Ron Paul’s Ten Most Disturbing Positions
September 14th, 2007 by Kavan WolfeThe recent swell of support for US Presidential candidate Ron Paul is astounding. And I can see why: he’s anti-war, anti-torture, anti-taxes and anti-government-screwing-with-individuals. In other words, he’s not a sadistic, subhuman, nut-job radical like Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney. But when you probe a little deeper, and I just mean read the Wikipedia entry on his positions, you might be vexed. Here are 10 disturbing political positions of Ron Paul.
For: Constitutionalism
While I think most would agree that ignoring your county’s constitution like the Bush Administration is a bad idea, being a staunch constitutionalist is equally dangerous because the constitution is an historical document that gets out of date. Sensible countries rewrite their constitutions once in a while, but we all know the USA is not a sensible country. Doesn’t it seem reasonable that some things that made sense centuries ago might not make sense anymore?
For: Gun Ownership
The arguments for gun ownership are bogus. In the U.S., the second amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” For you gun-happy rednecks out there, I’ll try to put this simply: Since a well regulated Militia is no longer necessary for U.S. security, the right to bear arms must be re-evaluated. As for the “I have the right to defend my family argument,” has it occurred to anyone that if the bad guys think you have a gun, they’re a lot more likely to shoot you then if you they think you’re unarmed? Increasing the number of armed civilians does not act as a deterrent, it just escalates the cycle of violence. I dare you to show me just one scientific study that shows that having a gun will deter a crackhead from robbing you. There is just no evidence that people are safer in a gun-toting society, and it’s no good to point at safe gun-happy societies because that does not show causality.
Against: Federal Department of Education
I don’t know if anyone’s noticed, but the US education system SUCKS. I don’t give a damn whether the constitution says education is a state matter, the system is broken and needs to be fixed. Education is a global concern so I don’t see why it can’t be addressed at the national level. While I agree that this No Child Left Behind thing is a joke, that’s no reason to scrap federal education programs.
Against: Separation of Church and State
Now this is just stupid. Tolerant Christian society is an oxymoron. Religions are intolerant by nature: they set out a bunch of rules, supposedly derived from God, and then do not tolerate violations. Besides, if the church is going to have some say in government, which church will it be? Catholic? Anglican? Methodist? Mormon? Quaker? How about all of the above? How the hell is that supposed to work? What about the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs? They have just as much right to vote and participate in the pseudodemocracy as the Christians? Why not throw in a few reps from the Church of Scientology? If Tom Cruise could speak in the senate at least the viewership might improve; we’ll just need to bring in a couch.
Religion has no place in politics. Religion plus politics equals the crusades, witch trials, persecution of minorities, subjugation of women and laws against blow jobs. Oh it all sounds good with all the talk of God loving you and a few days off for Christmas, but wait until you get a few laws against birth control, premarital sex and oral. Then see how you like.
For: Voluntary School Prayer
Ron Paul says if people want to pray in school, let them. That sounds good right? Wrong. Allowing prayer in school will quickly stigmatize anyone who does not pray when their classes do. This facilitates the brainwashing of children into a particular religion. If you inculturate a child into a religion before the child has fully developed critical thinking skills, freedom of religion (or freedom of thought for that matter) is impossible. This is precisely how Islamic terrorists are developed. I suppose you rednecks out there somehow figure that brainwashing children into Islam is bad, but brainwashing them into your religion is OK. Would it surprise you to learn that many Muslims think the same thing?
Libertarianism
A libertarian (like Ron Paul) is someone who believes that everyone should be free to do as they please, as long as they don’t interfere with the rights of others. This has some cool consequences, like how corporations would not be permitted to pollute the air or neighboring properties. Unfortunately, Libertarians generally promote free market capitalism. A simple thought experiment shows why this is folly: the free market treats everyone fairly in the sense that everyone can bid their money, goods and services for the money goods and services of others, e.g., if you want police protection or medical care, you can pay for it. The problem is that not everyone can bid, particularly children and people who have not yet been born. Thus, under a free market structure, future generations are subjected to the myopic despotism of the current generation. Because the impacts of environmental destruction are long term, the people who will be most affected can’t bid (they’re children or not yet born), and environmental impacts are undervalued by the free market. The underlying assumptions of free market capitalism are quite obviously invalid.
For: Privatized (Free Market) Health Care
Privatizing healthcare is evil. Here’s just one reason: children born to rich parents get good care, and children born to poor parents get no care. Would anyone like to stand up and argue that the medical care provided to a sick child should be determined by the income of its parents? I didn’t think so.
Against: abortion
Opposition to late term abortion I understand. Opposition to early abortion I do not. If life begins at the moment of conception, then practically every woman who is trying to conceive is a mass murderer because not all eggs attach. This doesn’t make sense. Why don’t people understand that when a woman doesn’t want a baby, there’s usually a damn good reason?
Pragmatically speaking, abortion is beneficial to society. Economist Stephen Levitt (author of Freakonomics) became famous for showing that the legalization of abortion caused the rapid decrease in crime in the US in the late 90s. Moreover, one of the greatest threats to the continuation of the human species is overpopulation, so a few less babies is probably a good thing.
For: Withdrawal from the United Nations
I cannot fathom why Ron Paul wants out of the UN. Someone please enlighten me so I can annihilate the argument.
For: Federal Regulation of Marriage
Why is it that Ron Paul wants to get rid of federal regulation of education, taxes and Homeland Security and just about everything else, but not marriage? Why is it that Ron Paul thinks people should be able to do what they like, unless they’re Gay? Same sex marriage does not interfere with anyone’s rights, so how in the hell can a self-confessed libertarian be against it? This doesn’t make any sense, unless Ron Paul is just anti-gay.
Conclusion
Come to think of it, I don’t think there’s anything in the U.S. constitution that denounces hate speech, Nazism, burning a cross on a black person’s lawn, bribing a judge or child pornography. Do you endorse these things Ron Paul? If not, why should we have laws about child porn but not prayer in schools? Child porn is a bad thing, but religious brainwashing of children leads to ethnocentrism, terrorism, global conflict, persecution of women and gays and countless murders. Not even child porn can compete with that for evil.
How do you make up your mind, Dr. Paul, when the constitution doesn’t comment? Can’t you see the terrible consequences of massive deregulation in a country full of radicals, rednecks, racists, right wing whackos, warmongers and Bill O’Reilly?
To all you Ron Paul supporters, are you sure this is where your country ought to go?
September 14th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Several of your issues have to do with his stance on following the constitution. Let me ask you this question:
Since the constitution exists as a document that created (constituted) the Federal government and then took some of the power of the states and gave it to that created entity (still talkint about the Federal gov) to use for the common good of the nation, then how does the Federal government ever act in a lawful manner when it ignores the document that created it and gave it power in the first place?
You say we don’t update our Constitution very often. May I submit to you that the reason why we don’t do that is because we typical just ignore it. Ron Paul’s position is that if you are going to go to the trouble to have laws, you should abide by them and since there is a mechanism in place for changing the Constitution, we should use it instead of ignoring it and just doing what we feel like at the moment…
September 14th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Given the gulf between you and Paul on these issues, I’m not going to try and argue all of them with you. I have my own differences with Paul despite being a supporter of his. But I do think it’s funny to focus on positions of his that are actually within the mainstream of Republican thought (gun ownership, private health care) and ignore things like the abolition of the Federal Reserve.
September 14th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
I think you should re-read Dr. Paul’s position on seperation of church and state.
You have it wrong.
Ron Paul has always said that the Federal Government should have no place in telling anyone which (or if they should have any) religion. He is for voluntary associations only. Also, no Government law should favor or oppress any religion either.
But this bring me to another question for you. If you are going to hold that the Constitution should be “updated”, then who cares what the first amendment holds?
If one can blithely ignore the second amendment because you think it’s sensible (and can get 50% + 1 to agree with you) then why can’t I get 50% + 1 to say that you have to go to church every Sunday? (setting aside the fact that you are Canadian, and have no vote, and no obligation to obey US Law.)
We’ll be nice (for now) and let you pick the church, but you must attend some kind of church every Sunday (too bad if your holy day is some other day, but we have to be consistent you know)
And not some silly “church of the holy football game”, or the church of nintendo either, the church has to be one of the mainstream denominations which will harrangue you about how you’re going to hell unless you change your evil ways.
I think you see my point. A “Right” is something about which no law can be created which interferes with it. We can’t have the “Kavan Wolfe must STFU” act, even if we could get the whole darn country to vote yes.
America is _not_ a democracy. We are a Republic. There are some things the Government just can’t do, no matter how many laws are passed and no matter how many vote yes.
Later
September 14th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
“For: Constitutionalism
While I think most would agree that ignoring your county’s constitution like the Bush Administration is a bad idea, being a staunch constitutionalist is equally dangerous because the constitution is an historical document that gets out of date. Sensible countries rewrite their constitutions once in a while, but we all know the USA is not a sensible country. Doesn’t it seem reasonable that some things that made sense centuries ago might not make sense anymore?”
If you think something in the Constitution is out-dated, then you AMEND it. Every person who holds office in the federal government in America swears to uphold and defend the Constitution. Uphold. Defend. Uphold and Defend the Constitution.
Without a constitution, what you have is a pure democracy. Learn the difference between democracy and constitutional republic.
“For: Gun Ownership
The arguments for gun ownership are bogus. In the U.S., the second amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” For you gun-happy rednecks out there, I’ll try to put this simply: Since a well regulated Militia is no longer necessary for U.S. security, the right to bear arms must be re-evaluated. ”
WRONG, a well armed militia is vital to the security of a FREE State. Note the word ‘free’. The biggest reason to guarantee the right of people to bear arms is as a defence against democide (when governments mass murder their own people like in the Soviet Union or China). If you think the US couldn’t become a police state then you are dillusional
“Against: Federal Department of Education
I don’t know if anyone’s noticed, but the US education system SUCKS. I don’t give a damn whether the constitution says education is a state matter, the system is broken and needs to be fixed. Education is a global concern so I don’t see why it can’t be addressed at the national level. While I agree that this No Child Left Behind thing is a joke, that’s no reason to scrap federal education programs.”
Education has gotten WORSE since the federal department of education. What you have now in every state is a State department of education, and then a second Federal department of education, and the citizens of the State have to pay taxes to support both. It’s a ridiculous wasteful situation, and it is unConstitutional. Any politician that supports is breaking their oath to uphold the Constitution, and when you condone it, you are condoning dishonesty and oath-breaking in politicians.
“Against: Separation of Church and State
Now this is just stupid. Tolerant Christian society is an oxymoron.”
WRONG, he believes Church should be an important part of society, but he would never use government to give official recognition to any state. In other words, while he thinks religion is important, he wouldn’t use his position in office to impose his views on the nation.
“For: Voluntary School Prayer
Ron Paul says if people want to pray in school, let them. That sounds good right? Wrong. Allowing prayer in school will quickly stigmatize anyone who does not pray when their classes do. ”
WRONG, if you deny the person the right to do as they wish, then you using the government to violate the basic tenent of individual liberty. The job of government is to protect individual liberty. What you are advocating is the opposite of that.
“Libertarianism
A libertarian (like Ron Paul) is someone who believes that everyone should be free to do as they please, as long as they don’t interfere with the rights of others. This has some cool consequences, like how corporations would not be permitted to pollute the air or neighboring properties. Unfortunately, Libertarians generally promote free market capitalism. A simple thought experiment shows why this is folly: the free market treats everyone fairly in the sense that everyone can bid their money, goods and services for the money goods and services of others, e.g., if you want police protection or medical care, you can pay for it. The problem is that not everyone can bid, particularly children and people who have not yet been born. Thus, under a free market structure, future generations are subjected to the myopic despotism of the current generation. Because the impacts of environmental destruction are long term, the people who will be most affected can’t bid (they’re children or not yet born), and environmental impacts are undervalued by the free market. The underlying assumptions of free market capitalism are’ quite obviously invalid.”
You’re completely wrong again. Libertarianism protects future generations via the courts. If a corporation pollutes today, leading to health problems for a future generation, than that corporation will be liable 5 decades from now in a court of law for billions of dollars in damages.
“For: Privatized (Free Market) Health Care
Privatizing healthcare is evil. Here’s just one reason: children born to rich parents get good care, and children born to poor parents get no care. Would anyone like to stand up and argue that the medical care provided to a sick child should be determined by the income of its parents? I didn’t think so.”
Coercion is evil. Forcing rich people to pay for the healthcare of poor people is evil. You can’t justify the coercion by saying rich people are greedy and poor people are needy. Nothing justifies coercion.
Anyway, healthcare is the only industry where costs go up as time goes by, instead of decreasing due to advancements in technology. If governments gets out of regulating healthcare and telling people what they can and can’t put into their own bodies (e.g. you are by law not allowed to try a drug to treat a condition until the FDA approves it), then prices will drop every year just as they do in every other industry (e.g. computer prices go down dramatically every year while quality improves, the same could happen in healthcare if the free market could go to work).
“For: Federal Regulation of Marriage
Why is it that Ron Paul wants to get rid of federal regulation of education, taxes and Homeland Security and just about everything else, but not marriage? Why is it that Ron Paul thinks people should be able to do what they like, unless they’re Gay? Same sex marriage does not interfere with anyone’s rights, so how in the hell can a self-confessed libertarian be against it? This doesn’t make any sense, unless Ron Paul is just anti-gay. ”
WRONG AGAIN, becareful about passing off your uninformed assumptions as facts, because you are smearing a good man with a good message.
Ron Paul was AGAINST a federal amendment to ban gay marriage. He is for the States deciding for themselves about same-sex marriage, as the Constitution intended.
September 15th, 2007 at 12:04 am
…. Wow, sorry but, how old are you?
I recommend you do more research on most of these.
September 15th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Oh,
We are going to get along fine:)
September 15th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Drive by piece. I hope you enjoy being policed and owned and controlled by the military industrial complex. you are serving the desires of an illegal authoritarian regime by trying to railroad Ron Paul.
September 15th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Your second amendment piece there is basically treason. The rest of the amendments are individual rights, the founding fathers were very clear on the meaning of the second amendment.
Alex Kosinski, 9th District Federal Court - Jew who survived holocaust in Romania, where Jews were herded in WW2 (Relocation to Transistria) - Dissented on a case where the government violated our rights and gave a very thoughtful dissenting opinion Quote him in a dissenting opinion (Called the Doomsday provision): “All too many of the other great tragedies of history — Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few — were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 5997-99. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars. My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees*. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.” — Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
JAMES MADISON (Drafted Virginia Constitution, Member of Continental Congress, Virginia delegate to Constitutional Convention, named “Father of the Constitution”, author of Federalist Papers, author of the Bill of Rights, Congressman from Virginia, Secretary of State, 4th President): “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.. (where) ..the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms?.” (Federalist Papers #46) “They [proposed Bill of Rights] relate 1st. to private rights….the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of government…” 8 June 1789 (The Papers of James Madison, Hobson amp Rutland, 12:193, 204) “To these (federal troops attempting to impose tyranny) would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.” (Federalist Papers #46)
your take on the second amendment is dead wrong and you lack the ability to cogently comment on it because you were poorly educated and they didnt teach American history.
September 15th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Geeze, forget about me being on your side man.
Your post about Ron Paul was pretty much wall-to-wall bullshit.
Either you are woefully misinformed, or you’re a sick statist bastard. Since you seem like an intelligent person, my money’s on the latter. The rationalizations you put up to justify your irrational positions are atrocious.
September 15th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
To paraphrase: Thus, under a system where the Constitution is rewritten when we disagree with it, future generations are subjected to the myopic despotism of the current generation.
September 15th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Is there such a thing as an internet BLOG TROLL? As for the second amendment, I’m actually OK with your take. As long as you play by the rules. Since you seem sure that a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary and the second amendment needs to be revised - go for it. The rules are in place. Just follow them please. When you get 75% of the states to agree with you,then we can change it.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/97-922.pdf
September 15th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Yes, clearly anyone that disagrees with you is a moron.
Do you homework before you write a post though, you got some serious issues wrong.
Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror.
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
Amendment reads:
“Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.”
He is against restricting religious freedom, he is not pro-prayer in school. Dig a little deeper before you generalize, he is a constitutionalist as you said. He doesn’t vote based on personal beliefs, but instead on interpretations of the constitution.
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
That doesn’t sound ‘anti-gay’ to me.
YES on banning partial-birth abortions:
NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions
You can’t generalize his stance on issues… look to his voting record. He is against partial-birth abortion because it is a barbaric method, but voted to allow transportation to states that allow abortion from ones that don’t. He believes it is the states choice to ban/allow abortion, not the federal governments.
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
September 15th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Out of curiosity, who is that this author -does- support for president? I’m not entirely satisfied with Ron Paul, but he certainly is better in my eyes then any other contender. I would accept this piece as simply “Ron Paul isn’t perfect”, except that it ends with “are you sure this is where your country ought to go”. I want to know who the author thinks would lead in a better direction.
September 15th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
@Waronwaronbullshit: He may have said “No” on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage, but he also voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) That’s just as bad, to me, and shows a clearly discriminatory and under-educated stance. There is absolutely no evidence that adoption by GLB people is detrimental to children, and indeed a great many people argue that the children of this country are better served by having two parents of either gender than no parents at all.
Also, this per Wikipedia: “He also co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. 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.’ Paul stated that ‘Americans understandably fear’ the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage. He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.” Mm — so keep the government out of marriage! UHM, unless the government is going to say that gay people can get married. Pretty much what our blogger du jour said above. Sounds to me like he’s just like any other douchy two-faced conservative, talking about of both sides of his mouth.
He also voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. WTF?
September 15th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
“I cannot fathom why Ron Paul wants out of the UN. Someone please enlighten me so I can annihilate the argument.”
I cannot fathom why you would declare your ignorance and all-knowingness at the same time.
September 15th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
A government that does not follow its own constitution is a government acting without rules.
That sounds pretty much like what we have right now, doesn’t it?
It sounds like Germany after the Enabling Act. It sounds like most governments in history, actually.
Just because someone is against having the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT do something doesn’t mean they don’t want that thing done. You probably want a shower now and then, but you don’t want a government bureaucrat coming to you house to give it to supervise the process. You want food, but whenever government runs the farms, people starve. You want business and medical regulation, but government makes a mess out of THAT, too (versus, say, Underwriter Labs, doing a great and cost-effective job of regulating electrical devices for over a century).
Almost EVERYTHING works better when not run by a bunch of strangers from thousands of miles away who take money from their “customers” by force, like it or not.
I’m an abolitionist in regards coercive government, but I’d certainly cheer even a partial move back towards freedom, including towards limited government. I wrote a column for STR recently on this very topic: “How Liberals Created Our Neo-Con Nightmare” http://www.strike-the-root.com/72/allport/allport3.html
You can’t expect any government that won’t follow the rules to make you happy for long.
September 15th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Wait, don’t you live in Canada?
I agree with some of what you said(and I really can’t stand Dr. Paul), however I think this would read much better if it didn’t seem like a rant.
September 16th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Just a note you missed his single most bullshit position:
Get rid of the IRS. Apparently he wants to run the government on donations, either that, or he wants to institute some other government agency to collect taxes, of course changing the name will somehow make everything much better, I mean if we stop calling it the IRS and name it the TAX then everything will be much better.
September 16th, 2007 at 1:32 am
“has it occurred to anyone that if the bad guys think you have a gun, they’re a lot more likely to shoot you then if you they think you’re unarmed?”
-If I have a gun these “bad guys” wouldn’t have the chance
“Just a note you missed his single most bullshit position:Get rid of the IRS. Apparently he wants to run the government on donations, either that, or he wants to institute some other government agency to collect taxes, of course changing the name will somehow make everything much better, I mean if we stop calling it the IRS and name it the TAX then everything will be much better.”
-This is actually one of his strongest positions Alex. Dr.Paul supports whats called a “fair tax” or a uniform sales tax. You wonder how the government will be funded without all that income tax that doesn’t fund anything but ridiculous interest to an illegal institution(fed)? “In Fiscal Year 2006, the U. S. Government spent $406 Billion of your money on interest payments to the holders of the National Debt. Compare that to NASA at $15 Billion, Education at $61 Billion, and Department of Transportation at $56 Billion. (http://www.federalbudget.com/)” Does the government(IRS) have the right to take your private possessions and freedoms on a fraudulent, unconstitutional, illegal basis (income tax)?
Oh and in support of Ron Paul, until we stop policing the world we’re never going to “defeat” terrorism. Nobody hates us because we can watch football and eat atomic wings while smoking cartons of cigarettes. As David Cross put it “if the terrorists hated freedom, then the Netherlands would be fuckin dust”
September 16th, 2007 at 2:26 am
@Jordan
“@Waronwaronbullshit: He may have said “No” on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage, but he also voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)”
WRONG! He voted against FEDERAL FUNDING for adoptions by non-related couples. If the bill had been for federal funding for related couples, he would have voted NO as well. He votes NO on everything, because 90% of bills passed in Congress are unConstitutional. The Constitution gives very specific and limited powers to the federal government, which don’t including funding a department of health, education or paying for people’s adoption services. Those are all State responsibilities, if any government’s.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:42 am
I think the constitution we have is a lot better than the politicians we have today would come up with if we changed it.
Going back to the constitution and stemming the corruption in the current government would solve 95% of the problems.
For the less important small issues you talk about we can elect a different type of man than Ron Paul after he’s done cleaning house.
The system needs to be reset to it’s starting point, and Ron is the only one who can do that.
RON PAUL 2008!
September 16th, 2007 at 5:41 am
Newsflash: Voluntary prayer IS allowed in school. Children are allowed to pray. It just can’t be sponsored by the school, and it can not be mandatory.
There has never been a court decision that’s stated that children are not allowed to pray in school.
Just as the government may not impose religion on a student, neither can they deny a student the ability to freely express their religious beliefs.
If you don’t believe me, ask the ACLU. They’ll tell you the same thing, dingbat.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:00 am
LOL holy crap you are so out of touch with reality. You attack the constitution which represents freedom? You think the UN is a good thing, when it owned by bankers who are part of that ultra rich corporate people you seem to despise? You want no guns in a country becoming more fascist by the month? Federal Government should never run education this is why basic civics isnt taught anymore and why there is no more critical thinking in the USA. You should call on yourself for this garbage of a website. I suppose you back a CFR candidate who is owned by the ultra Rich you hate. If your answer is anything other than Kucinich or Gravel you are full of shit. and are truely uninformed.
September 16th, 2007 at 7:11 am
Just a couple of quickies here:
Paul has said: if you don’t like the laws in place, change them, the worst thing you can do is ignore them. In that light, it irks me that any of our politican would not consider themselves constitutionalists. Don’t like something ? Make an ammendment, otherwise, you’re just ignoring the rules that you’ve been sworn to protect.
Also, you’re just plain wrong on his stance of separation of church and state. Wrong. You pilfered it from some other blog, and don’t give any references. You suck.
Finally: people should have the RIGHT to pray in school, but it shouldn’t be foisted upon them by their teachers.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Should call this blog “Warring with Bullshit”. Listen, you can’t claim to be warring against something you’re on the same side as. What part of “The right of the people” doesn’t make sense to you? Now I see why I have to pull my kids from the public school system. Thanks for the clarity.
September 16th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Well this sure drummed up a lot of controversy in a short amount of time.
I think that everyone needs to realize that this article, regardless of opinion, did EXACTLY what it was supposed to. It brought up a fascinating debate and offended and angered a lot of people into examining their beliefs (and defending them).
Which is great.
But it was would be nice if more of you backed up your own arguments a little more, instead of just saying, “You are wrong about this. You have no sources. You are WRONG. You suck.” You can’t criticize other people if you can’t prove that you can outdo them, and you can’t attack and opinion without good, supportive evidence to persuade others. If you can’t do that, you might as well keep the argument to yourself.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:14 am
[…] The War On Bullshit Take No Prisoners « Ron Paul’s Ten Most Disturbing Positions […]
September 16th, 2007 at 10:16 am
This article has been uber pwned.
Trying to perpetuate myths shouldnt be tolerated just because it “brings up a debate”
And if supportive evidence is key to being able to state an argument, this article gets the proverbial shaft.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:22 am
The wiki on R. Paul is more in depth and informative than this load
September 16th, 2007 at 10:25 am
@Sohail
Really now? They say we all see the world not as it is but as we are. Perhaps you see powerful counter-arguments, but most of the comments, as I see it, are sidestepping the basic issues. This blog isn’t called the War on Bullshit because I think my opinions are somehow better than anyone else’s, but because I try to cut through all the smoke and mirrors and shift the discussion to the real issues. For instance, ‘how should the constitution be changed to reflect the changing reality’ is a far more important question than ‘are federally funded education programs constitutional?’
I don’t think anyone has even attempted to address my argument about the free market and the pro-gun arguments were a joke. Nobody seems to have dispatched my point about the evil of privatized medicare either…
September 16th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
These ten reasons are EXACTLY why I am voting for Dr. Ron Paul, you fool.
September 16th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
As usual, the Ron Paul fanboy population is out en masse to defend their hopeless candidate.
September 16th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Someone needs to declare war on it because it is rife with bullshit. The author is wrong on the very basics of what Ron Paul supports. When correct on that, the author fails to understand Paul’s line of though anyway, apparently lacking the historic and cultural perspective to be able to understand the subject. Reasoning against the author’s sophomoric arguments against “Ron Paul’s positions” would be a waste of time.
-Jonathan Clark
September 17th, 2007 at 1:10 am
I don’t agree with Ron Paul on every position, but I think that his shadow is the best thing to hit the Whitehouse since FDR.
The one thing to keep in mind is, you’re not electing a king (unless you vote for Guiliani, or RomeMe). As president, RP could cause the US to re-examine a lot of issues, but he doesn’t claim the right to impose fiat currency, much less fiat rule. So, you’ll have a debate about the IRS, and whether or not it’s consitutional. This is a bad thing?
On gun control, I agree with you: I barely think cops should be allowed to carry guns. The US has something like 50k casualties a year from handguns, most of it drug-related.
So, legalize drugs, treat it like bad liquor, and you’ll have a lot less gun violence (as well as one more source of revenue that will help render the IRS obsolescent). As in Baghdad, so in Dublin, so in Poughkeepsie: people generally give up their guns once the people they fear give up theirs. If you want to decrease gun violence in the US, RP is your man.
With every election, fewer and fewer people vote. The young don’t vote. The poor don’t vote. Legal immigrants don’t vote. I don’t vote.
What we all hold in common is greater hopes than wordly goods, and since FDR, we have not had a candidate.
September 17th, 2007 at 9:16 am
You just lost a subscriber. You are mis-stating the facts and twisting Ron Paul’s positions. Google Ron Paul and you might be surprised how wrong you are about him…
September 17th, 2007 at 11:26 am
“You’re completely wrong again. Libertarianism protects future generations via the courts. If a corporation pollutes today, leading to health problems for a future generation, than that corporation will be liable 5 decades from now in a court of law for billions of dollars in damages.”
That doesn’t make any sense. How is that reasonable? Saying that future generations are protected by the courts because the members of the current generation will have to pay them lots of money in fifty years if we screw up now is ridiculous. What are the people who sue for damages going to do with that money, IF they get it? Pay for their own health care and use the rest for other personal needs/wants–NOT fix the environment. Under your protected-by-the-courts scheme, environmental destruction is a one-way street and we’re all screwed.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:46 am
>>being a staunch constitutionalist is equally dangerous because the constitution is an historical document that gets out of date.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:47 am
>>being a staunch constitutionalist is equally dangerous because the constitution is an historical document that gets out of date.
Umm… this is just simply an ignorant statement. If the Constitution is “out of date”, that is solely because politicians and judges in the 20th century decided to look for creative ways to avoid updating the Constitution using the mechanism built into it to allow change.
That’s right - the founders anticipated the need for the Constitution to change, but the also intentionally made it non-trivial to change it because it’s an important document that shouldn’t be changed lightly. Many politicians on both sides of the political fence have seen the difficulty of amending the Constitution as an obstacle to be worked around rather than one to be overcome legitimately.
This is one issue I’m right with Ron Paul on. We need to get our legal situation fixed because it is badly broken right now, which has opened the door to abuse. Where the Constitution is out of date, we need to fix it using the correct process. Yeah, it’s going to be painful, especially after decades of weak-minded jurisprudence (we’ll use the Commerce Clause to let the Federal Government do anything it wants to, tenth amendment be damned), opportunistic legislation (e.g. War Powers Act) and Executive overreaching (signing statements, invading sovereign nations without declaration of war). We can’t change it as long as people shove their head in the sand and parrot the grade school Civics class justifications for a century of bypassing checks and balances, and Ron Paul is the only one that both realizes this and is willing to stand up and say it, regardless of whether it’s popular.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:18 am
Sence it is obvious that this Canuck is as dangerously ignorant as he is arrogant and just a sad example of what human beings are capable of convincing themselfs, I really dont see a reason to waste mental energy trying to prove him wrong, he did that himself. Besides, when you are arguing with an idiot, who is the bigger idiot? I would just like to say that I am so pleased that there are so many people that are willing to point out, and eloquently, when someone is trying to rally the stupids to a cause and combat them with evidence and common sence. It makes me proud of the people in this country, and it reinstills my confidence because i know that there are alot more out there.
So to you, my friend just remember that is is better to be silent and be thought of as an idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Peace.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:18 am
wow that last guy was really cool
September 19th, 2007 at 6:18 am
yeah i agree
September 19th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Your website contains so much misinformation it sickens me.
You’re 100 percent wrong on your opinions. They are just that, opinions. Very short of facts.
September 27th, 2007 at 7:54 am
Ron Paul is for smaller government, which is definitely a step in the right direction. How about a follow up on why Hillary/Obama/Thompson/Guiliani will be better for America.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:56 am
I have to say, that I could not agree with you in 100% regarding Ron Paul’s Ten Most Disturbing Positions, but it’s just my opinion, which could be wrong
October 10th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
If Ron Paul is not against abortion, how do you explain him saying “The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty”? (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/)
You Paul fan boys don’t even know you’re own candidate.
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:35 pm
More guns=less crime. Look it up, you’ll quickly find it anywhere. The perception is that when more people get guns everyone starts shooting everyone else, but the facts show higher crime rates where there’s more gun control.
http://hematite.com/dragon/gcmythexplode.html
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=209
October 30th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
That’s complete and utter bullshit, and is not supported by the facts in the slightest. Countries with bans on assault weapons have much lower death-by-firearm rates than the US. The fact that you’re quoting an NRA-affiliated website to prove your point just shows how deluded you are.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
[…] Ron Paul Ron Paul Part Deux […]
November 28th, 2007 at 8:05 am
Am I sure I want a prez who is in line with your 10 “disturbing” things?
OH YES MR COWARD.
I AM DAMN SURE.
February 14th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
What agency do you work 4.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
The educational system is a lie and falling future and current individuals, it should be uterrly disbanded.
The department if education is bullshit and if anyone can’t see that they are blind. Test scores shouldn’t determine one’s future! WHat do you do with the constitution? You update it and add to it(but you have a SAIN person do it) by removing power from government, if possible. The founding fathers no dubt knew the constitution wouldn’t last because they apparently saw into the future somehow….dreams and visions no doubt. The Canagie family, Rockefeller Family and all the socialist scum supporting facists have a lot to answer for. Perhaps they should be put to death?! I swear I will get revenge for all the people who got ripped off one way or another. perhaps I will get rich and form my own international organiation dedicated to framing the socialist elite scum.
August 4th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
@Tom, if you are crazy enough to believe the statistics from the NRA, I’m not even going to try to argue with you.
@Jordan, while I agree with your sentiment completely, most gun statistics don’t prove anything one way or another because they can’t demonstrate causality. I think the NRA likes it this way
@Ralphie, being afraid of the world’s going to hell because the wrong people are in power is not cowardice, its intelligence. Being afraid to compare your beliefs to the facts because you might have to change your mind is cowardly.
@Joe Mama, The People for Basing Decisions on Facts
@Travis, demonstrating systematic weaknesses or flaws in the education system does not imply that disbanding the education system and allowing it to be replaced by private enterprises will make improve matters. The key is redesign, not privatization.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
I smell jewish bullshit.
PS - Go watch LA Riot videos for one good reason for the second ammendment. Its there for protection against tyranny.
Whats going on is very simple folks. What real group of people meets all the equirements in western nations to pull something like this off? (media, finance, corporate, white house and congress beuracracy, lobbying, and what entity has benefitted since 2001 from all this crap?, who does everyone not dare finger?) What real group of people has written such things down? What real group of people have a religion which dictates a new world order?
If its always the same group, if the same cohesive group of people always show up as the players, then why keep chasing ghosts?
Its very simple once you get by that propaganda wall built in your mind. Thats the last wall they hide behind.
Adios. No more jew bullshit for me.