Printable View
You'll have to point me in the right direction to get his quotes and stances on the issues you've raised, as I'm unaware of them.
I should've made my previous post more precise in saying that I'm mostly familiar with his foreign policy talking points.
I gave a link in the post before my last one. Here it is again. But do a search on Daily Kos or any of the other left wing blogs to find months of debate on Ron Paul also. Please note that this is a little green footballs link. I used this link to show that even conservatives who I would otherwise despise are disgusted by his association with the likes of David Duke and the aryan activist right.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...etter#comments
Adobe is freezing up my system for some reason, so I was unable to read that Xmas letter link. If the contents of the letter are true, then yes, that is definitely shitty.
Regarding federal attempts to redefine marriage:
from wikipedia.org:
He was against federal efforts to get into the marriage business. In this instance, it seems he was not speaking against gay marriages.Quote:
Paul opposes all federal efforts to redefine marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to judicial activism.[158] For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.
While he's not specifically against gay marriages, he's not exactly getting on the love train endorsing them either. He seems to endorse leaving these decisions to the individual states to decide.Quote:
Paul has said that federal officials changing the definition of marriage to allow same-sex marriage is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."[160] Paul stated that "Americans understandably fear" the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage.[161] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[162] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[163][164] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[163]
Regarding the don't ask, don't tell military policy:
I never had a problem with gays in the military. I always believed homophobia was the problem, not gay military personnel. I'd like to hear the opinions of serving military men and women who post on this forum in a seperate thread.Quote:
"I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."
On Iran:
I agree with Ron Paul on the issues of Iraq and Iran the most. All the Republican candidates are in a battle trying to prove who the biggest war monger is; while at the same time trying to prove that they have the most Christian values.Quote:
Paul rejects the "dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle."[29] He claims the current circumstances with Iran mirror those under which the Iraq War began, and has urged Congress not to authorize war with Iran.[citation needed] In the U.S. House of Representatives, only Paul and Dennis Kucinich voted against the Rothman-Kirk Resolution, which asks the U.N. to charge Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating its genocide convention and charter.
On Terrorism:
Letters of marque and reprisal
InvestigationsQuote:
Paul, calling the September 11, 2001, attacks an act of "air piracy", introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. Letters of marque and reprisal, authorized by the Constitution, Article One, Section Eight, would have targeted specific terrorist suspects, instead of invoking war against a foreign state.[20] Paul reproposed this legislation as the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007.[48] He voted with the majority for the original Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in Afghanistan.
The failings of 9-11 is a huge issue for me; and I get really angry hearing the cry for more war from other candidates.Quote:
Paul supports reopening investigation into the attacks to discover why the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not act on 70 internal field tips: "We had one FBI agent, I think sent dozens and dozens of memos to his superiors saying that there are people trying to fly airplanes but not land them, and nobody would pay any attention."[50] He would also investigate why the various intelligence agencies could not collaborate on information to prevent the attacks while spending $40 billion per year.[50][51] He has called the 9/11 Commission Report a "charade": "Spending more money abroad or restricting liberties at home will do nothing to deter terrorists, yet this is exactly what the 9-11 Commission recommends."[5
America's foreign policy HAS to change, otherwise I truly believe that something akin to 911 will happen again.
I am against the Iraq war, I am against any war in Iran too, this morning as I got off the tram there was a demonstration in front of the American Embassy against Bush, it was a Zionist demonstration calling for him to leave Israel alone and not force the division of Jerusalem... can you believe that I actually am closer the Bush than anti-Bush position here? Just because I share a few positions in common with some politicians on some occasions doesn't mean I support them.
That wikipedia article you mention has a warning at the top of it, that it is written as an advertisement. There is no mention in the article about his newsletters (and you should look at the new republic's expose of them) nor is there any mention of criticism. This is telling considering what a polarizing force RP is.
I don't know very much about the American history, but Paul's position on Lincoln and the civil war is that Lincoln fucked up cuz he should have purchased all the slaves from the south and set them free, this seems much divorced from the reality of the south wanting to secede.
RP believes that 95% of blacks are semi criminal or criminal, he believes that gays should go back into the closet, he is anti-abortion. I'm not going to source all of these claims (though I could) because I am at work, and I shouldn't have to do your research for you.
In the end it doesn't matter what your position is because you wont be voting in this particular election, but I do think that as a progressive, alarm bells should be ringing in your ears since he has been loudly condemned for a whole swathe of anti-progressive positions.
This is my point as well. Thanks for bringing the other points to light for me.Quote:
Just because I share a few positions in common with some politicians on some occasions doesn't mean I support them.
Is it just me or is it hard to care about any of the people running in either party?
Which front runners are extending the bush tax cuts? I'm not sure the rest of the issues are going to effect me no matter what party.