Ron Paul believes there is a war on Christmas, denies there is a seperation of church and state

[Bjorn Against]

Those of you who support Ron Paul, please read this and then tell me the guy is not a nut case.

The War on Religion

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

I don't think Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson could have said it any worse. Has Ron Paul even read the Constitution? Maybe he could show me where all those references to God are, because I sure have not found them.

Come on people I agree with many of Ron Paul's comments on the war and on the Patriot Act as well, but I can not figure out for the life of me why so many DUers would support a guy who speaks the words of the extreme religious right.

Do you really want a President who is going to worry more about people saying Happy Holidays than he is going to worry about global warming? If you really believe that Happy Holidays are such a huge threat to the nation then go ahead and support Ron Paul.

The rest of us will support a sane candidate.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. And yet many here at DU sing his praises

:eyes:

[Bjorn Against]

3. I know that is why I felt I had to post this

I don't think too many people on DU realize just how extreme Ron Paul is. He is not one of us, he is in many ways the most right-wing candidate in the race. He is good on a couple issues, but he would be absolutely horrible on pretty much everything else.

I really wish more people would realize just how crazy the guy is.

[jmowreader]

51. We already KNOW how crazy Ron Paul is

The problem the Repukes present is that of that whole sordid bunch over there, he's the most sane one of them all.

Let's see...Rudy's running on his 9/11 record, even though the record shows he blew 9/11 out his ass. Almost all of them believe there's a link between Saddam and Osama even though they hated each other and us hanging Saddam on Eid al-Fitr is the best Ramadan present Osama ever got. Everyone except Ron Paul thinks we've got to "win" in Iraq, whatever the hell that means, and only John McCain is on Ron Paul's side when it comes to his stand on torture--and McCain really WAS tortured.

Given the choice between a woman-hating Libertarian nutbag and a torture-loving neocon nutbag, it's hard to choose. But that's the choice they present.

[blondeatlast]

2. Cue the Paulist cheerleaders. I'm with you; Paul isn't just a Libertarian,

he's a batshit woman-hating Libertarian and anyone on DU who could claim to support him for a moment hasn't got the progressive creibility of my cockatiel.

[Bluebear]

47. Thank you.

I thought I was going crazy last night, the way so-called liberals were touting this guy.

[tbyg52]

63. I heard him on a talk show the other day

Tap dancing around, trying to reconcile Libertarianism with opposition to a woman's right to control her own body. It was disgusting.

[Warren DeMontague]

106. No, if he were a normal, pro-choice, pro gay rights & separation of church & state libertarian

he would get slammed and called all kinds of nasty names, Like Bill Maher is-- you know, and told that "libertarians are just Republicans who smoke pot"

For some reason, though, this guy gets a big pass.

[muntrv]

4. Another moran who needs people to tell him "Merry Christmas" because

he's too shit-for-brains to look at a calendar and know that it is on December 25th.

[blondeatlast]

6. He needs people to tell him "Happy Holidays" so he can get batshit

indignant pver a friendly phrase.

[Cha]

37. You both are

right! :toast:

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

5. Actually

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

-US Declaration of Independence

The faith (whether in deism, Christianity, or in the goddess of reason) is therefore implied in the Constitution.

Separation of church and state? Yes.

French-style secularism? No.

But why are we trashing Paul? No one here is going to vote for him. Let's trash him for his positions on economic issues, his fuck-you-i-got-mine ideology.

[Bjorn Against]

7. I notice you did not quote the Constitution

The Declaration of Independence is a historical document, but it is not a legally binding document like the Constitution is.

The Constitution does not say anything about God, Ron Paul is dead wrong when he claims that it does.

[blondeatlast]

8. They've cherry-picked the Bible, now it's time to do the same on the Constitution.

Which is, as you say, legally binding.

I'm a Christian who absolutely supports a secular government and a huge wall between the state and the practice of faith.

[Bjorn Against]

They are not even cherry picking, they are just making things up

The Constitution does not mention God, they are claiming it does. That is not cherry picking that is either ignorance or lying.

[blondeatlast]

68. True that. nt

[ikojo]

65. Most Americans have very low religious literacy

They think something is out of the Bible when it is not....

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1038/cover.html

BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: Now, teaching religion in the public schools. There's a new book out called RELIGIOUS LITERACY. It charges that most Americans are illiterate about the Bible and the major world religions. The author is Stephen Prothero, the chair of the religion department at Boston University. Prothero says most Americans cannot name the first book of the Bible -- Genesis, and can name only one of the four Gospels. He says 60 percent cannot name five of the Ten Commandments.

At our request Prothero illustrated the national problem at one private high school, the Boston University Academy.

Prof. PROTHERO (speaking to student): Can you tell me anything about Joshua?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE STUDENT #1: I remember in church there was a song about Joshua. He might have been the person who was swallowed by a whale.

Prof. PROTHERO (speaking to student): In the Adam and Eve story, how did God create Eve?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE STUDENT #1: I would think he took one of her arms.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

17. The Declaration of Independence is not just a historical document

It's part of the basis of the Constitution. You're correct. But one can also make a case based on what's implicit in the document.

[Bjorn Against]

22. It doesn't matter what it is the basis of, it is not the Constitution

You are avoiding the real question at hand because the Declaration of Independence is just a historical document, it may be a very significant historical document but today it is not a legally binding document in any way and can not be used to state what is in the Constitution because it is not the Constitution.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

30. It's not "just a historical document"

Trust me. I know what I'm saying.

[Bjorn Against]

39. You were the one that quoted the Declaration of Independence as if it were part of the Constitution

When you do something like that why should I trust that you know what you are saying?

Yes the Declaration of Independence is a document of extreme historical significance, but it is not a legally binding document today. It is completely irrelevent to the issue at hand and is only serving as a distraction.

The issue is, does the Constitution mention God? The answer is that no it does not. The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with it.

[FreeMeFromInsanity]

42. Huh? "legally binding document "

First of all even if there were no words on paper... What would be the reason to trust man in regards to faith and rights. Unless you don't understand where your rights come from? If you say man, then man can take them away from you because man gave them to you. Of course that would make it a privilege... given to you by man.

The Constitution (Law) are for the people who've take a sworn oath to secure those rights. And you know what... just about every politician and police officer violate those rights every single day.

[treestar]

98. The Declaration shows the spirit in which the Constitution was written

It is also the founding document.

I think it makes the point that the "Creator" (stated in a very neutral way) meant for people to be free - something which is physically true when you get right down to it. We can do whatever we chose to do, and there are consequences. That those consequences be justly dealt with is the basis for the Constitution.

RP is free to whine about "happy holidays" just as anyone else is free to say it. It has nothing to do with governmnent - that's the reason for the limitation that government can't do anything about it.

[Downtown Hound]

56. Oh okay, since you've declared yourself to be an expert

I guess we should all just bow to your brilliance.

:eyes:

[PVnRT]

73. Oh really?

And what legal authority does the Declaration have?

[Warren DeMontague]

107. So where, PRECISELY, is the "faith" in the Constitution?

Was it just an accident that they didn't mention the word "God" anywhere?

[qdemn7]

31. Fine, The Declaration of Independence

Is NOT part of the Constitution. But, nowhere is there anything in the Constitution about having a Right Not To Be Offended or a Right Not to Get Your Feelings Hurt.

Unfortunately many Progressives seem to think it does have something like this, so they whine:

"Waaahhh, someone mentioned religion, or faith or God, I'm offended, I'm going to file a lawsuit."

[Bjorn Against]

33. Where did I write that there was a right to not be offended?

Where did I say I was going to file a lawsuit when somebody mentioned God?

Those are Republican talking points you are repeating, talking points which have absolutely no basis in fact.

You are saying progressives get offended? People like Ron Paul are getting offended at the mention of the words "Happy Holidays". Anyone who gets offended over happy holidays should not talk about others getting offended too easily.

[Gelliebeans]

57. I feel like

this thread disappeared into twilight zone... :crazy: (trust me...pffft)
I totally agree on your points about Paul. He is batshit crazy and the only thing that I agree with him on is Iraq other than that I wouldn't let him loose to run the country. Just because the GOP wants to ostracize him doesn't mean he is our buddy.

[Warren DeMontague]

112. You're obviously one of "those" types.

You know, Rush and Bill O'Reilly talk about you people all the time! :eyes:

[truedelphi]

48. My sentiments are well expressed by your phrasing

I am always amazed at some die hard extreme liberals I know who would be flail about
over any celebration of Christmas in the suburban negihborhood where they live, yet wax poetic about how neat it is that hispanic school districts have Christmas fixings and pageants.

[Warren DeMontague]

110. "some die hard extreme liberals I know"

Uh Huh. :eyes:

So- is there a church shortage I don't know about in this country? Because how else to explain the apparent all-consuming NEED for public schools to be the ONLY available place for organized prayer, biblical "creation" education, and Christmas displays?

[Warren DeMontague]

109. What the Sam Hell High Holy Philadelphia F*** are you talking about?

No, it's not about someone "mentioning" religion, or faith, or God- it's about standing up for the principle of separation of church and state. It's about comprehending the Establishment Clause. It's about keeping this country from state-sponsored religion.

"Waaaaaaaah, someone stood up for the First Fucking Amendment, they're not letting my school have organized prayers, they're not letting my school board mandate science teachers to teach that the Earth is 6,000 years old, they're not letting me put a 20 ton Granite 10 commandments monument in front of the courthouse, they're not letting my tax dollars pay for thinly-veiled Jesus proseltyzing disguised as "abstinence only" education that doesn't work... that's Christian-bashing! Waaaaaaaaaah!"

[Marnieworld]

121. You should google James Madison and the Separation of Church and State

He is credited with writing the Constitution and he actually had very explicit strong views on the separation of church and State. One document was an inspirational essay, an attempt to ignite action. The other is the law of the land.

[krispos42]

59. The only reference to God...

Is in the Constitution's signature section:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance (sic) of the United States of America...

Of course, using the 18th Century version of "A.D." as a claim that the Constitution is full of God is thin as hell.

[Marr]

15. The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

102. "The faith...is therefore implied in the Constitution"

Um...No it's not.

[PurityOfEssence]

105. The Declaration of Independence is nothing more than a position paper amid the havoc of war

The Constitution is the law. The Declaration was cobbled together quickly to state a political position; once the furore of the war was gone and the founders had some time to reach consensus on what kind of a country we'd be, they erected a wall between church and state. Many of the founders didn't even identify themselves as Christians.

There are only two references to religion in the body of the Constitution. One is to flatly state that religion is to never be considered a requirement for holding office, and the other is the very end where they state that it was signed in the year of the lord 1787, but even there, it is secondarily defined as so many years after the revolution. That last secondary definition of the date is obviously put there because it was hard to not address Christianity when defining the date.

The very first amendment to the document is to clarify that congress shall make no law establishing religion. This is not "a particular religion", but the very concept itself. There are many reasons for this, but the principal one is that an attempt was being made at pluralism, and if one speaks from the authority of god, one is aristocratically superior to anyone who doesn't agree with the concept.

Putting a nativity scene on private property should be just fine; the issue is the endorsement of the concept by our government, and that is something the founders were willing to agree shouldn't happen.

What's missed by ideologues who want to obfuscate all this is that there are three positions when dealing with religion: pro-religion, religion-neutral and anti-religion. The opposite of taking the ten commandments out of a public building would be a symbol like a crucifix with a red circle and diagonal line overlaying it. I have yet to hear anyone who's trying to get rid of religious symbols THAT ARE ENDORSED BY GOVERNMENT advocating anti-religious symbols. A nice landscape painting would be nice.

What's even more important about the comparative religious statements between the Declaration and the Constitution is that the latter went out of its way to correct the rash pronouncements of the former.

Why are we trashing Ron Paul? Because so many deluded posters her are as enthralled by him as they have been by McCain in the past. Libertarians are as selfish as other stripes of conservatives and they're clueless about how the world really works. Rolling back regulation enslaves us all with endless time-wasting chores and makes us all vulnerable to dangerous products. This man's no more a hero than Galloway is, and it's a good thing that the thread starter took the time to lash out at this ridiculous crap.

[CrazyForKucinich]

9. The appeal of Ron Paul

He isn't trying to take over the world. Maybe he is trying to mold America into something what it shouldn't be...but he isn't a corporate whore who wants to spread Coca Cola and war across the world. Can you say the same about Hillary? Edwards? To an extent, Obama?

No, they're all corporate whores who want to expand America's empire across the world.

Ron Paul is a simple man. That is why he has broad appeal. He sees government has gotten out of hand...just look at the weak ass Democrats that approved and co-wrote Bush's Resolution to War.

It's ridiculous. We more or less have one party...the business party. Oooo, the minimum wage went up to $7.25 in two years!!! That's going to get people out of poverty.

Democrats and Republicans don't get it. Ron Paul probably doesn't get it either...but at least he doesn't want to fuck up the world and for that I give him much respect.

Now if we really want to make a difference...we'd all be voting for Kucinich...or do you want a corporate whore who wants the big business insurance companies to stay in power?

Those are your choices. The choice to me seems obvious.

[Bjorn Against]

10. Have you ever looked at Ron Paul's positions on corporate power?

By your post it is clear you know nothing about Ron Paul, because Ron Paul wants to do away with almost all regulations on corporations. He wants do away with the FDA, OSHA, the minimum wage, fair labor standards, he basically wants to give corporations free reign to do what they want.

I have some problems with all the Democratic candidates (although I will say Kucinich is by far the best on the issues) but the fact is that NONE of them want to give corporations as much power as Ron Paul wants to give them.

If you try to claim otherwise then you obviously have not read Ron Paul's positions on these issues.

[trashcanistanista]

13. Paul is getting some positive response

from rethugs, especially after yesterday's debate. As bad as he is, the others are far worse. They are certifiable. He, at least is aware of the lies about Iraq and the need to get out and has said so over and over defying the * cabal. I wouldn't have him committed just yet. He may throw a few of them over to our side if he keeps it up which is what I like him for.

[MindPilot]

16. But he also opposes corporatism & corporate welfare

He made that statement to Jon Stewart night before last. Which is at least a 50% improvement over what we have now with corporations having free reign to do what they want with taxpayer money.

I'm not supporting the guy--he is at the core kind of a wacko--but he sure does sound like a breath of fresh air sometimes. But then so does Pat Buchanan.

[Bjorn Against]

19. Maybe he doesn't support corporate welfare, but he does support the right of corporations to kill

And that is no exaggeration, he wants to get rid of the laws that prohibit corporations from polluting the environment and putting out unsafe products. That would result in many deaths, with no way to hold corporations accountable for those deaths other than simply "not buying their product" as Ron Paul would suggest. I hate to break it to Ron Paul but not buying from a corporation that poisons our environment is not going to stop them from poisoning our environment unless millions of others stop buying as well. When corporations control the airwaves and prevent calls for a boycott from getting out it is extremely difficult to make that happen. As bad as what we have now is his ideas would make things even worse.

[trashcanistanista]

20. I'm not supporting him,

but if he can be of any use to the Democrats let him have his day. I don't think he has a chance to win the primary. I like how he comes accross in their debates - that's all you see. Most people don't know there is more to him. He doesn't expose the corporate ass kissing bigot side of himself on TV. Jon didn't really drag it out of him as much as I hoped he would. If nothing else, he makes rethugs rethink Iraq. When they realize there are no rethugs running after the primary willing to end it, they may vote Dem. in the end. He makes the rest of them look bad if that's all you see on TV.

[info being]

92. I think Paul's point is that...

...those organizations are not doing shit to protect us...only to protect the corporations they claim to regulate. He wants to see how well these fuckers survive in a *real* free market, not a market controlled by a fascist state.

That said, I still think he's misguided. The answer is to clean up the government, making it more loyal to the people. Not to eliminate it.

[info being]

91. I completely agree with your take...

...interesting that we are both Kucinich supports who are sympathetic to Ron Paul. If Kucinich could present his ideas as effectively as Paul, he'd be generating this kind of interest. I watched clips of Paul yesterday, then Kucinich. While I agree with Kucinich's ideas, I think he only reaches people who already have come to those conclusions (on their own). Kucinich speaks in a way that isn't very persuesive (particularly to the non-college graduate). Dennis could learn something from Ron, as Ron tends to make himself completely clear to everyone...they sit stunned hanging on his every word.

[Javaman]

100. No he doesn't want to fuck up the world, he just wants to fuck up our country. nt

[nonconformist]

11. A bit of a tangent, but I have NEVER got the outrage over "Happy Holidays"

To me, Happy Holidays, while being more inclusive of other religious holidays, mostly represented the Holiday Trifecta of Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years. Few would argue that we have an entire holiday season that encompasses all three, in addition to other non-Christian holidays going on at the same time. Not to mention that the word "holiday" means Holy Day.

I just.don't.get.it. They have taken a very basic, general well-wishing sentiment and made it controversial for absolutely no reason other than to try to rally people behind this myth.

[pingzing58]

40. Holiday comes from Holy Day and the holy days we celebrate in the west are Christian. n/t

[Chulanowa]

54. Unless you're not a Christian

What a thought, non-christians in "the west"?

Meme alert!

[LanternWaste]

115. I would almost agree. I would replace "myth" with "tradition".

"...made it controversial for absolutely no reason other than to try to rally people behind this myth."

I would almost agree. I would replace "myth" with "tradition" as I think it's more precise in this particular context.

But yes. As far as I know, "Happy Holidays" and "Happy Hol's" is the standard holiday salutation in England and has been for over 150 years.

I see absolutely no reason for anyone to be offended or feel put out by either greeting. It's just another easy target to A) get ratings on the faux-news shows that report it with "righteous" indignation, and B) a wonderful straw-man for the extreme Republics to convince other extreme Republic that progressives are still Satan incarnate.

[nonconformist]

117. By "myth", I was referring to this bogus War on Christmas crap.

:hi:

[jazzjunkysue]

12. He can be so lucid about the war, but he's still a bigot.

He really only hates the war because it didn't make him any money, only B*'s and Cheney's friends.

[zbdent]

14. On Ed Schultz, Ed couldn't get him to answer the question about abortion

Ed asked if it was a woman's right ... Paul kept saying, to the effect of "I think it's terrible that it's perfectly legal to kill a fetus up to one second before birth, and illegal one second after birth ..." which was never the question nor the debate ... he kept trying to reframe the argument ...

[chknltl]

49. I thought I heard him say he was absolutely pro life on C-SPAN

He was on a Washington Journal interview a few months ago. I had no clue who this guy was and watched with an open mind. He wanted traditional Republican items like smaller Government and lesser taxes...that did not sound so bad...he wanted to stop the war in Iraq, Hmm....,I could go with that. Then he started talking his version of pro-life and I stopped listening.

The guy is batshit nuts with an idea or two worth hearing and a nice grandfatherly air...nothing more. Someone must have taken him aside and pointed out that he was losing the Dems here so it sounds like he is hedging his bets by keeping "mysterious" on this topic lately. I am pleased that he is giving the rest of the republican candidates fits. Repukes screwing with repukes is a position I whole heartedly agree with and I wish more power to him on that endeavor. His train-wreck will be the only entertainment worth watching in upcoming debates with his chums....that is if I bother to tune in at all... I may decide to watch re-runs of "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader" instead.

[blondeatlast]

70. That has been his voting record (he gets a 0% from NARAL.) nt

[Wiley50]

18. If Paul can pull a Perot 3rd party and split the GOP vote come Nov 08

I'm all for him doing it

But that doesn't mean I'LL vote for him

[trashcanistanista]

21. I would love to see him do that!

Dems would win in a landslide.

[zbdent]

75. and we would have 8 more years of how fill-in-the-blank Dem

really "didn't win" in 2008 because he/she never got the "majority" - despite a landslide in the E.C. ... which suddenly, would be evil according to Repukes ... and they'd be calling for Instant Run-Off elections ...

[trashcanistanista]

134. So what?

Then we could gloat. Put them on ignore.

[Bjorn Against]

24. Sadly it seems more Democrats are supporting him than Republicans right now

He would probably pull just as many votes from the Democratic candidate if not more. People only are looking at his stances on a couple issues and ignoring everything else.

[trashcanistanista]

25. I'm not seeing that

If I could see some evidence of that, then I would take back my desire for him to split the rethugs. I think if Kucinich ran as a third party he certainly would put a dent in the Dem. votes and many here think he is equally as crazy (I don't). I just don't see Paul attracting any Democrats when there are so many good candidates tochoose from.

If that were hypothetically to happen, Dems could take him down with one big attack ad. That's all it would take. A Willie Horten style add in reverse.

[Bjorn Against]

26. You don't even have to leave DU, sadly he has quite a bit of support among many here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1022378

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1049722

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1050106

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2847714

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=31851

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=31556

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=31385

[trashcanistanista]

28. I appreciate the threads, but

Maybe I'm seeing it out of context, but I'm getting he is the best liked of rethug candidates. No one appears to be jumping the ship over to him. I think it was just kind of surprising for many to see him on TV talking the talk so to speak for a Rethug., and yes, it is shocking. Hopefully, here, many will do their due diligence and it won't come to supporting him over a Dem. I guess we just have to keep educating everyone and stay on top of it. I'm not scared of him at this point. He's not really a factor right now. But I will remain vigilant.

[blondeatlast]

76. I think he'll pull more Dems than Reps votes--many of the DU threads

you source below demonstrate why.

The man is anti-gay, anti-woman, and he doesn't like the Iraq invasion for all the WRONG reasons--and far too many take him seriously.

[Hippo_Tron]

123. Perot took votes equally from Clinton and Bush

And when you consider his positions, it makes sense.

In this case, I'd imagine that Paul would get more GOP votes but he'd get some Democrats because of his stand on the war.

[gulfcoastliberal]

23. So do the ultra catholic supreme court justices approved by the dems.

I mean, really.

[Hippo_Tron]

124. I don't believe the Democrats running for President approved Scalia

We got screwed because a small faction of Democratic Senators who had to run for re-election in red states were more concerned about their own asses than about the Supreme Court.

Biden did approve Clarence Thomas, but he's got about zero chance of getting the nomination.

[ourbluenation]

27. If anyone here supports Ron Paul they need to be shown the door.

this ain't libertarian underground or republican underground...that last one makes me shutter. Ron Paul seems like a cool guy and all, but yeah - this is not the place.

[FreeMeFromInsanity]

44. Keep the nation divided

We have two teams one with the letter D and the other team is the dreadful R. Rodger Clemens is a traitor he's back playing with the Yankees. He seems like a cool guy but he should leave baseball. Right?

Did you ever think who benefits when we are fighting each other?

[ourbluenation]

81. that's a stretch. this is the democratic underground. go sell ron paul somewhere else. n/t

[info being]

sorry, I was just about to post a reasoned analysis...

...but since you say so.

[Marie26]

29. He's a nut

But I'm glad he's running, cause he keeps bringing up the Iraq war failures during Republican debates. He's almost a mole for the left-wing.

[trashcanistanista]

32. Use him

then lose him. As I said earlier we could take him out easy when the time is right.

[Initech]

34. Oh how I hate this "War on Xmas" bullshit.

I'm getting really tired of these "woe is me" persecuted Christians, I really am. :grr:

[mediawatch]

67. try and reflect on those who do feel persecuted

I for many years at work would not say Merry Christmas in fear that I was being Politically Incorrect and worse fired. Then I started acknowledging other Holidays from other religions to my colleagues. To my Hindu friends I say happy Navaratri, twice a year. They smile. To my muslim friends I wish them a happy Ramadan and of course to my jewish friends I wish them a happy hanukkah.

At Christmas time, I once again have started decorating and wish everyone a Merry Christmas. I have even dared to put up a nativity of Jesus. This is at work where we share multiple religions. I do ask those around me first if they are offended. All have replied no, accept for one woman. She was an atheist, but left to work for another company. Which allowed my to then set up my Nativity scene.

In my America I would love to see all religious holidays celebrated. I would love to learn about all of them.

[spoony]

72. Thought I wouldn't have to see all this for another few months, lol.

[mediawatch]

77. start early

before the rush

[diamidue]

35. I have to admit that I found him interesting

because of his anti-war stance; his voting against the Patriot Act; his being against NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.; his dislike of the Federal Reserve; the fact that he doesn't take money from AIPAC; that he is against the "war on drugs", and a few other things. But the more I have read about him, the more he frightens me. I read, for example, that he was against any Federal assistance for Katrina victims; wants to weaken the EPA; & end pretty much all social programs, etc. He has also shown himself to be gay-unfriendly as well as women-unfriendly (anti-abortion). I think he will lose a lot of his support once people learn more about him.

[CGowen]

53. he was against FEMA wow cool(FEMA blocked aid for Katrina and EPA lied about the air at ground zero)

no text

[NashVegas]

36. Reality Check

:)

[NuttyFluffers]

38. heh heh, and to think he's possibly the best i have to vote for in my primary...

and the democrats here on DU complain viciously about their choices in their primaries! :evilgrin:

though i think california has an open primary... or was that revoked? oh, been working the polls and everything switched back and forth nearly every year -- and for the past 5 years we were voting every year in CA! i can't keep up with all the switching that's been going on.

but if i don't have an open primary just think that my best choice is an outlier who is, for all intensive purposes, just as crazy as the rest of the loony bin offered by the GOP party. oh well, i'm curious if i'll get amusing advertisements this cycle...
:7

[trashcanistanista]

133. California has a closed primary

and you could solve your problem easily by registering Democratic.

[TheFarseer]

41. He's nothing but good for Democrats

I like him for having actual convictions, but I realize he's pretty wacko in most of his positions. First of all, if we slip into bizzaro world and he wins the nomination, he would be demolished in a general election. Second of all, he makes it more acceptable for republican - especially in the rank and file - to oppose the war. Third, he brings the wackiness to the forefront, like disbanding the department of education, killing Medicare, Social Security and the minimum wage. He's a win win and I guess I just like him personally on some level. Eventhough I realize he would not be a good president, it's simply not going to happen so why piss on the guy?

[AtomicKitten]

45. He's a trip -- and thanks for revealing his bit of crazy.

There's a reason he's running as a Republican.

[Onceuponalife]

46. I can't believe a Congressman thinks

the Constitution is replete with God references....um, where? The founding fathers explicitly left God and the bible out of the Constitution. I agree with you MN. It's great to see a Republican speak the truth about King George and his war, but let's get some perspective here. Ron Paul is the enemy of progressive, secular America. But I understand how he could look good next to the stench of McCain and Giuliani.

[GeneCosta]

50. We see the face of what's wrong with libertarianism

We all knew conservatism is just fascism remade, but libertarianism is the complete disregard for others.

Ron Paul's other positions are reason enough to be proud of our liberal beliefs. Community and the individual, working TOGETHER.

[aaronbees]

52. Well said...

particularly on libertarianism and what's right with being liberal. Ron Paul may be right on the war, but the rest of him sure puts in sharp relief why I'm proud to be a Democrat and progressive.

[info being]

87. You don't support his ideas when it comes to....

- Eliminating the Patriot Act
- Eliminating the War on Drugs
- Eliminating the Dept. of Homeland Security
- Making education more localized

There are many more areas where he has some points. I wouldn't say its *just* foriegn policy.

[info being]

86. Its too bad we have to choose between two imperfect sides

I'm Libertarian when it comes to personal liberty and eliminating lots of government beaurocracy, the military industrial complex, etc. But when it comes to fighting corporate power, single-payer healthcare, etc., I'm socialist.

Too bad there aren't any sensible people who can bring these two philosophies together. Both have merits...Social Anarchism (Chomskyism) and Libertarianism.

[timtom]

55. I believe the issue with Ron Paul

is not that we support his policies.

What we are witnessing at this time is a Republican (actually more of a Libertarian) who is profoundly anti-Iraq occupation, and just how he is being marginalized by the MSM. His marginalization is as apparent and as painful to watch as Kucinich's or Gravel.

It's sorta like watching some sort of machinery inside a plexiglass container.

[krispos42]

58. I like Ron Paul

Not as my candidate; I do not share many of his viewpoints on the role of government and would not vote for him.

But I can appreciate his willingness to speak truth regardless of which political party claims it, I can appreciate his steadiness and unwavering committment to support that truth in public, and I can enjoy him making the 9 neocon-bots look like asses.

On the platform-defining issues that the current Republicans and their base are frothing over (Iraq, Gitmo, pre-emptive war, etc.), he largely is a Democratic voice on the podium. And that works for me.

[tjwash]

84. "he largely is a Democratic voice on the podium."

“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

“Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e., support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.”

“Politically sensible blacks are outnumbered as decent people... I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”

“By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.”



OK then, so if that's your voice...

[krispos42]

104. *snort* LOL

Oh dear God...

Are those from him in the debates or just historical idiocy he's sprouted in the past?

Please understand that I work nights so I can't watch this stuff live. I get the choice soundbites the next day from Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann, Rachel Maddow, Mike Malloy, The Daily Show, the Colbert Report, and Keith Olbermann. I assume that he hasn't sprouted such... um, statements in the debates of the last couple of weeks.

[Bucky]

135. These are the money quotes they'll use to tear him down.

Ron's in for the ride of his life. Too bad he's such a flawed messenger. But someone had to tell the GOP how dumb they were.

[LeftishBrit]

60. Nuts!

In the UK, schoolchildren do Nativity plays and make Christmas decorations - AND do the equivalent for the festivals of some other religions. They are expected to learn about several different world religions. Would the warriors-for-Christmas accept that?

And for most people, the modern Christmas isn't a religious celebration anyway. I haven't met any 'secular leftists' who think that Christmas should be banned, though I know quite a few who are exasperated by all the commercialism.

There WAS a real 'war on Christmas' in Britain over 300 years ago, but it wasn't waged by secularists: Christmas celebrations were banned by Cromwell's Puritan government, because they were perceived by the Puritans as pagan and not in accord with true Christian doctrine!

[silverback]

61. OK, he's not a nut case....

I like Paul, he's not right on everything but then nobody is, and I believe him to be honest and sincere and to have thoroughly reasoned positions, which I can't say about any other candidate in either party.

Here's the only other essay of his I could find of a religious nature at the lewrockwell site. I think it illuminates the intent of the first.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul2.html

It makes the case against faith based federal funding. And there are many, many articles in the Paul files at that site on all kinds of subjects, the man is a prolific writer.

The important point is that he's not big on forcing morality on others, libertarians aren't big on forcing people to do anything.

I don't particularly agree with him on this point, but I can understand where he's coming from. I've seen people get entirely too bent out of shape over christmas displays and so on. There was a spate of over the top lawsuits in the news at that time IIRC. This would be before that blowhard Oreilly turned the issue into a crusade also, I'm sure Paul wouldn't want to be associated with that.

Dr. Paul has been my favorite congressman for a decade now, He was warning against the PNAC agenda for 5 years before the Iraq war. I've read many of his writings, most of the bills he's sponsored, I've never gotten the feeling he was a religious right kinda guy. I know he's a man of faith, and I know his position on abortion (which doesn't bother me much either, I believe him when he says he won't pursue any federal laws on the subject, and as a first time expectant parent I find myself somewhat conflicted on the issue) but given his libertarian credentials which he's proven beyond all doubt I take this article pretty lightly, particularly in light of a statement he made at the last debate about how we've abandoned the Christian principle of just war. (from Aquinus, must be defensive, must be legal, must be waged so as to come to a swift end, etc.)

Faith only becomes truly dangerous when it trumps reason. I've never gotten that impression from Ron Paul. If Paul was the republican standard bearer we'd all be WAY better off, even if we don't agree on all issues there'd be common ground to come together and move forward.

All that said although I'm voting for him in the primary in an attempt to help drive a stake into the heart of neoconservatism, he isn't likely to win the nomination since the fascists have almost completely corrupted the republican party, and so I won't be voting Republican in the general.

[Iris]

62. He's not too smart.

"Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view."

Maybe it's because I live in the South, but I don't see any indication that religion has been driven from public view. In fact, I see just the opposite.

[Hubert Flottz]

64. I've said it before and I'll say it one more again!

There is no seperation of Church and Snake, that I can see around here!

The snakes have taken over the Church!

[Bosso 63]

66. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Maestro]

69. I've never been impressed with him.

Although he has stood up to the neocons, he is no good for Dems and progressives. I've followed him for years as I live in Texas. He's said many of things that make me wonder about him.

[DarkTirade]

71. I do find his use of the word 'Yuletide' to be amusing though...

what with Yule being the pagan solstice holiday that evolved into Christmas...

[The Backlash Cometh]

74. The only way that you are going to make that arguement of separation

of church and state stick, is to bring to life the horrible things that occurred under the theocracy that existed in Europe at the time.

[Norquist Nemesis]

78. Paul's 'popularity' is based soley on one, single issue...Iraq

Or, maybe more specifically, anti-engagement. That's the danger of being a one-issue voter whether it's war, abortion, taxes, religion, etc. Paul has put some passionate and moving speeches into the record since the start of the occupation. They got zero press even though he was highly critical of Bush early on.

Should Paul's voice and opinions be heard? Absolutely! But, hopefully, the smart voter will look more extensively into those opinions beyond one single issue. And the press would do well to help the voters out with providing that information.

[blondeatlast]

93. But what scares me is that he's seemed to garner a tremendous amount of support

right here at DU. DU seems to be about 15 minutes ahead of the Democratic base, IMHO.

You are quite correct about one-issue voters but RP is touching a very uninformed left-of-center base.

[info being]

97. I think what people are drawn to is that he speaks truth and honesty

Even if a lot of it is looney, you know the man is saying exactly what he means and exactly what he believes. It is so fucking refreshing.

[blondeatlast]

99. You want truth and honesty? Here ya go...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1057380&mesg_id=1061215

He's a true and honest Republican. You like that, do you?

[info being]

114. You're so blinded by Party loyalty that you can't see my point

I don't agree with him on everything, but I'll take his truth over the other's propagandistic, fascist bullshit. I'm simply explaining why people are drawn to him.

[LeftishBrit]

118. Well, I'm not in the least blinded by party loyalty...

I'm not American so not a Democrat (though I think that any Democrat who could win the presidential nomination would be better for the world than any Republican who could win the presidnetial nomination); and I'm not a party loyalist in my own country.

I am just always concerned about politicians who have extreme right-wing views and offer simple solutions. I think he is speaking truth about Iraq, but that his views on everything else sound like 'propagandist fascist bullshit'.

Really I shouldn't be so concerned about him as an individual, as he won't win and he isn't in my country. But he reminds me of too many other people who have scary views on most issues, and who manage to gain support and sometimes power by having popular, and sometimes even true, views on certain specific issues.

Our British National Party, and Le Pen's National Front, are also opposed to the war; but that doesn't make them any less dangerous. It sounds as though Paul's racial views may be closer to such people than I'd realized at first. I'd thought he was just an economic loony, and anti-choice, which is bad enough.

[info being]

126. He's a pure Libertarian

I came to know the type when living in Colorado. It is the "oh my god I understand Econ 101" Party. They believe that all the truth that needs to be known about the world can be learned in a semester of Economics.

So I wouldn't call it fascist. Fascism is state power while Libertarianism is "no governmnet".

[truedelphi]

132. I take your point. Go back to Daddy Bush's first Iraq war

and ask, Who was THE LONE voice on opposing it?

Ron Paul.

Who complained that the attack on Waco was wrong?
Ron Paul. (Meanwhile we on the left were being told by Pacifica Radio that
Waco was okay because we would not have wanted the Davidians for neighbors -
to which I mentally went What#^%Fri^^ nonsense are ya talking about? I want
people charred and incinerated by a manic government gone wild because I
wouldn't want them for neighbors?)

There is goodness and common sense in his reasoning on foreign wars.

And for that alone, he will always hold a well-earned place in my heart.

[Nunyabiz]

79. What I find humorous about these nut bags

that spew this "War on Christmas" crap, is that Christmas itself is a fairly new holiday here in the USA really only starting to be celebrated nationally until around 1870 and was mostly because of commercial interest.
It was actually banned for about 20-30 years or so in the 1600s and anyone caught celebrating it were fined.
It was considered an "English Custom" and Pagan (which it is) so after the American Revolution it lost any favor it had in the USA for many years.

Just love it every year to watch holier than thou Christians celebrate a PAGAN holiday which is about the Winter Solstice and celebrating the Deus Sol Invictus like the good little pagans they are worshipping their mythical sun god jesus.

As for Ron Paul, its pretty sad to hear him say such crap as there is not a single shred of evidence that backs this delusional viewpoint.

[Warren DeMontague]

108. Even more fun is the "war on Easter". Another pagan holiday, centered around fertility (eggs) and

fucking (which is what the bunnies symbolize)

Stop waging war on our stolen spring fertility fucking festival, you heathens!

[geardaddy]

128. It's even named for a pagan goddess - Eostre

At least in English.

[GeorgeGist]

80. If Christians can't win ...

without government support ...

[tjwash]

82. Ron Paul's greatest hits...

“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”


“Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e., support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.”


“Politically sensible blacks are outnumbered as decent people... I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”


“We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”


“By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.”

[blondeatlast]

94. This needs it's own thread, I would happily recommend it.

Nice research--this guy is an anti-Semitic, misogynistic, bigoted loony.

:thumbsup:

[info being]

83. I'd still take him over Hillary

I think he's nutty on many issues (Libertarianism isn't a realistic answer to the health care crisis, for example). But I agree with him on two very big things: 1) protecting personal liberty, and 2) foriegn policy. I'd love to see him, as President, battling with a Democratic Congress. It would completely change the way we frame the debate in this country, and in the end they would flush out some truth, peace, prosperity, and a few practical solutions to go along with it.

He's right on so much:

1) ending the federal deficit
2) against torture
3) agaist aggressive war
4) for protecting The Constitution
5) legalizing drugs
6) getting beaurocracy out of the schools
7) breaking up the Department of Homeland Security
8) cutting military spending
9) helping small business
10) pro-peace
11) anti-WTO

I'm sure I've left out some *big ones*. His one flawed assumption is that the free market fixes all. this approach doesn't address the reality of a corporate-controlled world. But he has some points there as well...that the biggest problems with corporations is when they get protective treatment from the government. He wants to keep the market open and free from the meddling of politicians.

Anyway, I'm cheering for him and think I might vote for him over some of the Democratic alternatives.

[blondeatlast]

85. Protecting personal liberty? His voting record says quite the opposite; anti-gay and anti-woman.

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

Thanks--I'll even take Hillary over this nutcase--anyday.

[info being]

89. There's a lot more to personal liberty than abortion

I don't know why you say he's anti-gay. He has a strong position on Don't Ask Don't tell...he says people shouldn't be judged by "what they are" but on their behavior. If there is a problem with someone's sexual conduct, that should be dealt with...whether gay or straight.

What about drug decriminilization? What about eliminating a national ID card? If anything, Ron Paul would protect freedom.

[blondeatlast]

90. You won't sell me on this loony. Don't waste your time.

Just a reminder--he ain't a Democrat and this is Democratic Undergroung.

And as a woman, that anti-abortion stance (0% from NARAl) is a deal-breaker for me, even if I'm past childbearing age.

[jobycom]

95. Then you need to be at Freeperland. He's a complete racist, sexist, anti-choice

conservative whose only opposition to the invasion of Iraq was that it spent his tax money. The only personal liberties he wants to protect are his own, and his foreign policy is as wacky as Bush's, minus only the support for an occasional war.

And unless you've bought into the "Hillary wants to ban flag burning and video games" nonsense the right keeps spewing at us, I don't know why you'd think she was worse than Paul.

Some Ron Paul quotes for your misguided enjoyment:

“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.”

“Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.”

“The Criminals who terrorize our cities - in riots and on every non-riot day - are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to fight the power, to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against The Man.’”

“There is no such thing as a hate crime.”

“I am opposed to any form of government health insurance<\b> as I am opposed to the taxes, regulations, licensing requirements, and monopolistic practices, which keep health costs higher than their true market value.”

“Something must be done to phase out the government’s involvement in Social Security. Pension and annuity plans should be the concern of the people, not the government. Political control of these things will lead only to bankruptcy and misery for retired persons.”

As for Social Security, "we didn't have it until 1935," Paul says. "I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment? …Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation."

“Immigrants can spread diseases for which we may have no immunity. There is also the question of crime and culture. Many immigrants come from countries with different legal structures and are not willing to behave in the way we expect American citizens to behave.”

"Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?” he asks. “Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?" (Note--Ron Paul's district is partly on the Texas coast.)

If that's what you support, you are not a liberal, and if you can make ANY argument that Hillary is worse than that, you are not sane.

[info being]

96. I agree with you on those points

Maybe its just that Hillary is more of the same, and we need something drastically different. I agree that Ron Paul isn't it.

[jobycom]

101. Fair enough. :)

I've got some issues with Hillary, I just don't like comments equating her with or putting her below Republicans. She might not be some great break with the past, but she's a lot better than anything the Republicans have, and no less liberal overall than Edwards, Obama, Richardson. She's more liberal than Biden or Dodd, less so than Kucinich. No reason to support her over the others if you don't, I just hate to see her smeared with the conservatives.

And Paul was my rep for a while. I hate to see anything nice said about him. :)

[Lone_Star_Dem]

103. You should know the snake before you put it in your pocket

Ron Paul's voting record - a FYI - Yes, he's against the war, and much more...
Posted by Lone_Star_Dem in General Discussion
Thu May 24th 2007, 02:07 PM
This may come as a surprise to some that think since he's against the war he must be a great politician.

Read his record from Project Vote Smart

http://vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?...


And here's where he stands on the issues:

Abortion

* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
* Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
* Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
* Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
* No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Economy

* Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
* Supports Balanced Budget Amendment & on-budget accounting. (Dec 2000)

Crime

* Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
* Rated 60% by CURE, indicating mixed votes on rehabilitation. (Dec 2000)

Education

* Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
* Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
* Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
* Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
* Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
* Rated 67% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education. (Dec 2003)
* Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)

Energy and Oil

* Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries (sic). (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
* Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
* Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
* Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
* Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
* Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001)

The Environment

* Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
* Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
* Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)
* Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)

Families and Children

* Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
* Voted YES on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)
* Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)


Free Trade

* Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
* Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
* Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
* Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)
* Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)
* No restrictions on import/export; but maintain sovereignty . (Dec 2000)
* End economic protectionism: let dairy compacts expire . (Aug 2001)
* Rated 76% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)

Government Reform

* Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers. (Oct 2005)
* Voted YES on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005)
* Voted YES on restricting frivolous lawsuits. (Sep 2004)
* Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
* Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
* Limit federal power, per the 10th Amendment. (Dec 2000)
* Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)

Gun Control

* Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
* Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
* Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
* Support the Second Amendment . (Dec 2000)
* Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)

Health Care

* Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)
* Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004)
* Voted NO on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
* Voted YES on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. (Jul 2003)
* Voted YES on small business associations for buying health insurance. (Jun 2003)
* Voted NO on capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits. (Mar 2003)
* Voted NO on subsidize privat insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
* Voted YES on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)
* Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states. (Dec 2000)
* Rated 56% by APHA, indicating a mixed record on public health issues. (Dec 2003)


Homeland Security

* Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
* Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
* Voted YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005)
* Voted NO on supporting new position of Director of National Intelligence. (Dec 2004)
* Voted NO on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
* Voted YES on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns. (Jul 2002)
* Voted NO on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999)
* Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
* End draft registration; all-volunteer forces . (Dec 2000)
* Federal duty to provide missile defense . (Dec 2000)
* Rated 67% by SANE, indicating a mixed record on military issues. (Dec 2003)

Immigration

* Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
* Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
* Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
* Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
* Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)

Jobs

* Voted NO on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001)
* Voted YES on zero-funding OSHA's Ergonomics Rules instead of $4.5B. (Mar 2001)
* Member of the Congressional Rural Caucus. (Jan 2001)
* Rated 47% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a mixed record on union issues. (Dec 2003)

Social Security

* Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)
* Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
* Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
* Rated 30% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)

Tax Reform

* Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005)
* Voted YES on providing tax relief and simplification. (Sep 2004)
* Voted YES on making permanent an increase in the child tax credit. (May 2004)
* Voted YES on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty. (Apr 2004)
* Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
* Voted YES on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)
* Voted YES on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)
* Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on eliminating the "marriage penalty". (Jul 2000)
* Voted YES on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000)
* Overhaul income tax; end capital gains & inheritance tax. (Dec 2000)
* Phaseout the death tax. (Mar 2001)
* Rated 89% by NTU, indicating a "Taxpayer's Friend" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

Technology

* Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)
* Voted YES on promoting commercial human space flight industry. (Nov 2004)
* Voted NO on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003)
* Voted NO on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access. (Feb 2002)

War and Peace

* Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
* Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
* Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)

Welfare and Poverty

* Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 2003)
* Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001)
* Voted NO on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999)
* Abolish federal welfare; leave it all to states. (Dec 2000)

More...
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm


All the links work if you go to my journal entry.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Lone_Star_Dem

If he were to become our president any Democrat voting for him will be bitten in the ass for their foolishness.

[info being]

116. I don't see much there that scares me

I'd love to do a similar round-up on Hillary actually.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

119. Well...

I guess I wouldn't either if I were anti-gay rights, anti-education, anti-environment, anti-choice, anti-campaign finance reform, anti-federal Medicare entitlement, anti-alternative fuel and anti-Social Security among others.

Once you know you're putting a snake in your pocket, don't cry when you get bit.

[LeftishBrit]

120. There's a lot there and elsewhere that scares me...

Racism against black people; anti-semitism; a desire for a complete end to taxes and welfare - which should scare anyone except the very rich; religious bigotry (though admittedly all Republican candidates seem to be showing the last of these).

Hillary Clinton may not be the world's greatest; but she has got to be infinitely better than that!

[blondeatlast]

122. I think you took a wrong turn. I don't like Hillary, but she does have the D after her name.

Support for Ron Paul does not belong on this board. Support for SOME of his policies is okay. You seem to be confusing the two.

[LanternWaste]

136. Not too many deal-breakers for me in the land of politics...

Not too many deal-breakers for me in the land of politics, but bigotry and racism are.

[Orsino]

88. Are you mistaking deserved praise for an anti-war stance...

...with actual support for Paul's presidential campaign?

I'm sure that most or all DUers praising him are actually supporting Dems.

[Unvanguard]

111. Ah, more "libertarianism" from this fraud.

Why am I not surprised?

[IChing]

113. Ron Paul is a kernel of corn

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1061673&mesg_id=1061852

[BornagainDUer]

125. Well, fuck Ron Paul. I thought he was OK until I read this. Thanks

for posting.

[info being]

127. I find it interesting that so few of us have been exposed to Libertarian thought

Ron's thoughts are not original. There are thousands of these guys running around the southwest....all of them equiped with only a basic understanding of economics, and thinking they have all the answers. The problem is that "free-market thought" is basically true...but it isn't the whole truth with which one can understand everything.

[Synnical]

129. Thanks for the reminder n/t

[brentspeak]

130. Written by Paul on December 30, 2003

I'm more interested in what he has to say TODAY -- not what he wrote on LewRockwell 3 1/2 years ago.

[Bjorn Against]

131. 3 1/2 years is not very long ago

Has he since done anything to renounce his previous statements? I don't think so.