Just to be clear, Ron Paul is a xenophobic, anti-choice wacko.

[libnnc]

He's a nut. N.U.T. nut.

Pick yer nut...

Walnut


Pig nut


hazelnut
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=94626&rendTypeId=4

Chestnut


Or a nice seasonal array of assorted nuts


Ron Paul is a nut.

Therefore, I will never vote for him.

Questions?

[judaspriestess]

1. I'm smelling what your stepping in

no questions from me

[libnnc]

2. He's no progressive.

He is anti-choice. He's an uber-nationalistic wacko.

Not a progressive.

[BuyingThyme]

4. He's not anti-choice; he's state's choice.

[libnnc]

6. he's anti-choice

[BuyingThyme]

7. He's all for giving the states the option to decide for themselves.

That's his thing.

...

Political expediency is never an excuse for ignoring the Constitution. The Supreme Court did so in Roe v. Wade, with tragic consequences. The states are now unable to enact laws to protect the weakest, smallest, and most innocent human lives. A society that does not respect life cannot be expected to respect liberty. Our goal must be to restore respect for the Constitution and states' rights. Only then can states properly restore respect for unborn life by criminalizing the act of abortion.

http://ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=198

[libnnc]

8. that does not protect a woman's right to choose

deal breaker for me

and many other women

[BuyingThyme]

9. Yes, of course.

[liberaldemocrat7]

26. Include Hooverite as well.

Most of the RepubliKLAN candidates could get described as Ayn Randian and Hooverite.

[Rhythm and Blue]

14. Claiming you are for allowing states to criminalize it

means you're against preserving that choice.

[BuyingThyme]

15. Except in the states that preserve that choice.

[Rhythm and Blue]

21. But that's really arguing semantics.

When Paul says, "I would see abortion criminalized for half of America," I would say it is fair to call him anti-choice. He may not in that particular case be universally anti-choice (that is, he begrudgingly would allow the blue states to preserve it), but he still wishes to restrict women's reproductive rights, and so he still is still anti-choice.

[BuyingThyme]

28. Yes, but semantics in this case explain his position.

(Better.)

[Rhythm and Blue]

31. Well, sort of.

"He's anti-choice" is correct, because he wishes to remove reproductive choices from half the nation. "He's not anti-choice" is incorrect, for the same reason. "He's only sort of anti-choice because he only wants to restrict half of America, so we can call that state's choice," while more correct, is also unnecessarily unwieldy for the point being made.

The poster does not support Ron Paul because Paul wishes to restrict reproductive rights. In explaining this, the poster declares Paul to be anti-choice. Swooping in to proclaim that he's not anti-choice for everyone is simply quibbling semantics, and does not at all address the issue being raised.

[BuyingThyme]

33. I thought it would be helpful to discuss the basis for Ron Paul's philosophy.

[Rhythm and Blue]

35. Denying the assertion that he is anti-choice

is not a productive way of doing that, because Ron Paul clearly is anti-choice (though not universally so). Surely you could have sparked a discussion about Paul's belief in states' rights in another fashion. This trainwreck of a subthread should show that your tactics were a bit off.

[BuyingThyme]

36. I'm clearly but not universally satisfied that

the people who have participated in this sub-thread now have a better understanding of Ron Paul's political philosophy.

You're living proof.

[Rhythm and Blue]

39. And what do you believe

you've educated me on? I find it hard to believe that you seriously think I wasn't aware that Paul was a states'-righter. The only think we've disagreed on is whether we apply the words "anti=choice" to that position or not.

[BuyingThyme]

43. You explained that you no longer see his position as universally anti-choice.

And you seem to understand that he believes that he, as a federal legislator, should not be making legislative decisions concerning choice.

[Rhythm and Blue]

45. I believe you misread my words.

I never claimed that I ever believed him to be universally anti-choice.

[BuyingThyme]

47. Then we've always been in agreement.

[Warpy]

29. This is a CIVIL RIGHTS issue, pookie

It would be like the states deciding they could reinstitute slavery, which forced childbirth is the worst type of.

[BuyingThyme]

30. That's correct, pookie.

Now try to explain it to the others.

[Richard Steele]

20. Exactly. nm

[cali]

23. No he's not. He authored federal legislation declaring life begins at conception

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/
Now tell me again that he's for "state's rights".

[BuyingThyme]

27. You should have read that before posting it.

"I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life."

That's exactly the point I made.

[cali]

32. What part of "I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception"

Don't you grasp? And I suggest you read his description of HR 399 more closely.

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

[BuyingThyme]

34. And where did I say anything about life and conception?

Are you reading anything you type these days?

[cali]

37. Please tell me you're just being stubborn or something.

Wanting life to legally begin at conception means you want a fetus to have full personhood under the Constitution. If that ever came to be, every abortion in every state and territory would be considered murder under the law.

He's not state's rights when it comes to abortion; he's plain old anti-choice.

[BuyingThyme]

41. Ron Paul believes that the definition of murder should be left to the states.

[Rhythm and Blue]

44. Not to butt in, but murder is already defined by the states.

If Paul proposes giving the unborn personhood under the Constitution, all states would instantly have to recognize abortion as murder, until they changed their definitions of "murder."

[BuyingThyme]

46. Not really. Some if not many states already include fetuses in their definitions of murder.

[Rhythm and Blue]

49. Irrelevant to this discussion.

Those that include fetuses are all going out of their way to explain that the killing of a person or a fetus is murder. If Paul's bill were to have passed, a fetus would have become a legal person, and those definitions would just become interesting little historical trinkets, as fetuses would be persons.

[BuyingThyme]

56. Your post may be irrelevant, but it's still wrong.

[Rhythm and Blue]

106. You have yet to point out any factual inaccuracies.

Try reading those few posts again.

[BuyingThyme]

129. What would have to be changed?

Nothing.

CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 187-199

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.

Still irrelevant.

[Rhythm and Blue]

134. You totally missed the point.

Abortions are specifically protected by Roe v. Wade. If fetuses are considered persons, Roe v. Wade is invalidated immediately, as it is based off the premise that fetuses are not persons. As such, abortions would default to being considered murder.

The "or a fetus" clause becomes irrelevant immediately. If states wish to preserve abortions, they would have to add "Except that of a pre-natal fetus by a licensed medical professional at request of the mother."

[cali]

52. Thru the looking glass with buyingthyme.

It couldn't be clearer that in the real world, Paul would like to end all abortion. That makes him anti-choice. Never mind that it's not going to happen, he's made his views known. But for whatever odd reason, you don't want to acknowledge that.

Have fun at the teaparty.

[BuyingThyme]

57. I know that Paul would like to end all abortion. (So would Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.)

But that's not what the discussion is about.

This is a little too complicated for you, Cali.

[cali]

79. No. John Kerry and Hillary Clinton

have not introduced legislation to ban or restrict abortion. In fact, both have supported expanding funding for abortion. Ron Paul has actually taken legislative action to ban abortion completely in the US.

Really, it's about as simple as it could be, except for people like you who script their own "reality".

And I think anyone reading this exchange can see that.

[BuyingThyme]

82. I didn't say they introduced legislation to ban or restrict abortion.

Where did you read that?

[cali]

92. You said that Kerry and Clinton would like to end abortion

I pointed to actions that contradict that. They may wish, in some Panglossian world that abortion didn't happen, but they do not want to end legal abortion. ron paul does. Period.

And I certainly never said that you said they'd introduced legislation to end abortion.

Now make up some more bizzaro stuff.

[TwilightZone]

101. Somebody better call NARAL.

I'm sure they'll want to review those 100% ratings they assigned to John and Hillary.

[iverglas]

104. can I be of assistance?

You said that Kerry and Clinton would like to end abortion

S/he did indeed. After so much silver forked-tongued cleverness, came the gaffe. The untruth.

Clinton and Kerry would like abortion to end. Not to end abortion. That's what Ron Paul would like.

Simple as that, the distinction, and Ron Paul's vicious misogyny, is laid bare.

[Rhythm and Blue]

107. It seems BT will write anything

to avoid having to say "maybe I was wrong."

[BuyingThyme]

128. Wrong about what? About the fact that Ron Paul wants to

give the states the power to legislate on abortion?

[TwilightZone]

96. What?

Where did you get the ridiculous idea that John Kerry and Hillary Clinton want to end all abortions?

[BuyingThyme]

127. That's pretty much the position taken by all Dems who ever run for president.

[Rhythm and Blue]

135. That they would like to see people not choose to have abortions,

not that they would like to see abortions banned. Big difference.

[TwilightZone]

138. Not on this planet.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/news/press-releases/2004/pr051904_kerryresponse.html

http://www.naral.org/elections/statements/clinton.html

[AuntPatsy]

130. Thats exactly what he stands for and as such should be ignored he gets far too much time

on DU if you ask me.

[BornagainDUer]

132. He's just ....er buying time. You are dead on here cali.

[Iris]

62. and what about a woman's option to decide?

[iverglas]

105. You fuel

States have rights. Women don't have rights. You don't seem to have been following.

You must have imagined you were posting somewhere like ... oh, Democratic Underground.

[shenmue]

10. Same thing.

What that means is he hopes the states pass as many restrictions as possible. He can't be for abortion rights in one place and against them in another.

Might as well not make any euphemisms. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

[BuyingThyme]

13. Well his position supports abortion rights in California and voids them in Alabama.

[shenmue]

19. That's what I'm thinking...

He's going to make things even more crazy...

As much as I like crazy people, I don't think they should be in office. :)

[BuyingThyme]

24. I don't think we have to worry.

He speaks eloquently on the Constitution in regards to war (Iraq). I guess everybody has a talent.

[onenote]

119. not if he got his way on defining when life begins.

Then abortion would be illegal in California.

[JerseygirlCT]

42. Anything but woman's choice is anti-choice nt

[Katherine Brengle]

50. It's the same thing --

in the end, the result is the same. Send abortion back to the states and you will see most of the states in this country ban it within a year.

[BuyingThyme]

59. That's horrible, but not the same.

[Katherine Brengle]

70. Not giving a shit is the same thing as selling women down the river.

There is no other interpretation.

[BuyingThyme]

71. Then my dog is a woman hater.

[Iris]

61. yes - anti-choice - he's saying the state (in this case literally a state) has the right to make

reproductive decisions for women who live there. That's anti-choice.

[BuyingThyme]

65. Then it's anti-choice to believe that the U.S. Supreme Court can make the same decisions,

right?

[Iris]

It shouldn't even be a matter before the Supreme Court.

It's not the government's business.

[BuyingThyme]

76. Abortion is not their business.

But protecting a woman's right to have an abortion sure is.

[onenote]

121. and through the looking glass we go. And a link to Ron Paul's views on abortion

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul100.html

[Warren DeMontague]

116. That's anti-choice. One thing I love about the old "let the states decide" argument...

if local, decentralized control is better, why stop at the states? Why not let individual counties decide whether women should be allowed to have abortions? But wait- why stop there- why not let individual TOWNS decide about abortion? After all- if letting "states decide" is better than the situation under Roe v. Wade... wouldn't it be EVEN MORE DEMOCRATIC to let.. well, shit, maybe not even towns.. how about individual neighborhoods? Hmmmm. Or even a street by street basis. Let the street vote, as to whether or not abortions should be permitted there... But if streets are good, individual houses are better.. but even better than houses---

HEY! I'VE GOT A FUCKING GREAT IDEA! WHY DON'T WE LET THE INDIVIDUAL WOMEN WHO ARE PREGNANT THEMSELVES DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT AN ABORTION?

SHIT, YOU CAN'T GET MUCH MORE LOCAL LEVEL DEMOCRATIC STYLE DECISION MAKING THAN THAT!!!

Of course, that is what Roe v. Wade IS.

For Fuck's sake. Ron Paul is an ass. He's an anti-choice ass, and he's also against the Separation of Church and State. Yes, he's against the Iraq War; so is Pat Buchanan. Wooo Fucking Hooo.

[Ignis]

137. State's choice === NO Roe v. Wade. (nt)

[SergeyDovlatov]

113. "Socialists for Ron Paul" imagine that!

http://www.oinsurgente.org/2007/10/15/the-socialist-case-for-ron-paul/

I would still urge all socialists, communists and people of all political persuasions to support Ron Paul when he runs for President.

Unless your political philosophy requires the invading of other nations and is generally totalitarian, you will win, and not only regarding the war with Iraq. Let me explain.

Ron Paul is running for a federal position and is committed to a small federal government. A small federal government will consume fewer taxes and impose fewer burdens on the individual states.

This will leave the people of the states more free to implement the type of government that they want.

I will give three examples, socialized healthcare, moral laws and gun control. Ron Paul is not an advocate of these things, but his presidency will help the groups that advocate these things.

Since the federal government will take in less tax, states can afford to raise taxes as high as they see fit and use it to implement socialized healthcare. Now you do not need to convince the entire United States that socialized healthcare is better, but you only need to convince the people of your state, a much simpler task.

Your state can have its own healthcare plan and you could withdraw from Medicare and Medicaid.

Moral laws, such as abortion and gay marriage, are very simple. They are not mentioned in the constitution, so states will be free to do whatever they want.

Gun control is harder, since our ancestors amended the constitution to guarantee it. And the US Constitution is binding for all States. However, secession is possible and Ron Paul will not invade your state if you choose to secede. As a matter of fact, states are at all times free to leave the union and negotiate a new (different) treaty with the union.

Your state could secede and negotiate a new treaty with the union that only includes the free movement of people and goods, for instance.

You only lose if you are totalitarian, which means you want to impose your laws on all states even if their citizens do not want your laws. You also lose if you want to use federal resources, such as the army, without explicit permission from a majority of the states in the federation (which they can grant through congress).

[rockymountaindem]

3. Anybody's who's for the restoration of the gold standard automatically falls into that category

The rest of his flaws are just icing on the cake after that. The international gold standard is dead and buried and should remain that way, like dinosaurs.

[MNDemNY]

5. You are too kind.

[AlCzervik]

11. if i was in an anti government militia group Paul would be my choice.

[madrchsod]

12. as soon as a bunch on stormfront

started praising him i knew he`s no liberal

[shenmue]

16. For some reason, there are a lot of Ron Paul supporters where I live.

I see bumperstickers and signs for him every day. I would never vote for him either. That's just what I see. :crazy:

[Iris]

64. We've got a group putting up seemingly hand-made banners all over metro-Atlanta.

I suspect they are under 30.

[HughBeaumont]

17. At a local parade, his street team handed out flyers . . .

. . . with THIS photo on it. I kid you not.



Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight . . . THAT'll get me to vote for you. A flyer of the "progressive Republican" candidate with possibly the 3rd or 2nd worst president in history (Sorry, but the Failure Fuhrer raised the bar).

[Richard Steele]

18. Yup. He's a real wingnut.

Some folks miss that fact when they read about his
vehement opposition to our illegal occupation of Iraq.
But it's a fact- he's WAAAY out there, standing near
the line between "zealot" and "deranged".

[libnnc]

22. That's why reading support for him here makes my head explode.

We're smarter than that.

[Mike03]

25. I don't understand the support for Paul

Here in Phoenix we have exactly ONE talk show host who opposes Bush and the hideous wars, and he likes Ron Paul. He is an independent. And he seems liberal or progressive when he talks about issues, but he actually likes Ron Paul, and I don't understand how he could be this myopic about who and what Ron Paul represents.

On every other major political issue he seems right to me, but he supports Ron Paul, and this is just frustrating, irrational and bewildering to me.

[w4rma]

38. He's wrong on many things, but he's not corrupt. (nt)

[Mike03]

48. Who accused him of being corrupt?

I am not aware that anyone has accused him of being corrupt.

Isn't that a bit of a non-sequitor?

[w4rma]

110. Noone has. That is my point. That is where his support stems from: being a non-corrupt politician.nt

[JerseygirlCT]

40. Exactly.

I don't get the insta-love fests that go on here sometimes with totally nuts people.

Yes, he's right on the war. That's about ALL he's right about.

It's rather like calling Hagel a moderate.

[cynatnite]

51. He's not anti-choice...

He's for states deciding the matter...even though those states are anti-choice and are only too happy to deny women the right to do with their bodies as they choose.

I can split the hairs of this argument to my heart's content, but the fact of the matter he's more than willing to stand aside and allow women to lose their right to choose. He might as well be anti-choice with the way he's attempting to straddle the issue by attempting to not piss off both sides.

[Katherine Brengle]

53. Exactly -- not taking a stand is the same

as telling American women to fuck off in my opinion. This guy wouldn't get my vote in a million years.

[libnnc]

54. If his stance does not specifically protect a woman's right to choose,

that, in my definition, is anti-choice.

[cali]

55. "In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception

HR 1094."

So he didn't really say that? It's actually not on his website?


He's anti-choice in his own words.

[Mike03]

89. He is anti-choice

from everything I have heard, although I have not researched this in depth. Thank you for the quote.

[SergeyDovlatov]

112. He seemed to be playing in both camps

By removing it from federal jurisdiction he plays both camps:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/85/federalizing-social-policy/

The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision- making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.

Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it's far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.

~~~~~

At the same time, he satisfies social conservative by saying that states can decide on criminality of it.

Let's say physician kill somebody by accident. He is not charged with manslaughter, does he?
Moreover, sometimes, you need to kill one of the fetuses so that another can be brought to term.
So from the state law, killing of a human being could be: nothing, manslaughter 1, 2, 3, murder 1, 2, 3.

I heard Paul talking on Ed Schultz show on abortion: It was something along those lines:

Different states have different determination when it is nothing, manslaughter or murder.

Probably the most pro-choice person will see that abortion one second before birth and killing one second after birth are roughly the same thing.

On the other hand, pro-life people can recognize that there is a difference from taking a day-after pill and taking a gun and shooting somebody to the head. Moreover, one second after conception it is not even known whether a pregnancy will take place at all.

Now where to put the line between one second before birth and one second after conception is up to the states to decide.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

115. He's also been an OB/GYN for decades in Lake Jackson, TX.

I wonder if he would let a woman with an ectopic pregnancy die before removing the Fallopian tube and saving the woman, since the embryo is going to die anyway?

His mortality rate for mothers and babies is not the best, either, I have heard second-hand.

[Mike03]

91. That is simply not true

I have not researched Ron Paul, but everything I have heard from people I trust is that he opposes choice.

[UGADUer]

58. No reason to personally attack him to such an extent

He has said some good things certainly and his opposition to the war has been principled and clear. I disagree with him on many things, but no reason to call him a nut.

[libnnc]

60. Xenophobes are nuts.

He is one of them.

[UGADUer]

63. Is the name-calling necessary?

I know he is somewhat nativistic and definitely regressive but on the other hand he has co-sponsored an investigation into Iraqi civilian deaths with Congressman Kucinich and he also said in one of the debates to stop scapegoating immigrants.

[Iris]

66. no, but it makes things around here more colorful.

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[libnnc]

67. yes. the name-calling is necessary.

I will not support him. No matter what his views on the war.

He doesn't fool me.

He's bat-shit crazy.

[UGADUer]

69. Who says you have to support him? Maybe

he is someone who takes consistent principled stands and is very honest, and some people admire those qualities of his while disagreeing with a lot of his positions.

[libnnc]

72. Since this is DU and our rules are explicit

It bothers me greatly that so many here support him.

[UGADUer]

74. They can't advocate for him on the board, but they can certainly support him

That's an AMERICAN right.

[libnnc]

75. Don't campaign for him here.

[UGADUer]

77. Um, do you see my icon?

I'm not campaigning for him; I'm standing up against intolerant name-calling!

[libnnc]

78. riiiight

[UGADUer]

80. Is Dennis Kucinich actually a Libertarian plant?

lol...

[libnnc]

83. Avatars mean nothing.

[UGADUer]

85. Well I don't know how to prove to you that I'm a Kucinich supporter

I guess paranoia on this topic may prevail.

[skipos]

93. I remember people saying that hogwash about Bush

"you may not agree with Bush, but you know where he stands." Yeah, Bush stands on the wrong side of every issue, and that doesn't sound very appealing to me. Other than Iraq and maybe 1 or two things, the same can be said of Ron Paul.

[UGADUer]

94. I have never said a nice word about Bush

Back when everyone was giving him wet kisses post-9/11 I wasn't part of that bandwagon so please don't accuse me of that.

[pampango]

136. What is nativist about his views? I guess I haven't been paying close attention.

Certainly haven't seen any of the repub debates.

[cali]

87. He's a nut. And worse than that

he's someone who would cut all environmental regulation, all regulation of industry, destroy the social safety net, etc, etc.

[UGADUer]

90. I told you I don't agree with him -- but calling him a nut is somewhat rude

especially when he is such a principled and honest person, even if I think they are the WRONG principles.

[cali]

99. Noble??? Principled??? Some people think

bush is noble and principled. Or Cheney.

He's a nut who believes in some really ugly stuff.

[UGADUer]

103. Their point of view comes from the highest bidding lobbyist

Paul just has a "Libertarian" Party point of view and he sticks by it come hell or high water. You have to admit, it takes guts to say in a nationally televised debate that US foreign policy contributed to the anger that brought about 9/11. He does it because he appreciates what he believes to be the truth over political points. That is worth something?

You live in Vermont, right? I live in Georgia surrounded by conservative Republicans. I have to learn not to call them nuts and to respect people who are honest for being honest, even if I disagree.

[philly_bob]

68. Ron Paul's right on Iraq and deficit. Wrong on everything else...

I mean, ask him what he thinks the government's role should be in avoiding disasters
like Katrina.

Ask him whether he wants public libraries and national parks.

It just happen that he's quite sensible on the Bush Administration's two biggest problems.

(Oh also, he's right on drugs and civil liberties.)

[Faryn Balyncd]

111. Is Hillary Clinton right on the Iraq war and civil liberties?

[philly_bob]

126. C on Iraq, B on Civil Liberties

which is pretty good compared to most of potential Republican opponents, who are E on Iraq and E on Civil Liberties.

[Sufficient Voice]

73. Agreed

But so are the rest of the republican crowd. Of them he is by far the best because he is the only one who will tell politically inconvient truthes.

[WindRavenX]

81. i don't understand his appeal

Really, I don't.

[libnnc]

84. He gives cover to GOP dumbasses

who now have buyer's remorse on the war.

[WindRavenX]

86. Everyone I've heard that supports him is all like...

"omg! Ron Paul! He's anti-war!"

His being anti-war doesn't impress me--anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together should be anti-war.

And all his other beliefs are fucked up and about as un-progressive as they come.

He's called Roe V Wade one of the countries worst mistakes. Fuck. That.

[libnnc]

88. Eggzactly

:thumbsup:

[UGADUer]

95. He appeals to the "get government off my back" types

eom

[Starbucks Anarchist]

114. Off your wallet and into your bedrooms and bodies.

[Warren DeMontague]

117. Bullshit. He's anti choice and anti separation of church and state.

There's nothing "get government off my back" about THAT.

[Rhythm and Blue]

109. His support comes from three camps:

1. Republicans who are upset about the failures of the last eight years and who want someone who'll complain about Bush while still being a "real Republican." (hence the fundraising)

2. Libertarians, South-Park Conservatives, and quasi-sociopathic internet loners. (hence the online poll manipulation)

3. Democrats who are too stupid/shortsighted to realize that there are issues out there besides Iraq.

[whoneedstickets]

97. Where's TahitiNut? He's gotta see this!

nm

[libnnc]

98. D'oh! That's a nut I forgot!

But I'd never besmirch TahitiNut that-a-way...:rofl:

[xchrom]

100. recommend -- paul is indeed a nut job.

[Solar_Power]

102. I like his postition on the Iraq war

[Rhythm and Blue]

108. How about his other positions?

On, say, everything else?

[BushOut06]

118. Anyone defending Ron Paul does NOT belong on this forum

Plain and simple. If he's not a Democrat, then he shouldn't be getting any support or defense on this forum. The last time I checked, he was a whacked-out nationalistic Libertarian posing as a Republican. Just because he's anti-war doesn't make him our friend.

[HughMoran]

120. This post looks funny out of context!

The average DUers sees the title and says "so?"

If I hadn't read the one post about someone supporting him to tear down the other Republicans, I would wonder what the fuck you were thinking. It's still not appropriate to respond to other posters this way - it leads to irritation and follow on posts by others who wonder who died and left you the "decider" of such things.

Anyway, have fun - just typing this was a waste of 5 minutes of my life!

[Rhythm and Blue]

122. There have been plenty of DUers who have vocalized some degree of support for Paul.

I've seen head-to-head Clinton-v-Paul polls in which Paul was actually competitive. An irrational love of Mr. Paul is not limited to any one particular poster.

[tuckessee]

123. Well, I like his xenophobic foreign policy

His non-interventionist, non-coercive foreign policy will certainly kill hundreds of thousands fewer foreigners than the heavy handed, world's policeman foreign policy advocated by all the major candidates.

I guess my main issue this election might be "murder".

I think I'll vote for whichever candidate will murder fewer people both home & abroad.

[bridgit]

124. on top of which he's a republican, his voting record is specious, DU'ers seem to like him...

cause he simply stands there and defies bush, something no dem seems able to do, but even that's not enough for me = all republicans must go especially the nutty ones

[Drifter]

125. But he is Anti-War ...

and right now he is 2nd on my list behind Kucinich.

I will NOT consider voting for anyone who does not promise to bring the troops home immediately.
My vote goes to the candidate that will end the war. If that is a Republican, then so be it.

I have never been a single issue person.
Right now there is no other issue that matters to me other than bringing our troops home.

Cheers
Drifter

[BornagainDUer]

133. Hitler was a teetotaler and a vegetarian

which is all well and good, but its the other things he did that bug me.

[BornagainDUer]

131. I like nuts...

but not for Prez, only for eating.

Libertarians always go Repug when push comes to shove.

[The Count]

139. It's opposing separation of church and state that gets me.

He's like the proverbial broken clock - tight on the war, wrong on everything else.
The Nader bunch finally found a crazier standard bearer.

[Perry Logan]

140. Paul is not the man of the hour. Most Americans want a healthcare system, stronger government, etc.

In scientific polls, Americans want stronger environmental regulation, more participation in the United Nations, a strong Social Security system, more gun control, abortion rights, etc.--in short, everything Ron Paul and his supporters don't like.. Paul is mostly for alienated white guys and people who want to live in the 18th century.

The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America is a Myth

"The latest survey of the National Election Studies (NES) shows, for example, a preference for a vigorous government role in a complex world. Sixty-seven percent said we need a strong government to handle complex economic problems. Nearly 58 percent said government should be doing more, not less; and 59 percent agreed that government has grown because the country's problems have grown."

Most Americans oppose the idea of outlawing abortion and reject the idea of overturning Roe. v. Wade. This opinion is well settled and has been stable over time.

most of the public has a favorable view of immigrants. Sixty-seven percent of Americans told Gallup that "on the whole," immigration is a "good thing for this country today."51 The same May 2007 CBS News/New York Times poll revealed that twice as many Americans said that "most recent immigrants to the United States contribute to this country" (57 percent) as said they "cause problems" (28 percent). Even the impact of illegal immigration on U.S. jobs is tempered by the widespread belief that illegal immigrants "take jobs Americans don't want" (59 percent) rather than "take jobs away from American citizens" (30 percent).

A CBS/New York Times poll in February 2007, for instance, showed 70 percent of Americans considered the lack of health insurance a "very serious" problem. Moreover, Americans are looking to the government to solve this problem. More than twice as many people (69 percent vs. 28 percent) think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have access to health coverage.
http://mediamatters.org/progmaj/report

[Stand and Fight]

141. Thank you for posting this!

So many on here are so wowed by his stance on the war that it seems that they have forgotten the very basic definition of "Libertarian." That's precisely what Paul was before he turned Republican, and if you read his website -- something a lot of his cheerleaders on here obviously have not done -- it is clear that the man's position run contrary to popular liberal and Democratic stances.

[etherealtruth]

142. you'll get no disagreement from me!

[Ian David]

143. The only way I would vote for Ron Paul is if he were running against Joe Biden.

Because at least Ron Paul believes in checking the "Unitary Exececutive's" power.