College Conservatives Maranatha Chapter is a Registered Student Organization dedicated to providing information on candidates, office holders, ballot measures, and current event issues to the students, faculty and community surrounding Maranatha Baptist University.

Friday, February 17, 2012

The Curious Case of Ron Paul

Ron Paul Breakdown
By Joel Joseph
Congressman Ron Paul may look his age, 76, but it seems the older the man gets, the younger he becomes. Paul is the political world’s Benjamin Button. With the majority of his followers under the age of 35, Mr. Paul has become the spokesman for the nation’s youth.
The reasons for his ascension are the reasons true conservatives dislike him. Congressman Paul has a racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic past, wants to legalize drugs and end the fed, and his foreign policy is to the left of President Obama. How exactly is he running on the Republican ballot?

Ron Paul Newletters

Below are quotations from Congressman Paul’s newsletters:

  • “Opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,”
  • “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,”
  • "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
Many have dismissed these quotes as a nonissue because they do not have Paul’s byline. Mr. Paul claims that one of his seven writers wrote the comments and that he was not even aware of the statements until recent years.
If Congressman Paul is telling the truth—if he did not write these statements—why not give the name of the individual that did?
Legalization of Drugs
Two weeks ago, Rapper Snoop Dogg endorsed Congressman Paul and cited his stance on the legalization of marijuana as the primary reason. Pot enthusiasts around the country lit their doobies to that. Congressman Paul also wants to legalize all kinds of drugs including heroine and methamphetamines. Paul’s radical stance on drugs is neither conservative nor constitutional.
Fiscal Policy
Congressman Paul has an unrealistic fiscal policy. He wants to cut one trillion dollars and end the Fed. Ending the Fed would give power over the currency to Congress. More Americans distrust Congress right now than they distrust the Fed—and that is saying something. Congressman Paul’s aim to drastically cut spending may be from good intentions but he will be unable to coax a bipartisan congress to agree on such cuts. Ron Paul has only passed 1 bill out of the 620 measures he has proposed. Such a track record will not accomplish a task that President Reagan could not accomplish.
Foreign Policy
Congressman Paul’s foreign policy stance should have you shaking your head. He does not believe that Iran is a threat to Israel or America and he wants to bring soldiers from every base home. Paul also believes that American foreign policy caused the 9/11 attacks.
Congressman Paul may be a decent man but his connection to controversial newsletters, implausible economic solutions, radical drug policy, and hazardous foreign policy make him a man unfit for office. Congressman Paul’s stances are not only deplorable, but downright liberal.  

45 comments:

Kate said...

Nice work Joel. You definitely went there with this one. I've been doing a lackluster job following things terribly closely since I got to Senegal - I check out the scene maybe once a week. I keep waiting for news that he's calling it quits.

Ben Camp said...

Nice hit piece. First off, it starts off with ad hominem attacks before even describing the issue. Ok we all know about the newsletter thing give it a rest.

Legalization of drugs. Snoop Dog endorses Ron Paul. Therefore Ron Paul = Snoop Dog? Makes sense. The 2nd most laughable statement in this piece is that his radical stance on drugs is unconstitutional. Explanation?

Fiscal Policy - The most laughable (and sad) thing you said was that the problem with ending the fed is that it "would give power over the currency to Congress." That is what congress is for! Why is it better for Americans to have some unelected "bank" make those kind of decisions than our own representatives?

Foreign Policy - Ron Paul is a believer in blowback. America cannot continue to police the world, control governments and spend billions of dollars in foreign aid and expect there to be no bad results. We do not need to continue looking for wars. You may not agree but at least attempt to describe his position.
Go Establishment!!!

Anonymous said...

I hope no one is foolish enough to take this piece seriously. It denounces Paul's policies without any legitimate reason why. The idea that the legalization of drugs is unconstitutional? Where in the world does such nonsense come from? This author clearly has no idea of our history in the Middle East or is remotely aware of the reason Al Qaeda attacked us.

Timothy said...

You might as well copied this hit piece from the Washington Post--it would have been better if you had.

I will humor you and address what little substance contained in this hit piece.

1. Ron Paul is not racist. End of story. Show me one thing he's ever done or said that's racist. If any politician has ever earned the right to be given the benefit of the doubt, it is Ron Paul. He didn't tell you who wrote it because he has character. He took responsibility for not having a closer eye on it instead of shoving the blame on someone else.

2. Please read the 10th amendment.

3. Now that you've read the 10th amendment, please tell me how legalizing drugs at the Federal level is a deplorable idea? Ron Paul wants drugs legal at the Federal level, as the Constitution does not delegate this power. Following the Constitution-what a detestable thing to consider! "Paul’s radical stance on drugs is neither conservative nor constitutional." ---PLEASE, I'd love to see this clause.

4. The troops endorse Ron Paul. Ron Paul receives more donations from the military than all other candidates combined--incuding Obama. I'm sure they all support him so they can get high. Let's ignore the veterans, but listen to Snoop Dogg.

5. Let's pretend Paul doesn't get any cuts he wants. His cuts from our 698 Billion dollar military industrial complex alone (greater than all of the world's military budgets combined) will be more than the other candidates can do in there penny slashing. So, you're wrong, he could cut plenty of wasteful spending without approval. Let's not forget the 26+(12 of which goes to enemies of Israel)billion in foreign aid the tax payers will get back.

6. To think that Iran poses a risk to our national security is ludicrous. You seriously think the country of Iran, who can't even produce enough gas for itself is a serious enough military threat to go to war over? Why did I only address our national security? Because Ron Paul has not said that "Iran is not a threat to Israel". If he did, he did along the lines of nuclear weaponry. Which is also ludicrous to think that Iran's one nuke (that there is no proof they have) is an existential threat to the state of Israel. Israel alone could wipe Iran off the face of the earth. On a side note, do you honestly think God is going to allow his chosen people and chosen land to be obliterated in nuclear holocaust?

7. Ron Paul quotes the 9/11 Commission report and the CIA when he makes those statements that our POLICIES are to blame for 9/11. How dare he question our governments policies based on factual and historical data!

8. Please read Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

9. Now that you've learned that Congress is supposed to have the power over currency you might wonder why we've ignored this part of the Constitution and given the power to a central bank. Ron Paul wonders this too. I suggest you read End the Fed, by Ron Paul. Learn about the devaluation of the dollar and the national security threat that poses.


If one takes the time to read past hit pieces like this to what Ron Paul actually stands for--the Constitution--that person would realize that Ron Paul is the best presidential candidate we've seen in a long time. The would discover a politician (fancy that) who is not afraid to stand up for what he believes in, even when it is not popular, and tells the truth, even if it is uncomfortable. He's never deviated from his message and his proposals of change are of things that are destroying this country.

Certainly not in every aspect is he perfect, nor agreeable, but right now, he's undoubtedly the best for a multitude of reasons.

Aaron said...

This is a terribly written and researched article—it sounds like you have done nothing more than to turn on CNN and allow them to wholly sculpt and impart their inaccurate version of Ron onto your mind, rather than digging in for yourself to the readily available archive of videos, audio, and writings that Ron has made available over the years. If you had spent some real time actually reading some of Ron's writing, you would realize that he is a far more brilliant, admirable, and principled man than you would like to give him credit for.

I hope that no one at the college buys into the lies that you have tried to pass off here as truth.

Anonymous said...

Dumb. You say he's liberal, yet what is the Obama administration implementing that even remotely resembles anything Ron Paul wants to? You got a long way to go.

dave said...

You say that "Congressman Paul has an unrealistic fiscal policy." Really? What could be more unrealistic than believing we can continue to spend trillions more each year than we take in? His plan to cut a trillion in the first year is specific, achievable, and barely more than a good start.
As to whether he can 'succeed' in getting his ideas passed, you do realize Presidents have veto power? If he refuses to sign unconstitutional spending, Congress can override him, but do you really think they will get two-thirds to agree on that 619 of 620 times? If so, then the answer isn't to deny Ron Paul, but to change Congress too.
And a word of caution: please don't throw out three railing accusations in a single breath without a shred of evidence for any of them. For you to say "Congressman Paul has a racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic past" has no more validity than for me to say Joel Joseph has a history of pedophilia, Satanism and communism. Yes you read that last one right: don't try and pass yourself off as the measure of what true conservatives believe, until you've at least read the Constitution.

CCMC said...

@Ron Paul Supporters

Please remember to keep the tone of these comments respectful. Some of the previous comments are not but we have not deleted them for educational purposes.

Once you post something for all the world to see, it may always exist reflecting on you as a person and as a follower of Christ.

Angry personal attacks, vitriol, and name calling is never appropriate.

Ben said...

@CCMC A few of the previous comments are quite emotional and could be deemed disrespectful. However, it seems Christians should be upset when they see the truth twisted and someone's character attacked.

CCMC said...

Sorry Matthew

Article links are fine and very appropriate but avoid youtube links on this blog.

Thanks.

CCMC said...

@Ben

Nothing wrong with properly controlled emotion. We all just need to disagree respectfully while we move toward a better understanding of the topic.

JoelJoseph said...

Well I’m happy to see that I am receiving such love for this post. I will try to address all the questions mainly Timothy's. Also,There are links at the bottom. Finally, thank you Kate, I appreciate it. Now to real fans:

1) The proof of his racist comments are in those wonderful newsletters he wrote. I’m sorry if this “character” you speak of is viewed as a defense. As far as I’m concerned, Ron Paul said those comments, until clarified. Ben, I can’t get over it because Ron Paul has been unable to address the issue correctly.

2) I am saying that it is unconstitutional because of the interstate commerce clause. It’s a lovely piece of work you should check it out. The statement that I made about Congressman Paul’s stance is something called an opinion. Sadly I don’t have a clause to back up that statement just a general belief that the government is there to protect the people and has a moral obligation to do so.

3) The troops that give money to Ron Paul speak for the whole armed forces? This is news to me. Also, Ron Paul may get more contributions but that doesn’t mean that all troops support him. That just means that there are more troops with disposable incomes that donate to Congressman Paul.

4) I think you don’t understand the President’s capacity to control the budget, specifically the military budget. Every budget proposal has to be passed through Congress. Please, explain to me how Congressman Paul would accomplish spectacular cuts in defense? Also, you may have mistaken my reasonable doubt in Ron Paul’s abilities to accomplish any grandiose economic change for a love of foreign aid. I actually align with Congressman Paul on foreign aid.

5) There is one fact, God allowed His chosen people, about 6 million of them, to be slaughtered by a group of people called Nazi’s. So, when a country continues to talk about the annihilation of America and Israel in speeches to the UN… you should take notice.

As far as the justification that terrorists and other anti-American organizations/coutries have for their disdain for America, would you say the America would have never been attacked by terrorists if it were not for America’s foreign policy? Would the world be a better place if America withdrew from all it’s bases and was not involved in foreign affairs?

6) My biggest issue with Congressman Paul on the issue of 9/11 is that he believes that the Bush Adminsitration was “gleeful” when the attacks happened and his unwillingness to separate himself from conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and 9/11 Truthers disgusts me.

7) Instead of defending my dislike of the idea of ending the fed I would like you to propose your solution to fixing the problem. Go back to gold?

8) “Certainly not in every aspect is he perfect, nor agreeable, but right now, he's undoubtedly the best for a multitude of reasons.” Please do tell what are these issues you speak of? What are the downsides to Ron Paul?

9) @dave

Here’s a few links underneath. I didn’t quite get your “619 of 620” statement so please explain it.

Finally, I do not speak for the CCMC. I am writing an Op-ed and speaking for none other than Joel Joseph.

Articles you should read:
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/20/yes-virginia-ron-paul-is-a-911-truther-and-a-coddler-of-racists/


http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/09/08/ron-paul-is-crazy/

http://www.michaelmedved.com/pages/staffer

http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-from-fmr-ron-paul-staffer-on-newsletters-anti-semitism/


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-21/ron-paul-racist-newsletters/52147878/1

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/company-ron-paul-keeps_613474.html?nopager=1

Anonymous said...

this is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read. Joel obviously needs to work on giving deeper explanations rather than slight-of-hand reasons for what he says about Paul. It's okay to disagree with Paul, but the very fact that certain terminology such as "liberal" were used inappropriately really shows that this author has an elementary understanding of politics. Unfortunately, "conservatives" such as Joel apparently do not know the difference between Federalism and Nationalism and where sovereignty lies in the American political system. Sorry case for Christian conservatives to even post a blog like this.

Wisconsin Brutus said...

I found the Paul article thought provoking although I do not agree with all of the conclusions.

However, to be degrading and rude ("dumbest thing I ever read")hiding behind anonymity is poor form - we can do better as Christians

Ben said...

@Wisconsin Brutus I agree. There are better ways to argue. I don't think that some of those comments are actually written by Maranatha Students or Christians necessarily. In some ways Joel brought it on himself by the way he presented his "argument."

Sam said...

@Timothy, I take issue with your number 4. Don't overgeneralize the military and make statements like "the troops endorse Ron Paul." Do not use the military as an endorsement for any candidate ever. That type of statement can be rather offensive and is incorrect. For example, when Ron Paul allowed Cpl. Thorsen to speak at his political rally in ACUs, the majority of the military was irritated. For one reason, the military was not happy with Cpl. Thorsen for violating military regulations by speaking at a partisan event in uniform. However, it was wrong for another reason too. As a former USAF captain, Ron Paul would know the consequences of Cpl. Thorsen's actions and still invited him to speak. Military members do not like to be USED for political purposes. Your statement is offensive to many military members.

7. Have you ever actually read the 9/11 Commission Report in its entirety?

Ben said...

@Sam I don't think Tim is saying that because Ron Paul has the most donations from troops that "the troops" as a whole support him. He is only saying that if some of the troops are that excited about his policies then they should at least be respected. Often times the way his foreign policy is characterized you would expect that all the troops would rise up against his views. These facts show that that is clearly not the case.

Matt George said...

I would just like to say that, as I read supports or comments about any of the political candidates, the first thing that I notice is the tone of the argument. There is absolutely no reason to rip into someone because of their opinion; they are entitled to that. All that needs to be stated is concern that their position does not match up with yours. This election has brought this out more than any other I remember. Tearing others down to show support for who you like does not make me want to vote for your candidate!
Thank you, Joel, for taking the time and being willing to voice your opinion. From someone who knows how much you care about our country's future and that you do not just say these things lightly, I appreciate it.

mustremainanonymous said...

Good job in showing Paul in a true light. I can't imagine any true conservative {Christian} supporting him.

Ben said...

@mustremainanonymous Your comment is not helpful. If you can't imagine that a Christian conservative can support him, then you should consider the fact that they do. I do. Here are a couple articles that speak of similar stories.

An excellent article written by a Pastor about why he decided to support Ron Paul:
http://www.gracefamilybaptist.net/voddie-baucham-ministries/blog/why-ron-paul-2012-01/

A similar article about evangelical support of Ron Paul:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/281799/20120114/ron-paul-2012-why-evangelicals-support.htm

Sam said...

Ben, I understand what you're saying. I don't like the way Paul used an Army reservist to his benefit when he knew it was wrong and would hurt the Army reservist. Also, can you provide some links to some data for the donations? I just like to see information for myself.

mustremainanonymous said...

Wow, I wrote my comment before reading all the incredibly rude and immature responses. I expect people to disagree, but I don't expect to see such disregard for the work Joel put into his piece. Remember who you are and who you are living for when you choose to bash one of your classmates just because they disagree with your opinion.
I happen to agree with Joel, but even if I didn't, which I haven't in the past, I don't feel it's Christlike to respond to him personally in this way.

mustremainanonymous said...

Okay Ben, I'm sorry you didn't find it helpful, but anyone who supports legalizing drugs, has allowed such bigoted pieces to go out under his name, and doesn't support Israel, is not someone I personally as a Christian conservative can support...especially when there are better choices such as Rick Santorum out there.
Do Ron Paul's supporters on here really think he can beat Obama with his radical views? Isn't that what's most at stake here?

Ben said...

@mustremainanonymous You are horrified that Joel's "classmates" are being disrespectful to him. There is no way we can know whether these are classmates. The offensive comments have been posted under "anonymous" so we have no idea who they are.
From your last comment you are showing that you just believe what you've heard about Ron Paul. He doesn't "support" drugs as in he wants everyone to get high. He wants to decriminalize it at the federal level and let the states work that out. This is typical for Paul as he continually tries to follow the constitution. Newsletters. He says that he didn't know about them. I definitely wish it was more clear. However, let's argue about his ideas. You say he doesn't support Israel. That is false. He does not want to continue sending foreign aid to her enemies (which is actually more than we give to Israel) and he believes they have the military power to defend themselves from Iran without us constantly dictating to them what they should do. He is for Israel but in a different way than many are used to.

He is a pro-life Baptist Christian who is big on the constitution. Just because he doesn't fit within the party box, don't declare him unworthy to be a choice for a conservative Christian.

Ben said...

@Sam I understand your concern with the Cpl speaking for Paul. I don't know exactly what happened. I know that Jesse definitely wanted to speak. Maybe Paul should have stopped him, maybe Jesse insisted. Before he was asked to speak he was already talking to a reporter about his support for Paul which I think is a violation. It was his choice to do it.

And yes the numbers are out there. Timothy Ryan did the work to make a chart with all the info on our FB page http://facebook.com/ronpaulmbbc With that picture is a link to a site where you can see all the data for yourself.

Anonymous said...

@mustremainanonymous
How does Ron Paul not support Israel? Ron Paul believes that we are hurting Israel more with our involvement in their affairs. Israel has more military capabilities then people are aware of. Ron Paul wants to stop foreign funding completely. As he states, when America supports other countries, "we take money from our poor, and give it to their rich". Ron Paul is not against Israel at all, but simply wants to give them sovereignty over their own affairs.

Anonymous said...

“Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.” – Ronald Reagan

Anonymous said...

Chris Matthews:

Let me ask you this: I once went to Laundromat when I was at a Peace Corps training in Baker, Louisiana. A Laundromat had this sign on in glaze: "Whites only on the Laundromat", just to use the Laundromat machines. This was a local shop saying no blacks allowed. You say that should be legal?

Ron Paul:

That's — that's ancient history. That's ancient history. That's over and done with.

Hardball, MSNBC, 3 May 2011

Anonymous said...

If for some reason, the govt started outlawing Christian churches, people would say 'they can't do that, they don't have the authority'. Or maybe even 'It's my right' (in reference to the constitution, or an even better argument that it's one's God given right). So if people look to the constitution for freedom of religion, speech, etc. Why can the same not be done with regards to other personal liberties? Where can it be found that gives explicit authority over what one can/cannot ingest? Where does it say the govt can launch preemptive wars of aggression? Basically, your only argument against Dr. Ron Paul (the Air Force veteran, and pro life Baptist congressman who is in his 12th term in congress, who's been married to the same woman for 55 years) is that he is too principled when it comes to what the federal govt should and should not do. If a principled man like Dr. Paul is not even considered for the presidency, then it really doesn't matter who sits in the chair, because the US has gone the way of so many empires before that were destroyed by corruption, debt, and war. By the way, he has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Aaron said...

Joel, how do you justify today's endlessly inflated and manipulated monetary system—in which Americans are continuously being robbed of their purchasing power by the Federal Reserve—with God's commands to use honest scales, honest weights, and honest measures? Proverbs tells us that God abhors and detests such things, and sees them as an abomination.

tryanbaseball said...

1. You think he's lying. Your proof--the item he lied about. Let's pretend you wanted to think objectively. You haven't produced (nor will you be able to) any evidence to support that what you claim he's lying about reflects anything he's ever done or said. He made a mistake of oversight. He's not perfect. Judge him there, but don't suggest he has a racist past. This inconclusive item is the only thing in his entire past that questions his character. Let Paul's life be the proof.

2. Aren't you glad you read Article I Section 8? Unfortunately, the interstate clause is precisely that-- interstate, not intrastate. The commerce clause only proves the Constitutional case to legalize drugs on a Federal level. You must have ignored the 10th Amendment.

3. Instead of addressing the main issue-following the 10th Amendment-in regards to your Snoop statement, I chose to show you that the troops (no, not every single active duty soldier in the military) endorse Ron Paul in majority. You can do what you did and try to discredit those facts by saying "That just means that there are more troops with disposable incomes that donate to Congressman Paul." Whether that opinion is true or not, the fact is the majority of troops who chose to put their money where their mouth is chose Ron Paul as their pick for President. About Cpl. Thorsen--CNN cut him off in an interview, and he accepted the offer to speak at his own will. Obviously he felt that supporting the Constitution by supporting Ron Paul was worth the consequences. But it was against the rules, and he should be punished accordingly. He's only one of many troops who endorse Ron Paul.

4. The president has the power to bring the troops home. Enough said. You can do the math on how much we'd save from simply ending our wars and occupation of the world.

5. Of course I notice. That's why I don't support a president who financially supports Israel's enemies (like all of the others). Apples and Oranges, Joel. The Jewish people now have their own nation and something called an army and nuclear bombs to defend themselves.

It's impossible to answer the first question. I think that it's certainly possible. Facts are facts though, and we were attacked as a result of blowback, which is a term a strongly implore everyone to genuinely research. I disagree with Paul to the extent that blowback was the ONLY reason we were attacked. I'm not sure he believes that though. Obviously religious motivation that played a part, but the Religion is a smaller factor than people want to admit. The Islamic extremists sect of the religion plays on the anger of those who were affected by blowback. You can't throw out historical facts. See http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/18/weekinreview/word-for-word-abc-s-coups-oh-what-fine-plot-we-hatched-here-s-what-next-time.html

6. Understand the term "blowback" and the blowback that started in 1953 and you will understand why Bush was "gleeful" in its proper context.

7. Follow the Constitution.

8. I don't line up with some of the Libertarian based ideas, for example, eliminating grants and student loans for education would make my much life harder. He's not a great orator. He's doctrinally wrong on his quotes about homosexuals being "son's of God" (unless it's a saved homosexual-which is another debate)… Among a few others.

My major issues are on stances a candidate takes towards the Constitution and Israel. Paul is the strongest on both.

The majority of your sources are opinion hit pieces.

I hope that this message isn’t deleted. I'm not sure why it keeps disappearing...

Cincinnati Cato said...

Paul seems to follow rightwing utopianism. Is that why so many of Ron Paul's followers are young adults -they still don't have a full understanding about the realities of life? Paul and his followers seem not to undersdtand the following:

1. There is evil in the world. It must be stopped before it reaches our shores.

2. If we don't protect our friends (like Israel), we will soon be surrounded by our enemies.

3. Laws do not create criminals. Laws are needed because there are criminals.

4. Legalizing destructive behaviours will result in more bad behaviours.

Don't get me wrong, many of Paul's ideas have merit - I just don't like the utopian mindset that says if we set everyone free from control the world would be a better place - Find that in scripture.

tryanbaseball said...

@Cincinnati

1. What if has already reached our shores? I hope you don't assume that our government couldn't possibly be corrupted or evil.

2.Then why do we pressure Israel to give land away? Why do we give more money to her enemies? Why do we condemn them for their military actions?

3. Exactly. Hence why the Constitution was created. Why has strictly following the Constitution suddenly become lawlessness?

4. The prohibition doesn't apply here, right?


What you're suggesting is anarchy, and you won't find Scriptural support for that. Paul's premise is the Constitution, which was meant to control our government from becoming unbalanced in power.

Garrett Holmes said...

Cut it out with using the US military as a political endorsement pawn. It does not matter whether or not he has the largest number of veterans supporting him or just the most financially generous ones. Debate Ron Paul's candidacy on issues and positions, not on the real or perceived "endorsement" of a single interest group.

Ben said...

@Garrett Thanks Garrett we are asking exactly what you're asking, "Debate Ron Paul's candidacy on issues and positions." I would be thrilled to see that happen.

Cincinnati Cato said...

Ron Paul on issues:

Affirmative Action and civil rights:

In 1997, Paul voted to end affirmative action college admissions.
("Final Vote Results for Roll Call 133". Clerk.house.gov. 1998-05-06. )

Would not have voted for the 1964 civil rights Act using the federal government to end Jim Crow laws in the south. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/05/ron-paul-would-have-opposed-civil-rights-act-1964/37726/

Terrorism:

In 2011, Paul said he would not have ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, calling the operation "absolutely not necessary”.
(AP 2010-04-07. "Ron Paul: I Would Not Have Ordered Bin Laden Raid". Foxnews.com.)

Iran:

Paul rejects the "dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle". He claims the current circumstances with Iran mirror those under which the Iraq War began. In the U.S. House of Representatives, only Paul and Dennis Kucinich voted against the Rothman-Kirk Resolution, which asks the United Nations to charge Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating its genocide convention and charter. (Paul, Ron (2007-10-17). "Crazed Foreign Aid". Congressional Record ,U.S. House of Representatives)

Gay Marriage:

Ron Paul believes homosexuals should be allowed to “marry”…in states that legalize the practice and does not support a federal constitutional amendment to protect marriage.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ron-paul-personally-opposed-to-same-sex-marriage-but/ http://web.archive.org/web/20070207225148/http:/www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr093004.htm

Prostitution:

Ron Paul believes prostitution is should be legal in states that legalize the practice and the federal government should not interfere. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-02/carson-city-prostitutes-stand-up-for-paul-donating-their-tips.html

Drugs:

Paul stated that if elected, he would pardon those in jail for non-violent drug crimes and end the war on drugs.
http:/ http://www.thegrio.com/entertainment/snoop-dogg-endorses-raun-paul.php/www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Texas/Ron_Paul/Views/Illegal_Drugs/

Remember we want to talk about issues - I've listed some. Don't bother shooting the messenger but rather tlak about Paul's stances on this issues. Thanks.

anonymouscoward said...

Garrett, in context of the article, the defense Timothy took makes sense.

Joel:
Ron Paul wants to legalize drugs.
Snoop dog and marijuana users endorse Ron Paul.
They do this because they want to get high.
This is liberal and wrong.
Don't vote for Ron Paul.

Timothy:
Ron Paul wants to end our wars and bring all the troops home.
Out of donating troops, Ron Paul gets more donations than all other candidates combined.
They do this because they want Ron Paul to be their commander-in-chief.
Listen to the veterans.
Vote for Ron Paul.


Both ploys do nothing to prove anything. It's just applying a fact and interpreting it to fit the side they want it to.

Apparently though, you think it's ok to use Snoop Dogg and pot heads as pawns. (You only attacked one side.)

Timothy said...

http://www.fox19.com/story/16449477/reality-check-the-story-behind-the-ron-paul-newsletters

http://www.fox19.com/story/16458700/reality-check-the-name-of-a-mystery-writer-of-one-of-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters

tryanbaseball said...

@C C

Affirmative Action and civil rights:

Ron Paul consistently votes in favor of less federal power not delegated in the Constitution. Paul did not oppose everything in the Civil Rights Act, but specifically the laws against the rights of private businesses.

Terrorism:

Correct, he would have asked the Pakistani government for cooperation. I'm not sure what your point is on this one. Paul voted to go after those responsible for 9/11 and specifically Osama Bin Laden.

Iran:

You don't see any similarities to the propped up war against Iraq and currently Iran?

He voted no because he believes Sanctions are "literally an act of war".

Gay Marriage:

Ron Paul would cite the 10th Amendment on this one. Ron Paul does not support gay marriage, he supports the Constitution. Remember that your voice is stronger at the state level then at the federal. Couldn't the Federal government rule that states have to recognize gay marriage rights? (What did Roe vs. Wade do?)

Prostitution:

Yes, true. Again, he'd cite the 10th Amendment.

I think it should be noted that when you hear "Ron Paul wants to legalize prostitution", immediately recognize it as nonfactual. Prostitution is already allowed at the Federal level--in case you didn't know.
http://prostitution.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000119

Drugs:

Why shouldn't I support this?

The perpetual war on drugs has failed.

"— $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. Studies show that jail time tends to increase drug abuse."

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/13/ap-impact-years-trillion-war-drugs-failed-meet-goals/

We should be thankful that Ron Paul is talking about this. Our tax dollars are funding a failed program. Prohibition doesn't work either, it benefits the drug lords and the black market rather then potentially the states.

Also, realize that with drugs as well, when you hear, "Ron Paul wants to legalize drugs", realize that this is actually nonfactual. In reality he wants to decriminalize. You might say, "that this is the same thing!". I disagree. Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion. Ron Paul does not want the government to legalize or make illegal anything not delegated to them in the Constitution. I believe this is the safest route for all of us because it gives us the most power to our vote.


You have to genuinely understand why Ron Paul does what he does, otherwise you end up casting Paul in the wrong light. He doesn't vote the way he votes because he's liberal, or because he has an underlying personal agenda (well, he does, but it is for the betterment of our nation). He votes the way he votes because of his convictions to uphold the Constitution. He consistently follows this principle, even when it doesn't line up with a personal decision he has made on his own (like to be heterosexual, pro-life, and not a drug user).

I thought conservatives were supposed to be on the side that's for small government, not for more big government.


O and, I've really enjoyed your comments so far Cincinnati!

Cincinnati Cato said...

@tim

Thanks for the excellent give and take. You do your reseach well and it's a pleasure to interact with you in a civil way.

tryanbaseball said...

@ Cincinnati

You're welcome. I enjoy it!

@Joel

Hopefully we're still cool. My intention wasn't to degrade you.

I apologize if my quips and quibbles were perceived as malicious.

Thank you for writing this. I hope you've enjoyed this as much as I have.

Karl said...

This is very poorly written. No facts or citations baking up anything. This is exactly how NOT to write a political piece. Good un-example.

Anonymous said...

There is nothing liberal about Ron Paul. More government control= liberal. More individual control= conservative. Paul wants to throw the gears of the federal government in reverse. Government should not be regulating everything. There are very good reasons why legalizing certain drugs would be a good thing. 1) People that are using drugs are going to use drugs regardless if they're legal or not. 2) There will likely be an increase in drug use, but there will certainly be a decrease in crime. Most criminals are funded by drug sales. If these recreational drugs are no longer illegal then these criminals will no longer have any way to generate quick money. 3) We can impose taxes on weed just like we have taxes on cigarettes.
Paul actually understands the real evil in the world (Federal Reserve, Foreign banks). He is the only one who is willing to restructure our economy and get the feds and offshore elites out of our affairs. HE is also a christian so I don't understand the angst against him from Maranatha. Who else would you vote for? A mormon? An adulterer? Come on.

Cincinnati Cato said...

@ anonymous from Feb 21

I am not sure what you mean by "HE is also a christian so I don't understand the angst against him from Maranatha".

Are you saying that people at Maranatha should blindly follow christians without critically thinking about their policies and positions? I know very little about the college but I think the environment must encourage young people to use their minds, understanding the issues of the day. I suppose there are plenty of people on campus that support each of the 4 major candidates and that's OK with me.

Robert said...

1) Israel: RP is not anti-Israel, rather he believes in Israel’s right to self determination in place of a USA dictating direction from Washington or other influences. If fact RP opposes the funding of Israel’s enemies, which if you check is happening now and under Bush. This is NOT the case with any other pres. candidates in this race. Its true RP wants to bring many troops home. That's because our charter as a nation is a defensive, not imperialistic one.

2) Legalizing drugs: RP is a doctor, and to characterize him as pro-elicit drug use is absurd. What he does want is to place the power to control it at the state level where it constitutionally belongs.

3) Fiscal Policy: Ending the federal reserve. I don't understand the ignorance here. There's nothing "federal", or "reserve" about it. Have you not read the constitution which explicitly puts the responsibility for the creation of our money supply in the hands of our elected representatives? Since 1913, our money supply is under the control of the major global banking entities(yes, sadly this was an act of congress, but very sneaky if you study it). If you dig into this you will find these entities are not necessarily pro-American. You can see with each passing year, inflation is on the rise. Please study 3rd century Roman Empire where prior to it's fall, an excessive government,an augmenting of the money supply, and an over-reachly police-state occurred.

Which candidate in this race wants to go the right way? Ron Paul