toldailytopic: What do you think of Ron Paul?

[Nathon Detroit]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for August 13th, 2011 09:45 AM

toldailytopic: What do you think of Ron Paul?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I love his economic views. I'd like to support him but his foreign policy and libertarian social views really sour me on him.

I watched a bit of that debate the other night and one of the other guys (I think Santorum) really nailed him on his states rights stance. He told Paul that the states don't have the right to do immoral things and Paul had no response.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That being said... I sure wish economically we could adopt some of Ron Paul's ideas.

 

[fool]

Every time I see him in these debates he seems to get the most applause, and by that I mean the thunderous, spontaneous, almost unanimous applause but they never rank him as winning. Either each of his supporters have six arms or as Knight said alot of people really like some of what he says but can't swollow the whole pill.

 

[BabyChristian]

That being said... I sure wish economically we could adopt some of Ron Paul's ideas.

I like a lot of what he says but he's an isolationist though and that can go to extreme too. I too wish we'd spend less money trying to fix the rest of the world but at times fixing another country is in our best interest. If he'd been President during WWII, the world would be ........well ya know........more messed up than it is now. We'd be Germany now.

Like your motto Knight. "Before you do anything ask yourself... is this stupid?" I'm trying to do that nowadays more than I did when first becoming a Christian.

 

[kmoney]

I like his stance on getting rid of the Fed. This is the most important issue.
I like his foreign policy.
I like his stance on drug laws.
I like his focus on states rights in some areas.
Probably where I disagree with him the most is that he would cut more government programs than I'd support. His idea of small government is smaller than mine.

I imagine I'll vote for him again. :up:

 

[kmoney]

I watched a bit of that debate the other night and one of the other guys (I think Santorum) really nailed him on his states rights stance. He told Paul that the states don't have the right to do immoral things and Paul had no response.

Maybe he didn't feel the argument merited a response.

I don't really get the argument that states don't have a right to do immoral things. Does the federal government have the right? It's all an argument about what level of government certain things should be done.

 

[fool]

I watched a bit of that debate the other night and one of the other guys (I think Santorum) really nailed him on his states rights stance. He told Paul that the states don't have the right to do immoral things and Paul had no response.

Right, the right to do immoral things rests with the Federal Government? Like Abortion, Paul would kick that back to the States in which case about 30 would immidiatly ban abortion;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923041/posts
Many states have "Trigger Laws" that would go into effect the minute the ball was in their court. I can understand some peoples trepidation about that because having won that battle you would lose the weapon you were hoping to win the war with namely a Federal ban but c'mon, we are talking about throwing a switch and every single day after that there would be 3,000 new people that would have been killed otherwise.
That's a whole town.
Every day.

 

[Sherman]

Here are a sampling of some of Ron Paul's views I fished off a website and I will either thumb them up or down. This gives a bird's eye view on the kind of candidate he would be.

Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008) :up:
Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008) :up:
Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty. (Feb 2008) :up:
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001) :down:
Paper money in unconstitutional; only gold is legal tender. (Sep 2010) :up:
Live within our means and start paying down the deficit now. (Feb 2008) :up:
Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007) :down:
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006) :down:
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004) :down:
Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004) :up:
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) :up:
Opposes death penalty at state and federal level. (Jan 2008) :down:
Opposes “hate crimes” legislation. (Sep 2007) :up:
Not appropriate to prosecute all illegal adult pornography. (Sep 2007) :down:
Opposes the death penalty. (Jan 2007) :down:
Voted NO on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009) :up:
Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999) :down:
We don't need laws to tell us to not use heroin. (May 2011):down:
Repeal most federal drug laws; blacks are treated unfairly. (Sep 2007) :down:
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001) :down:
Legalizing prostitution is about protecting liberty. (May 2011) :down:
Private medical savings accounts, not government meddling. (Apr 2008) :up:
Voted NO on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Apr 2009) :up:
Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999) :down:
Congress should never prohibit Christian faith in public. (Jun 2011) :up:

According to this sampling he is a checkered candidate--A libertarian. He has some good points, but he has far too many thumbs down for my liking.

For a full run down on how Ron Paul thinks you can take a peek at this page----> Ron Paul on the Issues

No candidate is going to be perfect. They will all have their warts. Ron Paul just has too many for me to vote for him.

 

[Alate_One]

I love his economic views. I'd like to support him but his foreign policy and libertarian social views really sour me on him.

That's the one thing I like about him, he's consistent in his "small government" stance. Much better than "lets get rid of the EPA but we want policemen in our bedrooms". As with KMO he's too small of small government for me, but I like the fact he's at least principled and I can agree with some of what he says.

I watched a bit of that debate the other night and one of the other guys (I think Santorum) really nailed him on his states rights stance. He told Paul that the states don't have the right to do immoral things and Paul had no response.

What's funny about this is the concept of "states rights" emerged over state's rights to do "immoral" things, namely slavery. Ron Paul, of course, thinks the sovereign states argument of the civil war was correct so it's not exactly hard to nail him on that point. Another good reason why he's not going to get anywhere.

 

[Krsto]

I love his economic views. I'd like to support him but his foreign policy and libertarian social views really sour me on him.

I watched a bit of that debate the other night and one of the other guys (I think Santorum) really nailed him on his states rights stance. He told Paul that the states don't have the right to do immoral things and Paul had no response.

Santorum (Pawlenty?) only "nailed" him by default since Paul could have said, had the moderator given him time to respond, the 10th Amend. guarantees the right of states to do immoral things, that is, pass legislation many people would regard as immoral.

I think the implication of Santorum was that if the federal legislature thinks a state legislature has immoral legislation then it has the right to overrule by passing a contrary federal law that will apply to all states but that shows he does not understand the Constitution which says in the 10th amend that what rights and duties are not spelled out in the federal constitution are reserved for the states or the people to take care of. The tenth amend. says in effect the federal gov. does a, b, and c and d through z are up to the states.

So what are the duties of the federal gov as spelled out in the Constit.? National defence and regulation of interstate trade. That's about it. Education, health care, welfare, etc. should be up to the states. I would include issues regarding abortion in that too.

 

[Krsto]

Here are a sampling of some of Ron Paul's views I fished off a website and I will either thumb them up or down. This gives a bird's eye view on the kind of candidate he would be.

Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008) :up:
Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008) :up:
Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty. (Feb 2008) :up:
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001) :down:
Paper money in unconstitutional; only gold is legal tender. (Sep 2010) :up:
Live within our means and start paying down the deficit now. (Feb 2008) :up:
Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007) :down:
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006) :down:
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004) :down:
Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004) :up:
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) :up:
Opposes death penalty at state and federal level. (Jan 2008) :down:
Opposes “hate crimes” legislation. (Sep 2007) :up:
Not appropriate to prosecute all illegal adult pornography. (Sep 2007) :down:
Opposes the death penalty. (Jan 2007) :down:
Voted NO on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009) :up:
Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999) :down:
We don't need laws to tell us to not use heroin. (May 2011):down:
Repeal most federal drug laws; blacks are treated unfairly. (Sep 2007) :down:
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001) :down:
Legalizing prostitution is about protecting liberty. (May 2011) :down:
Private medical savings accounts, not government meddling. (Apr 2008) :up:
Voted NO on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Apr 2009) :up:
Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999) :down:
Congress should never prohibit Christian faith in public. (Jun 2011) :up:

According to this sampling he is a checkered candidate--A libertarian. He has some good points, but he has far too many thumbs down for my liking.

For a full run down on how Ron Paul thinks you can take a peek at this page----> Ron Paul on the Issues

No candidate is going to be perfect. They will all have their warts. Ron Paul just has too many for me to vote for him.

So the lesson for candidates is do like Obama and not really let the people know what you believe but just spew empty rhetoric like "We can change" because that's about all the American public can digest in one sitting.

The fact I know what I'm getting if I vote for Paul is a plus in my book.

 

[Sherman]

So the lesson for candidates is do like Obama and not really let the people know what you believe but just spew empty rhetoric like "We can change" because that's about all the American public can digest in one sitting.

The fact I know what I'm getting if I vote for Paul is a plus in my book.

He would be an improvement over Obama, but I think there are still better choices out there.

 

[Cleekster]

Honestly at this point Ron Paul is the ONLY GOP candidate worthy of my vote.

 

[chrysostom]

it is good that we have him around to speak out on what is outrages
but
he is a libertarian
and
I couldn't vote for him unless he was running against a democrat

 

[chrysostom]

Honestly at this point Ron Paul is the ONLY GOP candidate worthy of my vote.

does that mean you are not going to vote?

 

[fool]

As with KMO he's too small of small government for me, but I like the fact he's at least principled and I can agree with some of what he says.

One thing to remember is that after the swearing in the country dosen't suddenly become what the guy promised he would work towards. He may never get Government as small as he would like but he would steer in that direction.

 

[Cleekster]

I like a lot of what he says but he's an isolationist though and that can go to extreme too. I too wish we'd spend less money trying to fix the rest of the world but at times fixing another country is in our best interest. If he'd been President during WWII, the world would be ........well ya know........more messed up than it is now. We'd be Germany now.

Like your motto Knight. "Before you do anything ask yourself... is this stupid?" I'm trying to do that nowadays more than I did when first becoming a Christian.

Trying to fix other countries is the problem NOT the solution.....it's never in our best interest....we claim to hold up freedom as our finest achievement while we go around dictating how everyone else lives their lives.

 

[Cleekster]

does that mean you are not going to vote?

Probably not....unfortunately our society isn't ready for a libertarian prez. and i don't see one being elected anytime soon....i hate Neo-cons about as much as i hate Progressives.....short of a libertarian we're going to end up with the more of the same regardless of party.

the way i see it America currently has one PROGRESSIVE party with a Republican and a Democratic branch. This country wasn't designed for a one-party system.

 

[chrysostom]

Probably not....unfortunately our society isn't ready for a libertarian prez. and i don't see one being elected anytime soon....i hate Neo-cons about as much as i hate Progressives.....short of a libertarian we're going to end up with the more of the same regardless of party.

the way i see it America currently has one PROGRESSIVE party with a Republican and a Democratic branch. This country wasn't designed for a one-party system.

shouldn't you vote republican just to encourage the libertarians?