Although I was never infatuated with Ron Paul in any way, I have to admit that I have avoided dumping on him as forcefully as I should have. I was impressed by his opposition to the war in Iraq and to the war on drugs. Those are two important issues and it's very refreshing to see a Republican presidential candidate oppose them so forcefully. But I was very unimpressed by his fetus-worshiping platform. An obstetrician-gynecologist that does not understand the profound harm to women caused by abortion bans sets off huge alarm bells for me. He introduced the Sanctity of Life Act in 2005. The act would define human life as existing from conception and call a fetus a "person" deserving of protection. It's too bad that Mr. Paul regards women as little more than fetus-incubators. This alone should be enough to damn Ron Paul's presidency. But it gets even better.
Ron Paul is opposed to the following:
- public education
- stopping genocide in Darfur
- aid for Katrina victims
- affirmative action
- Civil Rights Act of 1964. He believes that property owners should have the right to keep the brown hordes off of their property.
There is even more creamy goodness about the wingnuttiness of Ron Paul. Daily Kos diarist phenry has a must-read four part series about Ron Paul and his voting record. Don't take my word for it that Ron Paul is wack and does not deserve the support of so-called progressives. Read for yourself. His ideas about the Federal Reserve are pretty wacky too.
Ron Paul sucks so many noodles that I am devoting an entire category to him. Stop supporting this knob and stop giving him money. Support a democrat, any democrat (even Hillary, with her scary tooth-filled vagina) before supporting Ron Paul.
Update: Fixed a typo. Thanks for notifying me in a way that preserves my delicate ego. The lively debate in the comments is a refreshing change. I had no idea I would touch a nerve with so many of you Paul supporters.
Also, via Jesus General, I bring you Storm Front's endorsement of Ron Paul's candidacy. Very interesting stuff.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
National Reserve? I think you mean Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve uses inflation to enrich Wall Street fatcats at the expense of the poor and middle class. Ron Paul wants to correct that injustice. Is it "wacky" to want to help the poor and middle class?
Against Public Education? Right. Please give evidence. Abolishing the department of education has nothing to do with getting rid of public education.
What a silly post. I think that Ron Paul understands the abortion issue better than almost anyone. How can someone be allowed to get an abortion up until the baby is delivered but if the mother throws the child in a dumpster a day after it is born she is charged with murder? These are serious issue that should be dealt with at a local level. That is Ron Paul advocates.
The Department of Education didn't exist until 1980, and since then SAT scores and literacy rates have fallen. I don't see how adding a layer of Federal bureaurocracy to the already complicated district, county, and State education boards and departments will help.
As far as abortion, his bill would allow States to 'regulate' abortion without interference from Federal Jurisdiction. In the abscence of Federal Jurisdiction, States would be able to enact laws that are in line with the morality of their citizens, and I wouldn't have to pay for CA citizens to abort babies. Sounds like a Win-Win.
The Federal Reserve is not Federal and has no Reserves. It is a banking cartel that is subsidized by the government in exchange for our government being able to borrow money without raising taxes. Guess who pays for the money that these politicians borrow to line their supporters pockets? Why, you, me, our children, and grandchildren of course. I don't relish our government in bed with banking interests any more than with oil interests.
One other thing, the Civil Rights Act (1964) was a law that made an end-run around the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by using the Interstate Commerce Clause. I don't know about you, but I would much rather have the government protect my right to not be discriminated against (the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution), then to have the government expand its jurisdiction of Interstate Commerce (which is now used to justify arresting and prosecuting medicinal-marijuana users in California even though they are not breaking State laws).
That went over my head completely. I better go read wikipedia.
Anyway, what would be the best way to end segregation, if not the Civil Rights Act? What would you have had the government do? After all, I would hate to think that you are defending segregation. Maybe that's why Stormfront are such fan boys of Ron Paul.
Post a Comment