This is mostly meant for Denny I guess. Is Ron Paul much more conservative than he cares to admit? In many cases he says Guns, Drugs, and Abortion are state rights issues. That does not sound quite right since state tyranny is just as bad as federal tyranny. He seems to be against Immigration as well. http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2011/06/ron-paul-signs-pledged-that-would-keep.html It sounds like he is trying to have his cake and eat it too. I am starting to have a better understanding of why he raises so much money.
There's some pandering to the republican base in there. The blog you link to is sadly misinformed. "Paul whined because the court ruled "that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protect under the 14th amendment 'right to privacy.'" Actually Paul is ignorant, yet again, of the facts. The ruling was made on the basis of unequal status before the law." vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas The majority held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. (The due process clause of the 14th is the "Liberty" clause and the one that deals with privacy)
That's fine, I was not disputing that. Ron Paul is clearly a conservative though. Arguments that blindly support states' rights are what bother me.
He's not blindly supporting states' rights. He's sticking to the constitution - see the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (To the states first, then the people - take note)
The Constitution is not Libertarian and theoretically supports Conservatism. He's blindly supporting state tyranny AND supporting the Constitution.
The Constitution certainly is Libertarian. It and the Declaration of Independence are the two prototypical Libertarian documents. Reread the 10th carefully. It gives the states all powers not delegated to the Feds (by the states). Regarding Paul's view of Sodomy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision, in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell website, he stated his opposition to what he called ridiculous sodomy laws
The guy's worth a couple $mil, at most. And his stock holdings are almost entirely gold and gold mining type stocks. Is ignorance bliss?
Is California a Libertarian state? I don't think so dude. The Constitution is not Libertarian because state governments are not Libertarian. Deferring mindlessly back to the states is not a Libertarian concept. What does this have to do with the fact that Ron Paul is weaseling out on my rights? There are plenty of states that will vote for Obama in droves this 2012 election. I don't want them managing my life, nor do I want a President that supports an inefficient aspect of the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Education Also his position on the Death Penality is all over the place. I am very curious to know why someone in their 70's suddenly has a change of heart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Capital_punishment
The Libertarian party's #1 goal is to abolish government regulation of business and property use, effectively legalizing all forms of financial fraud and environmental pollution while eliminating workplace safety, health, employment and compensation protections. In other words, bring back the Dark Ages.
Ron Paul is a conservative/libertarian. Always has been. He has been one of the most consistent national politicians in our time. There shouldn't be much confusion about his positions and leanings generally as he has a long record of stating various positions.
Paul does not have the best track record with regards to his voting in the House. He's voted for a lot of earmarks. He also votes as a protectionist because he demands too much in free trade agreements. I just want people to understand that he is NOT a real Libertarian. He's definitely a hybrid with a lot of Conservative tendencies.
You don't have to worry about neighboring states imposing their laws on you. At least in your own state, you have a lot more representation.
Well this is nonsense, there are plenty of Libertarians that support the judicial branch and pollution laws. Only the federal government spends trillions of dollars on Ponzi schemes. The dark ages have returned to Europe because of the incompetence of Socialism.
That's like saying there are plenty of catholics who are pro-choice. Self-delusion to make oneself feel better is a common coping mechanism for people in these complex times. Actual real life libertarians are an unknown in American politics. The party has never even had a presidential candidate who fully supported the party's ideals. They have always had to prop up republican washouts to get candidates.
