In an attempt to avoid being too far off topic, I'm starting a new thread instead of tacking this onto "And It's 1, 2, 3..." That thread is too good to be mired in side issues.



OK, here goes:

Ron Paul is one of those Libertarians whose views are so mixed that they can be marketed to right-wing Republicans and left-wing Democrats at the same time. He proves my contention that it’s not a political spectrum, it’s a political circle, with Libertarians drawing the far ends together in some fairly bizarre ways. His main draw for liberals is his consistent stance agains the illegal war against Iraq and the threatened one against Iran.

He may be a Libertarian, but Ron Paul is no advocate of personal liberty when it comes to women, the LGBT community, minorities, people of faiths other than Christian, or anyone else who isn't white, male, Protestant, and straight. I don’t completely agree or completely disagree with him on many issues, but he’s dreadful on abortion, gay rights, states’ rights, stem cell research, taxes and Social Security, federalized healthcare, separation of church and state, education, technology, voting rights, et al.

As do many Libertarians (and many of us), he yearns for a return to a simpler time, but I’m sorry—anyone who thinks that ALL (yes, ALL) taxes could be abolished and we’d be a functional country, that we don’t need a EPA and a FEMA (granted, they need to be better run); that private industry would step up and keep our water and air clean and respond to national disasters and take good care of the old and sick—oh, there’s lots more he would abolish—anyone who thinks those things is deluded and dangerous. The current administration has all but destroyed many federal agencies so that when the agencies fail at their missions, they can justify outsourcing some of their functions to “private” industry. But Ron Paul would simply abolish all of them.

I wouldn't cite Wikipedia in anything published, but I think this Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul on his political views is documented well enough to be reliable, and it agrees with what I know about him through his years as a Texas politician. It doesn’t take sides, just “gives the facts, ma’am.” And this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul is a bio on him.

Pam, was going to send you more via e-mail, but I think the address I have is old. Check your private messages.

Personally I LOVE the guy! Yeah his views are a little out there on some things, But he is one of the few running who doesn't take himself so seriously, although he takes the constitution seriously and believes that a return to its principles would be a good idea. I agree. In addition, I think he's been misrepresented. I've never heard him say for example, that he wants to abolish taxes. I did hear he say he wants to abolish the IRS. On gays rights his position is that it is NOT the governments business to decide who can marry who, whatever their gender. Nor is it the federal governments business to dictate what kind of government other nations should have. He says he's personally against abortions, which means to me he won't opt to have one if he gets pregnant, and won't perform one as doctor. That's not the same thing as saying he would make it a crime if states decide (as they have) that it's a decision between a woman and her doctor. The guy is running for president, not god. And as a constitutionalist, he knows his views will and should be tempered by Congress and the rest of us. We do need to have some talks with him on other subjects, but so far from what I've seen I think he would make a better president than many others who are running... There's my 2¢

adg

So there you have it, Pam: two takes on Ron Paul. It's good that there's room on the bench for all of us.

That still doesn't answer the question about if his wife is the lady that makes the fish sticks.

I don't know, Larry. Mrs. Paul appears to be a cross-dresser:

http://www.mrspauls.com/about.html

I'm sure that he will make as good a first lady as Bill Clinton may make.

Yeah, I think Rudy is running for that office.

Well, just like Bill Clinton, he has two first names. Even I might be able to remember one of them.

...i've listened to some folks on Libertarian views as well as Ron Paul's....but don't feel like i have a great understanding....

...i very much agree that government ought to be minimized....and is way too far involved in personal decisions....better off left to individuals....there are lots of laws...eg drug laws that need to be abolished...and the state has no place in deciding if same sex partnerships is marriage or civil unions...that's where i get the most concerned with government in general...when they overstep the boundary particularly with church and state....such a volatile issue... it is so important to keep church and government separate....and religion has no place in government.... and vice versa.... well i could go on and on that tangent but back to Libertarian and Ron Paul issues.... and i'm glad you opened it Shelley... i want to learn...

my biggest concern with Ron Paul is his view of those in poverty...
as i'm there myself for the last 15 years or so and have many friends that are at or only somewhat above the federal poverty level....having worked with low income folks before becoming one.... i didn't even begin to understand what it was about....

now i know a little more... and even though i totally believe that welfare reform is essential... there are absolutely people in a cycle of poverty that cannot find their way out... but now we have 2 parent working families that can't pay the rent, either....and other folks who just can't keep up...
a quick fix no subsidy approach truly concerns me.... so where are the Libertarians... and where is Ron Paul ... on how the poorest, the working poor, the unemployably ill folks will survive?.... or, better, be able to thrive in a new kind of economy?....

Most of the time our personal interpretations of politicians are derived from, among other things, sound bites, their team's marketing, how they come across in the media and their past performance (maybe .... we generally seem to have ADD when it comes to that). Most of the time we don't see the whole cloth, just bits and pieces of either what we're fed or allowed to see or what we want to see. Remember that old Robert Redford movie "The Candidate"? It's all marketing, baby!

It's never about who they are or what they're going to do. Look at Al Gore. Granted, the Supreme Court of Jesters screwed him out of the election but I think if people knew the Al Gore that just won the Nobel Peace Prize he just might have been a shoe in. On the other hand, Joe Lieberman, his then VP running mate turned out to be "Lieber-monger", a pro-war, conservative in Bush's pocket dressed in (originally) liberal Democrat's clothing. By the ironic way, note the first three letters of his last name!

Personally, I haven't seen a presidential candidate that I feel okay with. They all make me a bit queasy to some degree. My better half's boss, the shrink, calls 'em all pathological liars. Well, most of them are either business persons or lawyers or both. What does that tell you?

Sadly, the standard seems to be "but he/she would be better than what we have now." (A toadstool would be better than what we have now.) Oh, for just one more article by Molly Ivins. She saw all of Ron Paul's many sides clearly.

I thought were already had a toadstool? Ain't that what you call a guy with the I.Q. of toad who's head is full of stool? I'll check in my Funk and Wagnell's........

I was thinking today that laws are created for the most part to modify behavior. We were driving along and there was a big sign saying "SLOW DOWN FOR WORKERS - IT'S THE LAW" and I thought to myself, there wouldn't be a law about slowing down if people just used some common sense and courtesy. Jeremy Bentham once noted "Every law is an infraction of liberty." The Libertarian view is one that sees the greatest benefit to the people by securing the most freedom for everyone. Every time we initiate new laws to fix some problem we are in essence saying we don't believe in each other other enough and so we feed the freedom we have inherited to a law machine that pushes us toward our destination as a totalitarian state where you HAVE to do whatever you could (or should) have done freely. I think a libertarian president would be a good idea, realizing that his or her personal views will be tempered by the the other branches of government.

In short I don't believe we have go along with whatever Ron Paul's personal thoughts are. His job will be to bring the conversation back to when it began so we can re-evaluate our freedoms with respect to the basic fundamental guidelines as set forth in the constitution and the bill of rights. It's not always good enough to have the right to get out of poverty, you need the freedom to do it, and as each new law denies us these freedoms it become harder and harder, we are less and less free to create our own lives in our own best interests.

Arlo..It could not have been said in a better way. We as a country really need to step back and take a good look at ourselves and ask the question if we really are moving in the direction that our forefathers wanted us to. Everyday our freedom and liberties are being tested to the fullest. Inducing fear into a people is never a good thing and taking away the right to question is not much better. Maybe you are right maybe electing someone with Libertarian views would be a good thing. But when we do go to the elections this year we should be thinking of what has been evolving in this country over the years and make our decision on who to vote for based on what has been going on. I for one am going to choose to vote for the person who I feel will best represent not only me but all Americans. Just my 2 cents.. Peace..-Eric