Top 5 Worst Things About Ron Paul (Or, Top 5 Reasons I Hate Ron Paul)

These are traditional conservative, small-government stances, though, which is a traditional Republican stance. I mean, it's not like the Democrats don't all go the other way on all these things, so it's not like a RP nomination would mean that you'd have no candidate to vote for on these issues. The purpose of an election is to have a choice. I seriously have a hard time discerning between the major Demo. candidates and the major Repub. ones. Shouldn't we have Hillary/Obama/etc. on one side and Ron Paul on the other? You gotta admit, it'd be an actual choice.

The list you gave only has two things I personally find objectionable. (I'm mildly surprised to find that I object to anything on it.) They are his vote to ban gay adoptions in D.C. and his vote to eliminate the death tax. However, both votes are constitutionally authorized, so they pass the litmus that makes him so desirable to me in the first place. In the case of the first, D.C. is under 'true' control of Congress as far as I know, without a state government present. Congress has authority to ban gay adoptions in D.C. if they want to (though I think it is still stupid to do), and no related authority to ban gay adoptions throughout the nation, so there's no danger that Ron Paul would attempt to do it federally. In the case of eliminating the death tax, there's no constitutional requirement that one be present, nor transparent authority for the federal government to do it. I'm only going to vote on non-Constitutional issues once we're cohering more closely to the Constitution as stands. Ideally, I think that the several states should all pass their own inheritance taxes. At the same time, I think it's perfectly fair if a few states compete to host 'old money' families by having low or no inheritance taxes while other states try to maintain more egalitarian policies. That kind of differentiation would allow better comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of various policies and various inheritance tax levels. Aside from those two, only the Mexican border fence and the vote against embryonic stem cell research are really questionable. The first is a very legitimate action for any government to take, but it isn't clear whether it is actually an effective action to take. The second is very much in line with Constitutionality and small government principles, since the private sector rather than the government should be funding such research. I personally think that the federal public sector *should* do some research, including this research, however I think that a Constitutional amendment is needed first. Finally, a note on your #1 gripe with him, about the UN. In recent years the UN has been a tool for legitimizing warmaking and militarism while being largely ineffectual in such peacekeeping as it has attempted to do. Every year that passes makes abolishing it appear more and more likely to encourage world peace. If an organization to promote peace and international dialogue is needed then a NEW organization to promote peace and international dialogue is needed.

I know this dumb-as-a-bag-of-rocks opinion is just here to draw Google traffic, because it makes no sense. Good luck cleaning up after yourself.

Name ONE (positive) major thing the Federal government is good at.

Simmons, nice little organization of Ron Paul facts, it's sure to get a good response as there are many RP supporters on the web. I have mixed views of what Ron Paul supports. I am very much against RP on his Net Neurtrality stance-I am 100% FOR net neutrality.

So is Paul, dumbass…

Ron Paul could care less whether there is a UN. He just doesn't want the United States in it. Face it, the UN mostly serves as a platform for third-world dictators. If third-world dictators want a platform, fine, but for chrissakes don't give them prime Manhattan real estate.

think before you speak: "# Voted NO on establishing “network neutrality” (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)"

lol, it's so funny that you write those expecting automatic agreement like we're all going to go: "zomg! he's a monster!" I happen to think virtually all of those positions are commendable. I understand, you're a socialist, so you're gonna disagree, c'est la vie.

5. Treaties and orgs like the UN, NATO, NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, and SPP are threats to sovereignty because they allow the potential for external laws to supersede the Constitution, the foundation of America's freedom, the supreme law of the land. No law should be above it. 4. One duty of government is to protect the right of the individual to practice their religion. ANYONE can pray in school, governments wouldn't require anyone to do it. 3. He thinks the CIA causes a lot of blowback in this country and he's right. This Agency has grown into something wholly unamerican. 2. Governments are only for protection of individual rights, beyond that they should not be involved — protection of rights is the only reason we NEED a government. 1. Under the constitution, abortion, drug laws, assault laws, etc are up to the state. It is ALREADY this way, however, the supreme court made up a newly protected right not in the constitution. The LEGAL way to do it would have been to pass an amendment. He also wants to ban ALL federal funding — stealing from taxpayers to fund something they are vehemetly against is pretty disrespectful — the government should not subsidize ANYTHING, because that has nothing to do with protection of rights. The Campaign finance reform issue is about how people should be able to move their money however they want in a free society. Minimum wage actually hurts employment — and it's not government's job to fix prices — labor unions should be doing this on a voluntary basis without having to get a monolithic government in charge. He supports free association. Government has nothing to do with marriage and he wants the government out of it. Interview: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...You might be interested in hearing him explain his views in detail and WHY some of them seem so strange. Dig a little deeper and think about issues for more than 5 seconds — they are complex. Less government in your life = more freedom.

I have noticed a slant in the wording of the bullet points at the "On The Issues" website. A vote against federally funding something is frequently summarized as a vote against the thing itself. Therefore a fiscally responsible position is repeatedly painted as an antagonistic position. "On the Issues" is biased in favor of greater spending, more numerous laws, and fewer liberties. Many of the things he voted NO on make a lot of sense when you take into account he doesn't think Congress has the authority to be involved at all in that topic. I'd vote against "expanding research on stem cells" if I thought Congress shouldn't be telling scientists what to do. He voted against a ban on taxing the Internet, for example, because he doesn't believe Congress has any right to make any rulings on the Internet at all, which means no taxes OR regulations on the 'net. A far better philosophy than the suicidal notion of "Net Neutrality." Do you honestly want an FCC for the Internet? Do you really want the web to turn into just another way to watch FOX News?

That said, the more I peruse the site, the more it appears they are fixing this. The trust the site places in interest groups who rate candidates is still troubling. Publish the grade, but don't write conclusions about that rating on the same line. I can understand why the ACLU would rate him 64%, because in spite of all his stands in favor of Constitutional freedoms, he doesn't advocate group-based state favoritism, which the ACLU might dock him for.

Personally, I think that the government starting to regulate the internet - as 'net neutrality' would be - is not very neutral at all. I also think that if telecom companies really do get tyrannical about it, consumer demand plus increased profits will result in the development of new competition and new delivery technologies. We're nowhere near the limits of communications technology. Government intervention to make supplies of existing technologies served "fairly" could inhibit market incentives towards research of new technologies, particularly if "fairness" were accepted as a general governmental priority (as then providers of new technology would fear that they would be "made fair" by the government).

Thank you for the reasoned, on-the-issues defense of Ron Paul. Too many of RP's supporters rush in to condemn those who condemn him. Arguments like yours, on the issues and avoiding ad hominem attacks, are far more likely to change people's minds. Not that I agree with every point you present. I personally think that the government should subsidize research, though I think that it merits a Constitutional amendment to do legally. You might also make a little less use of CAPS LOCK. It'd be polite, though as long as you stick to the issues I don't think people will react too poorly.

Dude, calling your opposition names is not cool. Look at Mr. McAllen above for a better way to do things.

Like I said to OJC, ad hominem is not cool. Please support Ron Paul by the issues. There's a wealth of good information to present to his detractors, and it's much more persuasive than insults are.

This is largely my position on net neutrality. It's government regulation. I'd rather a few corporations did things wrong than the government intervening to protect the telecoms from their own stupidity. If corps think that they can create a tiered internet, they've got another thing coming. It's called competition. Consumers won't stand for too many abuses before they start switching providers.

Well stated, Thanks for your insightful and well organized comments N. Pannbacker.

Of course! Thanks for organizing this blog community. I like politics - or rather, I hate politics but consider myself to have a civic duty to remain engaged with them.

Everyone here made really good points, just to follow up on the CIA thing. He beleives that we should collect foreign intelligence (domestic intelligence should be the purview of the FBI), but much of what the CIA does is not overseen by any government official, which increases the likelihood of a supersecret second government which spies on our own government. He believes that the function of the CIA should be under the authority of the DoD (military). Then, at least, foriegn intelligence would have the oversight of top congressional authorities. This isn't perfect, but diminishes the chances of a supersecret organization using government resources to engage in illegal or un-American practices.

The person makes a good point that RP often votes No because he believes the Congress has no right to make any kind of law regarding that issue. An example would be voting No on praising Mother Theresa. That Mother Theresa vote was impressive. You have to have a backbone to be the only one in Congress voting no on something like that. And, in reality, Ron Paul joined Tom Tancredo and two Democrats to be the only politicians in Congress or the Senate to vote No on the new "Violence Against Women Act", probably because the Constitution never made dealing with rape or domestic violence an enumerated power of Congress. VAWA puts all domestic disputes in the federal arena and will be tying up federal judges for a long time until the SC overrules it with prejudice. VAWA takes away the rights of males to defend themselves against false accusations (what usually happens under VAWA now is that false charges are dropped after the man signs away his house or agrees to some other blackmail). The IMBRA clause in the back of the law starts to define how dating sites must start background checking men before they can say hello to women. Ron Paul might like some of the measures in VAWA, but see them as a States Rights issue.

I also have mixed feelings about Ron Paul's views but see with crystal clear clarity why citizens are clamoring for another option. As Anon mentioned, "I seriously have a hard time discerning between the major Demo. candidates and the major Repub. ones." I hear that comment A LOT, along with "what's the difference", "nothing will change", "the Dems have done nothing" and "I'm voting straight anti-incumbent". I think candidates like Ron Paul who profess to want to wipe the slate clean and start over have locked in to an undercurrent of mindset unrest, linked to the effect of big government on us personally–our homes, families and wallets, not to mention the effect the incredible number of punitive laws on the books at thestate and local level –many linked to federal funding for law enforcement–have on regular everyday citizens. Just yesterday, I spoke with two young men in their twenties–one whose Navy career had pretty much been ruined because of illegal, albeit consensual sex and a motor cross biker–whose career takes him all over the world–grounded temporarily by a DUI. Our present day laws have reached far past educative to snag the rest of one's life punitively–and people are fed up with that sort of government intrusion in their lives. We have got to figure out a way for us to be heard….and for many people, Ron Paul is listening. I believe we will see a viable third party in our lifetimes simply because people are fed up with "more of the same" politics.

Ron Paul is right on a lot of issues, (though I abhor his thoughtless approach to foreign policy - typical libertarian surrealism) and going through the list above, there are few things I find suspect. If there really is a growing movement in this country that calls for constitutional integrity, then there's hope that Americans may finally be taking responsibility for the government we have. We are debating about imposing a universal health care system in this country, and there is no better time than now to start asking where in the Constitution it says the government can do that. But I will never vote for Ron Paul. Never. It's one thing to hold views consistent with the Constitution, but it's another to entertain troofers and hand out with nutburgers like Alex Jones. I can overlook instances where his articles might end up in racist magazines, but when a sitting congressman entertains the ideas of 9/11 conspiracy as even worth the respect of a civil answer, he's lost my confidence in his ability to recognize black hearted ignorance when he sees it. Even Bill Clinton could find the outrage that such challenges deserves - but Ron Paul? He's willing to hook up with his 'good friend' Kucinich and arrange another investigation in it. Don't think he would do such a thing? Watch Ron Paul in action here: http://politicalvindication.com/?p=544 Dr. Ron Paul can raise all the money he wants, and the excitement behind his campaign is palpable - but Ron Paul elicits only disgust from me. More interesting is the question of who his base is. Anti-war protesters? Libertarians? Conspiracy theorists? It's a shame that we can't have such loyalty and excitement for a candidate without the kooks that wants to reteach this country about the responsibilities we have to hold our government to the limits the Constitution cites.

There's a long history of 'conspiracy' thinking in our nation going back to the founding fathers. There is nothing immoral about considering the possibility of people working together to maintain or advance their positions. All such thoughts deserve civil answers as long as they are brought forth by civil people. (Some writers on etiquette go further and hold that even rude people deserve civil answers.)

Ron Paul's famous consistency has come at the cost of voting against popular issues. He has the backbone to always be philosophically consistent. He never allows himself to be swayed by popular opinion. He's a true leader. It actually kind of reminds me of Thatcher. That lady was not for turnin either.

No. Period. We shouldn't have to choose from an actual candidate and a lunatic. Who is going to be chosen? It's not a choice that way.

I'm not looking for a strict constitutionalist; if you're looking for the bare minimum of a government, I (sadly) understand why you support Paul.

Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barrack Obama are lunatics. Hillary is a bit corrupt, but no more so than most politicians. I don't know what Obama is, but he at least puts out the image of a decent person.

Besides making sure there's law and order? I can think of a thousand. The government will never be perfect. Don't expect it to be. That's beyond naive. Our government is actually much much much better at most things than other governments.

'I'd vote against "expanding research on stem cells" if I thought Congress shouldn't be telling scientists what to do.' Oh please. The Bush Administration is already blocking federal funding for stem cell research. The vote was to overturn the Administration's decision or to allow it to continue.

You know you're wrong when you're at -6 (at the time of this writing).

Law and order provided by the government is supported by Ron Paul and his supporters. It's also a state-by-state function rather than the business of the federal government. The federal government has jurisdiction over only a limited number of strictly enumerated crimes. Ron Paul would reduce federal efforts to combat crime and return the focus to the several states where our Constitution says that it belongs. Many state functions should be returned to the state. Decentralization makes it easier to change/improve governments. It makes it easier to escape oppressive ones. It allows for easier comparison of several policies. Ron Paul isn't a minarchist. He's a constitutionalist. Some of the states would likely have absolutely massive governments - California comes to mind as a state likely to replicate many currently federal functions should the federal government reduce its role.

Consider that some politicians have made statements that the real issue is they think this particular item shouldn't be funded by the federal government. Constitutionally it probably shouldn't be. Perhaps some of the states should invest in research on stem cells. If current administrative policy blocks that as well, then current administrative policy regarding stem cell research is overly centralized and too controlled by the executive branch.

Strict constitutionalism mandates a bare minimum of government only on the federal level. With sharp drops in federal regulation, control, and taxes, some states would likely raise taxes and expand their budgets to attempt to replicate formerly federal functions.

Sorry - add national before government. My position still stands.

If you don't believe in the Constitution, how can you complain when the neocons stick it to you and send you to Guantanamo? Both sides of the aisle want to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they will enforce, and each hates the other side's constitutional violations. I guess if you believe in cluster-f'k government, that works, but some of us actually believe in the rule of law.

I believe in the Constitution, just not Paul's reading of it. Imagine the constitution like a recipe. Ron Paul looks at it and says we have to have exactly 2 cups of milk, a teaspoon of sugar, etc., and since the recipe doesn't say anything about frosting NO CHOCOLATE FROSTING! Not necessarily the best example, but it gets some of the point across.

Some divides will always be…. Simmons is a bootlicker and needs preferential treatment to survive. Since he is willing to give up all freedom for security and to spend your/my money on social programs, he is also a thief. Simmons, I want to spend your tax dollars on a giant nativity scene that will dwarf the empire state building. Just because I want it, you are wrong not to want it. That's your mentality, you dolt. You have no grounding in anything. Read the constitution and maybe study a little further to find out why we broke from England in the first place. You hate Ron Paul because he will free the country from economic bondage. I'm nominating you for a Darwin Award.

…and he’s still a better candidate than mccain, obama, or clinton!!! vote for ron paul 2008 ahahahahahahahhahahahahaah…………………aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahhahahahahahahahahahhaah

Ron Paul wants to follow the constitution and the intent of the founders. Were this done we wouldn’t be looking at unfunded mandates that will cost our children’s children over fifty trillion dollars in addition to their needs. The United Nations hasn’t stopped any wars and has sponsored many: Bosnia, Korea, Gulf 1, Gulf 2, plus more. Our military is not an arm of the UN. Let each state decide on abortion, marriage, etc, as well as other issues not delineated in the constitution and bill of rights. The 10th admendment was suppose to stop the abuses that Bush, Clinton sponsored in their four terms. Remember that Clinton had no problem killing innocents in Bosnia when it suited his agenda and we still have troops there.

Simmons and many who post are satisfied as long as their candidate is the one trampling on our constitutional rights. When it is the other side doing it they suddenly find their moral indignation over abuses.