I must say, you have convinced me! I was a paratrooper 1972-1975. I have never voted because until Ron Paul, there’s never been a politician I felt was worth voting for. But I guess I’ll give up and vote for Girliani, …when pigs fly!!!

\”…Remember, main goal of using a call center is to expand your business…\”…

As with abortion, I disagree with Dr. Paul on several points in this statement. Not being a member of the religion in question, I’m just as happy to see a wall of separation between church and state. I prefer that governmental organizations continue to be barred from using my money to support any religion, or any business unrelated to the government’s narrow functions, or any private person.

I have no problem with being wished a “Merry Christmas” or a “Happy Holiday”. I’m not aware of any governmental limitations on expressing either.

And seeing as how churches are voluntary associations, I have no trouble at all with them “…serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.” People should be free to make churches as important as they like in their own lives.

Also, while I believe that there are certainly other ways to develop morality and civility than religion; government is indeed a most inappropriate instructor.

The constitution does not provide for religious entanglements at the federal level, so Ron Paul is unlikely to support any. But I don’t see him opposing any State-level efforts to embrace religion.

Definitely one for the “con” column, but not nearly enough to my revoke my support of Dr. Paul’s platform in general. 90% agreement instead of 95%. Will that shift me to a 30% candidate? What would you guess?

Ron Paul has apparently bought into the “War on Religion” and “War on Christmas” memes. To quote from one of these articles…

This argument is (intentionally?) misleading. You seem to imply that the referenced quote is from Ron Paul. Is it? If so, do you have a link or reference to the source? Until I see one, I’ll reserve comment.

Thank you for the link to HR 4379. This is hard information I find interesting. Again, it doesn’t surprise me much, given Dr. Paul’s interest in a much-smaller, constitutionally-limited federal government. Having read the bill, and rereading the pertinent portions of the constitution, I can see why Ron Paul proposed it, and possibly why you oppose it.

Ron Paul’s position remains consistent: “The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.” HR 4379 and other bills like it are based on two principles:

Dr. Paul is opposed to abortion, based on his experienced as an obstetrician.The constitution does not empower the federal government to decide these issues one way or the other. It’s the wrong venue.

I’ve already mentioned that I disagree with Dr. Paul about when a fetus should become a person with rights. With the nation split almost evenly in half on the issue, I do not see how enforcement at the federal level in either direction would be anything but a tyranny of the majority no matter how it came down. And again, unconstitutional.

HR 4379 also enumerates issues of sexual orientation, marriage, etc. The text simply reiterates what Ron Paul espouses: the Constitution of the United States does not define these issues as federal, in either direction.

Amendment 10 states that issues not explicitly given to the federal government are to be handled by the States and the people.

Amendment 14, Section 1 states that no State shall “…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This is pretty clear to me.

Without an appeal to fear, or an assumption that everyone agrees on highly-controversial issues which should then be enforced federally, and unsubstantiated assumptions of explicit religious motivation, I find it difficult to disagree with this method of resolution.

Again…any suggestions of a better way to handle it?

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.

In addition he introduced the We the People Act in 2005. Basically it states that the federal courts would have absolutely no jurisdiction over social issues. To quote from the Wikipedia article (which also has a link to the full text of the bill):

If made law, the act would restrict the authority of federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing specific cases on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion, and would forbid federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments. The legislation would be immune to any constitutional challenge other than to the act itself.

So any state or city could pass any law they wanted circumscribing individual rights based on sexual orientation and it would be legal and unchallengeable. They could return to the good old days of teacher lead school prayer that ignores the children in the classroom who might not be Christians and there would be no appeal. The list goes on. And yet the Paul supporters insist on believing that he supports individual rights. Sure.

There are two classes of things we can discuss, and I want to try not to mix the two. One class is what’s true and legal, the other class is what changes would be desirable.

Given that even “what’s true and legal” (which should be the easiest to answer) has been a full time profession for the entire judicial system from the start, I’ll just state my understanding. I have not yet found a section of the U.S. Constitution which provides for the FTC, FDA, EPA, and OSHA. Given that they not are provided for there, Amendment 10 would place the definitions of those (and all other possible extensions) in the hands of the states, or the people themselves.

As for class two, I see that as much more open, and perhaps the thrust of Jim S’s comments.

I am not aware of a single regulatory agency that he is not in favor of eliminating, including the parts of the FTC that protect against consumer fraud, the FDA, EPA and OSHA. I think that is a completely delusional idea. His form of individualism is too extremist for my taste and conflicts with what I’ve seen in the real world.

I can see where it would be easy to view our vast array of regulatory bureaucracies as a security blanket, without which we’d all be at the mercy of evil corporate giants. The problem I have with regulatory bureaucracies, besides no constitutional basis for them, is that there is no practical check on their power. They tend to wield that power with the same disregard that all unchecked bureaucracies do. One size will fit all, or it will not be allowed to exist. Presidents and congressmen at least have to bow to the voters occasionally. Companies have to bow to reactions from their customers and shareholders. Voluntary interaction with private companies yields the most responsive arrangement available.

Life, and especially liberty, does indeed come with risks. I would just maintain that by giving in to fear of voluntary associations with businesses and opting for the perceived security of mandatory interactions with an ever-growing number of government bureaucracies, you trade away your right to control your life to other people. The magazine Consumer Reports exists because of a viable market interest in comparative information about products, but Consumer Reports will never be able to tell you that you have to die before trying a new cancer medication.

His supporters say that he believes in individual freedom but in fact he has no problem with individual freedoms being limited in the name of morality so long as it is done at the state level instead of the federal government.

Given Dr. Paul’s spoken and written record on the issues, I’d doubt he has no problem with individual freedoms being limited in any arena, except perhaps abortion (where he defines a fetus as a legal person who should be protected from murder), and even on that one, he does not propose a one-size-fits-all answer.

In addition he has no apparent ability to understand that just maybe letting minorities have rights is a good idea and maybe that even on the state level theocracy or laws derived solely from the religion of the majority aren’t a good idea. Of course his hero doesn’t understand that either.

Right, because you have no control over what your state or city does? The Federal government is the answer. If one state must be opressed, all states must be opressed. Good luck trying to change anything in Federal government.

Sorry, but I don’t care how ‘extreme’ you think Ron Paul is, you are debating the constitution, and until people like you succeed in finally burning it, it is the law of the land. All I want is our government to obey the law.

The authority goes: individual, state, and then federal. Not the other way around. Try reading the constitution sometime, before spouting of ‘progressive’ ideas about how you ‘think’ government should be. Either change the law or obey it, we are sick and tired of the selective enforcement that just leaves our laws and freedom in an unpredictable state every 4 to 8 years.

His supporters say that he believes in individual freedom but in fact he has no problem with individual freedoms being limited in the name of morality so long as it is done at the state level instead of the federal government.

Those are my objections in a nutshell.

After reading this thread I think that there is a strong relation between enthusiasm for Ron Paul and paranoia, conspiracy theories and complete and utter fanaticism.

I might suggest that there will always be some number of fanatics devoted to each candidate, and therefore judging any candidate based on his or her most disturbing supporters might result in supporting no candidate yourself. But there is another point that could be made here. That is: why one candidate seems to attract more zealous support than others. When one looks at a highly political chameleon (such as Willard Romney for instance), just what exactly is there in the candidacy to become passionate about? “Hurray. He looked great today, didn’t say or do anything offensive, and appeared to promise to tailor America just for me!” Doesn’t really inspire me. You?

All that said, I should be clear that at least one of Ron Paul’s zealous supporters does not support ad hominem attacks in either direction. They are worse than dissuasive; they immediately surrender the point to any person still discussing the issue at hand.

But this is a good segue into your other statement:

I have looked at Ron Paul’s positions on the issues. That is why I would never support him.

I want to thank you for actually mentioning Dr. Paul’s positions on the issues, rather than anyone’s guess as to whether he’ll be Homecoming King. Seeing as you did mention them, however, I would be interested in which positions you disagree with, and why. Any would do. I’d just like to hear that in the discussion for a change.

I have looked at Ron Paul’s positions on the issues. That is why I would never support him.

Apparently YOU don’t know what you are saying, rather than it being I that do not know of which I speak. Bloggers are not reporters. Reporters report the news. By calling yourself one, you are claiming to be a news source no matter what site you are posting on. In case you think you can get off by using the modifier intrepid, all that means is: audacious: invulnerable to fear or intimidation; “audacious explorers”; “fearless reporters and photographers”. You sir have claimed yourself to be a news source, not I.

You are obviously anti-Paul because the only stuff you print is negative and you ignore all of the positive. That is bias. You may wish to pretend you are not, but that does not change reality.

Your bias is clear to the rest of us, I wonder why you have such a hard time seeing reality? Well, I suppose a blogger who calls himself a reporter and then attacks a guest for pointing out the obvious may not have such a firm grip on the real world.

Now quit being a child, realize you actions have consequences and stop spouting junk just to get ratings. It is pathetic.

What else is new?

Next…

Donklephant is a blog, not a news source. If you found this post via Google it’s because their algorithm spidered our site and posted this entry prominently in their news results. I’m neither pro-Paul or anti-Paul, but I am intrigued by his campaign. So please, for everybody’s sake (including your candidate’s), don’t post comments that make it clear you don’t know what you’re talking about.

I sure hope that lawsuit goes through where some guys are trying to sue media outlets who continue to defame Dr. Paul and mislead the public.

Justin, I hope you are named in the suit.

One question for you – do you really hate the United States this much to do this much damage to the only man who can actually save our country from economic ruin, just so you can get a few “hits.”

The word traitor comes to mind. Seriously. This junk is evil, has some effect on the public, and never once do you think about what will happen if one of those other jokers becomes President. Your prices will rise, you salary will decrease, you may face hyper-inflation, if you are under 40 you may get drafted – I sure hope you are the first – you face a crumbling nation and instead of giving it a hand you grab for a sledge hammer.

You are an appalling person. And stupid. So very stupid.