Ron Paul is Seriously Flawed as a Candidate

[Jeffro]

dmiessler.com | Ron Paul is Seriously Flawed as a Candidate; We're Just So in Love With Him That We're Not Paying Attention

* He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government.

This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war. — Ron Paul, from The War on Religion

* He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education
He wants “the community” to provide education to the public. He regularly mentions churches when asked about how this will come about. He spoke at Google recently and he was asked at least once how the poor are supposed to get an education if the government doesn’t provide one free of charge. He has no good answer. He admits there will be inequality but says that it’ll be better than what we have now. I disagree.
* Yeah, That Means No College Loans
He didn’t get any loans to go to college and he doesn’t think you should either. Again, he doesn’t think the government should be involved with education. Many of the people in the room he was speaking to at Google used college loans to make it to Google in the first place.
* He’s Not For National Health Care
Again, not the role of government. His basic view is that the market will find a way. He openly admits that many people will fall through the cracks, but he responds to that by saying that it’ll be better than what we have now. Does this seem hopelessly optimistic to anyone but myself?
* He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned

As an obstetrician who has delivered over 4000 children, I have long been concerned with the rights of unborn people. I believe this is the greatest moral issue of our time. The very best of the western intellectual tradition has understood the critical link between moral and political action. Each of these disciplines should strongly inform and support the other.

I have become increasingly concerned over the years that the pro-life movement I so strongly support is getting further off track, both politically and morally. I sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts. The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration.

Those who cherish unborn life have become frustrated by our inability to overturn or significantly curtail Roe v. Wade. — Ron Paul from a House of Representatives Speech

* He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing
He regularly says things such as, “I think it [the case for man-made global warming] is overblown.”, and “There’s still debate on the issue.” Overblown? What part of the massive IPCC study where the thousands of climatologists from 130 countries agreed on the matter does he disagree with or not understand? It is precisely this type of anti-logic that I find disturbing.

Ron Paul ISN'T the great constitutionalist you think he is. He wants to overturn Roe v Wade, doesn't want education funding, doesn't want college loans...

Well, back to the Obama ticket for me.

[Nemmerle]

As far as the last one goes if you apply the IPCC's climate model to past data you get a result quite different to the actual outcome that we've recorded, they also used a quite limited data set. I'm not sure I can believe the outcomes of their study, it's certainly not something I'd base policy decisions on.

[MrFancypants]

Originally Posted by Nemmerle

As far as the last one goes if you apply the IPCC's climate model to past data you get a result quite different to the actual outcome that we've recorded, they also used a quite limited data set. I'm not sure I can believe the outcomes of their study, it's certainly not something I'd base policy decisions on.

Still better than basing decisions on the opinions of politicians who represent the interests of those who'd have to suffer most from a policy against global warming.

[Aeroflot]

You know what? Ron Paul is probably the only candidate I trust. Even though I disagree with most of the stuff Jeffro quotes, I rather him be president then some goof ball that could be another Bush.

[Buddy Jesus]

Originally Posted by Jeffro

Ron Paul ISN'T the great constitutionalist you think he is. He wants to overturn Roe v Wade, doesn't want education funding, doesn't want college loans...

Well, back to the Obama ticket for me.

Just because he wants out of Iraq doesn't mean his a Liberal posing as a conservative. He's libritarian and doesn't want alot of government controll. This should be no big surprise.

[masked_marsoe]

I don't see why this should come as a surprise at all. He's a libertarian.

[Afterburner]

I agree with all of that, so really he is still the perfect candidate for me.

[Tas]

Originally Posted by Afterburner

I agree with all of that, so really he is still the perfect candidate for me.

Really, so children of poor parents, lacking specific gifts should be doomed from birth to perform low income jobs?

The father of these children should walk around with odd lumps untill his body begins to die, he's diagnosed with cancer and dies six months later?

And apart from charity, you don't think there is anything that could possibly surpass your current systems for handling these things?

That's a very "can do" attitude you got there.

[Afterburner]

Originally Posted by Tas

Really, so children of poor parents, lacking specific gifts should be doomed from birth to perform low income jobs?

The father of these children should walk around with odd lumps untill his body begins to die, he's diagnosed with cancer and dies six months later?

And apart from charity, you don't think there is anything that could possibly surpass your current systems for handling these things?

That's a very "can do" attitude you got there.

Yeah, you basically hit all the bases. I don't believe in forced charity, simple as that. I don't think the government should forcibly remove money from me to pay for someone else's bills. I'll gladly do it on my own, willingly. But don't try to force it on me. If you want to pay into the system the go ahead and do it, but you have no right to force me to.

Freedom before equality is my motto.

[Chemix2]

I personally think people ( in general) are stupid, evil, money grabbing bastards who sometimes need a big nudge or in this case, wallop, in the right direction. However, while I support the use of forced taxes for public provisions so everybody at least can live with the illusion that they have a fair chance to come in first at the end of the race, I don't support big government paychecks. If you are there to serve, then you shouldn't need a half a million dollar per year income for doing practically nothing. I do believe they should be paid, but a more reasonable amount, something around 100,000 at most. It doesn't make it a great career choice over some other options, but politics shouldn't be a career. I also believe that there should be a public vote for how their tax income should be spent with a list of options and information on each of them provided by a hopefully non biased collective. It would be limited to non-public necessities of course, but for things like cow research, people better damned well have a say.